Philosophical concepts

By Mashell Chapeyama

University of the People

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (2010-2014)
Truth and knowledge

People have various ways in which they look at things. Some think in ways that are good and others in ways that are bad. Some people look at things differently from others. But who really knows what is true and what is real. Some people stay in the darkness for a long time without have the true knowledge. This essay explores how Socrates looked at things and his beliefs and perception as compared to how Voltaire looked at life. This is a summary of what was captured in Apology, allegory of the cave and the Good Brahmin. These stories have good implication on the essence of philosophy in life. What is philosophy and how should we consider it? In short, these essays talk about enlightenment, which is a process whereby a person comes to know the truth as opposed to being ignorant.
Socrates’ views of life are shown in the stories of Apology and allegory of the Cave. The main one that shows Socrates’ ideas is that of the allegory of the caves, which will be explained briefly in this essay. In the allegory of the cave there is a tantalizing scenario. The scenario is as follows. It is shown in a state of things that a young person has been in. The scenario is like that of a person who was born and ever since his youth hood was placed in a cave. In this cave there is no light. This person is chained there in that he is not able to turn even his head to see what is around. The person looks in one direction. In the direction in which he looks there are shadows that come from the reflection of the sun. The sun is outside and only shadows of the things that are moving outside are shown in the cave. There are things roaming outside and their shadows are seen from inside. For a person who has been in the cave for a long time he has been accustomed to see these shadows and his views of life are based on these shadows rather than on reality. In the scenario it is shown that one day this person who has been in the cave for a long time had the chance to go outside after a long struggle to do so. As he reaches at the mouth of the cave he observed light intensifying trickling in. He goes outside. Once outside, since he is not used to light he is dimmed of what is there. After he gets accustomed to that he starts to see the real things whose shadows where only reflected into the cave. This person is now face to face with reality rather than shadows. After some time this enlightened person returns into the cave. He teaches other people who had never been outside about the reality or truth of the situation out there. Most of the people who had not been outside could not believe him and could even condemn him. In other words, the person who was once a prisoner in the cave realizes that there was only illusion in the cave. His duty is teaching others the reality. His story illustrates that a person without knowledge is like a person who had been perpetually imprisoned, since birth. To Socrates, the cave is the prison of the soul. In this case Socrates is talking about certain type of knowledge termed philosophy and that is knowledge gained from mathematics and reason. He talks about divine knowledge that brings enlightenment. In order to access divine knowledge one has to be committed a lot and it requires serious time of reflection or meditation. That knowledge gained through sheer pain and hard work is philosophy and it is not easily accessible to everyone. In both the allegory of the cave and the apology Socrates is talking about the need for enlightenment or the truth, the reality. Philosophy is a way leading to truth or enlightenment. Without philosophy one is neither truly enlightened nor free. For us to gain enlightenment we should start from what is inside us. We should go on and get divine wisdom.
On the other hand the story of Good Brahmin by Voltaire has a lot of lessons for us all. In this discussion Voltaire starts to talk about how to achieve happiness. Happiness comes more naturally to most people when they are ignorant. The knowledge people have may make them not happy at all. When people know about the details of what is going on in the world around us they become unhappy. This is so because there is a lot of an evil around, there is a lot of injustice and unfairness going on. If a person does not have ample knowledge of the truth around him he is a happy person. Some of the truth hurts. On the other hand for a person to be truly enlightened he has to give away his innocence. This means that a person has to question a lot of what he would have learnt from his childhood. From childhood a person is sometimes taught a lot of things that are not true, hence the need to seek enlightenment later in life. Seeking this enlightenment is what philosophy is about. With enlightenment a person is able to be responsible in his life. He learns to be truthful with one self as well as to be realistic. Such a person puts his life under control and truly chooses what is best for him and how best to live. For Voltaire the best way to achieve happiness is to pursue the wishes of one’s heart diligently. This requires true knowledge.
The stories of Socrates and his perception have something in common with the perceptions of Voltaire. These two people tell us that there is need for any person to attain the truth and acquire the accurate knowledge. Truth can only be achieved through self-reflection, attainment of divine knowledge and come to terms with reality. That is what philosophy is about. When you philosophize you attain the truth, you come to know reality and try to live by it. My attitude is that the truth must be known. It may hurt to have the truth, but our decisions, our lives and our attitude in life must be influence by the truth or reality. We therefore need time to reflect on what is truthful and real in our lives. Yes, at times it is a tiring and a dangerous process to attain truth. I have tried to learn as much as possible to come to understand the reality. We also need to question our assumptions, our knowledge and our beliefs in a more realistic way.
In conclusion, both Socrates and Voltaire have something in common, in that they advocate for the truth and reality. They equally believe that there is a price to that as well. In the same vein I believe that coming to know the truth is essential in life although it may involve the pain of seeking reality.
Reference

