When Bryman describe ontology view, he introduces the objectivism and constructivism as two antithetical dimensions. (p22) However, Saunders 2009 p.119 advocates that positivism can be understood through both ontology and epistemology views. It raises the confusion whether positivism should belong to ontology view and be connected to objectivism like what Bryman said or positivism should not be tied to objectivism and can also be comprehended through epistemology view like what Saunders proposed. In 2014, Hanson stated that the root of positivism could be constructive instead of being tied only to objectivism. This makes us realize that our thesis might not be limited to the view of Bryman.
Perception is the organisation, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. Like perception, logic plays a role in critical thinking. Critical thinking is the process in which one mentally explores deeper than the superficial matters at hand into the deeper layers in order to find out what the real issues are. However, when it comes to weighing their beneficial impact on the critical thinking process, logic and perception are by no means equal. While logic is firmly rooted in reason, perceptions are just as firmly rooted in one’s senses and can easily be corrupted.
For an example, rather than believing that a person is bad, someone can believe that a person is trusted. Descartes did not truly believe that the information that we receive through our senses is exactly correct. We know that some of our experiences are incorrect only because we are able to know some of them are correct, and for that we have to depend on other. Descartes uses the method of doubt to find true knowledge, but Hume for instance, had different methods what he thought about about how to find true knowledge which Descartes disagreed on. Rene Descartes, believes doubting everything is absolutely way to find true knowledge.
I will also raise an objection for one of these arguments, as presented in lecture. First, it is important to distinguish between the quality and the idea of the quality. Locke defines a quality to mean an attribute of an object, while the idea of a quality refers to our mental representation of this attribute. Thus, we only directly perceive our ideas of qualities rather than the qualities themselves and only indirectly perceive the actual qualities through our ideas (page 17). Locke goes as far as to differentiate between types of qualities with what he calls primary qualities and secondary qualities.
He furthermore explains that sense experience is somehow misleading through the allegory of the cave by implying that “what we feel and see might not be the truth”. He claims that our souls go through the process of recollection from the realm of forms. He believes that true knowledge is gained only through reason and philosophical reflection. However, Aristotle holds another view, he believes that change is genuine and in the importance of sense experience and observation. He emphasizes that sensible objects are what makes up the real world and each material object has existence of its own.
In the realm of Philosophy, different views about the definition of the mind and its interactions exist. Among the many, Dualism stands as one of the most debatable, thanks to its position about the relationship of the mind and body, and its repercussions. This assignment discusses the dualist relationship between the mind and the body, as well as its impact on the individual free will. It asserts Interventionism as an extension of Dualism, as well as an alternative to Determinism. The objective of this endeavor is to present the Dualist approach to Mind and Body as an alternative or possible solution to the dilemma of Determinism.
Due to this insinuations, it is evident that Descartes proved that people live although in doubt of their own existence (Descartes and Mike, 14). For this reason, the proof that people are in existence is all in the mind yet the individuals cannot provide evidence that they have a mind. Incidentally, he states that there is a thinking entity in an individual, and this constitutes the thoughts that people
The act of knowledge is a factor that is widely misunderstood in many ways. Humans have trouble understanding how we acquire knowledge. The fact is that our mind plays an active role interpreting knowledge and how categorize it has been a debate for many centuries. We know what the world that our mind represents to us but we cannot know reality in itself. At first, we thought that knowledge is actually based on experience and that through these experiences we can understand how the world works.
They each believe that we can’t fully grasp history until we get involved in the details of the stories and research. Our understanding comes from these small details that most historians overlook and decide are ultimately unimportant to the overall concept of what is being researched. Furthermore, they believe that people must then decide what is the most important concepts to relay to the audience and other historians through their research and published documents. From my perspective, I conclude that it is necessary to be active in the readings of history so that we can interpret or recognize the moral and the complications that occurred. Similarly, we must find our own perspective of the situations that materialized before the eyes of historians’ and the indigenous people; based on our perspectives, we can then begin to discern what occurred in the
However, when the areas of knowledge includes the subjectivity as a method of acquiring knowledge, i.e. in many parts of Human Sciences and Religions, the way of knowing therefore requires subjective perception, either instinctive, emotional or spiritual, and thus should still be open for discussion either to support or negate a claim. In my view, the absence of evidence in one claim does not justify the dismissal without evidence when it concerns with the areas of Human Sciences and