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. Definitions are vital for clarification in arguments. Firstly, I will define logic and …show more content…
Without, objective knowledge, there are no facts or actual things to know. Basically, knowledge itself is useless because it has no relationship to reality; there is no realness to that knowledge. On the other hand, subjective knowledge is simply opinion or preference. Subjective knowledge is changing and solely up to the individual. If there is only subjective knowledge, then we can postulate ideas and produce arguments but there is no reality to them. For example we can say, “My favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate.” However, there is no basis for actual ice cream or chocolate or flavor or anything. These things all rely on objective knowledge to definitely be real things. Without facts and reality, everything is simply an illusion of the mind and nothing is real or actual. Subjective knowledge relies heavily on previously assumed objective knowledge. Eliminating objective knowledge, results in a situation where reason is useless and no reality can me …show more content…
(1)‘All knowledge is objective.’ (2)‘All knowledge is subjective.’ (3)‘Some knowledge is objective.’ (4)‘Some knowledge is subjective.’ For this discussion, I am defending the statement, (3)‘Some knowledge is objective’. Statements (2)’All knowledge is subjective’ and statement (3)’ Some knowledge is objective’ are contradictory, meaning that they cannot both be true at the same time. Also, if one is true the other is consequently false, and if one is false the other is necessarily true. In order to prove one these contradictory statements, we can use an argument in logic called Reductio Absurdum. This tactic takes the opponents argument and finds a contradiction with in the argument. First we assume that one statement is true. If we can find this statement to be self-contradicting, we can show that it is actually false. Therefore, its contradictory statement must be
...nnot know anything at all, since saying so admits to actually knowing something; that is, that we ‘know’ we cannot know anything. By using our senses and reasoning we can come to justify knowledge and claim that we do ‘know’ things of this world. Global Skepticism would have us believe that we cannot be entirely sure of our reality and absolute certainty is crucial to our knowledge. However, the mere fact that we have self-awareness should speak volumes the idea that we can’t not have knowledge. As I stated earlier, we can have knowledge even if we are not completely correct. In other words, to be completely certain of a conclusion founded by particular propositions is not necessary. The important thing is the standards that we set for knowledge. Given the arguments that Global Skeptics lay out, it is reasonable to conclude that Global Skepticism is not justified.
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...
Objective reality is the reality characterisic of ideas in virtue of the fact that the idea represents some realtiy.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
There is no concrete definition of knowledge, but there is a definition that is widely agreed upon, or a standard definition. This definition may be widely accepted, but just like most things in philosophy, it is controversial and many disagree with it. The definition involves three conditions that must be met in order for one to truly say that they know something to be true. If one were to state: “The Seattle Mariners have never won a world series,” using the standard definition would look like this: first, the person believes the statement to be true. Second, the statement is in fact true. Third, the person is justified in believing the statement to be true. The three conditions are belief, truth, and justification. There are the “necessary and sufficient conditions” for knowledge. Necessary and sufficient conditions are linked to conditional statements, ‘if x, then y’ statements.
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.
Epistemology is also known as the theory of knowledge. This is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions about knowledge. Epistemologists main concern or topic of interest are questions on the nature of knowledge and rational belief. There are many views that could be discussed. In this paper we will discuss a view called the brain-in-a-vat argument for external world skepticism.
Beliefs are a condition of said knowledge. Davidson’s argument deals a lot with the concept of objective trut...
Scottish philosopher David Hume is amongst one of the most influential empirical philosophers to date for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. As an Empiricist Hume claimed that the only way we can obtain knowledge is through our senses however he argues true knowledge is unattainable for all intent and purpose, due to the problem of induction.By briefly examining Hume 's problem of induction and it 's dependancy to of the so called principles of Uniformity of Nature we could come to a conclusion that Hume 's is correct. In this paper I would like to argue in accordance to Hume 's statement that we cannot have access to true knowledge. By reviewing the definitions of induction, deduction, and the principles of uniformity of nature and examining the possible problems they inflict on the idea of knowledge, we will come to agreement with Hume 's that the idea of knowledge does not simply exist.
Core knowledge is a psychological theory that proposes the idea that children have innate cognitive abilities that are the product of evolutionary mechanisms, called nativism. The theoretical approach of constructivism also includes that children have domain-specific learning mechanisms that efficiently collect additional information for those specific domains. The core knowledge theory is primarily focused on whether our cognitive abilities, or capacities, are palpable early on in development, or if these capacities come up during a later developmental phase (Siegler 168).
By saying “the whole point of knowledge” it restricts the statement by referring to the fact that the only reason for acquiring knowledge is to produce meaning and purpose. In order to fully answer and understand this questions, first we must define Knowledge in the context of our personal lives. Knowledge is a process of acquisition; it’s how we gain knowledge that shapes us as a knower, rather than the knowledge itself. Meaning is defined as how your paradigm is impacted by the knowledge and purpose is defined as giving an emotional or tangible aim to the knower. I interpret “our personal lives” as referring to a generalised human experience at a personal level. With these definitions being established and kept in mind, I can go forth and
In my Theory of Knowledge class, I learned that belief and truth can be very contrasting ideas. In my opinion, I can believe something that may not necessarily be true. However, there can also be truth that is impossible for me to believe. Belief is a mental state in which someone is confident in the existence of something, but may not necessarily have objective proof to support their claim. Truth is objective and public; it is eternal and unchanging without biast. People can believe in something different and can also all believe in the same idea. The overlap between truth and belief creates knowledge; therefore, an acquisition of knowledge will bring us further to what we believe to be a ‘truth’. Knowledge can be acquired in several ways, such as using emotion, reason and sense perception. These ways of knowing affect how we perceive reality, and help us create our beliefs.
If it cannot be experienced, then there is no real benefit of this knowledge. If there is no benefit, then logically, the knowledge is not valuable in terms of the individual purposes of any human. Therefore, the value of knowledge is diminished if it is not applied and it would be fair to say that the use with purpose is the only way to develop and maintain knowledge. Furthermore, how can any knowledge that cannot be used be useful? Indeed, if some information is not applicable to any aspects of a particular person’s life, then this person is extremely likely to forget it. This implies that the value of knowledge is relative to each individual knower and always depends on his/her own perspective. Therefore, the application does determine the value. Whereas, without application in the real world the knowledge is just a belief since it cannot be experienced and thus cannot be
Total objective knowledge is attainable, for example, when reading non-fiction texts for factual information to acquire knowledge on something. However, to understand something solely through objective knowledge does not allow for a full comprehension of that subject. Through objective knowledge, you are gaining pure textual information of a particular subject. In Physics class, when studying Hooke’s Law, I may have the knowledge that “the applied force is equal to the spring constant multiplied by the amount of extension within the spring” from my textbook. This is objective information because I am absorbing new information with no prior experiences or room for possible biases. But in order for me to understand the concept, I must gain the experience by applying this concept to problems. I can have knowledge about Hooke’s Law, but have no idea how to literally apply the concept. In order to understand something, you need to rely on your experiences and culture; but it is still possible for objective knowledge ...
We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...