Logical Paradoxes. Epistemology. A branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge Epistemology (; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and -logy) 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,[1][2] (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? ",[3] "What does it mean to say that we know something? " Etymology[edit] The title of one of the principal works of Fichte is ′Wissenschaftslehre,′ which, after the analogy of technology ... we render epistemology. The idea of epistemology predates the word. 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]. 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. I get to hear it from theists, but of course you don't have to be a theist to put it forward (except in the strict philosophical sense, where god is simply the absolute, not necessarily a person or an intelligence).
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. And yet, we somehow manage to think that, once we have labelled a person as retarded, evil, antisocial, a religious fanatic or an atheist amoral pig, or whatever other label you like to associate with your resentment - that this, then, should be enough to never, ever have to waste another thought on that one person again. In short, we're all pathetic little hypocrites. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.