Philosophy Bro: Plato's "Apology": A Summary http://www.philosophybro.com/2012/05/platos-apology-summary.html Apology: Novel Summary Study Guide| Novelguide http://www.novelguide.com/apology/novel-summary Apology - CliffsNotes http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/e/euthyphro-apology-crito-and-phaedo/summary-and-ana... The Apology: Socrates' Defense - Ancient Greece http://www.ancientgreece.com/essay/v/the_apology_socrates_defense/ Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) - The Basics of Philosophy http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_voltaire.html English 233: Study Guide to Voltaire's Candide http://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english287/sg-Voltaire-Candide-detailed.htm Oct 23, 2003.
What Philosophy is and its importance Philosophy is the love of knowledge. According to unexplanainable.net (2004), philosophy is the love of knowledge. Philosophy involves the move and need to unravel answers to certain pressing questions to individuals, to societies or human kind. With philosophy there are a number of things that people seek to understand. Philosophy comes from the need to discover certain things. According to Unexplainable.net (2004), “Philosophy is a process of inquiry, a process of analysis, criticism, interpretation and speculation.” People require knowing why they exist and the nature of existence; they need to understand what reality is and what truth is. Why the do we need philosophy? Philosophy assists us to understand our values in life. These can be values of individuals or organizations in the society. It assists us to analyze our assumptions and knowledge. By discovering one’s own philosophy one can come to understand what he does wrong and what he does right and what’s the way forward. Philosophy can assist people to be happy. If one has some intriguing questions answered that person can become happy in life. It also assists us to be ethical in our approaches hence being able to co-exist with others. Philosophy assists people to know their beliefs and the beliefs of other people. This is vital for co-existence. Hence people can live a satisfying life.
Reference
Philosophy : Indiana University Southeast http://www.ius.edu/philosophy/ STUDYING PHILOSOPHY: A BRIGHT IDEA - SUNY Potsdam http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/AAS/Phil/upload/Why-Study-Philosophy.pdf Socratic Method

Socratic Method is a method of using questions to let people come to understand their positions in life. Questions assist people to self-critical and to be reflective. The Socratic Method was invented by Socrates. He used questions in teaching people to understand themselves and to understand the world around them. Questions expose gaps in people’s knowledge. They make people to discover their errors and correct their assumptions and beliefs. Use of questions can assist people to have a better understanding of things in life. People can come to self-realizations on a number of critical issues. Use of questions assist people to develop analytical skills that are essential in today’s life.
The Socratic Method is very useful in everyday life. It assists people to settle arguments. It assists people to acquire vital knowledge on certain issues. I use this method at the work place. Since I have some subordinates I use questions so that they come to realize certain fundamental things at our place of work. Questions make my subordinates to realize what they are doing wrong at work and what they should do. We also use questions in our religious set up. After reading from the bible and other religious books we ask each other questions. This assist us to understand our religious beliefs better. I also use questions to my children when I want to make them realize their mistakes and how to improve on their performance and actions.
Reference
Socratic Method - What Is the Socratic Method http://lawschool.about.com/od/lawschoolculture/a/socraticmethod.htm Socratic method - Learn NC http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4994 How to Argue Using the Socratic Method (with Pictures) - wikiHow http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Using-the-Socratic-Method Good and morality

