In the Theory of Knowledge, the main four knowledge tools humans use are reason, emotion, language, and perception. Though these tools are considered to generally allow us to pursue and gain knowledge, are these four ways of knowing the only means of acquiring knowledge? In the recent years, the IB curriculum has included the four other ways of knowing: intuition, imagination, faith, and memory, recognizing them as further ways of acquiring knowledge. This implies that the knowledge acquired by the four methods would be limited, thus reaching out to other methods to pursue knowledge. These newly considered knowledge tools are considered to be mistrusted or invalid ways of knowing in certain areas of knowledge. Abraham Maslow’s quote implies that we, humans, are all biased by our backgrounds and have the tendency to put forward solutions to any situations that our backgrounds suggest to us. If overly-familiar methods aren’t the only tools in acquiring true knowledge, how does the other ways of knowing, such as intuition and imagination, play a role in different areas of knowledge?
Scientists tend to argue their common belief that general scientific theories and laws have always been reached through rational explanation, thereby overlooking the possibilities of intuitive and imaginary developments. It is commonly stated that intuition or emotions suggest irrationality and that scientific truth and achievements depend on reason alone. Intuition can be defined as the ability to understanding something instinctively without the requirement of for conscious reasoning while imagination can be defined as the ability of forming new ideas, images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
In the areas of natural sciences...
... middle of paper ...
...at ethics in part determined by emotional response, most students may be tempted to argue that it is in fact the area of knowledge that relies most heavily on intuitive thinking. I believe that our moral judgments are based on elaborate processes of socialization whereby we acquire our moral foundation through the testimonies of the main sources of authority in our lives, such as our parents, teachers, priests, and etc. This socialization, when combined with our emotional sensibility, allows us to be particularly in tune with detail, an acuteness which we often confuse with our intuition.
Therefore, although these other ways of knowing such as intuition, imaginary, and others, surely cannot become certified as a justified way of knowing, it still plays an important role in enhancing the quest for knowledge in different areas of knowledge, though to varying degrees.
(Jensen, 2005, p. 69) could be compared with the importance of desired moral reasoning. The
The foundation of valid knowledge depends on one’s personal understanding. To “know” means to understand or be aware. Everyone’s personal knowledge differs and the way we obtain and interpret our knowledge is usually through our spiritual beliefs. In order to gain knowledge I rely on the Word of God. The knowledge of God is the most valuable knowledge a human being can possess. The Word of God can be found in Scripture. Proverbs 2:6 tells us that the Lord gives us wisdom and that the wisdom of God results in knowledge and understanding. But it is also clear that simply being aware of God’s existence is not adequate; the knowledge of God must encompass the profound appreciation for Him and produce a loving and growing relationship with Him.
It has long been thought that reason was what moral judgment was based off of. As time changed, emotions have become influential, causally sufficient, and necessary when it comes to forming moral judgments. The authors find that both are present when forming moral judgments (Polzler). This source is credible as it was found in an academic peer-reviewed journal, and on a college sponsored database.
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
Understanding ethics is observing what you accept as true and then think about how you would
(q), his belief that he sees a barn, isn’t justified, though. Therefore, Dom cannot know (q). The internalism of my account is obvious. What’s required for justification of (q) is different for Henry and Dom because of each’s belief about the kind of environment he is in. It is the belief about the environment and not the environment that matters. In other words, two people could be in the exact same circumstances but what required for justification would be different because of the beliefs they have. Causal accounts of knowledge can’t account for why Henry is justified for (q), but Dom is not. My account is not a causal account; as is shown in the Dom variation above, my account has no problem accounting for the different justifications required for Dom and for Henry.
Cases of intuition are of a great diversity, processes by which they happen typically remain mostly unknown to the thinker, as opposed to our view of rational thinking.
particular: how can people be sure of what they know, when so often theories and ideas
The Justified True Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, often attributed to Plato , is a fairly straightforward theory of knowledge. It states that something must be true if person S believes proposition P, proposition P is true, and S is justified in believing in believing that P is true . While many consider the JTB theory to be vital to the understanding of knowledge, some, such as American Philosopher Edmund Gettier, believe that it is flawed. I tend to agree with Gettier and others who object to the JTB theory as an adequate theory of knowledge, as the JTB theory allows for a type of implied confirmation bias that can lead people to be justified in believing they know something even though it isn’t true.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
There are different views about how we gain knowledge of the world, through our senses or through our minds, and although many say that it is one or the other I believe that although we gain some knowledge through sense data not all of our ideas come from these impressions. There are those who stand on the side of empiricism, like David Hume, and those who stand on the side of rationalism, like René Descartes; then there are also those who believe that one can have a foot on both sides, like Immanuel Kant. To be on one side or the other never gives you full knowledge you must be willing to use your senses and your reason to form ideas.
Generally, ethics is defined as standards of performance that explains how human beings should opt to react during many circumstances in which they meet with friends, citizens, parents, teachers, children, professionals, and businesspeople among others. However, ethics is different from feelings, as feelings make significant information’s available for our ethical preferences. Although some people posses highly mature behaviors that formulate them to feel awful when they get involved in the wrongdoings, most of the people normally enjoy doing bad things.
Socrates once said “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”(Citation ) The study of knowledge is something philosophers have been conducting from the creation of philosophy. In fact knowledge is one of the perennial topics of philosophy, just as nature of matter in the physical sciences. The discipline of knowledge is known as epistemology(Greek meaning of knowledge and reason). Epistemology is literally defined as means to reason about knowledge, to think about knowledge and to examine knowledge so that we may better ourselves. Philosophers who study knowledge attempt to study what makes up knowledge, the kinds of things one can know, what the limits of knowledge and above all, the age long question
Knowledge allows you to prove your facts. It’s the awareness one has about things. Imaginations, at times, can be uncertain. Knowledge leads us to imagination. We can imagine, only if we know. Knowledge is through your hard work and experience. One should not compare two different poles together.
Plato is one of the most important people in the history of Philosophy. Throughout his life, he had made many contributions to the world of philosophy, but the most important contribution that he is most known for is his theory of the Ideas or Forms. Throughout his many works such as the Phaedo and Symposium, he presented his theory of Ideas by using both mythos and logos in his argument for support.