A.J. Ayer attacks the rationalists view that a priori knowledge is better than a posteriori knowledge. He states that a priori truths cannot tell us anything about the empirical world using the mathematical truths, which are a priori, as an example for this. He also states his Verification Principle, which argues that in order for a statement to be deemed meaningful it possess conditions under which it can empirically verified, as a criticism of the rationalist view. However, this principle is fundamentally flawed because it’s reasoning is hypocritical as it can’t empirically verify itself and so doesn’t work.
With respect to the first expostulation in the last paragraph, it is exactly because Sextus desires to formulate Skepticism in a completely non-dogmatic manner he is open to the chance that doctrine could be appropriate. Despite this plausibility, the dogmatic philosophers have not yet found truth. The consistent Skeptic therefore does not assert there is absolutely nothing true, nor that it cannot be found, only that we cannot know until it has been provably found. Stough put that the Skeptic’s language correctly perceived, has no truth . Dogmatist’s affirmations have within them absolute truth, but this truth cannot be proven.
Such language is ineffective because it fails to appropriately estimate an audience, and therefore cannot ever succeed in adequately delivering a message. Euphemism is ineffective for the exact same reason, yet it tries to veil its malicious presumptions in innocence. This can be with an example such as referring to a group as, “those people,” when the context makes clear it is not referring to a group specifically located somewhere, but rather a group with a common tie such as their sex or
Or is it because as T.S. Eliot says, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality," that we cling to our illusions even if they contradict the obvious? To assert that everything is an illusion poses a problem. If everything is an illusion, why bother trying, improving or aspiring? Since none of what you experience, see or feel is real anyway, then who or what exists?
Misconceptions and stereotypes are quite similar as far as the definition of the two. A misconception is an opinion that one has on another based on no truth at all. It is mostly confused with a stereotype because it is a statement that has been stretched out so thin that there is no longer any truth. If a misconception has any truth at all to it, it is considered to be a stereotype. This contains no type of facts or truth at all in this incorrect view.
In realising he is a ‘thing that thinks’, he is discovering an ontological truth – his model of knowledge fails when applied to others. He cannot proof someone else’s existence because he thinks, and whether or not they think is irrelevant because he cannot project thought from their perspective. Truth is only known to Descartes because he concluded it in his own conscious mind and this subjective reality does not lead to objective reality beyond his own mind. His claim for self-realization proves little to some other self-conscious being. To say “I think, therefore, I am’, cannot be proven my anyone other than him.
I think, that The Berlin Wall played very important role in the history, and in the relationships between the countries. I learned a little about it and I want to give main ideas, such as: how it was built and collapse. Main causes and effects. Because of displeasure with the economic and political situation, a great number of people left the Germany. In the 1945, after The Second World War, Germany was divided on the two parts: East and West.
Michel Foucault fails to give anything like a moral record of power when all is said in done. Foucault 's components are lacking in their empiric verifiable viewpoints. His postulation depends on an uneven decision of source, detainment facilities and mental organizations. In view of the interminable arrangement of defects in his alleged exact investigations, it is observationally completely problematic. Foucault 's "archaeology of knowledge" is on a very basic level negative, and along these lines neglects to sufficiently build up any new theory of knowledge.