Good refers to what is done that makes a person or people happy. Anything that is good is beneficial to a person or a group of people. Additionally, something is good when it assists a person or a group of people to meet their goals or their aspirations or desires. By this, it means good is only relative to a person or a group. Something that may be good to other people may not necessarily good to all people. This can be illustrated by the views of religious people. A cult or denomination may view something to be good yet another cult or denomination can see that as bad. Examples of good include giving food to the poor, giving accommodation to the homeless, assisting children to attend school, among others. However, it should be clear that there are things that are universally good. Giving food to the destitute may be considered good by most people.
Reference

Ethics: The Good and The Right - Bill Meacham http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html Right and Good - Doing Ethics - Being Good http://doingethics.com/DEE/dee%20ch1/right.good.htm Entrepreneurship Classroom Activities: ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IS GOOD http://www.entre-ed.org/_teach/ethics.htm Does Morality depend on culture and traditions

There is controversy on morality. Some people believe that morality depends on the culture and tradition of a people; where others believe that morality is universal. Personally, I believe that morality is influenced by a number of factors. One of the factors that influence morality is culture and tradition of a people. This is so because we are sometimes acculturated by the surrounding views. The other factor that influences morality is religion. People are shaped by their religious beliefs and orientation. Religion has got a lot of power. Morality can also be influenced by family upbringing. Some families may not be so bound by culture. Other people’s views on morality may be influenced by education. The education which people receive has a remarkable influence on how people behave. An example of a cultural trait that comes from culture is how to greet people. Some people shake hands when greeting others. Other people see it as good manners to shake people’s hands when greeting. Other cultures do not feel that shaking hands is good. Some cultures do not allow people to talk when they are eating. However, some culture allows people to talk when eating. However there is morality that cuts across the globe. For example, killing a person can never be moral. On the other hand it is highly moral to save life, no matter whichever culture we are talking about. So culture is relative; yet on the other hand there are cultural aspects that universal.
Reference

Ethical Relativism - Santa Clara University http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html Reasoning about Moral Obligations and Interpersonal ... http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/keller/moralobl/Kell_moralobl.pd... Moral Relativism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/ May 30, 2012

What is appealing of Kant’s theory?

Kant’s theory has got some good points. What I have found appealing is his explanation of what is good. According to him what is good is measured by the intention of the person who has acted. What is good is not determined by the results of the action, but the motive of the action. When someone starts to do something he has a reason for that. If the reason for doing something is good then that is moral. In other words the means of doing something must be worthwhile, not the results. For example, if someone spends a day of charity in cleaning at an old person’s home the good is shown in assisting the old people. The intention of doing that which assists the old person is good. Another example is of a person who is critically ill. If a neighbour takes an ill person to the hospital then that is a good intention. However, if the person dies upon reaching the hospital, then still that person has done good, as has been shown by the intention. The end result, which is the death of the person, is not the one which should be considered for judging an action. Kant emphasizes that what a person should do is that which anyone else in the same situation could do to someone anywhere else in the world; and then still the act will be considered good. According to his explanation morality is universal, or morality is absolute. What is good is always good, and what is bad is always bad, irrespective of where it has occurred and around whatever the conditions are available. For Kant killing is just killing and can never be good; even if someone kills another person to save life, such killing cannot be justifiable or taken as good. Lying or stealing for whatever purpose cannot be taken as being good.

Reference

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/CONTENTS.htm
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical way of thinking that emphasize that we should do things that benefit a lot of people. I have made such a decision sometime back. When I joined the company that I work for the welfare of employees was very low. There were no recreational facilities at the company. This was due to the fact that the company was facing some financial problems. There were no sporting activities and recreational facilities. I decided to invest the money from my salary to sponsor such activities. I started off by investing my money into some projects. The projects then yielded more money. We used this money to fund some recreational facilities for the employees. We started by having a vegetable garden and sold our vegetables at the local market. When we got some money, we started a meat project. We started selling meat and drinks to the local community. The project generated a lot of cash. As a result we started some sporting activities to entertain the employees. We introduced soccer, netball, darts and volleyball. Sometimes we used the money to hire some musical groups to come and perform at our place of work. That was a big relief for the workers. My main reason for doing that has been to make the people happy. They had to have something to entertain them. That assisted to improve the place where we stay. When I look back I really feel that what I did was very good. Now people thank me for that effort. That effort was ethical because I did it for the good of others. There have been no bad effects that came out of it.
Does any consequence make an action right? Why

