Understanding The World Through The Study Of Knowledge

Many people would argue that knowledge is power, but can too much knowledge be dangerous? How much is too much? Throughout history, the human race has had struggles with “too much knowledge” or going to extreme lengths to gain such knowledge. Is the everlasting quest to know something really worth it? In today’s generation, there is constantly new inventions of technology and theories of science. But maybe knowledge is starting to ruin people’s life and it shouldn’t be sought after. Very similar in the novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein deals with the deadly pursuit of knowledge. He is constantly intrigued into

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

The main argument here is that the knowledge represents for me the basis of my values, from which I learned most things, which in return guided me to the other good values like the honesty, responsibility and accountability. I highly believe that the knowledge is the major source of all other good

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

The critically acclaimed novel written by Mary Shelley and published in 1818, delves into a multitude of universal themes throughout the text. One value that drives the plot forward, and leads to character development is the theme, human fulfillment of the pursuit of knowledge. It is Dr. Frankenstein 's unquenchable thirst for knowledge that leads to the future predicaments that ensue after the Creature is conceived and future moral dilemma. An example of Dr. Frankenstein 's disposition that lends itself to the validity of the stated theme, is as follows; “It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things, or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or, in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world” (Shelley 30). The doctor 's preoccupation with his studies, that results in controversy over the suitable nature of such an unobtainable desire, is clearly exemplified in the quote, “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind” (45).

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

Rationalism is the principle that maintains that through reason alone we can gain at least some positive knowledge of the world. The three major rationalists, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Welhelm Leibniz, used this idea in order to defy skepticism and expose the true nature of reality. However, each philosopher is frequently in disagreement. The idea for ‘God’, and what constitutes substance, matter and reality are the four key structural beliefs that aid each rationalist in the forming of their arguments. Yet, it is these four concepts and the arguments behind them that cause the inconsistency found in rationalism. The idea that reason can provide positive solutions to the various questions put forth is made doubtful

BonJour manages to defend the claim that a priori justification is necessary in order to avoid a severe, indefensible skepticism and demonstrates that any argument against a priori justification would undermine itself. This dialectical argument demonstrates that a denial of a priori justification is not only unsatisfactory, but impossible for the sake or argumentation. An empiricist critic could only appeal to pragmatism while accepting skepticism or surmount the impossible task of empirical justification of inference. This dialectical argument is by far BonJour's

As this research is exploratory in nature that is, it sought to explore and examine decision-making, morality and ‘sense-making’ amongst human participants I was naturally orientated towards an interpretivist epistemological position. The central thesis of interpretivism is that knowledge, its origin and interpretation is founded on human subjectivities and as such complemented my own world view that knowledge is indeed

David Hume was a British empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes through the senses. He argued against the existence of innate ideas, stating that humans have knowledge only of things which they directly experience. These claims have a major impact on his argument against the existence of miracles, and in this essay I will explain and critically evaluate this argument.

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

The epistemological

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

This paper discusses Quine’s thesis on the nature of our ideas and how they are used in order to make sense of the world, and decide what can be said to be reality.