Philosophy Now Forum

In case people misunderstood, the first third of my paper comes to similar conclusions as Locke, BUT, the other 2/3'rds are very different from Locke. I show a second form of knowledge, address context, and induction. I hope to hear more criticism! This has been wonderful for me to have gotten a few...

That's a nice abstract analysis yiostheoy.

For example, I may cognitively know the identity of a sheep as in my mind, but how do I applicably know the thing I see in the field rationally matches to the identity in my head. What would you say are the consequences of it not doing? Or the consequences of us not being able to know, for that mat...

So I decided to read John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” to see the similarities and differences between us. I will assume you understood the terms I was using in my paper, and will reference them here. Book 1: I agree with everything. Book 2: I largely agree up until Chapter 7: P...

Impenitent, I just read a synopsis of Locke's theory of knowledge, and WOW, on the surface its INCREDIBLY similar. I'll be reading him more in depth, as while our initial premises are eerily similar, I doubt he came to the same type of conclusions I did. My methodology of knowledge follows clear rul...

I'll give it another try. But I might make more criticisms if you are up to it. I'm very up for it. I'm here for honesty and a good dissection. ---- I have never read Locke's theory of knowledge. I will check it out. As for truth, you'll notice in the paper I never use this theory of knowledge as a...

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm simply suggesting, that you could get so much more in by being aware of your audience, and not using wasting words on the bloody obviuous

Duly noted, and thank you. I promise it doesn't stay at that basic level for long do don't be turned off in reading the rest!

Wittgenstein thought he could do it through definitions as well... he couldn't -Imp I don't define knowledge as definitions. The theory of knowledge I am demonstrating does not even require language. Definitions are an expression of the identities we create. What I attempt to show is there are iden...

I would argue that the "Brain in a vat argument" is an induction. We can conclude that our logical deductions trump any inductions we can make. I show how we can define and separate deductions from inductions in post "Subjective Deduction part 1". Unless of course I'm wrong. =P

I would take two ways of defining uncertainty. Logical and "emotional" uncertainty. To define, a logical analysis is a breaking down of an observation or conclusion into steps. Logical certainty would be a logical conclusion that one has not missed any logical steps in their analysis. Logi...

Can you have senses without the mind? Science shows us it is our mind that interprets the sensation signals of our body. Therefore everything is within the mind. When we say "mind" what we might mean is the conscious part of ourselves that interprets the sensations which another section of...

Pedestrian is spending 300 words on something everyone knows is obvious. So does the essay have any academic purpose? Hm, IS it obvious though? Maybe I didn't need to go into detail. However, I believe a clear definition of reality, belief, and will as I define it are important to understanding the...

Just so far, I think this is wrong, "Descartes claimed he had unshakable certainty in the Cogito because the existence of a good and active God would not deceive him.". The 'God' bit was to allow him to return to the external world and others with certainty, not for his Cogito as that app...

Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into two parts. EDIT: I posted this last night with the intention of attaching part 1 on m...

Has no one read it yet? Should I just start a fresh post since this got off to such a bad start?