I do not think that the consequence can justify the goodness of an action. There are good things that come from bad actions. However if the action is good and the consequence is good then that is moral. However if the act is bad and the consequence is good then that is not ethical enough. A bad deed that leads to a good consequence is not justifiable. Such an act can lead to revenge. For example if your brother has been killed by someone and you in turn kill the person who kills your brother, could that be good? Not at all. I prefer an act that is good that leads to a consequence that is good. If we look at the consequence alone we can get lost. An example would be of plagiarism; if a student produces an excellent essay through plagiarism that is bad. In this case we cannot just look at the end result but at the process. Another example is that of a person who steals from a rich person to donate the proceeds to a poor person. Would that ever be good? Not at all. To me a good act can only lead to a good end. A good end that comes from a bad act is not justifiable to be good.
Reference
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/CONTENTS.htm
Nietzsche’s theory

There is something that I have found discouraging about Nietzsche’s theory. Nietzsche says that whatever human beings do, even if it appears to be an act of good, in assisting other people is never truly for the need to help such person, but there is a selfish reason for doing that. He contends that nothing can be done by a person for the sake of helping others. He believed that people are hundred percent egocentric. According to him, if a person has shown some care and consideration towards another person, there is an underlying selfish reason for doing that. Such a person has got something to benefit from such an act. I find this explanation disgusting. Nietzsche has generalized this issue too much. I have seen people doing things that are truly unselfish. Some human beings do things for the sole purpose of assisting others, even when they put their lives in danger. An example is what occurs, if a fire breaks at the neighbour’s house; the people around that house come up together to put out the fire, even if doing so can be dangerous. There is no selfish motive. Such people do so to save the lives and properties of the people next door. Another example is when some people get involved in a road accident. Let us say a bus veered off the road and overturned. People around the place come to assist the injured people, even if they do not know the people on the bus. In this case there is no tangible evidence that those who assist the victims of the accident have got a selfish motive. People sometimes assist others for the sake of assisting them and saving life. I feel the explanation of Nietzsche must be amended; at least there are some exceptions.
Reference
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/CONTENTS.htm
“What is real only includes what I can see, smell, taste, touch or hear. It is made from the things we call physical substances, or matter, including the atomic and sub-atomic” I disagree with this assertion. The above assertion only points to the fact that what is real are things which we can feel or which we can sense. We have the five senses; those of feeling, touch, taste, sight and smell. To me reality is much more than what we can sense. There are things which we may sense which are real. If we look at social sciences, it has unveiled a number of factors or realities which cannot be sensed. Examples are those of qualities that people do have. It is real that there is anger, there is stress, there is love, and there joy and pleasure, but we cannot see these things. Reality is broader than that which we sense. It is a reality that there is a supernatural being that made things to exist. The fact that we cannot see or touch the super being does not me he/she does not exist. That is why there is the discussion of reality1, reality2 and reality three, these all point to the diversity of what reality encompasses. As for physical things that make up reality there are finer details or component of these, such as atoms and sub-atoms that exist. So reality is broader than that which we can sense.

Reference http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ONTOLI.html http://website.com/alan/metamul.htm

What I find discouraging about Plato’s theory of reality

Plato’s theory has something that is disgusting. Plato asserted that what is reality are ideas. These are ideas of the ideal. Plato asserted that outside ideas there is nothing that is real. His point is that the environment has times when it changes. Some mountains can have some volcanic eruptions, hence they can change. This change in physical structures meant that there was nothing real about it. However Plato emphasized that ideas can never change. For example if someone believes in the Supreme Being, God, that idea of his can never change, hence it stands out as the reality. Another example could be of ideas such as that stealing is evil. Such an idea is found among many people, now, in the past and in the future, hence it stands out as reality. Another example could be that love and forgiveness are ideals of a happy family. To Plato such beliefs or ideas represent reality. However I disagree with such notion. Things such as trees, forests, seas, mountains and the sun and moon are real, and stand out as reality. The sun can never change and it stands as reality, as opposed to Plato’s belief that reality is only found as ideas. The human being himself is physical and hence he is real, as opposed to the idea of Plato.

