|
|
Philosophy I: Epistemology
Myself- Epistemology, the study of thought and whether or not thought is or should be possible, this deals with truth, belief and justification, which would oppose Skepticism. Epistemology opposes skepticism. Skepticism goes against and questions knowledge it doesn’t understand
Alex- Epistemology is a theory of knowledge in which many aspects of learning can be expressed. To justify a truth, first there must belief. In which there is skepticism and the study becomes aesthetic and the theology takes on existential qualities, for the belief must be justified in order to be truth, and to the furthest extent, the embodiment of fortitudial knowledge. This way you obtain a sense of mirth, even in the event of being proven false. For even if information proves dubious or inconceivable at the end of the belief, the mind learns an even greater experience in the disguise of knowledge where the now detailed and illustrated manner of what was guessed becomes definitive. From puzzlement over the mysterious obscurities of our world was birthed guesses, and furthermore: knowledge. This is my twist on the epistemological conception of thinking. Anything that gets rid of uncertainty should be considered knowledge. “Truth”, is the viewpoint by which the “belief” or the uncertainty is based. But this seems but a concession to what was previously stated: a proper conclusion I should think.
Myself- Belief is powerful enough to make anything seem true, the willingness to believe could suffice a truth. Justification may not even be needed but would allow for more skepticism. The saying, “the truth is beautiful, but so are lies”, has much force behind and allows for skepticism on that which people disagree. It could be argued that nothing is false but is has less evidence to support the truth of it. The idea of “truth” is really just perception/perspective and above all, belief in such. Just because man was given freewill and the ability to make mistakes, does that mean we’re supposed or that we should? If someone is fully aware of the outcome of any of the decisions they are faced with and they make the choice that has only negative repercussions. They knew full well what would happen and still in spite of that they still made the choice. Freewill gives us choice and makes us flawed and in those flaws we find acceptance, disdain, joy, love, caring, hatred, and rejection. Just because someone has a flaw you don’t particularly enjoy doesn’t mean you should shun then or feel hatred towards them, you should accept and not acknowledge it. If we bring “love” into this equation of thought, it’s not what’s perfect about someone that makes you love them, it’s their flaws. The idea of “flaws” is done unto ones’ perception. Something you may see as flawed, I may as perfection. Much like Hitler believed, he saw the Aryan race as the perfect race of Germans. Blonde hair and blues with white skin was his idea of perfection and beauty. My idea of beauty is that of dark hair, dark eyes, and a tan skin complexion. It would seem that I’ve gone really off track with this… With that being said, let us bring it back to epistemology, the ways’ of thinking of everyone else is different and therefore would have different ideas of perfection. For those that believe perfection can’t be achieved have never truly loved someone; to love, is put that person or thing on a pedestal and to treat them as if they are the embodiment of perfection. That is my though and view on it and with epistemology in it, that belief can be justified by that thought alone, skepticism would question it but the skeptic questioning it may not have ever felt something so strong. For those that have or will feel it are truly blessed and unless they realize it they are truly damned for not seeing their idea of perfection.
--TO BE CONTINUED LATER--
|
|
Comments