By spelling out these steps, we’ve made the logic clear, but not one of these steps was clearly stated. Instead, they were implied using innuendo. In this case, innuendo is a smokescreen to hide circular reasoning. And circular reasoning is also a smokescreen, in this case, to hide the axiomatic thinking fallacy. As in this case, axiomatic claims are often hidden in unspoken
We hardly see people say or think is this the right thing to do, we tend to see people do things out of there own free will not thinking if it’s the right thing of wrong thing to do. In certain situations, the differences between right and wrong is clear in all problems we face. Some may be hard to figure out but in reality there is always going to be one solution better than the other. We sometimes think about our options in the short term instead of the long run, so some options might seem better in the end but in reality we might have made a
“Never ignore a gut feeling, but never believe that it’s enough” Robert Haller. This quotation suggests that an instinctive judgment is not enough to draw conclusions. Ways of knowing need to verify our gut feelings. Before we can actually jump to conclusions, we require ways which we can use to understand the world around us, these are ways of knowing. Sometimes we need to make sure that what our innate feelings tell us; is true.
Hence, writing is authentic. It is a truth not easily found in dialogue. In conversation, you are trying to listen to others ideas and evaluate them. But in writing, not only are you thinking, you are evaluating your thoughts by reflecting, and finding truth. You are being
“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth. Of course people have different values, morals, opinions, views, etc.
To quote our text, virtue ethics focuses “not on what to do, but on what to be.” Therefore, virtue of ethics is not a set list of rules to which we look to help us in making good decisions, but rather a guide to obtaining “excellence” in character. The idea is to do all things good for no other reason than to be good, not to obtain something else. His reasoning is a bit circular in the sense that he does not give a clear-cut definition of what qualifies a person as virtuous. However, to be virtuous is to be pure, good, saintly, and essentially have a high moral standard, and having that characteristic alone will guide persons to make good decisions. Being virtuous, then, is doing something for no other reason than to be good.
Further, because of specialisation, a certain thought world is likely to very well understand certain issues, but also to ignore information that may be equally essential to the entire task. This would also reduce the possibility for creative joint learning, since experts in a certain field or of a department may think that they already know everything (Dougherty, 1992). Sometimes individuals do not have the necessary expertise or ability to generate the creative solutions alone, through moments of collective effort they might be able to achieve the desired outcome. One can conclude from this that a certain expertise is not always necessary, according to Hagardon and Bechky (2006). One can also take into account here the concept of know-who instead of know-how (Bilton, 2007).
However, because of the existence of realism, materialism, empiricism, rationalism and idealism the validity of skepticism must exist on some plane. Early philosophers took a more broad approach to examining things from a skeptical point of view. For example, being a skeptic about a certain religion, does not necessarily make one an atheist. The true skeptic will not write off other beliefs or apparent truths. True skepticism must be void of conceit and
I agree to the statement, but I have some reservations that neutral question can exist. The fundamental of un-neutrality is clashing of opinions in other words clashing of knowledge. Something that is based upon knowledge is already un-neutral because people will have their own opinion upon something, people will have their own unique paradigm. Even in times where knowledge is neutral people will have different views in assessing the knowledge itself, some people might have the same views in knowledge. However having the same views of knowledge does not mean when a person creates a question the question neutral.
This can be explained in more than a few ways. There might be a wide-ranging complexity in verbal expression of emotions compared to cognitive processes, because of the emphasis the culture places on logical, rational thinking and communicating. This is also correlated to the limits of our language: affective empathy can live in a nonverbal eloquent of the other, which means there is no language that denotes it. In the words of one service front employee: “It is a gloomy part of the spirit. It's not sane”.
One typically tends to prioritize facts and uses reasoning, especially when they have past experience instead of exploring new ideas that are not proven. One prefers structure and order in their life and the things they do rather than having no guidance system in place at all. I do agree with the results from the Keirsey Temperament Sorter that concluded that I am an ISTJ. I am usually more introverted but