Reference

http://www.websyte.com/alan/contrast.htm

James William

James Williams was a pragmatist. He believed in actions. James believed that what we experience and believe in is based on what we experience. What meanings we give to words and action is based on the context. So nothing means the same to everyone. How one interprets issues depends on the person’s background and experience. I agree with this notion of James William. According to James what is practical is that which assists us to solve our problems in the world or area in which we live. What is practical therefore depends on the perspectives, experience and ideas of each individual. Meanings of things depend on each individual. So according to him, reality varies according to people. Reality is that which we can use and understand and believe in. These notions of James, makes me appreciate his philosophical standing. What James has talked about seem real and meaningful to me. He talked of the tough-minded individuals and the tender-minded ones. He clearly asserted that most people belong to the ground that half way between these two extremes. He in other words alludes to the idea of average.

Reference http://www.newadvet.org/cathen/12333b.htm http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/social/sciences/ppecorino/roak-textbook/chapter-12.htm

Existentialism and its facets
There are many philosophies that people use in their lives. Some of the ways of thinking are linked to some prominent people. There is idealism, naturalism, experimentalism, and existentialism among others. This essay explores existentialism, which has been postulated by Sartre among others. The other proponents of existentialism include Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, martin Buber, Martin Heidegger and Martin Buber. The weakness and strengths of existentialism are going to be discussed in this essay. The main facets of existentialism that are going to be discussed include the following: authenticity, existence precedes essence, being and nothingness, being-in-itself, being-for-itself and man being condemned to be free. The basic issues discussed by existentialists also include; anxiety, death, alienation, despair, forlornness, anguish, quietism and abandonment among other aspects that distinguish existentialism from other philosophies.
Existentialism focuses on the subjective views and experiences on individuals as the sources of truth and reality for them. Existentialism has its base on how each individual person interprets the world around him/her. The individual has the freedom to do what he/she wants to do as long as such a person is liable for the consequences of his/hers. As a result, the individuals dictate his truth, his reality or what he believes is good or bad. This is against the other philosophies that relate what is good on laws and rules, norms and mores of the society. In existentialism there is no God or the Supreme Being who has influence on the individuals. So, this philosophy emphasizes the uniqueness of each individual. In order to further understand existentialism it is wise to look at some of its themes
According to existentialists existence precedes essence. This means that we do not have the purpose to live for that has been predetermined by anyone. The purpose of our living is not decided by God or the ancestors. What we do and who we are is determined by ourselves. Each individual is responsible of making his life, his future and his essence. We are free to determine how we live. We should not be tied to the views and dictates of the society in which we live. We make who we are by the choices we make on a day to day basis. We are responsible for coming up with our own values. There is no a predetermined value system, a value system created by the society or religion. What we do is what we value. We are not like equipment that is made for a particular or special reason. A knife is made to cut; but we are not made for any particular purpose. We determine the purpose for our lives. Another aspect is that of facticity. This means that, we, as individuals have not chosen to be borne and live the way we do. We have been made to live on this earth not through our own choices. The other aspect is that of anxiety. This facet says that we do not have an established reason for existence, what we do depends on our individual choices. So we choose our values as well as how we want to live our lives. The issue of despair means that we live in a world which we have no control over. What happens in the world we live we have no control on. One example could be that of climate change. We no longer have control over it. Some natural disasters that happen cannot be controlled by us. The concept of authenticity means that we must live according to the choices that we make not the choices other people force us to make. We must be completely free to do what we want. However, for these choices we must have hundred percent responsibilities over. We must accept whatever results that comes from our choices. Forlornness relates to the idea that is held by all existentialists that God does not exist. We live in a world where no other super force exists. What happens to each one of us is due to our actions.
Criticisms of existentialism
The major criticisms of existentialisms relate to the following aspect: quietism, pessimism, pure subjectivity and moral relativity. Quietism is the view that there are some things an individual cannot do and these must be done by other people. If you think that you have some things that you cannot do why worry about it, other people will do that. Such an attitude cannot lead to people to improve themselves. The view that there is no God or afterlife gives people a certain amount of pessimism in living. With existentialism there is a lot of subjectivism. What is good to one person let it happen. This leads us to have no value system in the society or in the world. This may lead to conflict points. Another problem is that of individualism. Existentialism emphasizes individualism and does not encourage group systems and values. Each individual must do what is good for him/her. This may kill the spirit of community and team work. The other criticism is that the principles of existentialism are difficult to implement in real life. Human beings are gregarious creatures that value love from others. The idea that there is no God cannot be acceptable to religious people and if we look in the world most people are religious in one way or the other. The notion of existentialism encourages selfishness.
Advantages of existentialism
There are also other facets of existentialism that are good. Existentialism encourages the concept of responsibility. Each individual must be responsible for his/her actions. It is not an ideology that encourages freedom without responsibility. If you decide to kill another person you will face the consequence of being shunned by other people. Hence you have to be responsible for such likely outcome. The concept of freedom has been there with the human race. This philosophy encourages that freedom must be given to other people. So the ideology encourages the idea of self-actualization. Each person must be given the opportunity to be what he/she could become.
What is appealing about existentialism?

