Knowledge Attributions Essay

The first degree of knowledge is aforementioned “intuitive” knowledge. This knowledge, according it Locke, are the ideas that are the most understandable by the human mind, such as the idea that black is not white, and are also indispensable in attaining further degrees of knowledge. Locke posits that this importance is self-evident, because without this intuitive knowledge we would lack the tools to gain the next degree of knowledge: “demonstrative knowledge.” Demonstrative knowledge, according to Locke (Ariew & Watkins, 389 – 392), is gained through an empirical process that also utilizes intuitive knowledge and the previously mentioned relations between ideas to discern new truths. When presented with conflicting ideas, a person must use the process of reasoning to discern what the knowledge present in this relation is; furthermore, this will be endeavored only if our intuition fails to provide the truth outright. For Locke, this process of discerning the truth in demonstrative knowledge is difficult, doubt is present, and it depends on what evidence is provided to support the agreement or disagreement between the ideas.

Knowledge produced with difficulty triggers our emotion and reason, allowing for the knowledge to hold greater value. Do we truly only value knowledge when it is produced with difficulty? Knowledge is information we gain through experiences. Value is how important something is to us, how we receive and utilize this knowledge. The target Way of Knowings I chose are Emotion and Reason.

In regards to this text, Zagzebski is focused on intellectual virtues. These virtues are a component of emotion which depends on the love of truth or epistemic conscientiousness. Each of these virtues leads to acquiring true beliefs which are motivated by the emotion characteristic of virtue. Another virtue that is an acquired trait is

Culture is a hot topic. Scholars (Fukoyama, Huntington, to mention but two) disagree about whether this is the end of history or the beginning of a particularly nasty chapter of it. What makes cultures tick and why some of them tick discernibly better than others – is the main bone of contention. We can view cultures through the prism of their attitude towards their constituents : the individuals they are comprised of. More so, we can classify them in accordance with their approach towards "humanness", the experience of being human.

Reason is essential in determining knowledge claims, it is important that knower’s are able to pass a judgement based solely on rational evidence, this may be even more so importance when observing the practice of scepticism. In contrast, emotion can inhibit good reasoning, as expressed by the ‘James-Lange theory’; it can be influenced by external factors such as belief, which can supress logical thought processing. Albeit, this presents the argument that reason and emotion... ... middle of paper ... ...d adequacy of evidence” is truly dependent on the knowledge claim in question and the profound nature of the area of knowledge. Initially, I believed that knowledge claims made in the field of science are naturally to be questioned in the research stages and so are more reliable than that provided of the human sciences. However, I discovered that this may not be the case due to the limitations within the statement itself, the lack of distinction between theoretical and applied knowledge A sceptic may be “willing” to question a knowledge claim, but to what extent or measures taken for a sceptic to be “willing” to accept knowledge claim may be non-existent.

I shall do this by recounting the problems posed by Gettier to the traditional understanding of knowledge as 'justified true belief', and then present critical responses to it to get to the truth of whether Gettier problems are inescapable, most notably by attempting to answer it with the 'Causal Theory', the 'Defeasibility Theory', and finally by considering knowledge as 'true belief with sufficient warrant'. Gettier undermines the traditional understanding of knowledge by showing that a person can make an apparently proper inference from a belief one is justified in holding, but which is false. He proves that we can arrive at a justified true belief, but the truth of which is unrelated to the premises that it was inferred from. It is “possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false”. In his first example Gettier shows that one can infer a true statement from a false proposition.

The pursuit of knowledge is determined by our ability to use the ways of knowing as tools in order to establish truth. Pursuing knowledge is being able to justify one’s beliefs with true information. However the issue becomes the differences between individuals’ justification and determining information as true. The idea of only having a hammer and fitting problems to the available tools is consistent with how we use the ways of knowing as tools. People will rely on one way of knowing more than the others because it is a stronger justification for them.

However, the virtuous attitude genuinely entails the obligation to strive to perfect all those capacities that enable us to sensitively understand the other's claim. A discussion of the (discursive) capacities that have to be promoted leads to the singling out of sensitivity as contrasted to immediate empathy. It is the reflexive transcendence of the agent's evaluative patterns that allows this emotion to sit well with a post-conventional morality. Finally, I discuss a possible caveat of Wellmer and Habermas who might claim that the proposed conception of virtue would only be valid for participants in discourse, but not for agents acting in the life-world. However, because the discursive virtue is of wide latitude, it does not fall under this objection.

If this is true, Baggini has provided a clear account of why memory is so important to self (i.e. It provides a causal narrative), while accounting for other psychological parts of self. Such as, biological temperament, cultural identity, and the affect physical appearance has on identity. Despite the problems bundle theory solves, it may appear off-putting to some. Holding this view denies what is typically considered self, and replaces it with a bundle of perceptions.

It then is imperative to distinguish the types of thinking to assist in efficiently pursuing knowledge. Critical and creative thinking are key in this process for it is also evident that one thinking type is not independent of the other. Science, as we all know, is very objective. It embodies objective truth while art embodies subjective truth. Objectivity has various limitations as it may neglect to diversify their findings in hopes to fully establish their primary finding.