Logical Paradoxes. Epistemology. Philosophical study of knowledge The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances.
Separate branches of epistemology focus on knowledge in specific fields, like scientific, mathematical, moral, and religious knowledge. Naturalized epistemology relies on empirical methods and discoveries, whereas formal epistemology uses formal tools from logic. Epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs. . Major schools of thought [edit] Skepticism and fallibilism.
Homonym. Der Begriff Homonymie ist ein Gegenbegriff zum Begriff der Synonymie: bei der Homonymie steht derselbe sprachliche Ausdruck für verschiedene Begriffe, bei der Synonymie stehen verschiedene sprachliche Ausdrücke für denselben Begriff. Begriff[Bearbeiten] Etymologie[Bearbeiten] Zu Homonym gehört das Adjektiv homonym. Etymologie: altgriechisch ὁμώνυμος homónymos, aus ὁμοῖος homoios „gleich“ und ὄνυμα/ὄνομα ónyma/ónoma „Name“. Zu Äquivokation gehört das Adjektiv äquivok. Mehrdeutigkeit[Bearbeiten] Klassisch spricht man von Homonymie in lexikalischer Hinsicht[2]. Der Begriff der Homonymie ist mehrdeutig. Klassisch wird die Homonymie der Polysemie entgegengesetzt. . [1] Homonymie als Gegenbegriff zu Polysemie; [2) Homonymie als Oberbegriff für Polysemie und Homonymie im Sinne von [1]; [3] Homonymie als Sonderfall/Unterbegriff der Polysemie. Dies macht die Unterscheidung zwischen Homonymie und Polysemie "unsicher"[8] und zufällig. Homonymie, Homographie, Homophonie[Bearbeiten] Homographie[Bearbeiten]
Philosophy Wiki. Anders Transhuman Page. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Selbsterfahrungen, by Marc Aurel. Western Philosophy. Philosophy since the Enlightenment, by Roger Jones. The Münchhausen Trilemma, the First Cause and the Infinite Regress. This is yet another topic that I have put off for far to long. Initially, I wanted to make a youtube video on the topic, but it never came to be, so here it comes in written form, which is probably better anyway. It's going to be a long ride, please bear with me. The Starting Point One favourite argument of First Cause proponents is a reductio ad absurdum of the opposite.
The argument works something like this: Every event has a cause.An infinite regress of causes leads to an absurd result.Therefore, there had to have been a First Cause. The Reductio In General A reductio ad absurdum is, of course, a valid form of argument - some go so far as to say that it's the queen of arguments. This is not at all far-fetched or highly philosophical. It's a way to rule out impossibilities - the Sherlock Holmes way of excluding impossible options so you can focus on those that are indeed realistic.
The Premises "Every Event Has a Cause" Can we agree that every event is caused by something else? Ah-ha! Words. You cannot fully describe a glass. Go ahead, try it! You can describe how it looks, how it feels. You can, at least theoretically, describe its history, who created it and when, who drank from it. You can describe its length, width, height, temperature, refraction rate, transparency, and a gazillion other factors. And yet, you haven't fully described it. You cannot describe every last atom in it, along with its exact path through time and space. And even if you could - if you excuse, for a moment, the little dabbling in quantum mechanics here - as it seems, it might not only be practically impossible to describe a thing to its end, but also hypothetically impossible at the most fundamental level of the universe.
In short, we're all pathetic little hypocrites. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.