How can you rightfully justify a truth? Well there are some theories which contribute to the whole idea of understanding the basis of finding truth. The main fundamentals for determining whether something is right or wrong, one must first know there is a belief, one that is justified and that it is ultimately true. In many particular situations, conflict can build from justifying how well you know something is true due to evidence, supported claims and how much scrutiny is given by different, rather, opposing viewpoints. Throughout all history, humanity is personified by many different beliefs according their ways of seeing reality from their perspectives. Some may have a belief that they are strongly agreeing with but they do not necessarily
In the beginning of the text, Manuel Velasquez opens with an assumption of a male having a female mate and the likelihood of the male partner understanding whether or not his so called soul-mate truly loves him or not. This situation is very crucial in terms of the perplexity that one side is battling while the other side is neutral in such circumstances; obviously, all actions are done in a practical manner, but going in depth about justification of truth, one person cannot become convinced because of mental insecurity. So, can knowledge be considered a justified belief? Not in most cases. Many things can be justified including the decisions made, actions, desires and emotions. Concerning propositions and justified statements, a belief can further be understood by an individual or a group of individuals. As a result, to the sharpest degree, justification and truth are not the same even though throughout many philosophers’ journeys, they might consider them the
In this situation, there is no “logical universe” that helps to justify a belief, but rather shows perspectives that are common in everyday life. This basically explains the set of rules that individuals go by to have a more practical and normal life. An individual would learn that the situation they may go through is not based on correspondence between a belief and a fact in society, but coherence between a belief and other beliefs in a single individual. In other words, the exposed truth is a property of other consecutive congruent beliefs one has thought in their minds before experiencing something in the present. This is the coherence theory of justification; when something is signified as true with this justification, then this strongly has the official truth even if the opposing individual argues. In most circumstances, this theory leaves no room for fitting another justification into what has already been justified to be
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
In the essay “There Is Such a Thing as Truth” Errol Morris argues that truth actually exists. At 10 years old Errol encountered his first “ bet you money I’m right” argument. It was at this point were he realized that although he used logic to his argument about which city is further west: Reno, Nevada, or Los Angeles, his neighborhood friend thought otherwise. Errol Morris states, “There is such a thing as truth, but we often have a vested interest in ignoring it or outright denying it.” Not only did he go by this, he decided to test it with an innocent man who was sentenced to die. Errol fought for the process of finding the truth; he fought to find the answer to the question, “Did he do it?” The only way he knew to find this was through
Forgiveness is to stop feeling angry, to stop blaming someone for the way they made a person feel, and stop feeling victims of whatever wickedness was directed towards them. Is forgiveness necessary? Can everyone be forgiven despite the circumstances? If forgiveness depends on the situation, then is it necessary at all? Does forgiveness allow someone to continue their life in peace? Is forgiving someone who causes physical pain to someone, as a pose to forgiving someone who murdered a member of the family the same? If someone can forgive one of these acts so easily can the other be forgiven just as easy? Forgiveness allows for someone to come to terms with what they have experienced. In the case of murder forgiveness is necessary because it allows for someone to be at peace with themselves knowing they no longer have to live with hatred. It also allows someone to begin a new life with new gained experience and different perspectives on life. Forgiveness is necessary from a moral perspective because it allows someone to get rid of hatred and find peace within him or herself to move on with their lives.
In “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement”, Thomas Kelly gives two responses to the question “How should awareness of disagreement, with those that you take to be your epistemic equal, effect the rational confidence you have in your beliefs?”. Kelly discusses two possible responses to the question. The first is Richard Foley's first person perspective argument. Adam Elga calls the second the right reasons view (Elga, 2007 pg. 485). Kelly pursues the latter, and does not go further than agreeing with Foley that we should only view these disputes with a first person perspective.
As a modern day philosopher, Axel Honneth, in his book, Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life, addresses the normative reconstruction, or the empirical observation and development of the norms already existent in social history, of the three spheres of personal relationships, which he considers to be friendships, intimate relationships and families. I will look at his analysis of friendships through history. Axel Honneth is trying to argue that friendship has become a sphere of social freedom (individuals require others to fulfill the aims of their activities (125)), a social institution (the behavioral norms, repetitive activities, and expectations make the institution (45)), and a social relation over time and gives reason to why friendship is valuable in addition to the possible controversy friendships encounter such as capitalism. I will explain this reasoning later in the paper. Honneth initiates the chapter with describing the history of friendship and how it has changed over time.