The major thing I like about existentialism is that we should give all people freedom to be what they can be. We must give everyone the room to freely choose what they want to do as long as they do not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of other people in a negative way. This idea of freedom leads me to think about political democracy. People must freely choose those who should govern them. If true democracy is given to citizens of the world or of each country, I am sure that there would be low incidences of wars. With democratic principles being applied the world would be a pleasing and safer place to be. Democracy can also be applied at the work place. The parents can also give their children the leeway to choose what they want to do and to be.
What is discouraging about this theory?

The most disgusting thing to me is the idea that there is no God. I cannot image a world without a creator. If I look at the heavens at night, when I look at the sprawling sea and the birds and animals, this theory that there is no God is disgusting. Without the reality of a God and a future and better life, then the meaning of life disappears and despair even becomes worse.
In conclusion it is important to think critically about existentialism. It is important because it points out to some of the yearnings of humanity. There are a lot of things we learn from existentialisms, as much as we learn a lot from realism, pragmatism, idealism and empiricism. Existential philosophy has offered a lot of insights in what humanity could be and what we as individuals should do to create a better tomorrow and a better world.

Reference

Sartre-JanMills.doc http://pages.uoregon.edu/munno/OregonCourses/REL408W03/REL408TongSummaries/Sartre-JanMills... Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre Walter Kaufmann 1956 http://www.scribd.com/doc/23731093/Existentialism-From-Dostoevsky-to-Sartre-Walter-Kaufman... Dec 6, 2009 ...

Documentary on the life of Jean Paul Sartre : The Road to Freedom ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMCZKDgL04 Jul 26, 2012 ...

SparkNotes: Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980): Context http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sartre/context.html How Jean-Paul Sartre's Existential Angst Got the Better of Him - The ... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/28/how-jean-paul-sartre-s-existential-angst-... Jun 28, 2013 ...

A student's guide to Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism http://philosophynow.org/issues/15/A_students_guide_to_Jean-Paul_Sartres_Existentialism_an... Notes on Existentialism Pt. 1 - Beams and Struts http://www.beamsandstruts.com/bits-a-pieces/item/916-notes-on-existentialism May 11, 2012 ...

