Plato describes that knowledge is possible, but is instilled in our reason. He contradicts the view of epistemology and says that our senses and experiences do not provided enough reason to be considered knowledge. Lawhead deplics Plato as being, “a typical rationalist who thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging and universal”.(194). When it comes to the second epistemological question, rationalist believe that reason alone is the only way to find true knowledge. Lawhead uses the example of mathematics and logic to describe that we come to conclusions by means of reason.(192).
The Cartesian axiom declares that there is as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as the objective reality of the idea itself. Spinoza debunks the idea with his axioms of powers: “The power of Thought to think about or to comprehend things, is not greater than the power of Nature to exist and to act.” Spinoza’s emphasis on power in the Short Treatise and the Correction of the Understanding has proven a thorough argument. He expounds his thought in an array of syllogisms, they can be encapsulated in the following: The more reality something has, the more existence it involves. The possible existence Descartes proposes has finite degrees of perfection while necessary existence has infinite perfection. Whatever has the power
The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism. Positivism focus on a priori knowledge same Rationalism but in difference point, Positivist beliefs in nature of reality that can be verified by science process but don’t belief in the innate. The innate knowledge seems to be skeptically for them and trying to examination about the reality for support warranted beliefs. While Empiricism is rejected the innate knowledge but emphasizes truth-reliable process. It’s look like the one of science process, Such measurement which needs to be reliability and generalize outcomes.
Moreover, by sharing similar philosophical ideas, it enables to use Hegel’s idea of Geist as an answer to Hume’s secret power, that Hume could not comprehend. These two philosophers shared great similarities in their philosophy, allowing our understanding of modern philosophy; nevertheless, it is crucial to realize that there may be more overlapping or even conflicting philosophical ideas of different philosophers that yield various outcomes than the one presented by this paper. Finding overlapping ideas of different philosophers enhance deeper understanding of philosophy and may eventually strengthen one
Ideas of doubt and skepticism are inherent his philosophy. One of the central places in his work occupied by causality problem. Even though there are many nuances to discuss concerning his personality-I am going to stress on: ‘’Why he is considered empiricist? How his human understanding conceived from his position?’’ and ‘’What are the challenges with this account?’’
In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
How can we know that the knowledge we have is trustworthy in Natural science and mathematics? Knowledge is facts, information or skills that are acquired through experience and education, its the theoretical or practical understanding of a certain subject. Knowledge that is trustworthy is knowledge that is able to be relied upon as honest and truthful information. While looking at Natural science and mathematics we will see that mathematics isn’t necessarily more reliable but the knowledge we obtain in these subjects will be different. Mathematics can be seen as more trustworthy because it uses reasoning.
[This principle] can be illustrated by the ‘lying promise’ example. If we all made lying promises whenever a need arose, Kant argues, the institution of promising would disappear, and hence the maxim, universalized, is not consistent with itself. (Uleman
1. The difference between Post-Empiricism and Critical Rationalism: Critical Rationalism has been discussed to, as the system of falsification. A point is a form of rationalism insofar as it embraces knowledge (or other psychological state and capabilities) about some specific subject matter, drives from the use of reason or more commonly from the rational nature (Kuhn, 1970:231). Rationalism is the view that rational instincts are the most essential way of obtaining knowledge (Dick, 1993:53). whereas a Post-Empiricism is the desertion of firm empirical approaches by recent empiricists.