Using logic in order to justify a knowledge claim is definitely an essential aspect but not the only one. Arguments may be perfectly logical and valid but not necessarily true, meaning that not all logical arguments are good reasons and justify what we claim to know. In my opinion, logic is not the only thing that is able to justify a knowledge claim. Although it is a crucial aspect, other ways of knowing are also required when it comes to the justification of knowledge claims. There are many weaknesses to using logic as the justification for knowledge claims because something being logical may not be true and therefore not justify anything claims.
The existence of synthetic a-priori judgments is absolutely crucial to Kant’s argument in the Critique of Pure Reason. Not only is their existence essential to his argument but also their specific manifestation within Kant’s wider framework is. Analytic a-posteriori would undermine Kant’s Transcendental Analytic as the only possible explanation for the emergence of consciousness. Steven Palmquist was one thinker to have challenged Kant’s rejection of the possibility of analytic a-posteriori judgments. It remains to be seen that a line of papers systematically and slowly explore consistent type of analytic posteriori, generating a consistent reciprocal theory to Kant’s.
Are they related at all? Another aspect of the mind-body problem is the general assumption that we have a consciousness. It seems real, especially when debating the mind-body issue in our own heads. We must have a consciousness of some sort in order to even make this stipulation. There are those that say consciousness is merely an after effect of neural events in the brain (epiphenomenalism) and have touted neurological science as their proof.
Does human intention cause behaviour, or is the appearance that behaviour is caused by human intention just an illusion? This question is the fundamental issue when one is trying to evaluate the arguments presented by epiphenomenalism on the mind-body relationship. Epiphenomenalism denies that the mental realm can have causal relations with the physical realm, but agrees that the physical realm can have causal relations with the mental realm. In that sense, agency seems to be an illusion and mental processes cannot affect the physical world. The fear of losing agency is not an adequate reason to reject epiphenomenalism.
The Mind Matter Problem The Mind/Body Problem has been debated for centuries and up until this day the relationship between mind and body raises questions amongst scientists, psychologists, and scientists. This is perhaps one of the oldest problems in the history of philosophy. In particular, the well-known philosopher and mathematician, René Descartes have struggled with this issue centuries ago. Through his theoretic concept “mind-matter dualism,” he tries to explain that there is a distinction between the mind and the body. His epistemological position is that the mind and body are of two separate realities, the mental world and the physical world.
The argument is laid out as such: Premise 1: I can doubt that my body exists. Premise 2: I can’t doubt that my mind exists. Conclusion: My mind and my body are distinct. The premises of this argument appear to be solid, while the existence of the material world can be put under scrutiny using his ‘method of doubt’ that of the immaterial world, the mind or soul, cannot. If we are to find a flaw in this argument it must therefore be
The cosmological argument rests on certain principles of causation. In particular that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence (this is what Leibniz points to in his principle of sufficient reason), and that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues. There are three main categories of criticism that Hume makes of the argument. Firstly he has general concerns about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious, secondly he has more specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of contingency and necessity.
Assess the arguments for dualism Dualism is the idea that the mind ( soul ) is a separate, ontologically different, substance to a body. Two types of dualism exist, substance dualism and property dualism. The substance dualist will state that the body and mind have radically different essential natures, while property dualist says although there is only one type of substance in the world, it possesses two different types of property, physical and mental. Arguably the main founder of this theory, Descartes, tries to defend and prove this view using a number of processes. Using Leibniz's law ( the law that states if X has all the attributes of Y then there is no way to distinguish between them, equally if X has different attributes then it cannot possibly be the same as Y ) Descartes puts the argument of doubt and indubitability to prove the separation of mind and body.
Rowe begins his argument by first stating that the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument which means the “argument depends on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world” (38). He then goes on to explain that the deductive validity of an argument is insufficient to prove the truth of its conclusion; there must also be rational grounds for believing that the premises are true. He further explains that the first part of the PSR is simply a restatement of premise one, therefore if PSR is true then there is a clear justification that the first premise is true. However, there are many objections about the justification of the second premise. The second premise states that “not every being that exists can be a dependent being, that is, can have the explanation of its existence in some other being or beings” (40).
The Moon shows considerable evidence of past volcanic activity. Some other features seen on the Moon include lava tubes, lava channels, domes and basaltic plains. Some lava flows have been measured to be over 600 kilometer long. Though small, the Moon shows some evidence of tectonism occurring around 2.5 billion years ago. Very little alteration has occurred to the very youngest of craters.