The Advantages, Shortcomings, and Existential Issues of ... - Springer http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11466-010-0011-8.pdf Cognitive-Behavioral and Existential PhenomenologicalApproaches ... http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1516/1/Cognitive-existential.pdf Rationalism
Rationalism is a philosophy that contrasts empiricism. Rationalism is the philosophy that says that knowledge comes from the process of reasoning. Rationalists believe that when a person is born his mind has got innate knowledge. The child is born with a lot of knowledge. Some rationalists call it priori, meaning that knowledge comes before experiences. Empiricists say that knowledge comes as a result of experience. For rationalists knowledge is a result of inductive reasoning. For the rationalists it means that there is absolute reality that people are born with. There are examples of rules and laws these are not arrived at through senses but through reasoning. This view holds some water. It does not appear meaningful that knowledge is as a result of experience only. For, example when a baby is born, it is able to do some things such as crying or smiling. At times the baby would not have heard anyone crying before. So we have knowledge which babies have from birth.
One of the strengths of rationalism is based on the fact that at birth some babies are able to do a lot of things. They can move their hands, their eyes and even smile. This is due to possible innate knowledge. The second strength is that there are things that we cannot experience which we come to know about. Human beings can be creative, not based on senses. One problem of rationalism is the failure to agree that there is knowledge we learn through experience. For example if a child puts a finger on the fire he knows that the fire is hot. The idea of hotness is usually got through experience. So rationalism fails to give reason and explanation for some essential things in life. Rationalists have problem to explain the nature of the outside world.

Reference

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%205%20Epistemology/CONTENTS.htm
Truth

There is a big question that hounds most of us from time back. This big question is: what is truth? People have got diverse ways of viewing what truth is. This is why there many religious beliefs as well as many cultural beliefs. There are also a number of various philosophical perspectives on what truth is; for example there is the coherence theory, the pragmatist theory as well as the correspondence perspectives of truth. This discussion will focus on the correspondence and the coherence theories of truth.
One of the dominating theories of truth is the correspondence one. This theory contends that what is truth is based on the prevailing beliefs. According to the correspondence theory of truth, what is the truth is that which corresponds with what really is on the ground and what really the people see happening. Truth is that which conforms to the major beliefs and facts that are on the ground. Truth is what things are really on the ground or in practice. This is based on observations.
According to this theory there is what is called a fact; this is the reality. So the truth is the beliefs that conform to what things are. For example if someone things that it would rain in the afternoon on a particular day and it rained later on the presupposed time, then that is the reality, that is the truth. A belief that does not correspond with the reality is said to be false. What we compare with as the reality is the complex system of beliefs that exist at the time. Some say that reality is made of things and facts that can be verified. In this case the correspondence theory relates to empiricism.
Strengths and weaknesses of correspondence theory

One of the strength is that the correspondence theory is simple and a lot of people believe in it. The second issue is that the correspondence theory relies on what is greatly viewed as real by the majority and that which can be verifiable. However this is where one of the weaknesses emerges. What is accepted by many people as the truth may not really be true. What is true does not depend on voting. If there are ten people and six people say 2 plus 5 is equal to 10; could such an answer be correct? Not at all. One of the weaknesses is that there are some things which we cannot see which we try to find the truth about. Many people believe that there is God, but that cannot be verified. We cannot verify the existence of God through direct observation. So there are many things for which we may not have an experience of. There all also some very small things that exist which we cannot verify, yet they do exist.
What is discouraging about the coherence theory?

There is something discouraging about the coherence theory. That relates to the definition of the coherence theory. Coherences is about the coherences that exists among the system of beliefs found in a particular area. According to the coherence theory truth is subjective. People evaluate the truthfulness of a belief by relating to other existing beliefs found in that area. What this means is that people in Southern Africa finds something to be true according to their set of beliefs but that can be said to be falsehood by people who are found in Northern Africa. This aspect of subjectivity of truth is very discouraging to me as it relates to the coherence theory. If we talk about God and the existence of the world and the universe we can have different truths. People from another place may believe that the earth came up as a result of creation while others may say the earth came about as a result of evolution. Can these two groups of people have the truth?
What is the difference between genuine knowledge and false knowledge?

