On Certainty
In his essay “An Argument for Skepticism”, Peter Unger makes the case for the “universal form of the skeptical thesis”. He is arguing for the position that any type of knowledge is impossible for any person. His argument seems to be a simple one, derived from two very clear hypotheses, but that is not the case. This paper is an attempt to show that while philosophically interesting, Unger’s attack on knowledge is not nearly so damaging as he contends.
I will argue that Unger mischaracterizes the nature of certainty as it is ordinarily used (something he says is important to his argument), and also that he has mischaracterized one of the sources he used to defend this definition. I will then present W.V.O. Quine’s psychologically based epistemology as presented in “Epistemology Naturalized” and “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, and argue that this theory provides a more adequate account of the way knowledge and certainty are understood. I will also attempt to address the objections to Quine’s theory raised by Jaegwon Kim.
So, how does one begin an attack on all knowledge? The answer, as it turns out, is quite simply. Unger’s argument consists of only two premises. The first of these states that “If someone knows something to be so, then it is all right for the person to be absolutely certain that it is so (238).” To this is added the second premise, that “It is never all right for anyone to be absolutely certain that anything is so (238).” Clearly, the conclusion “Nobody ever knows that anything is so”(238) follows.
Unger next alters these premises slightly, adding the idea of overriding considerations. The first premise is the same except with the words “…providing only that no overriding consideration (or considerations) make it not all right (241).” Likewise, the second premise becomes
It is not the case that it is all right for someone to be absolutely certain that something is so providing only that no overriding (consideration or) considerations make it all right. (242).
I am perfectly willing to grant Unger the first premise. I think that there is no problem with allowing him this, in and of itself. Even the second premise is allowable in a certain, philosophically interesting sense, and in this sense, Unger’s argument is very strong. The philosophical ideal of absolute certainty is something that I think should be given up as a vain pursuit, and I think that Unger shows this nicely.
ABSTRACT: Davidson argues (1) that the connection between belief and the "constitutive ideal of rationality" (2) precludes the possibility of their being any type-type identities between mental and physical events. However, there are radically different ways to understand both the nature and content of this "constitutive ideal," and the plausibility of Davidson’s argument depends on blurring the distinction between two of these ways. Indeed, it will be argued here that no consistent understanding of the constitutive ideal will allow it to play the dialectical role Davidson intends for it.
John Greco in, The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge, argues that, “...knowledge is a true belief grounded in intellectual ability” (Greco 1). Now, this is categorically a 'virtue reliabilist' or more specifically, an 'agent reliabilist' claim. The purpose of this paper to analyze Greco's virtue reliablism. Moreover, to articulate one strong objection to Greco's view and to argue that Greco's defense of virtue reliablism fails. Specifically, the argument will be made that the newly instantiated 'Sea Race Objection' example effectively refutes Greco's version of virtue reliablism.
Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way
Rationalism and empiricism were two philosophical schools in the 17th and 18th centuries, that were expressing opposite views on some subjects, including knowledge. While the debate between the rationalist and empiricist schools did not have any relationship to the study of psychology at the time, it has contributed greatly to facilitating the possibility of establishing the discipline of Psychology. This essay will describe the empiricist and rationalist debate, and will relate this debate to the history of psychology.
According to American Cancer Society, statistic shows over 228,190 new cases of lung cancer are reported yearly, that’s 57% men and 43% women of the pie. The number shows lung cancer is likely happen to men. Also the estimated reported death is 159,480, mostly 54% men and only 46% women. The concern on lung cancer contributes 27% of the cancer death in United States. The contribution of lung cancer plays a big pie on many deaths in American. Also, most of the patients are men. The chance that a man will develop lung cancer in his lifetime is about 1 in 13; for a woman, the risk is about 1 in 16. These numbers include both smokers and non-smokers. For smokers the risk is much higher, while for non-smokers the risk is lower. (Accor...
Civil rights can be defined as the rights for individuals to receive equality. This equality includes the right to equal jobs, justice, the right to be free from harsh treatment and discrimination from the whites in various ways. These rights include education, voting rights, employment, same sex marriages, housing, and many more. Civil rights include gay and lesbian rights, women rights to vote and hold positions in offices, African- Americans and Hispanics as well. Looking at it from a historically, the civil rights movement is the fights, protest, and demonstrations all in a non-violent form by African-Americans to achieve equality amongst whites. Today, civil rights can be used to describe the call for equality for all people regardless of culture, race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, or certain other characteristics.
