Locke also believes that knowledge is attained at certain levels; there are different degrees to which knowledge is at its best. These levels of knowledge are intuition as the highest, demonstration as a middling level, and sensitive knowledge. What Locke represents is not entirely false, his ideas seem logical and are definitely to be considered, but is impossible to say that by these means alone people are as knowledgeable as they are, there are just too many gaps that need to be filled in in order for these ideas to be considered true. There
Ceteris paribus, to each his own; but in my humble, biased opinion (after reading both), I find Stoicism to be far more persuasive, for a am a being of logic. Skepticism, to me, is just an easy way out- it may be more manageable in practice, but Stoicism stands stagnant as more sound in theory. While a Stoic mindset may seem out of reach and nigh unattainable, I believe it is the purest, most righteous path towards enlightenment
In spite of their theoretical differences there are similarities between Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both philosophies had concepts of a better world through management of pleasure and pain, however different each individual approach. These are solid philosophies, whose effort is not only to constitute truths, but also to live prudently and peacefully. Another parallel between the two was that both represent two world concepts that continue to be discussed even today, however, no matter the situation one chooses to protect, all ways direct to the same destination that is moderation, simple rich intellectual life, and pleasure. Both Epicureans and Stoics are very concerned with death, which is a point of difference between pain and pleasure.
11). Without pathos, humans would not be able to achieve anything in their existence, and according to Seifert, you need to respect and learn from pathos to get farther in all aspects of your life. Seifert describes pathos as " a dramatic state of tension, a purposeful, energetic and resolute will, a yearning...for justice, for truth"(para.11). Seifert continues to emphasize the advantages of pathos by explaining that truth does not prevail without pathos, and that pathos even transform failures into an event that will move towards its goals that were to be achieved, for that one day it will conquer its goals. Furthermore Seifert explains that once you are
All aspects of creation require an analytical insight to intelligently promote the mindset in going beyond its own limitations and creating results beyond one’s expectation. According to Paul (Paul, 1990, p.448) only a reflective mind has got a thorough consideration of one’s thought with better individual self-control. Critical thinking is focuses on a desired outcome; it is more related to solving problems, calculating and drawing inferences (Halpen 1996). On the other hand reflective
Lippmann explores this concept of the pseudo-environment as well as the veil that separates true reality from false perception. Although impossible to completely cross, humanity has been able, however, to recognize this separation, and glance over to the other side of truth. English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon is one of few who were able to break through the layers of illusions that beset human’s minds. After first identifying the problem, Bacon offered a solution which revolves around the idea of gaining scientific evidence. Although forming a pseudo-environment can never be fully avoided, one can believe, based on Bacon’s ideas, that false reality can be, at least, penetrated.
Usually we aren't even conscious of our own worldviews. Like corrective lenses, our worldviews are transparent unless called to our attention or until we venture into a culture marked by another worldview. Even then, the strangeness of the other worldview likely will impress us most. More than just an interpretive lens, a worldview perspective shapes, influences, and generally directs our entire life. Because people behave as they believe, their worldviews guide their thoughts, attitudes, values, interpretations, perspectives, decisions, and actions.
This challenge reinforces the fact that everything—every single word—provides an opportunity to leverage what you know to stretch your imagination. For so many of us, this type of creativity hasn’t been fostered. We don’t look at everything in our environment as an opportunity for ingenuity. In fact, creativity should be an imperative. Creativity allows you to thrive in an ever-changing world and unlocks a universe of possibilities.
Socrates, who said; “True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.” This quote illustrates the supposed importance of critical thought (and the scientific method), and it's ability to increase our knowledge of the world around us. Nietzsche claims that promise of absolute certainty given to us by science is a false one because there are supposedly no limits to the amount of knowledge which can be gained. Almost without fail, in solving one problem, several more reveal themselves, creating an exponential growth in questions and queries, ultimately rendering perfect knowledge impossible to attain. He rejects the idea "that thought, using the thread of causality, can penetrate the deepest abysses of being.” (Page 95) Nietzsche considers science to be the death of Greek tragedy, and that human beings have lost something incredibly important as a result. He contends that we do not put as much value in artistic things or the “mystical” side of life, which cannot be explored by the intellect.
An imperfect duty however, will not result negatively if not satisfied. On the other hand, if one fulfills an imperfect duty, such as giving away unused clothing to the homeless, his efforts could earn him the respect of others because these actions are not required for a logical existence of humanity. I think that Immanuel Kant has developed a very thorough, yet unrealistic basis for moral philosophy. In a perfect world, Kantian ethics might be a viable concept. Unfortunately, we live in a world with such infinite possibilities of beliefs and lifestyles that Kantianism, a model that holds an extremely narrow definition of right and wrong, is just not practical.