Why One Would Not Become Skeptic About Knowledge - Essay Example

? Philosophy I. The question regarding you being a self identity remains complicated to answer because there are certainly many observations and definitions which have been studied in past many years. The factor to be noted here is that individual explanations to the question of sameness are given by stating that a person is born with a different personality. By this, it merely means that one has different choice, DNA, soul and physical features. In just a single sentence, all different definitions become clear. However, there are a number of theories which have been proposed to find out the claim against the definitions. Considering my position, I may consider soul to be the ultimate manner of allowing a person to be somewhat same throughout life. The first explanation is somewhat the most common where a person is shown to have a childhood. But it should be noted that this respective person has grown up over the years. This means that the person is not the same anymore. Thus, this clarifies that one cannot be same over the years if experience of living is the manner to claim difference of personality and identity. Secondly, the physical features are also marked to define a person’s identity throughout life but as a matter of fact, even the physical features would change with the passing of years. Thus, even this explanation regarding self proves to e unacceptable. Furthermore, it is the DNA which provides further definition to the concept of being you and sameness of you throughout life. In conjunction to this, it is evident that twins may have same DNA. It is due to this reason that DNA is another unacceptable definition to this question. As noted by the author, “The mystery of personal identity is figuring out how we can solve both the problem of difference and the problem of sameness” (Hales 151). As my personal account this question is soul which makes us same for rest of our lives, it is imperative to make use of Soul Criterion to understand my point regarding you and sameness. As per studies, it has been marked that soul is basically mind-body relationship. Consideration has also been giving to the fact that it is the ethical consciousness of mind which has marked a great impact on answering the question of you and sameness. This clearly means that a person who is unconscious is a person without soul. The critique to my position as per the author is that one cannot simply rely on psychological state of a person, as mind-body relationship reacts to it, can be a way to explain the identity of a person because it may change over the time. As noted in the book, “Nowadays people sometimes equate their soul with their personality, or use soul to refer to the ethical faculty of the mind. Thus a conscious-less psychopath might be called soulless” (Hales 157). Thus, it is extremely important to provide such a statement by undergoing psychological criterion making soul=mind to be ineligible. II. Likewise Hales, I would like to comment for this question. The aspect of knowledge is somewhat blurred in the minds of people. There is a way to spread knowledge which is impartation done by the educational institutions. The criterion of knowledge which is basically being provided in such a manner is mere repeatedly ratified facts and figures which have been gained by experiences and Methodism (Turnbull, Trnbull and Shogren). However, the fact remains that this knowledge which was gained later on, was once used to be incorrect. The measure and acceptance of any fact which is regarded as knowledge, is done in the manner of claimed including true or false. This means that previously it was the fact which was considered to be superficial. I would like to connect this idea with the dialogue from the movie Men in Black which has also been used in the textbook considered for this assignment. It is as follows, “1500 years ago everybody ‘knew’ the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everybody ‘knew’ the Earth was at. And 15 minutes ago you knew’ that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what we’ll ‘know’ tomorrow” (Hales 244). This helps one to understand that our future generates will become aware of facts and fugues, be it descriptive of empirical, that we consider correct to be incorrect. In simpler words, the knowledge which we have now may not be applicable in the future because human experiences will prove that the newer situations and scenarios in the world would be vastly different. It is due to this reason that many people would diverge to the newer understanding of knowledge which is known as skepticism. As noted by the author, “Modest skepticism has been a theme so far……..truth is valuable, we should gain truth and avoid error, and getting some evident is the best way to do so, even if there is debate about how much evident justifies belief. The fun fact about radical skeptics is that just about no one agrees with the skeptical conclusion that knowledge is impossible (Hales 247). However, there are two kinds of skepticism namely radical and modest. Both believe that there is no such thing like true knowledge. This is basically mentioned and understood in reference to understand that knowledge is just a matter of experience. In this way, it becomes rather easier to understand that there is no reason why one would not become skeptic regarding knowledge. Tomorrow the fact that is going to be altered either my Methodism or particularism, will be true for today. This makes people to understand that the aspect of knowledge is extremely complicated to understand and aim for. Notwithstanding, the skepticisms is just another way to keep a balance to the opposing view of knowledge. It can not be considered as incorrect. It is due to this reason that knowledge has been defined among different cycles with application of certain theories. Overall, in my respective view, skepticism is possible and knowledge is variable overtime. Works Cited Hales, S. This Is Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print Turnbull, Al, et al. Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (7th ed.). . Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2013. Print Read More