Epistemology term paper

[...]
“We are now in a position to give to the phrases "object of knowledge" and "objectivity of knowledge" the meaning one attaches to them in epistemology. Meanings given here are nominal definitions. They are likewise real definitions, that knowledge and its objects are really what these definitions imply. By the object of knowledge one means the reality to which, according to the spontaneous belief of mankind, knowledge is supposed to attain, the real object as it is in itself, which is supposed to reveal itself to the subject in the cognitive process for interpretation, and to do so by means of the mental presentation or presence which gives to the subject an object of awareness. Whether this object of awareness is identical with the real object of knowledge will appear in the sequel. Anyhow, the real object of knowledge must in every case,--whether it be the reality of the subject himself or a reality distinct from him,--be rendered present to, or put into cognitive union or continuity with, the knowing subject: this is effected by means of the presentation or mental presence or existence, the esse mentale or esse intentionale which gives the subject an object of awareness. It is by means of this presentation that the subject obtains a real object for interpretation.”
[...]

[...]
“Now if certain philosophers have taken the terms "truth" and "knowledge," and used them in a new meaning, to designate some of these other concomitant or consequent relations between the knowing subject and his environment, rather than the relation of conformity between the intellect judging or interpreting reality and the reality so interpreted, this procedure of theirs by no means abolishes or suppresses or explains away the relation from which they wrested its traditional and recognized title of "truth" or "true knowledge," while it confuses the issues of Epistemology by fostering a misconception of its problems. Moreover, as one can see, such relations as "suitability" or "usefulness" to human progress, "harmony" with the emotional, ethical and religious cravings of human nature, etc., cannot constitute truth or true knowledge, for they already suppose the possession of it. If, then, in the theory under consideration, truth or true knowledge be understood in the commonly received sense to signify the conformity of the judgments of the individual mind with reality, with that which is, a little reflection will show that the theory is unintelligible and self-destructive. The theory itself is presumably put forward by its advocates as true, as the true explanation of what knowledge, or the truth of knowledge, consists in. But either knowledge is what this theory represents it to be, or it is not. If it is not, then the theory should be rejected without further consideration as false: and the alternative, scholastic view, that truth is something absolute and unchangeable should be accepted. If, on the other hand, the theory is true, then this means, according to the theory itself, merely that the view of knowledge embodied in it happens to be the most acceptable and suitable, the one that "works best," for a particular section of human beings at a particular stage or epoch of their "mental evolution," though it may not be so, and may therefore be false, for other people or for other times. But whatever "knowledge" really and truly is, that it is and that it must be; and if a certain theory of knowledge represents "knowledge" as being something other than it really is, and is therefore false for anyone at any time, the theory must be false simply and absolutely and without qualification.”
[...]

[...]
“Different cultures might handle philosophical questions about knowledge differently. Some cultures, for example, might emphasize the social nature of knowledge, stressing the place of scientific or religious authorities, scholars, political and military leaders, or other acquaintances as sources of knowledge. Other cultures might focus on the individual as a solitary figure sifting through incoming evidence (whether from the testimony of others or from more direct experience) and deciding what to accept or reject. Some critics of Western philosophical traditions have charged them with excessive emphasis on the individual as a solitary knower. This charge has led recently to increasing attention to the social aspects of knowledge.. If there has been an imbalance here in the history of Western epistemology, it is likely to be corrected to some extent in contemporary epistemology, owing to its contributions from many different cultural and intellectual backgrounds. Recent epistemology has also received important contributions from feminist philosophers. In what follows, we shall return to such developments in recent epistemology.”
[...]

Epistemology term paper

What does this service include?

What is NOT included?

Discounts