"Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgment", this reflects that ways of knowing and instinctive judgment are intertwined. For example when a person is crossing the street he waits until there are no cars and then he proceeds to pass, using reason to deduce an intuitive judgment to assess the situation. I personally agree that ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgment, but not at all times. There are incidents where one makes a judgment without any checks our thoughts about it. Seeing that ways of knowing are a crucial part of the thinking process I have deduced a knowledge question "To what extent do ways of knowing serve as a foundation for our instinctive judgments?"
We do not do so randomly or disinterestedly: our selecting an object is motivated by desire.” When we say we value something, it is akin to desiring it, which makes our values and desires essentially the same. When we try to focus on an object, “something is focused on and singled out” and this leads to us disregarding the rest of the object, or its background, and only concentrating on the part of the object that we chose to prioritize. Our perceptions are based on what we are trained to see and observe, but there are other things that we do not see. To better illustrate this concept, we can use the analogy of an iceberg.
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.
And also whether the true knowledge is possible to acquire. According to J.P Moreland, knowledge represents reality in thought and experience and it is the foundation for successful dealings and confidence. And also how can we acquire that in our life. I believe that knowledge about something is very important but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be wrong and different from others. Beliefs and knowledge could be true or false but that doesn’t mean a person is incapable or should be considered less in any way.
Self-realization is an important element in both philosophies, and knowing how one fits into the world. This alone is an important form of education; self-education. Therefore, it appears that Confucianism and Taoism regard education in very similar ways. It is granted that Confucianism and Taoism are entirely different systems, however at a closer look, we realize that they have as many similarities as differences. The two philosophies share concepts such as filial piety and education, which reside at the heart of these traditions, as well as contradict each other in their primary focus and methodology of passing on their
1. a) Truth seeking: Truth-seeking is the propensity for continually craving the most ideal comprehension of any given circumstance; it is following reasons and proof any place they may lead, regardless of whether they lead one to address esteemed convictions. Truth-searchers ask hard, may be startling inquiries; they don't overlook significant points of interest; they endeavour not to give inclination or bias a chance to shading their scan for information and truth. The inverse of truth-seeking is biasing which disregards great reasons and applicable proof all together not to need to confront troublesome thoughts. b) Analytical: Being Analytical in a wide range of areas; it favoured keeping examination straightforward and exquisite by limiting diversions.
In order for something to be logically valid, its negation must be contradictory. As a consequence, to doubt that one is doubting would be like to think that one is not thinking, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since the action of thinking requires a thinker, Descartes was able to deduce that he must exist. Therefore, this proves the validity of Descartes’ reasoning and makes us come to the part where Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” is brought into being.
Nonetheless, on the off chance that we can't define an unmistakable argument to go past this perspective, we are left with what is called solipsism, or the thought that we can just really have knowledge about our own mental states. Descartes himself attempted to base his knowledge of the outside world on the Cogito – his assurance he could call his own existence – and the way that more dependable knowledge is by all accounts clear and distinct. Notwithstanding, as we found in our dialog of the Meditations, both the thought of clear and distinct thoughts and the cogito itself were hazardous. As specified prior, Descartes was a scholar who wanted to think in solitude. Furthermore, by making his I think, in this way I am the internal middle of his perspective, he made a model of self-reflection that affected the sum of cutting edge European philosophy significantly.
In layman speak, it checks to see correlations between related and unrelated factors. As you might have already guessed, the analysis for related MBTI factors should yield a strong correlation, if it is to be considered reliable. So say you score as someone who is more practical, than driven by emotions, your response to ALL questions about your pragmatism should yield a similar score. And since the questions should dig out the four pairs of independent factors, a question on your shyness should not mess around with the scores of a question on your emotions. That is the four set of factors are mutually exclusive.