And material consists of physical property, chemic property, and biologic property. Nevertheless, psychological property is just the effect of brainstorming. Consequently, the world doesn’t depend on physical material in Knowledge Argument. In this essay, I will introduce Knowledge Argument by giving two experiments Frank Jackson come up with and analyze the following problems present for physicalism. Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism.
Firstly, what is innate knowledge? Innate knowledge is a term used when people believe that we have a substantial amount of knowledge and ideas that are known from birth. Innate knowledge is a rationalist view. There are philosophers who are rationalist-this is that their theory is that we have a priori knowledge (knowledge that doesn’t require sense experience) and synthetic propositions (depends on the world). Some philosophers are empiricist-this is that they have a theory of having a posteriori knowledge (knowledge that is required through our sense experience) and that is of synthetic propositions (dependent on the world and our sense experience).
The sociological imagination is “a kind of interpretive imagination which does not treat its subject matter like objects in the natural world. It is anthropological, historical and critical” (Holmes, Hughes, & Julian, 2003, pg. 7). These components make up the three sociological dimensions. The historical facet analyses the historical context of a subject matter to better understand the subject in the present.
Kumar Bhattacharyya The Paradox of the Philosopher-King In this paper I shall delve into Plato’s The Republic and analyze his Just state, with particular interest in his assertion that the most ideal ruler would be a ‘Philosopher-King’. Plato hints at the impossibility of this Philosopher-King, yet sets strong arguments as to why a Philosopher King is the most appropriate ruler. He does this through his definitions of what it means to be a ‘Just’ state, and how a philosopher best embodies those qualities that would maintain the Justice, and prevent any Injustice from seeping in. Plato also supports his assertion through his epistemology and metaphysics, which serve to further strengthen his argument. I will begin by recounting the demographic structures that are present in Plato’s “Just” state, and by exploring his epistemological and metaphysical claims, highlight the impossibility of such a ruler.
Rationalism is the theory that some of our human knowledge comes from the reason, unaided by the senses. Basically rationalists believed that the truth could be broken down into two types, by using different logics. The first logic is called the law of contradiction, which means how we decide that to be false which involves contradiction and that to be true which contradicts or is opposed to the false. The second logic is called the law of the excluded middle, which means any statement made is either true or its contradiction is true, there is no middle ground. For example, in the book in chapter 2 on page 58, a statement is made that’’ two plus two equals four’’.
At the same time, however, our personal set of opinions control how we see things around us. We are the ones that are given the choice of what is being seen and what is believed. Empiricism began with John Locke who attacked Cartesian idea that reason alone could provide us with knowledge. Locke came out with the term of “Tabula Rasa.” It means that the mind comes into life blank, or empty and is written on by experience. Later, Philosopher Hume came out with his version of the “tabula rasa” principle, the copy theory of ideas.
Contrariwise, ‘ordinary - language philosophers’ argued that verbal communication is a powerful tool for creating new states of affairs. J. L. Austin (1962) rejected formal semantics and claimed that speech can function in a performative way (Clark, 2007). Undoubtedly, this innovative concept has transformed modern linguistics, particularly pragmatics. This essay aims to examine Austin’s revolutionary speech act theory in relation to our everyday conversational interaction and explain how it has influenced our comprehension of language and verbal communication. In order to gain insight into Austinian account of the speech act theory, it is necessary to trace its history originated by the philosopher in the 1950s thorough to its importance for contemporary understanding of language.
Rather than be content with what history had taught them, they would seek the truth, rather than settle for superstition and fear. Postmodernism, as Granz points out, derived from this philosophy. Its thought denies the very grounds on which western cultures have based their “truths”: absolute knowledge and meaning. Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French philosopher and leading postmodernist, was sceptical about the Enlightenment, and wrote about Grand Narratives and Little Narratives in reaction to this theory. The Grand narrative (known as meta-narratives) is a term used in the Enlightenment to describe everything inside a certain framework.
In his first part Thomas Hobbes gives philosophical meanings like memory, understanding, imagination doing it on purpose so that basing on them to create the future theory of Leviathan, it could be understood from the perception of him that before studying philosophy meanings should be made clear. So everything according to him is based on the matter and all the senses are nothing more that the reflection of the moves of that matter, the act of vision happens when matter collides with our eyes and exc. Memory is the sense left after the collision of the matter with the brain, imagination is the sense we create basing on the experience of the collided matter, thought are not solitary and one comes after another that process is called trains of thought. According to Hobbes thought can be regulated like the science, speech and unregulated like dreams. Speech according to him is the transition of the mental to the verbal; he puts words to the superior position claiming that there is no possibility of science without words and perceptions thus neglecting empirical methods.
Innate knowledge is a view (that rationalists share) that claims that humans are born with information about the world which isn’t learned through sense experience, we gain this knowledge a priori. Empiricists (like John Locke) say that innate knowledge and ideas do not exist, when we are born the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) and we gain knowledge and Ideas through sense experience and if we have no experience of the world therefore it is impossible for us to possess any knowledge. Kant argues that we need innate knowledge and sense experience. Kant was a transcendental idealist. He was an idealist in the sense that we are aware of the real world and a transcendent because he thought that ultimate reality goes beyond our sense experience.