Jain philosophy is the oldest Indian philosophy that separates body (matter) from the soul (consciousness) completely.
Jain philosophy deals with reality, cosmology, epistemology (study of knowledge) and Vitalism. It attempts to explain the rationale of being and existence, the nature of the Universe and its constituents, the nature of soul's bondage with body and the means to achieve liberation. Jain texts expound that in every half-cycle of time, twenty-four tirthankaras grace this part of the Universe to teach the unchanging doctrine of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct.
Jain philosophy means the teachings of a Tirthankara which are recorded in Sacred Jain texts. The distinguishing features of Jain philosophy are:-
Belief on independent existence of soul and matter.
Refutation of the idea that a supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer of the universe exists.
Potency of karma, eternal universe.
Accent on relativity and multiple facets of truth and Morality and ethics based on liberation of soul.
Jainism strongly upholds the individualistic nature of soul and personal responsibility for one's decisions; and that self-reliance and individual efforts alone are responsible for one's liberation
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Coherence theory of truth
In epistemology, the coherence theory of truth regards truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. The model is contrasted with the correspondence theory of truth.
A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole.
While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the truth only applies to a single absolute system.
In general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence.
For example, the coherence of the underlying set of concepts is considered to be a critical factor in judging validity. In other words, the set of base concepts in a universe of discourse must form an intelligible paradigm before many theorists consider that the coherence theory of truth is applicable
In modern philosophy, the coherence theory of truth was defended by Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Harold Henry Joachim (who is credited with the definitive formulation of the theory).
However, Spinoza and Kant have also been interpreted as defenders of the correspondence theory of truth.
In contemporary philosophy, several epistemologists have significantly contributed to and defended the theory, primarily Brand Blanshard (who gave the earliest characterization of the theory in contemporary times) and Nicholas Rescher.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole.
While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the truth only applies to a single absolute system.
In general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence.
For example, the coherence of the underlying set of concepts is considered to be a critical factor in judging validity. In other words, the set of base concepts in a universe of discourse must form an intelligible paradigm before many theorists consider that the coherence theory of truth is applicable
In modern philosophy, the coherence theory of truth was defended by Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Harold Henry Joachim (who is credited with the definitive formulation of the theory).
However, Spinoza and Kant have also been interpreted as defenders of the correspondence theory of truth.
In contemporary philosophy, several epistemologists have significantly contributed to and defended the theory, primarily Brand Blanshard (who gave the earliest characterization of the theory in contemporary times) and Nicholas Rescher.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Criteria of truth
In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims.
They are tools of verification. Understanding a philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy.
This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own.
An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.
The criteria listed represent those most commonly used by scholars and the general public. Jonathan Dolhenty states there seem to be only three functional, effective tests of truth. He lists these as the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth.
The opinions of those with significant experience, highly trained or possessing an advanced degree are often considered a form of proof.
Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth.
A person may not simply declare themselves an authority, but rather must be properly qualified. Despite the wide respect given to expert testimony, it is not an infallible criterion. For example, multiple authorities may conflict in their claims and conclusions.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
They are tools of verification. Understanding a philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy.
This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own.
An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable.
The criteria listed represent those most commonly used by scholars and the general public. Jonathan Dolhenty states there seem to be only three functional, effective tests of truth. He lists these as the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth.
The opinions of those with significant experience, highly trained or possessing an advanced degree are often considered a form of proof.
Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth.
A person may not simply declare themselves an authority, but rather must be properly qualified. Despite the wide respect given to expert testimony, it is not an infallible criterion. For example, multiple authorities may conflict in their claims and conclusions.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Value problem
We generally assume that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. If so, what is the explanation? A formulation of the value problem in epistemology first occurs in Plato's Meno. Socrates points out to Meno that a man who knew the way to Larissa could lead others there correctly.
But so, too, could a man who had true beliefs about how to get there, even if he had not gone there or had any knowledge of Larissa. Socrates says that it seems that both knowledge and true opinion can guide action.
Meno then wonders why knowledge is valued more than true belief and why knowledge and true belief are different. Socrates responds that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief because it is tethered or justified. Justification, or working out the reason for a true belief, locks down true belief.[28]
The problem is to identify what (if anything) makes knowledge more valuable than mere true belief, or that makes knowledge more valuable than a more minimal conjunction of its components, such as justification, safety, sensitivity, statistical likelihood, and anti-Gettier conditions, on a particular analysis of knowledge that conceives of knowledge as divided into components (to which knowledge-first epistemological theories, which posit knowledge as fundamental, are notable exceptions).[29]
The value problem re-emerged in the philosophical literature on epistemology in the twenty-first century following the rise of virtue epistemology in the 1980s, partly because of the obvious link to the concept of value in ethics.[30]
The value problem has been presented as an argument against epistemic reliabilism by philosophers including Linda Zagzebski, Wayne Riggs and Richard Swinburne. Zagzebski analogizes the value of knowledge to the value of espresso produced by an espresso maker: "The liquid in this cup is not improved by the fact that it comes from a reliable espresso maker. If the espresso tastes good, it makes no difference if it comes from an unreliable machine."[31]
For Zagzebski, the value of knowledge deflates to the value of mere true belief. She assumes that reliability in itself has no value or disvalue, but Goldman and Olsson disagree.