This question cannot be easily answered. People have been arguing about this question over the centuries and millennia. I can therefore give my own side of what constitutes the truth. I believe that what constitutes the truth is something that can be scientifically verified. To verify something as true experiments can be carried out. For example to prove that pure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius could require the people to heat the water until it boils and then use a thermometer to test the temperature. Testing is the best way to find the truth. Studying something carefully may lead to getting the truth. Experiencing something can also make us to determine the truth of something. The typical example is that of finding which place is the hottest, the south pole or the North Pole. As a person I need to go to the North Pole and then to the South Pole. After such experience I can then be able to say which is that which is true. The same method is the one that we can use to tell as to which aspect is false. However, there are some things which we cannot see and test which we should determine if they are true or false. How can we then tell if there is God or not. Although we cannot have firsthand experience of the existence of God there are signs that tell us of the existence of God. The whole human creation tells us that there is a creator. However, generally we should get the experience of something to differentiate if it is true or false. First hand and second hand experience or experimentation can assist us.
We have looked at the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence one; however there are other theories of truth. It may be difficult to judge as to which one is the correct theory. At times we can determine the truth by taking clues from all these theories, wherever that is applicable.

Reference

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%205%20Epistemology/CONTENTS.htm

http://digital.films.com/play/A3RNUX

What is philosophy?

Philosophy is a process of human quest to acquire knowledge and truth. It is an n activity that has been undertaken by men of various origins over a long period of time. The notion of philosophy originated in ancient Greece, from the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Philosophy is viewed as a style of thinking for which individuals choose to partake. It is an intellectual activity. When people defined philosophy as a love of wisdom, in this regard wisdom is taken to mean an active use of human intelligence. There are a lot of activities that are undertaken in philosophy. It is undertaken to resolve confusions, clearing and testing assumptions, correcting distortions and questioning activities done by human beings.
Features of philosophy

Features of philosophy include that it is analytical and synthetic; philosophy is both theoretical and practical. It is also logical and empirical. Accordingly philosophy tries to criticise the existence of things such as assumptions, meanings and beliefs among others. It tries to come with some hypotheses for some of the problems facing mankind. It tries to ensure the existence of coherence and consistence in its definitions of issues, meanings of things as well as values. It is synthetic in that it relates all knowledge that people uphold as true with sciences and experiences. It helps to come up with concepts and world views of some phenomena. Philosophy is practical in that it tries to solve some of the problems that human kind faces. It questions some commonsense approaches to human problems. Thus it questions human beliefs, assumptions and presuppositions. So philosophy is speculative.
Strengths and weaknesses

One of the weaknesses is that philosophy is speculative and cannot give definite explanations o things. There are a lot of uncertainties in philosophy. Philosophers come up with speculations and conclusions that relate to their cultures. Hence it means that there is a possibility of many conclusions on the same thing. One of the strengths of philosophy is that it leads to people to self-analyse themselves in terms of beliefs, values and assumptions, they can therefore make necessary changes. Philosophy makes people to achieve self-improvement and actualization. The goal and end result of philosophy is the personal development human capacity or intellect. Philosophy touches on many things that affect human existence. It can also lead to paradigm shifts on thought and beliefs that affect the standard of living of people. More so philosophy assists in solving many of people’s problems and assist people to have meaning in life by examining and understanding critical issues and having critical questions answered.
What is appealing about philosophy?

What I found to be appealing according to Pecorino, (2000) is on the overall aim of philosophy. According to Pecorino philosophy has a goal of developing the people’s intellectual capacity and to assist men to reach their highest possible potential. So philosophy can assist people to attain highest possible self-development. This can be achieved through the following means and ways. Philosophy assists one to reduce ignorance and assists him to understand his environment and himself. It assists people to expand their knowledge as well as to increase their creative capacity. Through philosophy man can learn how best to control his emotions by exploring the value system and establishing new habits. This is something that is very appealing and it is so compelling that I personally wish to pursue philosophy even further.
Reference
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%2012Conclusion/CONTENTS.htm
What is appealing about philosophy?

What I found to be appealing according to Pecorino, (2000) is on the overall aim of philosophy. According to Pecorino philosophy has a goal of developing the people’s intellectual capacity and to assist men to reach their highest possible potential. So philosophy can assist people to attain highest possible self-development. This can be achieved through the following means and ways. Philosophy assists one to reduce ignorance and assists him to understand his environment and himself. It assists people to expand their knowledge as well as to increase their creative capacity. Through philosophy man can learn how best to control his emotions by exploring the value system and establishing new habits. This is something that is very appealing and it is so compelling that I personally wish to pursue philosophy even further.
Reference
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%2012Conclusion/CONTENTS.htm