These ways of knowing affect how we perceive reality, and help us create our beliefs. The title as given by IB implies that there is a difference between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. It suggests that different ways of knowing can portray a truth. This point is problematic, because I do not think that something that is believed to be true and truth itself can be differentiated. In fact, I believe that it is difficult to acquire logical, unbiased truth; I think that the closest man can gather about truth can also be called “consistent knowledge”, meaning that the information is knowledge that is unchanging.
A person who is lacking a basic understanding of truth can never fully grasp the fine distinction between appearance and reality, yet the ability to separate the two is essential to anyone interested in knowledge at a higher level, where appearances lead only to dead ends. Or do they? And who says appearance is not reality? At the heart of this matter is the conflict between truth as an absolute and the truth of the senses; while this may seem like a trivial matter (truth is true, isn't it? ), it is anything but.
In the article, "The Will to Believe", William James responds to W.K. Clifford who argued that it "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence". James held the belief that it 's more important to accomplish truth than to avoid error a and that it can in fact be reasonable to hold a belief without sufficient evidence. Both philosophers, in my opinion, offer persuasive arguments; however, I feel that beliefs are often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an intellectual one. Therefore, I don 't support Clifford 's argument that it its wrong in every situation to maintain beliefs based on insufficient evidence and plan to argue against
The skeptical challenge attempts to show how nothing is certain by using the tangible examples of hands and an Evil Genius. The challenge argues that since we do not know that we are not being deceived, we cannot know that we really have hands. We do not know that we are not being deceived because if we were being deceived, we would not know it. Leading from this, the skeptical challenge argues that we cannot know for sure that we have hands. The skeptical challenge’s goal is to take all of reality and the accompanying “truths” into question.
This is antithetical to the argument of skepticism as skepticism's foundation is proven by a lack of proof. The antithesis of skepticism would state that something can be observed and known perfectly through empirical research. To counter skepticism, it is necessary to provide an example of an object known perfectly – qualitatively, quantitatively and free from subjectivity and perceptive distortion. As we can only prove the imperfections inherent in empirical observation, we can only observe that we lack the means to accurately learn the entire, exact truth of an object. Hence, skepticism is valid and true.
Descartes looked at history and discovered that facts that were thought to be completely true actually were later found to be wrong. Descartes found that facts can stand alone in the test of doubt and these facts can be used as fundamentals of knowledge. There is a close connection between knowing something to be true and being certain of it. Descartes, as well as many other philosophers, have maintained the belief that knowledge and certainty go together. This leads to the question, if everything is certain, then a person cannot have knowledge at all.
Davidson argues for "the folly of trying to define truth" and claims that Tarski's "accomplishment was accompanied by a proof that truth cannot (given various plausible assumptions) be defined in general" (Davidson, 1996:269). Tarski's plausible assumptions are that his "semantic conception of truth" can be formulated only for formal languages which are not semantically closed. But these assumptions are not so plausible as they seem since it can be shown that if we accept them it is impossible to formulate a theory of truth because the epistemological presuppositions of formal semantics undermine any theory of representation of reality in which our cognitions can be true or false representations (Nesher, 1996). Yet Davidson concludes from Tarski's theory of truth that "there cannot be definition of `For all languages L, and all sentences s in L, s is true in L if and only if ... s ... L'."
Henry feels that these three propositions are true and that the Skeptics themselves follow these rules. Thus skepticism is incorrect and we can have knowledge. Skeptics disagree with Henry since they believe we can act with only belief. According to Plato knowledge is a justified true belief(Nozick 1981,170). Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102).
Protagoras's own way out that his view must be "better"... ... middle of paper ... ...th recognizing the self-contradictory and self-defeating character of relativism is that it does remove the easy out. We may know thereby that there are absolute and objective truths and values, but this doesn't tell us what they are, how they exist, or how we can know them. In our day, it often seems that we are still not one iota closer to having the answers to those questions. Thus, the burden of proof in the history of philosophy is to provide those answers for any claims that might be made in matters of fact or value. Socrates and Plato got off too a good start, but the defects in Plato's theory, misunderstood by his student Aristotle, immediately tangled up the issues in a way that still has never been properly untangled.
Perhaps a philosopher might come to do that someday. However for now, questions of morality such as whether lying is permissible should be answered by Kant’s moral theory. In cases where Kantianism cannot supply an answer, likely there is no other moral theory that can. Some questions, under some circumstances, must sometimes remain unanswerable—whether for the greatest good or happiness, or because of our respect for duty.