Regardless of the flaws in his model of knowledge, knowledge as an intellectual property is not practical. The significance of his knowledge seems minute as it feels unreal to a real and practical world which seeks practical knowledge. Knowledge needs to be able to be applied in order for it to be useful, as knowledge alone has no virtue. Knowledge must go beyond just merely being a physiological phenomenon, it must have a social, environmental, as well as an ethical context. Otherwise knowledge is self-indulgent and self-serving.
It also lays the foundation for higher logics FOL (First Order Logic) for e.g... It also provides Reasoning methods which are decidable. The Disadvantages being that it is not expressive enough to solve most problems and hence a need for alternate method still exists. Also even if it happens to be expressive in some case it becomes very un-concise. Propositional Logic is a weak KR language because it is very hard to identify Individuals, cannot directly talk about properties of individuals or the relations between them.
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.
In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,
As such, the belief that comprehensible discussion and thought about art is impossible without a categorical definition of it is more or less invalid. The unifying fatal mistake made by most theories, Weitz suggests, is that they fail to recognize art as an open concept—open in the sense of being “perennially flexible”—without any necessary or sufficient conditions surrounding it. Art and its subconcepts cannot be accurately or wholly defined because their criteria must allow for the incorporation of new principles into their folds, and such newly developed principles would make the act of attempting to define their conditions betrayals of the concepts they serve as criteria for in the first place. Weitz further elucidates that although art and its subconcepts are employed for the description and evaluation of works, and those descriptions and evaluations themselves depend upon sets of criteria, that does not make such criteria necessary or sufficient. That these concepts may be used to describe and evaluate works is contingent to their integration of new cases with new properties, thus expanding the concepts
The primary limitation in the book, however, is that the author fails to use visual presentations to make it easy for readers to understand some of the concepts in the book. The audience would know some of the ideas in the book much better if the author would include graphical representations such as tables, charts, and images. The book would also be easy for readers to understand if the author utilized a diction which is relatively simpler for learners at the lower levels to know. The complexity in the book becomes evident in the way Eksteins jumps from one idea to the other and then infusing the information at a later stage. Even though Eksteins’ way of writing brings out the impression of an excellent writer, readers at lower levels may have to be keen while going through the publication to benefit from the
Since, Hume denies causation and metaphysic given that God-talk is a metaphysical notion it follows that, for him, the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed. Hume’s argument mentioned above suggests that there can be a beginning without a cause. As a counter argument, Anscombe would say that, Hume can “imagine” may be say a rabbit coming into being. This means to say that Hume who is imagining the rabbit coming into being is the cause of the rabbit’s coming into existence (50). In addition, Kant on Hume’s view that there is no causal link or necessary connection would say that, Hume has made a mistake in not reasoning that when he denies causation he is actually using the category of causation.
Universality of maxims However, among thecontemporary linguists and philosophers there have been intreste in Grice’s view as it become the basic concept in pragmatics. They argue that his cooprative princiole and maxims cannot be generally to all uttrances applied due to intercultural differences, Keenan (1976). Keenan did some studies on Malagasy people and found that they are breaking the maxims of quantity mostly. They tend to be not following Grice princple accualy they were following the oppsite princple to achieve sucsse in conversation cooprative . And she supported that by providing a question and its reply as .
They base their findings on and scientific data and trials to acquire the knowledge, thus they use the logical reason as a way of knowing. It can be argued the logical reason plays important role in the process of knowledge, which must be less biased, acquisition in the natural science. Therefore, natural scientists are objective, meaning the decisions are based on facts or results and not colored by the paradigm. They tend to ask neutral question because their findings are based on logical reasoning and not involved any
Then again, I thought, it may be true that there is a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy, but is this usually the case all the time? The use of the word “always” implies that the trade-off is in all situations with regards to knowledge, something I do not agree with, the reason this title is worth exploring.