one imagines Michelangelo’s David falling off a boat, they will subsequently imagine it sinking in the water because they hold the factual belief that the statue is made of marble and marble sinks. In comparison, if one starts of with the initial factual belief that Michelangelo’s David is marble and marble sinks, then goes on to imagine the statue falling off a boat, it does not lead to the factual belief that Michelangelo’s David will sink in the water (p. 10). Factual beliefs may give rise to imagining, but imagining cannot give rise to factual beliefs. Evidential vulnerability claims that only factual beliefs are involuntarily prone to being extinguished (and rejected accordingly) if confronted with conflicting perceptual states or contradictions, …show more content…
while secondary cognitive attitudes are maintained regardless (p. 14). The properties belonging to religious credence’s are fairly straightforward and incontestable, so I shall be brief in their descriptions and focus on the properties of factual beliefs.
A belief has perceived normative orientation if that belief is thought of as virtuous in accordance with the class of beliefs that it belongs to (p. 24). Free elaboration happens when elements are added to a belief without support from induction, deduction etc. (p. 28). A belief or class of beliefs is vulnerable to special authority, when an (typically moral) authority figure takes on a role in the community which gives rise to those beliefs (p. 30). I have just relayed Van Leeuwen’s theory, and now I shall turn to possible objections that may be raised, as well as counter objections to those. Firstly, it does not seem to me that religious credence’s lack practical setting independence. Surely, the religious believer maintains their beliefs in all settings, but utilizes them only where it is relevant, similar to factual beliefs. It seems strange to say that the religious believer abandons his beliefs depending on the setting. Van Leeuwen argues that religious credence’s have certain practical settings in which they operate, like inexplicable death, illness as well as birth (p. 19). He also offers an example in favor of his theory, namely, the example of the Vezo people who, in a religious-ritual
setting, state that a deceased ancestor still has physical as well as psychological attributes. However, when in a naturalistic setting, the deceased ancestor (the corpse) is described in a naturalistic way (p. 17). I believe that this confuses the distinction between a corpse and the spirit of the ancestor. Perhaps the Vezo peoples realize that the corpse itself has no psychological or ongoing physical attributes (such as seeing), but it is the spirit (or what have you) that carries these attributes. Then, it is simply a matter of language that the deceased ancestor refers to both a corpse and a more spiritual part of the ancestor in question. Secondly, it seems that religion is capable of cognitive governance. Religious believers make religious inferences about the world all the time, for example, a piece of toast is burned which makes it slightly resemble a holy figure; a religious believer might think that this is a sign from god, and this religious belief supersedes the factual beliefs she may have about the toast and the toaster. Van Leeuwen has an objection to this though, in essence, interference does not qualify as governance. Simply because a religious credence dominates over a factual belief, it does not mean that the religious credence has governance over the factual belief. Instead it means that the person who holds the religious credence does not hold the opposing factual belief (p. 20-21). However, I’m not sure that this is entirely clear. It seems to me that not holding a certain factual belief, or rejecting a factual belief, has been affected by the religious credence; simply because the religious believer does not hold the factual belief to be true, does not entail that the religious credence did not directly affect the factual belief and, in this way, exhibit cognitive governance over the factual belief. Thirdly, while I do not think that most religious beliefs are evidentially vulnerable in the way that Van Leeuwen describes, I
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 Stephen Jay Gould’s essay, “Some close encounters of a mental kind,” Gould discussed about how certainty can be both blessing and dangerous. According to Gould, certainty can be blessing because it can provide warmth, comfort and secure. However, it can also be a danger because it can trick our mind with false information of what we see and remember in our mind. Gould also talked about the three levels of possible error in direct visual observation: misperception, retention and retrieval. According to Gould, our human mind is the greatest miracle of nature and the wicked of all frauds and tricksters mixed. To support his argument and statements, he used an example of an experiment that Elizabeth Loftus, a professor from University of California Irvine, did to her students and a personal experience of his childhood trip to the Devils Tower. I agree with Gould that sight and memory do not provide certainty because what we remember is not always true, our mind can be tricky and trick us into believing what we see/hear is real due to the three potential error of visual observation. Certainty is unreliable and tricky.