There is not one factor that is known to cause breast cancer solely, but there are a combination of factors that all work together in allowing these cancer cells to reproduce and invade. Gender is a big factor in breast cancer as the majority of people who get breast cancer are women. Men are capable of getting breast cancer but the likeliness of men getting breast cancer is very min...
The civil rights movement was a mass widespread movement to arise for African Americans fighting for their equal rights. “In federal courts and in cities throughout the South, African Americans struggled to eradicate the system of racial segregation that denied them dignity, opportunity, and equal protection under the law” (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, Soderlund, p. 740). Segregation laws being endorsed were recognized as Jim Crow. Affecting the lives of masses of people, Jim Crow, was entitled after a stereotype song during the 19th century. All over America, states were enforcing segregation with laws, such as, in North Carolina, were books were not be interchangeable among the white and colored schools, however, may well be continued to be used by the race first using them; all marriages between whites and Negros are prohibited and declared entirely illegal in states like Missouri, Florida and Maryland; and no nurse should be placed in a room that a negro men is placed in, Alabama. “‘Jim Crow’ laws at the local and state levels barred them from classrooms and bathrooms, from theaters and train cars, from juries and legislatures” (Civil Rights Movement). During the civil rights movement, various significant events occurred; the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Martin Luther King Jr., and voting rights were three major ones.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
In “The principles of human knowledge” George Berkeley responds to the skeptics view about the external world. As we already talked about, skepticism is against the belief that you can know anything because even saying that you “know” something is a big contradiction itsel...
One of George Orwell’s most significant goals as a writer was to receive recognition for his works. Orwell achieved his aim by projecting his political perspectives into fictional works such as 1984 and Animal Farm. His position against totalitarianism is strongly evident throughout his novels and even today Orwell’s works still seem relevant because of the fear of totalitarian governments perpetuated by the media and the recent democratic uprisings in the Middle East against dictatorial regimes. In this essay, I argue that Orwell’s reasons for writing, as he outlines them in his essay “Why I Write,” is to seek literary fame and he found that through incorporating political commentary into his writing; in doing so, Orwell successfully turns his political thoughts into a form of art. Using 1984 and D. J. Taylor’s article “Left, Right, Left, Right,” I will also discuss briefly how Orwell’s novels can apply to contemporary political situations.
To respond to this shortcoming of consciousness, some might attempt to find an absolute absolved from one-sidedness, from sheer relativity to the knowing subject. Others will not respond this way, however, instead spinning off into apathy, subjectivism, or nihilism (59). Those who do attempt to find an objective truth most often turn to science. Some have suggested that the intellect is an ...
In this essay, I will be discussing Liberalism and Socialism, what exactly they entail, and how they were and are still used in societies today. Liberalism is defined as a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution. Socialism is defined as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. While the intentions of liberalist and socialist governments are the same, what makes them different is how they believe is the best ways to obtain a prosperous and peaceful nation.
One of the most remarkable things about human existence is that there is a subject, an “I”, that experiences intellectual cognition of external things and is able to reflect on these experiences as a cognitive act in itself. How do things that exist outside of my mind come to exist inside of my mind so as to enable me to understand them? The goal of any theory of mind should be to answer questions such as this and, in evaluating the Gettier Problem as objectively as possible, we shall attempt to solve it to see whether it can withstand the single most piercing question we can ask of it: is it true that they are inescapable? In this essay I shall examine the paper of Gettier to answer the question of whether or not man can arrive at knowledge and, if so, how? 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'.
In this paper I will explain what objective knowledge is and why we can have objective knowledge. I will clearly define several key terms that are crucial to this discussion. With these definitions in mind, I will explain the necessity of objective knowledge for reason and reality. Then, I will outline and expound on a reduction absurdum argument, explaining the contradictory postulate and exposing a contradiction. Finally, I will describe the view of Global Skepticism, and show how the Global Skeptic lives in opposition to his or her outlook. Through these arguments, it will be apparent that logic and reality demand the existence of objective knowledge.