The Importance Of Justification For Objective Knowledge

Improved Essays
Humans contain a deep yearning for knowledge. Given that the previous sentence is merely an assertion with no justification, there is no need for one to believe me – it may be true, but until that is justified and found to be true, it is nothing beyond a belief. Prior to a proposition’s justification, one should not be infer that it is knowledge. Justification for objective knowledge can be divided into two categories: a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments. These categories take many names; a posteriori is similar to empirical arguments, which are defined as observational proof. A priori arguments line up with rationalism: proof by definitions and reason. In this paper, empirical and rational routes to discovering the existence of objective …show more content…
Empirical arguments state that truths are grounded in sensory experience. It can be inferred that things exist, simply because we observe them. For a proposition to be considered true, it must line up with reality; and for there to be objective truths, there must be an objective reality. There is no point in debating the fact of this, as one would simply be debating with his or her own self in his or her own reality. The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon. A doubt in the existence of God is a mere pebble in the universe of beliefs. Just because the option of no universal truth could be true, does not show that it is true or even that it is rational to believe …show more content…
Given that these properties exist, there must be sufficient reason for the existence, which leads us to rationalism as an argument. In geometry, proofs consist of conditional statements leading up to a truth; however, these are based on a pre-supposed definition. From a rationalistic point of view, making assertions about the universe, there is not initial pre-supposed truth on which to base statements – it comes down to a debate of opinion. Rationalism would point to reason as that pre-supposed truth. People rely on their own foundational convictions without external proof. Scientists point to science, Christians point to Christ – there is no proof outside the presupposition that the claim is true. Science relies on consistency in the universe for its laws to remain true, which presupposes that the universe is constant. All the core disciplines rely on strikingly similar ideals. For mathematicians, x=x. For physicists, m=m. For philosophers then, there must be an absolute of knowledge too, if they are to reason as scientists do. These facts are innate knowledge, as no person has ever been taught that an object is universal. Object permanence, an ability to understand consistency of volume or existence despite changes in container or location, comes in the first few years of life. This idea is not taught, but comes with the formulation of neuron connections in the brain,

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    If induction cannot take reliability as a definition because a method cannot be defined as reliable by definition, deduction must not be seen as reliable by definition as well, because deduction should also be treated as a methodology and same as induction. What is the difference between deduction and induction that makes deduction automatically true and we need to prove the reliability of induction to use it? Ideally, we also need to prove the legitimacy of the deduction before using it as a reliable way. We normally don’t do that. Someone may say that deduction is true by logic.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Cosmological Argument

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The first opposition he brings upon the cosmological argument is that “Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary applies a contradiction.” This opposing argument says that if we conceive something to exist, we also conceive that thing to not exist; and there is no bring in which its existence implies a contradiction. If this is the case, then there is no being thats existence proves to be necessary. Cleanthes also asks “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity?” (Cleanthes, First Philosophy, pg.80.) This argument is bringing to light the question of whether or not we can assume we know God’s properties, if we in fact cannot settle on exactly what the philosopher 's God can or cannot do. There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss.…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Also, since knowledge consciously derived from the senses can be the cause of illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable. He does not trust his senses as they can sometimes deceive us and as he says himself, “it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once” As a result, Descartes deduced that a correct pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality. Descartes developed a method to attain truths according to which nothing that cannot be recognised by the intellect can be classified as knowledge. These truths are gained without any sensory experience, according to Descartes. Truths that are attained by reason are to be broken down into elements which intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about reality.…

    • 1549 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially. A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This doesn’t mean that we have been given knowledge though as “universal consent proves nothing innate” because nothing is or will ever be universally agreed upon just as there is no one person is the same as another (Locke B). Innate ideas are created by people to try to explain how we know some things, but the problem is that if someone disagrees with that innate idea then it 's not true because for it to be true everyone has to agree upon the idea. That is the stipulation with innate ideas they have to be the same for everyone for it to be true. So how do you obtain knowledge, subjectively that’s how. Since it would nearly be impossible to have everyone agree on one thing to be innately acquired or to say all that is out there is what you can see if you combine the two ways and allow for some kind of give and take then it would be more plausible.…

    • 1156 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    McCloskey makes the following statement challenging this argument, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being.” (2) There is definitely a reason for our universe and why it is the way it is. Evans and Manis make a valid point when they say that there appears to be no natural reason why our universe exists versus nothing existing. Many of the items in our universe are contingent meaning that they exist but they do not necessarily have to exist. When this is taken into consideration then it leads one to wonder what purpose those items have for existing at all. “Contingent beings require a necessary being as their ultimate cause.” (3) There are several objections to this theory.…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    George Berkeley argues that an objective reality does not exist. He argues for idealism, the belief that the external world does not exist and only the mind and ideas do, by arguing against materialism, that an objective reality does exist. Berkeley believes that an objective reality does not exist because of issues that come with materialism. However, his points do not make much sense as he relies on faulty ideas. He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Based upon these basic principles, Nietzsche saw that at face value, there would not be absolute truths, because there would not be anything outside of one’s own experience, and reality would be limited to the finite interpretation of the human mind. With this idea, he threw out the existence of God, since he is described as an infinite and absolute being, and any other types of absolute truth that could infer out of perspective knowledge. However, Nietzsche’s view of relativism is flawed because of the fact that if a person does not understand a concept or has no current proof of something does not make it false or…

    • 772 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics