To reveal the innatism of knowledge is a cross-eyed feature of the eye; one must not single out an eye for its pair to define what a cross-eyed face is. Necessarily, both orbitals must contain the instruments for vision as how rationalism and empiricism must embody each other’s aspects. Gottfried Leibniz and John Locke, two of the many philosophers whom have pioneered the philosophical debate on the innatism of knowledge, gave their insights as to how knowledge can best be understood. Rationalists claimed that the mind is born with innate ideas or knowledge, and thus, in contrast to that of the claims of empiricists, that the mind is a “tabula rasa, a blank slate.” This standpoint appears in the form of Innatism. Human beings, however, obviously
Minimal foundationalism claims that the basic beliefs are non-doxastically justified. And to keep them non-doxastic, minimal foundationalists must ensure that basic beliefs do not involve the application of concepts because if they involve application of concepts, they will be tainted by other beliefs and, consequently, will turn into doxastically justified beliefs. Thus, they will lose the status of basic beliefs. I believe that this criticism is disastrous for all types of foundationalism. It ultimately reveals the fact that foundationalism is unable to bridge the gap between the object-belief and the very object of belief.
Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being. And so the mediators claim that “ I exist as a thinking thing,” is correct as it can be supported with evidence throughout our
Bertrand Russell (1926) stated that when we have asked ourselves seriously whether we really know anything at all, we are naturally led into an examination of knowing, in the hope of being able to distinguish trustworthy beliefs from such as are untrustworthy. Thus Kant, the founder of modern theory of knowledge, represents a natural reaction against Hume's scepticism. Few philosophers nowadays would assign to this subject quite such a fundamental importance as it had in Kant's "critical" system; nevertheless it remains an essential part of philosophy. It is perhaps unwise to begin with a definition of the subject, since, as elsewhere in philosophical discussions, definitions are controversial, and will necessarily differ for different schools;
We are temporary beings with a subjective character that allows us to escape from the present into the future to get away from unwanted designations. This means that if, for example, we were known in the past as a messy liar, we can consciously change our actions in the future to change the way we are perceived. Such a constant escape from rigid labels, from the influence of others gives us a certain lack of identity. In Sartre’s terms, this constant change and mutual influence we exert on others is the “nothingness” within us. Nothingness is unique to being-for-itself since being-in-itself cannot experience its own identity and the fact that it is separate from other things.
This expression is the exact opposite of the Kantian view on enlightenment and the idea of humans needing to be autonomous. Foucault views the Kantian way of thinking about enlightenment to have a certain attitude or ethos. Foucault says that this ethos or attitude about enlightenment is “described as a permanent critique of our historical era.” Foucault puts in it two general ways or options to think about the enlightenment. “You either accept the enlightenment and remain within the tradition of its rationalism or else you criticize the Enlightenment and then try to escape from its principles of rationality” In my personal opinion both of these essays and their authors have their strong points, I personally believe that I side more with Kants views in his essay about freedom and autonomy. People should be able to stand up for themselves and have a strong presence in politics, government, and religion.
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
In order to gain a full understanding of the teleological argument, it is also important to examine the viewpoints of those who question the validity of the teleological argument. Critics discount the argument in a number of ways. They say the premise that “the universe has a design” is groundless because there is also apparent disorder and absence of design that cannot be disregarded. Critics argue that the belief that there can be no design without a grand designer is also not true. For example, “Ink drops folded in a paper sometimes appear strikingly symmetrical.
He thinks that the concept of liberty is, in fact, not compatible with that of peace: peace corresponds to a perpetual research of predominance and so it has to be taken away. In conclusion, having considered both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ analysis and thoughts about the concept of liberty, they can be said to be one the opposite of the other. However, it would be interesting to see what both Machiavelli and Hobbes would argue about the limits that this individual liberty has. As John Stuart Mill states, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.” A man could enjoy his liberty of action and expression following his own instincts and appetites as long as it does not affect negatively the liberty of others.
Locke disagrees with the theory that human beings are born knowing certain things. His stance takes two basic forms. He states that are minds process “external” and “internal experiences. He further states that says these experiences are either part of the passive mind; the simple ideas that come from our senses and perceptions, or it can be about the active mind; complex ideas that are formed by combining simple ones. (Miller, p. 215) The main thrust of Locke's criticism against innate knowledge is against the possibility of innate theoretical principles.