home

=​ Welcome to the 3 Questions project!=

Watch this youtube video to learn about wikis: @http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY

This project is going to be done using this wiki, so that we can all be a part of the learning. Here's how it will work: 1. Choose your philosopher. Fill in the chart below with your name and the philosopher you chose. No more than 3 people can do any one philosopher.
 * Your name || Philosopher ||
 * || Socrates ||
 * Dylan || Aristotle ||
 * Tess || Kant ||
 * SJ || Plato ||
 * Taylor || Aquinas ||
 * Cara || John Dewey ||
 * Emmy || Nagel ||
 * Courtney, Rob || Descartes ||
 * Kelly || Locke ||
 * Amy || Charles Peirce ||
 * Chantel || Aenesidemus ||
 * Heather || Chomsky ||
 * Eric || Hume ||
 * Nicole || James ||

2. You will complete the three pages of handouts, as given in class. Please complete these 3 questions with **hand written dot jots**. These three pages will be handed in.

3. Personal reflection: After having completed your research notes identify ONE important epistemological question your philosopher has asked. (eg. What is knowledge?). Explain how he answered the question. Ask yourself what is missing from his response, what appealed to you about his answer and what counter-arguments you might propose to his answer. How is his philosophy used in today’s world? (eg. Law, government, education etc). Write a 300-500 word personal reflection that formulates and defends your own responses to the epistemological question you selected. You will **post your personal reflection here.** I suggest that you write your personal reflection on Word, and copy and paste it into here.

ex:
 * PERSONAL RELFECTIONS:**

Courtney Writes:

What is Knowledge? Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes asks what knowledge is. He believes that is made up of two components, doubt and certainty. He believes that as your doubt increases, you’re certainty decreases, conversely as your certainty increases your doubt decreases. Descartes says that in order for you to have knowledge you must believe first. You also have to doubt everything you believe, or at least temporarily pretend that everything we know is questionable. Descartes famous quote “ Je pense, donc je suis” in English meaning “ I think, therefore I am”, is a significant quote because his main belief is that you must believe, and think, and you must doubt and be certain of your knowledge and thoughts in order for them to be knowledge. Although I agree with Descartes theory on knowledge, I also think he is missing some few key factors. From birth you’re taught to believe something, you then remember what you were taught, which is then turned into knowledge. You should not have to doubt or question your knowledge because it’s something you have always known and will always know. Secondly, Descartes says you must have certainty and doubt in order to have knowledge. But because knowledge is something you believe, you can never be completely certain of it because no one knows the truth about everything. But it is important to doubt your knowledge, because you can’t always be right, no one is ever right, comparing your knowledge to the knowledge spread through out the world. In our school boards teachers always have confidence  in their students, telling them that if they believe in themselves, or in something it’s true, and you can do it. That links back to Descartes theory, that if you believe you have knowledge, and if you have knowledge you can use that knowledge to complete anything. Also, in the justice system people will doubt whether or not evidence, or information retrieved is true, or if the knowledge they think about the evidence is true. But because they can be certain of something’s and past events they have knowledge of the case, and can arrest the person. This also links to Descartes theory, because he too would argue although they may be missing some evidence they have certainty of other evidence, therefore they have knowledge to place the person responsible.

 SJ Writes:

Plato: What is Knowledge?

Plato is a rationalist, and in his theories, he mostly attempts to prove his ideas with the logic of the reality we see around us. Plato discusses knowledge as something we all have, but not something we can all find. The way he describes it is that we are born with a soul that has all the knowledge of everything around us and we also recognize that knowledge. However as a soul trapped inside a human body, and as it experiences the "senses part of the world", we forget that knowledge. Also the things that we experience around us in this "sense world" is a mirrored image of the things that are in the "perfect world". This is seen as Plato’s Doctrine of Recollection. In my opinion, I find that this theory of being born with knowledge to be very true. In psychology, there is an idea a man named Howard Gardner brings up; he talks about something that suggests multiple intelligence. We all learn a certain way based on the things we perceive around us. Some might learn mostly through their sight; others through hearing and others through touch. Because of this multiple intelligence idea, Plato’s theory would apply because we are using our senses in the "senses world" to learn, and gain knowledge, that is reflected in the “perfect world”. However I think that the theory about "experience is re-living" only some what applies. It is possible that our soul, the being that knows everything, could have been through the same experience in its "perfect world"; however there is an unlikely chance that it reacted the same way twice. If the soul had already experienced one thing, and had learned from it, why would it be repeated? Plato describes this as "remembering"; yet in every situation, there are many possible solutions and even more out comes. This brings up the question, why would the soul have to learn things twice with other possibilities to learn something different?

Repugnant Smelling Heather writes:
 * __Noam Chomsky on Generative Grammar__**

//Noam Chomsky is a linguist and a political activist; he is very suspicious of media, government and propaganda. He incorporates epistemology into his studies by asking how language is learned by humans. Chomsky has put years of study into many theories and evaluations of language and how knowledge of language is acquired. He responds to this by stating that most knowledge in humans is innate, to say that we have it from birth. He believes that knowledge of language is assumed at birth in every child and they will have a seed of comprehension of linguistic principles, a universal grammar, planted inside them. He called this the Theory of Generative Grammar. This belief held that, in respect to language, children learn much more than they have been shown through education and environment. They can pick up their language and express it long before being taught how to read or write. He describes knowledge as “not explicable in terms of skills, habits, or dispositions”, meaning it must be from some other source or sources. Others often argued his theory. Jean Piaget, a Swiss philosopher and psychologist argued that “postulated ‘innate structures’ are biologically inexplicable.” ( Piattelli-Palmarini, 35). While some other linguists believe that Chomsky has studied the point too much, that he cannot just accept that there is a portion of the brain dedicated to language and syntax. They think his theories overall just trace back to this biological point and he looks too far into a simple fact. Behaviorists argue that language is a learned skill from the environment surrounding the child. I believe that it has a mix of all these theories; that, as humans, we are born with the ability to learn language because of the part of the brain that allows such a thing. I believe there is a biological component, and a sociological component that allows our mental capacity to be fulfilled. I also disagree with Piaget’s point of biological inexplicability, that it is more unexplained than anything and that it is possible to trace the origin of our knowledge. Furthermore, I agree with the behaviorists’ views because Chomsky states the knowledge is straight from birth, but who is to say that being immersed in language since birth is the true reason for rapid learning? If Generative grammar is true then it should, in theory, be just as quick and simple to learn a second, third or fourth language. But it isn’t. Humans are born into a language and I believe they learn through the expressions, tones, body language and substance that match the words spoken. Therefore Chomsky, as a rationalist, is correct because he boiled the problem down to the bare elements of physiology, but as a human he may have left out the huge influence environment has on a young, impressionable mind. In today’s society our education system may have taken these ideas in consideration when writing curriculum for young children. Many products claim that you can teach your baby to read and understand spoken word as young as 3 months, that when the children enter pre-school it is past the peak point of learning language skills. If this is true then is Chomsky correct in saying linguistic knowledge is innate? I still believe no because the system in which these “early development systems” work is the child is presented with the written word on a flash card or screen and while the parent reads it, they show the baby a corresponding action or the item to attach meaning. If the child needs outside influence to learn, then how can it be innate? I could learn Spanish if this system was used, and I was immersed in it, but it would take years to learn without such aids. I suppose Chomsky has some strong theories, but Generative Grammar has too many weak points for me to deem it accurate.

Eric writes: Hume: What is Knowledge? []   ////Andrew Marr introduces the life of philospher David Hume, who was at the heart of the Scottish Enlightenment, and his theory on knowledge.//  Hume inquired about the beginning, or acquisition, of knowledge and concluded that all knowledge derives from sense impressions, which is similar to Locke's "sensation". Objects may "impress" themselves upon your senses, meaning impressions are the first building blocks of knowledge. However, Hume fails to acknowledge the existence of knowledge "by description," which is not based on direct knowledge of the senses of either sight, hearing, taste, smell, or touch. For example, John A. Macdonald was P.M. of Canada in 1867; this is information that can be tracked through history to eyewitness accounts in 1867 newspapers, which constitute someone else's knowledge by acquaintance. Thus, this knowledge by description based on someone else's knowledge by acquaintance is unable to be read by the senses as it happened 142 years ago and is impossible to derive from a sense impression, yet is still considered knowledge. Also, Hume ignores the validity of "indirect" knowledge (knowledge acquired indirectly by using reason to connect pieces of direct knowledge) as it too cannot derive only from sense impression, and relies on second-hand knowledge which an individual may assemble into knowledge. Hume also discussed the difference of matters of fact and relations of ideas. Matters of fact are beliefs that claim to report the nature of existing things, meaning they are always contingent. Since genuine information rests upon our belief in matters of fact, Hume was particularly concerned to explain their origin; such beliefs can reach beyond the content of present sense-impressions and memory, Hume held, only by appealing to presumed connections of cause and effect. Despite this, statements like "every effect has a cause" would be unjustified in Hume's system, since he reduced causality to the "habit" of expectation that the future will always resemble the past. Thus, if matters of fact beliefs must appeal to the presumed connections of cause and effect, and such a statement is unjustified in Hume's system, a glaring contradiction emerges as matters of fact must also reach beyond sense-impression, which Hume notes earlier as "the first building blocks of knowledge."

Hume's philosophies also still prove relevant today. Hume stressed that current events and concerns are best understood by tracing them historically to their origins. Hume substitutes a concern for the “moral causes” — the human choices and actions — of the events, conditions, or institutions he considers. This thoroughly secular approach is accentuated by his willingness to point out the negative effects of superstition on society, government, and political and social life. Therefore, this helped evolve society to a point where we now base our knowledge on grounded facts. We are also reminded by the old adage that "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Hume displayed the essence of this quote in discussing how not only inquiries into the actual event may assist in learning of it, but also a historical inquiry into possible patterns that humanity has displayed. This has helped society as we are able to move forward without (for the most part) making the same mistakes that societal humanity has always made, and is especially used in high school history classes today, where events from the past are related to current events to attempt a better understanding.

Aristotle: "//Poetics"// & What is Being?

=
Aristotle, easily the most notable product of the educational system devised by Plato and his Academy. Starting in his later teenage years, Aristotle studied here for 20 years honing his skills and gathering ideas on many subjects. Most particularly, he developed many fundamental ideas in the field of philosophy. Posing important questions about Reason & logic, cognition, ethics, knowledge and reality. Consequently putting these themes together like a puzzle should allow you to connect them to many of the essential theories found in todays modernized philosophy. It begs the question “What is being?” in the human search for greater truth and knowledge regarding our existence. Not to be confused with “Why are we here?” or “What is our purpose?” as I did not choose to battle semantics. Rather, he is asking what it means to exist, how does our being shape what we see as ultimate reality in our search for the truth? This is Aristotle’s most noted suggestion, supported by his thorough research into society and the human mind. Aristotle’s work even uses biology to help explain his ideas for the Natural World and explains that we must know as well as understand the environment around us, observing what we see in order to consider what is fact. I believe it is through this that he developed the “Universal Method of Reasoning” which uses Fact-based evidence, Deductive Inference and the Ability to reason to search for knowledge. Aristotle wanted to find a possibility of “knowing everything there is to know in the ideas of reality” using his work in a range of subjects to deal with significant issues in all areas he questioned. Basically, Aristotle’s theories suggest that Moral conduct is key to holding a good life believing there is only one world to concern yourself with and it is that of what is living and real. The world we experience day to day is all that matters which contests Plato’s theory of the two worlds (reality and thought). Essentially, the question of what it means for something to exist is answered in the universal method of reasoning in which there are three critical ideas behind understanding reality. To know that something truly exists is to use fact-based evidence to observe its form, properties and activity in order to decide that “it” (whatever it is) is a functioning system of our world. Once that is done, you can use a deductive inference to make the decision and analyze that you are sure what it is, and why it is/does. (Again, whatever that may be; person, animal, object, weather) The final thing to do is use the human ability to reason, that is through logic, without considering any bias, ethics or morals so that one can truly connect with the achievement of knowledge. In plain English; Aristotle’s question “What is being?” has many answers but are all reached through attaining certain knowledge of key factors involved. These are like steps to understanding existence; you must see something and ask questions about it. To understand these questions is to understand the object in question. Understanding leads to knowledge and knowledge is key to understanding. Although this may seem quite redundant, the main idea is that because we can consider all these things it makes the possibilities endless and it is doubtful that any one person could hold everything there is to know about everything inside a brain like mine or yours. That said, it is still very plausible for someone to understand existence and being in depth and with reason or justification for their findings.======

Super Nicole Writes William James on what is truth in knowledge? William James responds to what truth in knowledge is through the concept of pragmatism; pragmatism meaning to be practical. He groups knowledge with belief and truth, making an individual’s truth their beliefs and understands, and ultimate makes the connection that truth is knowledge. Through pragmatism he explains that it is useless to obtain any knowledge on things or subjects that are not helpful to ones existences because it is impractical. And being pragmatic is for someone to have beliefs in things that are relevant and useful to that believer, and that truth is supported to the point that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things. Stating this, he says that knowledge is obtained through empirical evidence and the senses and knowledge comes from common sense; that something must be correct when it is generally accepted and is in the practical way to be observe as. As a result, this leads his view of knowledge and truth to mean that, whatever works can be considered the truth. This concept of whatever works is truth, lacks because if anyone can prove something works, then it becomes the truth and if someone can prove that something does not work, and than it would becomes untrue. This concept conflicts with people’s religion, because no one can prove with empirical evidence that there is a supreme being, but there is a general acceptance for most, that there is one. So it is impossible for an individual to prove or disprove a supreme being. Nevertheless his theory allows for individuals to have different category of knowledge but still be equally knowledgeable, for instance if someone is in the area of science, and has a vast knowledge of biology but knows very little about art or music it does not make them unknowledgeable. Since biology is relevant knowledge to be gained it is realistic for the individual to know and it is less important for them to have immense knowledge in music or art, because it would be impractical for an individual to waste time on subjects that are not useful in their area; excluding if they had an interest in music or art. His philosophy relates in today’s society to education, and what is determined by the school board. The school board uses pragmatism sub-consciously in their decisions of what important knowledge should be taught to the students. They agree upon what they believe is relevant and needed for a student to learn in this world, and makes certain that those courses become mandatory for the student to take. Also within each subject/course they must choose a curriculum of what information on the subject is most essential to be taught, and what information will prove to be most helpful in the subject area. As well, they must settle on the different skills that are going to be most practical and helpful for the student when they enter the work force.

Cara writes: John Dewey ‘How does one define knowledge?’ John Dewey was an American philosopher who, along with Charles Pierce and William James, developed the theory of pragmatism (“theory that states that the usefulness of a belief is what makes it reasonable to believe” [World Philosophy, 235]). Therefore, if a person deems an action to be practical, the individual has given their faith to the action, regarding it a legitimate belief. Prior to Dewey, traditional philosophical views had left practicality and their practice of philosophy as two completely separate entities. However, Dewey was a firm advocate for the idea that both practicality and the study of philosophy are entwined. He proposed the idea of instrumentalism, in regards to philosophy, in that you can take something vague and confusing, such as the question “What is knowledge?”, and turn it into something that can be thought about and answered through the process of the scientific method. His application of the scientific method led to the idea that knowledge can be identified as the “outcome of successful inquiry” (Great Thinkers of the Western World, 34). As inquiry is a constant battle, it is forever being revised. Therefore there is no, and never will be any, certainty when it comes to what a person has learned. Therefore, conventional philosophers disagreed with him due to the fact that they believed in the necessity of knowledge being proven, and the scientific method could not provide concrete evidence. When it came to education, Dewey promoted the idea that inquiry is a social affair. For that reason, the main focus of education should be learning from group work. This being said, inquiry is promoted when students are left without the aid of a teacher. Dewey expressed that, although instruction is necessary to the understanding of work, all that a student needs is the procedure, and anything more will hinder the learning of those students. By letting the students work through a project with their peers, social inquiry is promoted, allowing the group to receive knowledge about the subject at hand, and about the people around them. These ideas of group work and teaching styles have shaped the educational system in today’s society. Before Dewey, it was assumed that information was best absorbed through being told the information and memorizing it. However, he explained that social activities allow information to be retained more effectively. The methods of group projects and working with a peer on class work are used daily in most classrooms right now. At the same time, there is no teacher that will give their students a question and then give them the answer moments after receiving the work. Each teacher gives their students time to think through the question, problem solve, and attempt the answer. Finally, the marking schemes of today consist of four different skills that are being marked (application, knowledge, communication, and thinking). This system, especially the application, promotes inquiry towards how the idea relates to another subject. Therefore, the majority of our educational system is based on John Dewey’s ideas. Being introduced to the idea previously, I have a grasp on the importance of scientific method in everyday life. The relationship between the scientific method and uncertainty of proof is evident. In regards to knowledge however, I am unsure as to how one can say that it is something uncertain. Would Dewey’s opinion of knowledge be knowledge itself, thereby making his concept surrounding knowledge uncertain and up for constant inquiry? If this is the case, how could any one person create an absolute definition for knowledge? Were knowledge something to be under continuous investigation, the term could eventually (after inquiry) cease to have the “uncertainty” aspect to its definition, removing the need for inquiry to achieve any future knowledge. This being said, I do not believe knowledge to have a single, tangible definition. Knowledge is something that is constantly undergoing evolution; therefore it is unfair to elaborate further that knowledge is what a person believes to be true at a certain time. In this sense, I agree with Dewey’s view of pragmatism, but not that knowledge needs to be asserted using instrumentalism. Therefore, I do not agree with the necessity of proving knowledge, but that the fact that a person believes something makes that idea their knowledge. When one begins to talk about proof, they delve into what is truth, not what knowledge is. Truth is determined by facts and evidence, whereas knowledge is based on what you learn by means of yourself, other people, or an inanimate object.

Rob Writes

Descartes: "What can i know?"

Rene Descartes asked the question “What can I know?” He answered this question by doubting everything he already knew and trying to find out if he could really know what it was. In attempting to answer this question Descartes found that he really knew nothing but he found that because he could doubt things he therefore existed. He sums this up in the quote “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes certainly gives us both a way to question all we know and gives a more or less definite answer to the question of existence. This is both appealing and unappealing for me since I now know that I exist and I know nothing. He still doesn’t answer the questions of “Why am I here?” “What is my purpose?” “What is the meaning of my life?” These are huge gaps left by Descartes and his theories leave me personally asking more questions. One might say that they could doubt their own existence and one might also argue that mentally retarded people may not be aware of their existence. Other people may say that this theory can be used to doubt the existence of God or a supreme being. Descartes may have proven that he exists but his theory means that, other than that we exist, everything else may not be real. This is contradictory, if we exist than everything else must exist too because it makes no sense for people and animals aware of their existence to be real and the world around them to be unreal. Perhaps if Descartes had expanded when he found that he only knew that he existed and didn’t end on such an ambiguous note his theory would be much easier to understand and less of a nightmarish view of the world around everything that exists.

Amy Writes: __Peirce on Pragmatism__ Charles Peirce, most commonly recognized as “the father of pragmatism”, based most of his philosophies on a scientific method and a slightly empirical position. His scientific method explains that ideas are clear if they can be translated into some kind of operation- he decides this through 3 modes: abduction (initial hypothesis to explain an event), deduction (deriving consequences from hypothesis) and induction (testing of hypothesis against experimental evidence). When a piece of information undergoes these methods and is decided to be practical, Peirce would deem it to be knowledge. In this way, Peirce states that //only// issues that can prove to have obvious effect on an individual’s life can be considered knowledge, and all other inquisitions are essentially meaningless. As a result, it is clear that one of the main epistemological question that Peirce asks through his theories, is to what extent should we inquire about the meaning of knowledge? How much of this “quest for knowledge” is actually applicable in our own life? Peirce says: “Pragmatism asks its usual question.”… “Grant an idea or belief to be true,” it says “What concrete difference will its being true make in one’s actual life... What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What in short is the truth’s cash-value in experimental terms?” (The Everything Guide to Understanding Philosophy) Through his significantly science-based opinions, Peirce says that any “knowledge” that has no direct impact on our own life should simply not be considered or theorized as it will have no fundamental benefit for us. As a result of this strong practical standpoint, Peirce leaves much space for criticism within his theory. It is naive to say that any question beyond what we “know” to be true is impractical to ponder as there are no guidelines that exist to determine each individual’s right to question knowledge. In other words there are individuals, such as a metaphysical philosopher, whose job is to question beyond what we can perceive by the senses and who finds this information practical in their everyday routine. Peirce might argue that this knowlege is not practical and deserves little attention; however, to the philosopher this issue has direct impact on his life and therefore, by Peirces definition of independent relevance, most definitely constitues as a practical knowledege to analyze. This example reveals contradiction in Peirce's theory. It seems as though he neglected to understand the fact that every individual has a different lifestyle and so it could be easily argued that the knowledge that he finds practical could be impractical to someone else. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, there can be no definite designation of what knowledge //will// have an effect on our lives and what //will not//. A counter argument that could be proposed would be that through being practical (in terms of Peirce’s definition) that one would in fact be impractical, as they cannot understand that in many situations a paradoxical answer is not enough, and doubt is needed. Can scientific method really describe happenings such as paranormal activity? I am sure Peirce could devise many logical explanations for these occurences, however, there are instances where science cannot make all of the ends meet and once again doubt sets in. I agree with this counter argument rather than Peirce’s definition of what can qualify as knowledge. I understand that practicality may give a more precise theory in scientific terms, however, science cannot encompass all situations and therefore is not reliable- it is obvious that doubt will always find its way into philosophy. Nevertheless, pragmatism can be observed as a helpful tool in law and government- bridging the gap between exceptions to rules and concrete law. Peirce’s theory can be seen directly in the instance of policies for marijuana possession in European countries. Legal systems in these countries have turned to take a pragmatic approach by allowing certain individuals the right to possess this drug. While other countries are still caught in “what-if” arguments, discussing the repercussions of these allowances, several European countries have decided to eliminate doubt and observe the practical problem at hand- some people are in medical need of marijuana and they should have access to it for this reason. Law makers in these countries have decided not to be distracted by possible outcomes of this law (misuse, deception of the law) but rather accept the problem at hand, analyze it for it's benefits, and ignore any doubt. Peirce's theory is intrinsically embedded into this approach, and may actually be oberved as a steadfast solution to medical marijuana possession. It is not yet obvious if this pragmatic approach will benefit or hinder these countries, however, it is a daring step to incorporating pragmatism in government systems.

Chantel Writes

Aenesidemus: What Is Knowledge

Aenesidemus answered the question “what is knowledge?”, he was a sceptic so he decided no one should determine anything and nothing should be affirmed or denied he also claimed that no one can really know everything, some may take it as we are in-knowledgeable but I believe that he’s simply stating we only know what we know, we cant determine things unless we know. However it seems that according to anesidemus the only acceptable statements are the negative ones because we are in capable of knowing any more than what we know. I somewhat agree with him because I don’t believe we can know more than what we do but I disagree with his negative statements, I don’t think negativity is a good thing I think that nothing good can come from being negative all the time I also think that you can determine certain things because certain things are determinable. Other than that I agree with Aenesidemus for the most part but I am just not as sceptical as him.

Emmy writes: Thomas Nagel on the Role of Doubt in Knowledge Thomas Nagel is a modern American philosopher with many subjects of interest including philosophy of the mind, ethics, and epistemology. Nagel is a skeptic when it comes to the subject of knowledge although he does not go as far as to say that knowledge does not exist. Rather he doubts the common assumption that everyone experiences and perceives the world in the same empirical way. Although this idea is currently unable to be proven scientifically, Nagel has brought forth the idea that the way our senses recognize our surrounding environment will differ from person to person which he addresses in his article “What is it Like to Be a Bat” (1974). In this article, Nagle tackles this issue using the idea that it is impossible to know what it is like to be a bat and he then says that it is only possible to know what it is like to be a person imagining to be a bat. However, Nagel believes that we are not conscious of the differing ways we perceive our surroundings because we have acknowledged the things in our environment in the manner that our senses recognize them for our entire lives. For example, someone might see the colour red the same way another person sees blue but they identify it as red because that is the word that they have associated the colour with and that is what they have been told the colour is by others. Through this, Nagel questions the role of doubt in knowledge. He then answers by demonstrating the way that doubt challenges our perception of what is real with his theory of the differing ways that our senses work. The idea that everyone experiences the world in the same manner, through senses that work the same way, is assumed but once you begin to doubt this statement, what is real can no longer be verified because no one is perceiving the world identically. As a result, Nagel’s theory that the way our senses work differs from person to person is an unconfirmed and somewhat farfetched one, however, it does a great job of exhibiting the influence that doubt can have over knowledge. The role of doubt in knowledge is also displayed within religion. If, for instance, every person were to believe in the same God, His existence would become common knowledge and He could therefore be confirmed as real. However, as soon as one person begins to doubt the existence of this God, the possibility of Him not being real is conceived and it can no longer be assumed as common knowledge that He exists which then brings forth the idea that this God is not necessarily real. In his theory, Nagel neglects to attend to the question of what creates personal knowledge. Does knowledge exist solely within communities, or can complete belief in something by one person mean that they contain that knowledge even if no one else can confirm it because they have doubt? It is difficult to agree or disagree with Nagel’s theory on sense perception and knowledge as it is solely an idea that cannot be proven. However, his suggestion that doubt is what decides whether or not something can be classified as knowledge is less agreeable as this is to say that most things are not real because their existence can be doubted.

John locke

John Locke main idea was empiricism. Empiricism is the need to have proof by the senses to know that something is there or even exists. Locke came to the idea that we are born without innate ideas and as we continue to grow we develop knowledge through experience as well as through out senses. Locke expressed these ideas through his theory The Veil of Perception. The veil of perception is an idea that you are in a closet and the door opens with the more knowledge that is learned. It also separates ones own interpretation of reality and perception. Not only did Locke theorize ones reality and perception he also had a huge impact of the world today. Locke created democracy which is one of the biggest things in Canada as well as the U.S. Not only did Locke create democracy but his early writings on liberty and the social contract influenced later the founding fathers of the United States Locke was an extraordinary philosopher who redefined subjectivity and self with one of his most famous writings essay of human understanding. The social contract theory led to Locke’s political theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke came to the conclusion that human nature is characterized by tolerance as well as reason. Locke focussed much of his time on the subject, the self. What Locke discovered was the self is a conscious, thinking thing which can feel pleasure and pain. It is capable of happiness and sadness. Locke’s concept of being born with out knowledge and developing with experience is very connected to Locke’s ideas on the self. This is because according to Locke when one is born is knows nothing. It does not know happiness, or pain it develops these feelings and knowing with his senses and experience. To conclude Locke’s imperialistic views Locke’s theories are based on having proof as well as the use of ones senses. His strong beliefs on the self are backed up by the proof that a new born only goes on instinct, not knowledge.

kelly

Aquinas By: Taylor Bulstrode What is Knowledge? Arguably the greatest medieval scholastics of his time, St Thomas Aquinas was primarily none for his work in theologian, but also touched one a little epistomoly such as the question what is knowledge? He began his study on human knowledge when teaching at the university of Paris in 1268. After much contemplation Aquinas began to look back at other highly noted philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. Both Aquinas and Aristotle adopt the theory believe human knowledge is like a blank tablet that has the potential to be written on. Aquinas believes we are all born with the potential to know and learn, but we do not know anything at the beginning of our lives. to Aquinas, is the understanding of what a human sees, and perceives. "Through the action of sensible objects on his senses, to the act of sensation; by instruction or discovery, to the act of understanding." (Aquinas Ethics, 134). For instance, if a man is born deaf, he would then have no knowledge of sound. However, if he was born with knowledge he would. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first principles of the natural law are self-evident and known to all. Modern commentators nevertheless differ greatly in their attempts to explain Aquinas’s premise of how we come to have such knowledge. This exposition will deal with the enquiry of how, according to Aquinas, we can distinguish the first principles of the natural law, and then with the question of whether or not Aquinas’s theory of the natural law, properly understood, is feasible in our present age. Although Aquinas did have many theory and thoughts on different fundamental questions, he was a man of god and all answers and questions within his mind were created by god. I believe because of Aquinas’s strong relationship with his religion and god, this mad him blind to many philosophical discoveries and hindered many thoughts. Almost all of his work was based off his religion or expanded thoughts on Aristotle’s work. Aquinas’s thoughts on human knowledge allowed future philosophers a chance to expand a research this often asked question. Although Aquinas was seen as a very smart man within his time, I believe in our modern society Aquinas would not have the ability to process new ideas because of his religious views. Aquinas was known as a great man and helped his religion create the 5 proofs on why god excises, he was rewarded for his devotion to his faith in 1276 three years after his death the Bishop of Paris condemned 219 propositions, including Aquinas's.

Tess: Kant on the origin of knowledge (the argument between a priori and a posteriori) German philosopher Immanuel Kant came onto the scene as a sort of moderator between the two great epistemological camps of his time: rationalism and empiricism. While rationalists hold that knowledge comes only through reason and that all empirical experience is open to "Cartesian doubt", and empiricists hold that knowledge comes only through experience, Kant argued that true knowledge comes only when the two are combined. Kant believed that he was answering the epistemological question of where knowledge comes from by combining the British empiricism and the Continental rationalism to create a so called Critical Philosophy, in which he places the rational human in the centre of the cognitive world. He argued that without reason our experience would be purely subjective, and without experience our reason would be impractical. He went further in the deconstruction of the classic thoughts when he contested that contrary to popular belief, there can be synthetic a priori knowledge, or knowledge that furthers our understanding of nature but does not come from experience (Kant defined synthetic propositions as being propositions that offer more knowledge or truth/untruth in the whole thing, not just in the subject component; say, for example, the proposition that "all bachelors are happy"- whether or not this is true, it is not something that could be derived from just the idea of a bachelor). In the same vein, Kant argued that a perfect example of a priori concepts would be space and time- things Kant said are actually preconditions to experience, not experiences. While Kant's rationale appears sound and practical, it is in some ways pandering to human intelligence a little too much. Because Kant's whole philosophy boils down to the world being what we experience, we can never know if what we experience is true. Either we would just have to accept that we will never know if our beliefs are true, or we will have to redefine truth. It seems that rather than expanding man's brain to fit all the knowledge of the universe, Kant is wimping out and claiming that some metaphysical questions just can't be answered (such as the existence of god, immortality, souls), but must instead be believed based on faith in order for humans to act ethically. Also, Kant confusingly came to the conclusion that the objective order of nature is a product of the mind, caused by the interactions of the mind with whatever lies outside of said mind- confusing, of course, because for something to be objective it is supposed to not rely on any mind at all. On a relatively superficial level, Kant's philosophies are used in classes throughout our education system. The idea that knowledge comes from both reason and experience is displayed daily in the various ways that students are taught the curriculum; some days it is through first hand experience, other days it is through reflection and reasoning upon someone else's experience, of the idea of such an experience.

4. Choose one personal reflection from one of your peers. You must choose a relfection from someone who studied **a different philosopher from you**. Answer the following question: **How does the philosopher you studied differ from the philosopher of your peer?**

Write your reflection in word and then copy and paste it into here.


 * RESPONSE TO MY PEERS:**

Amy about Courtney: __Peirce vs. Descartes__ There are some similarities between the theories of Peirce and Descartes; however, it is apparent that their fundamental opinions differ greatly. To begin, Descartes asks the indispensible question: “What is knowledge?” This question encompasses a variety of possibilities and as a result, gives much space for argument and of course, doubt. Courtney interprets Descartes theory saying, “in order for you to have knowledge you must believe first. You also have to doubt everything you believe, or at least temporarily pretend that everything we know is questionable”. This excerpt exemplifies the essence of Descartes philosophy and at the same time, draws strong comparison between Descartes and Peirce. Firstly, it is seen that Descartes theory is almost the opposite of Peirce’s. They draw on similar conclusions; however the process of reaching this information is reversed. While Descartes begins by stating that to understand knowledge we must //believe// first, Peirce offers an opposite solution of being sceptical at first, and //then// coming across belief in knowledge through scientific reasoning. In this way it is obvious that each philosopher has a very different idea of what is a constituent of knowledge. Descartes believes that through faith in information, one may acquire knowledge of that question. On the other hand, Peirce believes that faith in information only gives way to faith that the possibility of certain knowledge is endless, and this is against his theory. Peirce believes that there are restrictions on what we should consider knowledge and that any information that has no direct impact on our life should not be analyzed. Descartes takes a much more general view and leaves much up in the air. This perspective is seen especially through Descartes famous quote “I think, therefore I am”. It is obvious that this theory does not express any solid philosophical points or reveals any specific reason for the existence of knowledge. Rather than taking a scientific standpoint on the issue, like Peirce, Descartes prefers not to come across definite truths but rather understands that there is no knowledge, other than the existence of him, which can be truthfully proven. Conclusively, through analyzing Descartes and Peirce, one can gather a well rounded viewpoint on how to approach the quest for knowledge. I believe it is necessary to combine both scientific reasoning and faith/doubt to acquire a more accurate view on things that we find hard to grasp, such as the concept of knowledge.

Courtney About SJ

There are not a lot of similarties between Descartes and Plato. Although they both ask the same question “what is knowledge?” their theories are oppisite. Descartes believes that if we believe in something, doubt something, or are certain about something it is knowledge. Sj interrupts Plato to have knowledge through our five senses. If you can feel it, touch it, smell it, or taste it, it must be real. Descartes and Plato both agree that moemory is also apart of your knowledge. Althought Descartes would disagree that the five senses does not make knowledge, it can be argued that Descartes theory also relates to the five senses. An example, if you were to drink milk, you would taste the milk, and be certain that it is milk, therefore your using your senses but you are also certain that it is milk, and if you are certain of senses, that means you can also use the five senses in Descartes theory. Therefore, philosophers will have a different perspective on what knowledge is, and how we gain our knowledge, but in the end all the theories are similar, because they all lead to knowledge. It is clear that Descartes believes knowledge is percieved through faith, and Plato believes it is percieved through the soul and five senses.

__Cara about Emmy:__ The theories and views expressed by John Dewey and Thomas Nagel prove to be quite dissimilar. To begin, the answer to the question “what is knowledge?” is explained quite differently between the two. Firstly, John Dewey states that knowledge is a belief that can be proved through procedural inquiry. Therefore, through inquiry, and the eventual evidence that this inquiry will provide, a person acquires their knowledge empirically. Adversely, Nagel is sceptical towards knowledge in that he states that every person’s senses interpret the world differently. Therefore, every person will have a different idea of what they experience in the world, thus giving them an alternate idea of what they know from another person. Furthermore, Nagel questions how knowledge can exist in the presence of doubt and differentiating perception. For something to be universal knowledge, as proved through evidence, every person must first believe it. However, if one person doubts the evidence they are given through inquiry (this doubt being spawn of a perception being countered by another person) it can no longer be idealized as knowledge. As can be seen in the contrast of their ideals, Dewey believes in empirical evidence being enough to classify an idea as knowledge, while Nagel states that empirical knowledge is based on perception, meaning that knowledge cannot be dependant on sensory evidence alone. Secondly, Dewey expresses that knowledge can be different for every person. He states that knowledge is a personal belief that can be supported through evidence. In contrast, Nagel states that if one person were to doubt something that was considered to be a knowledgeable fact, this fact could no longer be considered to be a piece of knowledge. Therefore, when directly contrasting the ideals of the two philosophers, it can be said that they have very different views about what can be considered to be knowledge. Dewey’s rationalist point of view is not compatible with the sceptical ideals that Nagel expresses. At the same time, Dewey addresses the acquisition of knowledge, while Nagel does not. However, Dewey’s idea that inquiry is the best route of gaining knowledge would not coincide with Nagel’s theories that knowledge is not empirical. This is because, as of right now, the information gained from the scientific method is entirely sensory. Therefore, in Nagel’s eyes, the inquiry process would not have very much consequence in the acquisition of knowledge as our senses can be deceived and doubted.

Foul-smelling Heather about Makes-me-wanna-puke-due-to-her-stench Nicole! **Noam Chomsky is a rationalist who believes that most knowledge is innate, and lies dormant in our minds until birth and life brings it out or triggers it into consciousness. He believes that knowledge is much like a limb, an arm or a leg, that grows with us and is hardly influenced by outside experience. William James dubbed pragmatism as a means of knowledge, that empirical evidence is needed to make the transition from belief to knowledge. This is the main difference between the two in how knowledge is obtained and used by humans. James holds a strong connection between truth, understanding and human knowledge. Chomsky would agree that the only reason we understand is because we were born with the seed of knowledge that is to grow into belief, and by James’ standard that would qualify as true knowledge. A difference I can see between these men is their mind set, Chomsky has been hassled for spending far too much time in the study of how linguistic knowledge is attained, whereas James’ mind set would prove to be very relaxed as pragmatism preaches that common and empirical sense lead to knowledge, not extensive studies on how the brain works. Also, Chomsky’s theories show a general acceptance, for instance there is a general acceptance in his theory of generative grammar. People everywhere believe that there is a set understanding of language through tone and expression, this is more of a collective knowledge. Whereas James’ theory on impractical use of knowledge only relies on the belief of the person who follows it. There is only a need for this particular knowledge when it pertains to the existence of the follower, and otherwise it is unneeded, therefore there is no calling for a large group of people to believe this theory, it is self-sustaining. Most of Chomsky’s theories are based around science and rationalism rather than self- and practicality.**

Rob in response to Heather:

Generative grammar is more logical than most people give it credit for. People may not immediately understand language right off the bat but through repetition we begin to realise what the words mean and how they are said. This doesn’t just apply to people but also to animals. For example, Dogs are not able to speak any sort of language but they can understand it to the point where they know their name and after much training can understand what words or phrases mean. The ability to learn language is with everyone it just requires a little training

Nicole about Eric James vs Hume David Hume was a strict empiricist, and believed that knowledge can only be obtained through sense experience and that many of our beliefs do not come fro m reason, but from instinct and feelings. James would partly be in agreement with Hume, because his theory states that truth and knowledge is whatever works. Whatever works would be decided on instincts and feelings of people using their senses to confirm the truth. However, James would not agree on that people's beliefs do not come from reason. Though someone's reason may differ from another, it none the less is reason to them. Someone believes something because that is what they were taught and have accepted or because to them it makes the most sense and is more reasonable answer for the question they are trying to answer. An example of this would be in a question of 'how we were created?'. There are many different answers to this question and for each answer someone believes that one is the most logical; finding which one is most logical is using the instincts we have to determine so. Therefore, this leaves the understanding that reason comes from instinct which Hume does not agree with. James would also strongly disagree with Hume on indirect knowledge, anything acquired through using reason to connect the pieces of direct knowledge, not being considered true knowledge because it was not derive from only the senses. James theory states that in order to obtain certain knowledge it is required to fit other bits of knowledge together, in order to find the missing pieces that would not be known otherwise and also if pieces fit together then it must be right or true. Hume being an anti-religious person, lived by the concept; have to see it to believe it, where as James lived strongly by the guidelines of pragmatism and that if it seems logical and one can argue it to be truth, with the proper evidence to support this truth, the it shall be deemed truth, because that is what works, therefore is must be true.

SJ About Rob:

Although Descartes and Plato are both philosophers and address the epistemological question, “What is knowledge?” and both go into depth about their reasoning’s, they come across an answer that “bump heads” so to speak. As Descartes states, “I think, therefore I am” he doesn’t address what he is in the first place, and what his knowledge is. Whereas Plato concludes the theory about the all knowing soul. That we know everything before being born, and at birth we forget everything so we have to relive it all to remember because what we know around us is the mirror of the “perfect world”. Because Descartes leaves so many questions unanswered, it’s seen that he was a man of faith. Anything that we could ask about the theory could be brought up with “God” as he was a Catholic. However Plato’s theory covers more questions and his theory can match up with more religions than just Catholicism. Either theory can cover epistemological questions, however Plato’s theory shows that there is less questions left.

Emmy about Amy: The similarities between Peirce and Nagel’s theories on knowledge are few, as they both view knowledge from entirely different standpoints. To begin with, Peirce focuses on pragmatism and therefore judges what should be professed as knowledge by the practicality of the subject at hand. Meanwhile Nagel puts much emphasis on the way we perceive our surroundings empirically because he believes this to have the greatest impact on what a person can confirm to be knowledge. Nagel believes that because there is a possibility that each person may be observing one thing in many different ways through their senses, then there are many possible ways for this thing to exist, and therefore the reality of this thing is questioned. Furthermore, both philosophers demonstrate two very dissimilar ways of approaching the epistemological question of what knowledge is. Peirce uses scientific reasoning to obtain what he believes to be knowledge and he does this by narrowing down what is perceived to be real through skepticism and then uses belief in knowledge as a factor to obtain true knowledge. On the other hand, Nagel has brought forth an idea that cannot be proven scientifically to be correct or incorrect but has full potential of being either. However, one similarity exists within both Nagel and Peirce’s means of approaching the question of “what is knowledge” and that is that both philosophers accept that skepticism is necessary in the quest for knowledge but neither of them are extreme skeptics who doubt the complete existence of knowledge. Peirce is skeptic as he doubts the need to consider knowledge that has no direct influence in our lives as well as when he is considering something to be knowledge. While Nagel is skeptic of perception and therefore believes that nothing can be common knowledge because everything can be doubted by someone. In conclusion, both Nagel and Peirce use skepticism to determine what knowledge is, however, they use it with differing approaches. And while their use of skepticism draws a link between their ways of determining what knowledge is, their fundamental ideas and approaches to the matter are very different as Peirce has a scientifically based way of thinking, while Nagel’s idea is creative and somewhat <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">improbable.

Aquinas/Locke- Taylor about Kelly By: Taylor Bulstrode both Locke and Aquinas share similar ideas when it comes to when and how we enquire knowledge, both believe we are not born with knowledge. Locke believes knowledge is gained through experience as Aquinas believes knowledge is gained through age. John has created a analogy to portray his idea much like Aquinas, he states, “The veil of perception is an idea that you are in a closet and the door opens with the more knowledge that is learned. It also separates one’s own interpretation of reality and perception” (Kelly). Aquinas believes in a similar concepts, he states that human knowledge is like a blank tablet with the potential to be written on. The different between there theory’s is, Aquinas believes with age your tablet fills when lock thinks it is with every experience that effects how far your door will open. Both philosophers agree with the fact that when you are born your purely relent on instinct and your mothers care. I believe Locke is able to see these different theory’s clearer then Aquinas because he does not have the same obligations to his religious life as Aquinas. Aquinas spends most of his life trying to prove gods accessions through all his theory’s when Locke is able to look at a bigger picture and explore both sides of arguments. Both philosophers have similar thoughts on how human knowledge is gained and both have created their own theory’s that allow one to see a clear picture of their messages being portrayed. Both philosophers were seen as substantial figures within their time periods, both opened new doors and cleared the path way for further evolution. Although Aquinas was very focused on his faith he and Locke had the ability to explore different realms such as knowledge, senses, and self. There theory’s and thoughts have shaped society and created new knowledge for future generations. ENJOY <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Eric in Response to Tess: Kant & Hume: BFFs [] //Hume and Kant meet//

Immanuel Kant and David Hume differ on a number of subjects. To begin, while Kant argued that **true knowledge** comes only when rationalism (knowledge coming only through reason, and all empirical evidence is open to "Cartesian doubt") and empiricism (knowledge only comes through experience) are combined, Hume concluded that all knowledge derives from sense impressions, as objects may "impress" themselves upon an individual's senses, meaning that impressions are the first building blocks of knowledge. Kant argued that without reason, experience is subjective, but Hume noted that his theory of "impressions" were individual to the person experiencing them. Thus, while Kant's theory combined empiricism and rationalism to form knowledge [making him a foundationalist (including both rationalism and empiricism)], Hume was a strict empiricist as his theory stated true knowledge may only derive from sense impressions (a posteriori: deriving from experience, evidence presented by the senses. Also, while Kant argued that there can be **a priori knowledge** (knowledge gained before sense experience, from human ability to reason) that furthers our understanding of nature but does not come from direct experience, Hume ignores completely "indirect" knowledge, or knowledge acquired indirectly by using reason to connect pieces of indirect knowledge, as it relies on second-hand knowledge. In // Prolegoma //, when considering the science of metaphysics, Kant writes " Hume proceeded primarily from a single but important concept of metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of **cause and effect**." Hume's // matters of fact // are beliefs that claim to report the nature of existing things, concluding that they are always contingent, as beliefs in causation reach beyond the content of present impressions and memory by appealing to presumed connections of cause and effect. Thus, statements like "every effect has a cause" prove unjustified in Hume's system, as causality is reduced to humanity's "habit" of expectation that the future will always resemble the past. Hume noted in //A Treatise of Human Nature// that "we may define a cause to be 'an object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are placed in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter'" Kant, ho  wever, argued in // Critique of Pure Reason // that the principle of causality, "everything that happens, that is, begins to be, presupposes something upon which it follows by rule," is a necessity for the very possibility of objective experience. Thus, Kant took the principle of causality to be required for the mind to make sense of the temporal irreversibility in certain sequences of impressions, while Hume argued that cause was an "an objective precedent" contingent to circumstances surrounding it, devaluing the cause and effect theory that Kant spoke for.

__//Dylan in response to Rob//__;

Aristotle and Descartes actually have almost identical questions to one another but there are many differences in their work. These differences lie in their approach to the question and in the kinds of men they were. Because Descartes did not (or possibly could not) answer many of his questions, we are left with Aristotle's theories in answering “//absolute certainty//” in a few cases. This could possibly be because Aristotle studied a wide range of subjects whereas Descartes, a religious man was bound by certain possible beliefs. The ideas here; “What can I know for certain?” and “Can someone know everything there is about reality?” show how two different men from different time periods can still ask the same question.

Kelly about rob. Descartes and Locke are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. This does not the two philosophers in having some similarities in the way they think. Although Descartes is seen to be a rational thinker he shows some traits of being similar to Locke and being and empiricist thinker. Descartes said “I think, therefore I am” Locke would to agree with this statement. The difference between Locke and Descartes is that Locke would want to prove this statement with human senses of proof. Although Descartes is a rational thinker, he has the potential to be seen in a new light, a empiricist thinker because when he is attempting to define what a person he is doubting himself because of the flaws, people may doubt that they think therefore can not be considered a person. Although Locke needs proof to back his theories up Descartes uses proof, just rational proof. Is there truly a difference? One may say metaphysically rational proof is more belief based and empiricist proof is more scientific, but scientific proof had to originate from somewhere. It originated from rational proof, which would make both Locke and Descartes the same kind of thinkers. Both philosophers are trying to unravel the concept of what one knows. Locke says that when you are a child you know nothing and knowledge comes with experience. This theory may be true for Descartes as well because his theory says that one is existing because they think, well a new born child knows nothing to think of, it relays purely on instinct. Like Locke, Descartes is saying that children develop thinking as well as knowledge. Both thinkers may indeed not be the same type of thinkers on paper but realistically they share many of the same thoughts and develop similar ideas which would seem to make both theses legendary thinkers the same.

Tess about Cara <span style="font-family: Helvetica,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"> It is possible to both contrast and compare Kant and Dewey, as there are definite similarities as well we disparities in their theories of knowledge. The most common thread that can be found would be the idea that the world and it's workings are most accessible through scientific processes. The difference here though is that Kant was an advocate of a Newtonian world view; he believed that even if they are man made, there are laws and rules that govern the natural world. Whereas Dewey says that knowledge can never be fully grasped and is always in motion, in progress, changing, Kant would argue that although it is not readily available or even maybe attainable in one lifetime, knowledge and truth just like everything else obey some sort of law and therefore are theoretically attainable. A second striking similarity between the two men is the idea that knowledge is created by man, and can be subjective. Kant did believe in objective truth, but he also believed that somethings cannot be known and must just be believed for the betterment of society. Kant thought that the need for the belief and the belief itself was sufficient proof for knowledge in certain cases. Dewey also brings up the idea that what is proven to be true in some instances for some people was good enough to be knowledge for those people. The biggest differences between Kant and Dewey would definitely be the rationalist side of Kant and the empiricist leanings of Dewey. Dewey encourage the use of the scientific method, and experiences of the senses in order to find higher knowledge. Kant maintained that empirical evidence could not account for all the knowledge there is to be had in the scientific world. Also, Kant spent time philosophizing about things like time and space, and whether the existence of such concepts is a priori or a posteriori. Dewey seemed to have spent no time on such things, as being a pragmatist, they would have little effect on daily life and therefore would not be practical to theorize about.

Kov's fav pic