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
In the play Doubt, by John Patrick Shanly, Sister Aloysius is treating Father Flynn unfairly. Sister Aloysius is the principal of St. Nichols School, who is suspicious and always doubt everyone, especially Father Flynn. She thinks that Father Flynn is guilty, but has no proof. Sister Aloysius doesn’t like Father Flynn in the school and his ideas. She treats him unfairly. Sister Aloysius treats Father Flynn unfairly when she still accuses Father Flynn of giving the altar wine to Donald Muller after Father Flynn tells her the truth. She treats him unfairly by forcing him to request the transfer without proving if Father Flynn is guilty or not and also makes him resign by lying about his past.
“As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with that exists” (Albert Einstein) Everyone is intelligent in many ways. People can also learn in many, many ways. An example is how musicians are smart in music and write the music in many ways. There are many ways unexpected people are intelligent and here are three ways that people can be intelligent.
In this paper, I will argue that Objective List Theory is the best theory of well-being because it answers many questions brought up when discussing someone’s life, such as how someone can determine if a person’s life was good or bad overall or what aspect of their life dicates whether that person 's life was good or bad. Objective List Theory is the theory of well - being that states the only ingredients that are intrinsically valuable to one 's well-being are, accomplishment, freedom, and knowledge. Ultimately meaning, that these three characteristics are the only aspects of life that dictate if a person’s life is a good one or a bad one.
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.
1. Kierkegaard believes that truth is only a subjective process. Truth only exists from the subjective existing of the individual and cannot be found in a complete system. Objective truth to Kierkegaard is a simply an idea created by the illusion of subjective existence that one can have complete and true objective knowledge of something that exists out in the world. This is evident when he states, “In the objective sense, thought is understood as being a pure thought; this corresponds in an equally abstract-objective sense to its object, which object is therefore the thought itself, and truth becomes correspondence of thought with itself. This objective thought has no relation to the existing subject” (31).
The colonization of America began when many colonists and settlers from emigrated from Europe and began to settle into the North American colonies. Many came to the North American colonies to look for the opportunity of wealth by conquering and ruling land. Throughout the years, the transformation of the country changed drastically and experienced an era of remarkable growth. As the approach to the 18th century became closer, British America had developed a method of ruling and government in the North American Colonies and with time, America would want fight for their independence from the British. One key event that supported the move toward American Independence included the publication of an influential pamphlet, Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine. Common Sense highlighted the importance in conquering independence from Britain and gave colonists the devotion and self-fulfillment to keep fighting and achieving self-government.
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).
The methods that available in the production of knowledge are limited by the ethical judgments, but the definition of whether the method is ethical or not depends on a couple different things. The first one is the personal judgments. Each person would have different judgments for the same method. However, one personal based judgment cannot be universal. The second one is the social judgment. It is related to the personal judgment. When a personal opinion for a method is agreed by most of people in the society, this opinion would become a social judgment.
Knowledge is something that can change day to day, which can be learned through both the natural and human sciences. Knowledge changes in the natural sciences when an experiment is conducted and more data has been gathered. Knowledge changes in human sciences when patterns are recognized in society and further tests have been conducted. Does our knowledge of things in the natural and human sciences change every day? I think that our knowledge grows everyday but does not necessarily change every day. The areas of knowledge that will be discussed in this essay are natural and human sciences. In History we can see that at one point something that was considered knowledge then transformed into different knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. However, in the past, due to lack of technology, it might have been more of a lack of knowledge that then turned into knowledge on the topic.
The objective truth is a reality that cannot be argued independent of time, and the subjective truth is humanity 's understanding of reality dependent on time. In the first premise, it states that truth is what is real; this is a fact because anything that is real in life cannot be disputed therefore it is truth. Human understanding of truth on the other hand, changes over time. It is because of this that truth is two things, objective and subjective. Objective truth is something that cannot be disputed, it is a worldly truth that will never be argued because there is an absolute answer for it. Subjective truth is human’s understanding of a non-provable truth dependent on time. This reasoning is dependent on time due to technological and scientific advances that come with increasing years. For example, eight hundred years ago, it was a subjective truth that the world was flat, but as the years progressed, it was disproved through technology and science. It is due to objective truth being much less common, there are not many things that cannot be disputed in our real world, that subjective truth is the most widely spread thing in today’s world. This syllogism is cogent because it takes into account every perspective of what truth is, was, and will be in the future, maintaining all objective truths that are independent of time. This is in accordance with my
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
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
The fundamental knowledge question posed in this statement is “To what extent is the systematic organisation of facts reliable in the acquirement of knowledge?” Knowledge provides us with an understanding of the world we live in, thus contributing to the advancement of our world. By considering this knowledge question, we are able to assess the strengths and limitations of categorising knowledge systematically. This can then provide us with a broader understanding of knowledge, encouraging further discoveries and inventions. The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge states that three aspects- belief, truth and justification- constitute knowledge. Knowledge is typically divided into three categories: personal knowledge, procedural knowledge and propositional knowledge. Personal knowledge is knowledge obtained through personal experience, procedural knowledge is the knowledge of knowing how to perform a specific skill, and propositional knowledge is the knowledge of facts that can be declared. Knowledge is accumulated through a variety of ways, the most salient being experience, perception and reason. Facts are statements proven to be true through observation and investigation. The systematic organisation of facts implies a methodical approach towards knowledge, which is most commonly achieved through following the processes within the scientific method. This systematic organisation requires the extraction and categorisation of supposed facts. Although this allows for convenience, this can be a reductionist approach towards the acquirement of knowledge, potentially disregarding extraneous variables. Math...
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 ...