In 2012, Professor John Duffy published an essay titled “Virtuous Arguments” discussing the importance of first-year writing courses. In his essay, Duffy explains that toxic rhetoric is overwhelmingly being used by the media, politicians, and other officials. For instance, Duffy exemplifies this by stating that politicians have called their opponents “Nazi propagandists” and “demons.” He argues that the only way this can be stopped is with first-year writing courses. These courses are more than just a “speed bump” students have to pass through (Duffy 1). He states that these courses teach students how to engage in an ethical public discourse without the use of toxic rhetoric. This will help them be successful in their college careers and beyond
often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an
Chapter three of Cognitive Science, Theology: From Human to Divine Minds, the author, Justin Barrett gives the reader insight on the term belief. Barrett divides this into sections of testimony, two-system model of reasoning, two kinds of belief, content and context biases, and how the belief-formation process says about whether our beliefs are true (Barrett, 2011, p. 40-57). He goes into great depth in these sections how we as people justify our beliefs. Different scenarios and people can affect our beliefs and Barrett wants to explain how it does so.
Given the scenario, Melissa has two relevant beliefs concerning the whereabouts of her keys. The first belief is that her keys are in her house. This belief is true because she spent time searching just her house. If Melissa did not believe her keys were in her house, she would not have wasted time looking there. However, according to the Cartesian standard of justification, Melissa’s belief is not justified. The Cartesian standard of justification employs indubitability to determine whether the belief can be doubted. If the belief is indubitable, a foundation can be built with that belief and built upon with reason (Descartes, First Mediation). Melissa’s belief can be doubted because the reason behind knowledge can be deceiving (Descartes,
The true-justified-belief theory of knowledge is an attempt to subject knowledge to analysis. The theory falls under the category of Epistemology, a branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge. The theory, in short, seeks to answer the question, what does it mean to know something? What parts lead up to a point, when someone can claim to have knowledge of something? The true-justified-belief theory of knowledge or “JTB” has three such components seeking to answer the aforementioned questions. The three components make up the theory’s analysis of knowledge. The analysis claims to demonstrate that in order to have sufficiency for knowledge, there must be a necessary justified, true belief.
Of all of the things humans do lying has to be one of the most common. There are many different forms of lying, though the worst, is perhaps, dismissal. Dismissal is used in many situations, but one that comes to mind is abusive relationships. According to Stephanie Ericsson in her essay, “The Ways We Lie”, “ it dismisses feelings, perceptions, or even the raw facts of a situation rank as a kind of lie that can do as much damage to a person as any other kind of lie” (477-28). If it can cause that much damage it must certainly be a very harsh kind of lying.
This essay attempts to capitalize on Goldman 's “What is justified belief?” to form an opinion about his ideas. Goldman makes a break from traditional views of knowledge to form a theory of externalism. He gives the reader a new point of view for observing the relationship between knowledge and justification. The following passage will weed out some important aspects of his theory and how they relate to his theory as a whole.
Many people in society have trouble at times from breaking away from conventional beliefs. When someone references beliefs, it is usually in reference to God or something supernatural. However, that is only one expression of a belief. Beliefs are what we use to form our safety, sense belonging, or our sense of what is worth fighting for. And they accomplish this, even if the belief isn't true. We hold beliefs about so many things. Some of them are supported by evidence and some of them are not. Many times the evidence isn’t available, and perhaps denied because of ignorance, fear, or because it might threaten or identity.We are scared of being outcasts. Haunted by this possibility, we lock a part of ourself in a dark closet and pretend to be something that we are not.
Imagine a world where people are always silent, and only one way of living and believing is correct. Imagine a world where if you ask your friend how you look they say you look fine when in reality you look awful. They are just too afraid to say what they think. imagine being too hesitant to say your opinion because you're so afraid of being wrong. This is why people should not be fearful to say what they believe because then everyone would live in fear of being wrong or an outcast.
Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself, he knows it was