Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system. A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Though this concept of truth may seem more applicable to aesthetics
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence. We normally associate something like a chair or a table with objective reality, and we don’t consider it to have the same nature of existence as say ‘beauty’ or ‘parenthood’, even though most would agree that all these things ‘exist’ in one way or another. Mackie defines something being objective as ‘Being part of the fabric of the world’, i.e. it has an ontological, mind dependant existence. As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect.
Fish starts off his essay by stating that there are three things that oppose rhetoric. "First, between a truth that exists independently of all perspectives and points of view and the many truths that emerge and seem perspicuous when a particular perspective or point of view has been established and is in force" (HB, 1611L). Here, Fish is stating that the first opposition is truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). The second opposition according to Fish is "an opposition between true knowledge, which is knowledge as it exists apart from any and all systems of belief, and the knowledge, which because it flows from some other system of belief, is incomplete and partial (in the sense biased)" (HB, 1611L). This means truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006).
Theory Critique: Crabbs and Hawkins Liberty University Summary of Content According Crabb, there are styles or methods of integrating psychology with spirituality. The first style is “Separate but equal.” This style suggests that spirituality and psychology are two separate entities and do not mix. Furthermore, this idea states “Scripture deals with spiritual and theological problems involving Christian belief and practice," and anything that is not a spiritual matter should be handled using secular psychology (Crabb, 177, p. 37). The second approach is “Toss Salad”. This approach is a blend of spiritual and secular beliefs (Crabb, 1986).
rhetoric not absolute fashion. Field is different, application different, subject different. Pardigm: similarities between different cases. Enthymeme: thinking deductively, not held to rigid claims, in our judgment, contingent probably truth, can arise to answer. Use of Logos: logical: Analogy: pardigm, create an analogy , positing likeness, inductive.
Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).
Do we have Free Will? In this essay I will discuss the three positions of Free Will, Libertarianism, Soft Determinism and Hard Determinism. Libertarianism states that free will exists. Robert Kane (2011:24) states: Soft determinists are compatibilists who insist that determinism does not undermine any free will or responsibility worth having, whereas hard determinists are incompatibilists who take a harder line: Since determinism is true, free will does not exist (Kane, 2011:24). Libertarianism is the position I wish to defend, and thus will argue that, indeed, we do have free will.
This theory uses inductive reasoning rather than the more common deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is not the sole claim for proving validity. An inductive argument proceeds from a beginning statement to a conclusion. The truth of the initial statement may not imply the truth of the concluding statement only that the concluding statement can be true. Inductive arguments lead attention to specific areas of reality.
Moore’s “Proof of an External World” I believe that philosopher G.E. Moore’s “Proof of an External World” was somewhat successful in explaining there being an external world, however I have reason to believe that his proof cannot be taken for granted by using logic and physics. While there are flaws to his argument, he responds to those flaws with a rebuttal, and makes the person think if they can be certain about anything in existence. Moore’s argument can be simply put that; P1) he has a right hand and he has a left hand, P2) both of the hands are external objects in the world, C) An external world exists. Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof.