I appreciate this video. I have been having some problems understanding some of the concepts of Epistemology and this assisted me considerably towards a better understanding.
2... Ever since Joe can remember, the weather got warm around May & then continued to get warmer until around September, when it would then get cold. Plants seemed to grow more vigorously when it was warm. So, without having certainty about what the weather will be like this year, he is going to plant his seeds in April. This is an example of KNOWING ENOUGH to proceed, & it is perfectly acceptable. I have never heard of a farmer insisting on certainty about the weather before he plants his seed.
Epistemology is simple - on the surface it corresponds to the names of the faculties and degree programmes of the universities or the library catalogue headings. It all depends on what library you can get hold of in terms of gaining truly the wisdom you wish to attain. For instance, you can't talk about the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge in the same breath in terms of the actual books, as municipal libraries. Other true wisdom of things is truly at times, but rarely always, contained in some sales catalogues - they are often interpreted by users through acculturated methods of use that allow the true obtaining of true wisdom.
3... My point is that there are some cases where pragmatism is good enuf, and some cases where more rigor is appropriate. And still others where neither is satisfactory. No need to choose only one. Inquiry: What method did Edward Bernays base his decisions and actions upon in his campaign to get women to smoke cigarettes out in the open? What method did the gen pop base their decisions and actions upon when they actually did what he wanted? Why do we care?
hard to see anything truthful in the pragmatist approach to truth...too subjective! Btw, anybody reads this post, check out JWL's blog, Man without Qualities -" totally awesome man!" [esp. a lot of Herbert Simon and Walter Percy]
Okay, so your preference is clear now. Not very "objective", but this is a source of some information just the same. Using the existence of God to explain pragmatists is not a very good example. Instead, how about farming?..
I am sorry Jan but I didn't agree with any of your presentation. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further. Empiricism and rationalism were the shoulders of Locke and Descartes in the seventeenth century. We have stood on a lot of shoulders since then; Hume, Kant and finally Popper. There have been no empiricists or rationalist post Kant who granted that both were necessary. Today we are in the position where we have little interest in how one came by the knowledge but have a massive interest in testing, checking and ultimately corroboration. Today we are with Popper and Tarski.
I appreciate this video. I have been having some problems understanding some of the concepts of Epistemology and this assisted me considerably towards a better understanding.
Your channel is good for people who like philosophy.
What about the third kind of epistemology: critical rationalism ?
Thank you for this video! I have a really terrible philosophy teacher so I don't listen in class but this made me learn everything I have to know.
2...
Ever since Joe can remember, the weather got warm around May & then continued to get warmer until around September, when it would then get cold. Plants seemed to grow more vigorously when it was warm. So, without having certainty about what the weather will be like this year, he is going to plant his seeds in April.
This is an example of KNOWING ENOUGH to proceed, & it is perfectly acceptable. I have never heard of a farmer insisting on certainty about the weather before he plants his seed.
Which mystic experience are you talking about?
Simple, clear, and well done!
great learning from your lecture
great
Epistemology is simple - on the surface it corresponds to the names of the faculties and degree programmes of the universities or the library catalogue headings. It all depends on what library you can get hold of in terms of gaining truly the wisdom you wish to attain. For instance, you can't talk about the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge in the same breath in terms of the actual books, as municipal libraries. Other true wisdom of things is truly at times, but rarely always, contained in some sales catalogues - they are often interpreted by users through acculturated methods of use that allow the true obtaining of true wisdom.
🤔 so, essence is used in place of “idea”
What is the concept of question itself?
Thank you very much, it really helped to understand the concept.
Thnx man, am preparin for MA Philosophy entrance exam. This is helpin me..
Interesting to hear that, it's a modern bias that people think knowledge is obtained by the senses alone. I'm sure this will change in the future
Thanks a lot
i accept reason and empiricism combination would be the closest to knowledge we can get
Thanks
Great 👍
rationalism says logic is our source of knowledge, while empiricism says our sensory sensations are our primary or only source of knowledge
3...
My point is that there are some cases where pragmatism is good enuf, and some cases where more rigor is appropriate. And still others where neither is satisfactory. No need to choose only one.
Inquiry:
What method did Edward Bernays base his decisions and actions upon in his campaign to get women to smoke cigarettes out in the open?
What method did the gen pop base their decisions and actions upon when they actually did what he wanted?
Why do we care?
Thank you!
I am not sure that we always know what we know at any given time.
Correspondance theory of truth is reality!
thanks..
Fantastisch!
Great
Good
Thank youuuuuuuuu
hard to see anything truthful in the pragmatist approach to truth...too subjective!
Btw, anybody reads this post, check out JWL's blog, Man without Qualities -" totally awesome man!" [esp. a lot of Herbert Simon and Walter Percy]
Okay, so your preference is clear now. Not very "objective", but this is a source of some information just the same.
Using the existence of God to explain pragmatists is not a very good example. Instead, how about farming?..
I am sorry Jan but I didn't agree with any of your presentation.
We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further. Empiricism and rationalism were the shoulders of Locke and Descartes in the seventeenth century. We have stood on a lot of shoulders since then; Hume, Kant and finally Popper.
There have been no empiricists or rationalist post Kant who granted that both were necessary. Today we are in the position where we have little interest in how one came by the knowledge but have a massive interest in testing, checking and ultimately corroboration. Today we are with Popper and Tarski.
and those who belive mystic experience is the source of knowlage are called occultists
SAAD day for EU....Never could rely on GB re EU