They point out that Zagzebski's conclusion rests on the assumption of veritism: all that matters is the acquisition of true belief.
To the contrary, they argue that a reliable process for acquiring a true belief adds value to the mere true belief by making it more likely that future beliefs of a similar kind will be true.
By analogy, having a reliable espresso maker that produced a good cup of espresso would be more valuable than having an unreliable one that luckily produced a good cup because the reliable one would more likely produce good future cups compared to the unreliable one.
The value problem is important to assessing the adequacy of theories of knowledge that conceive of knowledge as consisting of true belief and other components.
According to Kvanvig, an adequate account of knowledge should resist counterexamples and allow an explanation of the value of knowledge over mere true belief. Should a theory of knowledge fail to do so, it would prove inadequate.
One of the more influential responses to the problem is that knowledge is not particularly valuable and is not what ought to be the main focus of epistemology. Instead, epistemologists ought to focus on other mental states, such as understanding.
Advocates of virtue epistemology have argued that the value of knowledge comes from an internal relationship between the knower and the mental state of believing
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
But so, too, could a man who had true beliefs about how to get there, even if he had not gone there or had any knowledge of Larissa. Socrates says that it seems that both knowledge and true opinion can guide action.
Meno then wonders why knowledge is valued more than true belief and why knowledge and true belief are different. Socrates responds that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief because it is tethered or justified. Justification, or working out the reason for a true belief, locks down true belief.[28]
The problem is to identify what (if anything) makes knowledge more valuable than mere true belief, or that makes knowledge more valuable than a more minimal conjunction of its components, such as justification, safety, sensitivity, statistical likelihood, and anti-Gettier conditions, on a particular analysis of knowledge that conceives of knowledge as divided into components (to which knowledge-first epistemological theories, which posit knowledge as fundamental, are notable exceptions).[29]
The value problem re-emerged in the philosophical literature on epistemology in the twenty-first century following the rise of virtue epistemology in the 1980s, partly because of the obvious link to the concept of value in ethics.[30]
The value problem has been presented as an argument against epistemic reliabilism by philosophers including Linda Zagzebski, Wayne Riggs and Richard Swinburne. Zagzebski analogizes the value of knowledge to the value of espresso produced by an espresso maker: "The liquid in this cup is not improved by the fact that it comes from a reliable espresso maker. If the espresso tastes good, it makes no difference if it comes from an unreliable machine."[31]
For Zagzebski, the value of knowledge deflates to the value of mere true belief. She assumes that reliability in itself has no value or disvalue, but Goldman and Olsson disagree.
They point out that Zagzebski's conclusion rests on the assumption of veritism: all that matters is the acquisition of true belief.
To the contrary, they argue that a reliable process for acquiring a true belief adds value to the mere true belief by making it more likely that future beliefs of a similar kind will be true.
By analogy, having a reliable espresso maker that produced a good cup of espresso would be more valuable than having an unreliable one that luckily produced a good cup because the reliable one would more likely produce good future cups compared to the unreliable one.
The value problem is important to assessing the adequacy of theories of knowledge that conceive of knowledge as consisting of true belief and other components.
According to Kvanvig, an adequate account of knowledge should resist counterexamples and allow an explanation of the value of knowledge over mere true belief. Should a theory of knowledge fail to do so, it would prove inadequate.
One of the more influential responses to the problem is that knowledge is not particularly valuable and is not what ought to be the main focus of epistemology. Instead, epistemologists ought to focus on other mental states, such as understanding.
Advocates of virtue epistemology have argued that the value of knowledge comes from an internal relationship between the knower and the mental state of believing
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.
Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Philosophical methodology
Philosophical method is the study of how to do philosophy. A common view among philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the ways that philosophers follow in addressing philosophical questions. There is not just one method that philosophers use to answer philosophical questions.
Systematic philosophy attempts to provide a framework in reason that can explain all questions and problems related to human life.
Examples of systematic philosophers include Plato,[1] Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel. In many ways, any attempts to formulate a philosophical method that provides the ultimate constituents of reality, a metaphysics, can be considered systematic philosophy.
In modern philosophy the reaction to systematic philosophy began with Kierkegaard and continued in various forms through analytic philosophy, existentialism, hermeneutics, and deconstructionism.
Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow (and discuss when discussing philosophical method) include:
Methodic doubt - a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs.
Argument - provide an argument or several arguments supporting the solution.
Dialectic - present the solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help them judge their own.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Systematic philosophy attempts to provide a framework in reason that can explain all questions and problems related to human life.
Examples of systematic philosophers include Plato,[1] Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel. In many ways, any attempts to formulate a philosophical method that provides the ultimate constituents of reality, a metaphysics, can be considered systematic philosophy.
In modern philosophy the reaction to systematic philosophy began with Kierkegaard and continued in various forms through analytic philosophy, existentialism, hermeneutics, and deconstructionism.
Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow (and discuss when discussing philosophical method) include:
Methodic doubt - a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs.
Argument - provide an argument or several arguments supporting the solution.
Dialectic - present the solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and help them judge their own.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Axiology
Axiology is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1], philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908
Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony." Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's science of value.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony." Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's science of value.
Join the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/
Illuminati symbols https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/symbols-signs-illuminati.html
History of the Illuminati https://www.howtojoinilluminati.co.za/history-of-illuminati.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)