Her argument is sound regarding the different roots and lens through which knowledge can be explored, but I find the representation of the complex world/reality in its entirety as observed knowledge still very questionable. Following her problematic implication that knowledge is reality, everything that does not readily exist, at least not yet, cannot be considered knowledge. In other words, everything unknown to humans is not knowledge. However, since certain material is unknown, shouldn’t people be more compelled to not
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
The reason philosophers write truth statements this way is to give sense to the idea that a statement about the world could be wrong or, more accurately, false (philosophers refer to the part in quotes as a statement or proposition). Perhaps you can now see why beliefs are different than truth statements. When you believe something, you hold that or accept that a statement or proposition is true. It could be false that’s why your belief may not “match up” with the way the world really
It is expected that a judge’s decisions be unbiased, but by allowing social identities to be present in decision making would cause this to be not only implausible, but practically impossible. The major criticism seems to develop from her disagreement with the statement “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases” (Alcoff 122). To me, this statement seems to imply that judges and justices are under the impression that they invoke the ideal version of John Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance’, a thought experiment in which Rawls implores us to imagine we are in a rational, conscious state before we have any perception of what sort of circumstances we will be living in; among other things, this is to help make laws fair for everyone. Basically, judges and justices who agree with the statement above seem to think they are making decisions and coming to unbiased conclusions from behind a veil of ignorance. However, they are not exactly achieving this, in fact is seems that it is beyond the bounds of possibility.
The main difficulty that a utopian world faces is the fact that whatever is considered right, good, and therefore accepted by you, it is not accepted by me, and vice versa. This is the main reason that most people reject utopias as impractical and impossible. Yet, I consider that the concept of utopia remains a fascinating philosophical topic. I think that Nozick’s “Framework for Utopia” provides an interesting analysis of the concept, which offers a more productive approach on the matter. Nozick’s book, as a whole, defends a libertarian perspective.
Hume’s argument against induction is that “only meaningful propositions are relations of idea and matter of fact”. This meaning that the claim must be priori or a posteriori. However, Hume contradicts himself because his own argument does not meet his own criteria of a meaningful proposition. This is because his statement is not a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. The grue-problem is almost like predicting what will happen in the future based on what happened in the past.
I do not know that I am not in the matrix. 3. Thus, I do not know that P. The skeptic has an advantage in pressing such claims because an epistemologist has to somehow prove that what a person knows is truth. The skeptic, however, only has to prove that a person's knowledge may be false. There are many people who are uncomfortable with the idea of not knowing of
This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error
Another strong strength is that emphasis is laid on individual’s own experience and viewpoints. Looking at the major weaknesses of existentialism, it can be pointed out that it is based on philosophical concepts that are not practical and are somehow vague. Because of this, it is not empirical in nature, and it is non scientific and hard to confirm with science. Therefore it is problematic to many people as they believe that it is impossible to know how true or how well its works if it is not scientifically proven. I found it appealing when Sartre mentioned that there is “no proof of souls or spirits or ghosts or deities and thus their existence is nothing other than what people make a decision to believe”Pecorino (2000).