Bordo and Berger put us in the position to realize we actually do make assumption of thing based off prior knowledge. Both authors argues that we make learning assumption towards images taken away from its originality, but this is because we allow ourselves to do so. This is not something we take the time out and think about; as a result, when viewing an image people might stop and actually question themselves.
Clifford’s arguments for this conclusion is that if we are gullible enough to believe something without evidence then we are not only harming our individual credibility and intellect but also polluting the rest of society...
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.
In my experiences, people nowadays tend to believe that no concept of belief applies to everyone. Individuals create their own concepts to believe in. When confronted with criticism on their action of “beliefs” (I put beliefs in quotation because I believe that if this people reject the ideas of morals and right and wrong being applicable to all people, then anything they “believe” in is not actually a belief) they reply that no one person has the right to impose judgments on other peoples beliefs. I find ...
The process of demolition is reduced to the single task by the principle that knowledge is doubtable if what the knowledge is contingent upon is uncertain. Following the belief contained in the Aristotelian dictum that ‘nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses’, proving the uncertainty of knowledge gained from the senses is all that is necessary to prove that all the knowledge the meditator has about the world is uncertain. Tentatively beginning with cases in which he believes that he is misguided, such as optical illusions, he next resorts to more drastic measures, which he calls ‘hyperbolic doubt’. He imagines scenarios that would result in him being sensorially deceived such as hypothesizing that he...
In “The Fixation of Belief”, Charles S. Peirce attempts to explain his four methods of establishing belief, in which he says all people have. These methods can be put to the test with any subject matter, and one shall always fit.
Descartes’ theory of systematic doubt centered on his belief that individuals cannot trust their perceptions of the external world because sensory stimuli do not necessarily reflect true depictions of the world. Throughout his life, Descartes assumed information being received through his senses to be accurate representations of the external world until he realized that the senses as a source for information can occasionally mislead both himself and all other people. With this knowledge in mind, Descartes knew that an absolute confidence in sensory perception could deceive individuals about the external world and lead to a challenging of beliefs. As an example of this, Descartes considered that, as he wrote this meditation on systematic doubt,
age of twenty-five and is the only work he ever signed. This sculpture shows a
The night Michelangelo Buonarroti was born, “Mercury and Venus were in the house of Jove,” says Vasari. This means that, according to a lucky star, Michelangelo could be expected to produce extraordinary works of both art and intellect. How true this turned out to be! Whether it was fate or coincidence, few haven’t heard of this world renowned and avant-garde talent. From painting to architecture and sculpture, it seems like there is nothing Michelangelo couldn’t master. Michelangelo is said to have considered himself a sculptor, but why was it then that he produced his sculpture with such a unique and striking depiction of the human body? Why did Michelangelo create such masculine forms, and was it self expression that provoked this intense artistry? There are many factors that can influence an artists creative process, but with Michelangelo the most prominent were most likely his religion, society, travels, and self perception.
The Last Judgement by Michelangelo is the most preeminent representation of Italian Renaissance fine art, and undoubtedly the most valuable piece of the era. Characteristics of Italian Renaissance artwork are present throughout the painting. Realism, perspective, individualism, light & shadowing and are the most prominent qualities of this painting. Particularly, realism is expressed through the nudity of the people displayed in the painting, not every person’s body is perfect, ideally many bodies have flaws. Realism and expression are shown when “the proportions of his figures grew… more menacing… [and] seething with nudity” (1). The people behind the altar of the Chapel were naked with indecent expressions, displaying individual
Wimmer, H. and Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition 13: 103-128.
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
Many non-believers observe religion and faith as a primary and intuitive impulse on which the believer is pushed to believe through an ideological tradition; tradition that results from the programming of a religious dogma implanted in the thought of a believer. It is a strong thought that projects a highly decisive conviction and determination. In the eyes of a non-believer, faith appears weak since believers are not able to prove religious theory physically. Instead they believe that believers are at the mercy of programmatic imposition and many other