Category: Epistemology

Introduction

Business researches involve the collection of a variety of information. As a result, the researchers should be familiar with the different frameworks and assumptions that guide their research process. For instance, there is an epistemology framework and the metatheoretical assumption of positivism versus interpretivism that the labeling, realistic group conflict and taking into the community researches have tried to apply.

Epistemological framework

Becker and Niehaves (2007) provide an epistemology framework with an underlying concept of breaking down epistemological questions that are imperative to researches information systems. In this framework, five questions arise and they all concern cognition. The first question is about the meaning of a cognition object from an ontological aspect that analyzes what and how a research object is (Becker & Niehaves, 2007).

According to ontological realism where researchers believe in the real independent world that is free from cognition, there is a possibility of reduction of all entities to matter. On the other hand, in ontological idealism researchers believe that cognition has some reality thus mental entities depend on human consciousness. Lastly, Kantianism researchers attempt to differentiate between ontological realism and idealism thus they assume that both dependent and independent entities exist.

The second question concerns the association between cognition and cognition object (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). The epistemological realism who operates under the same assumption as ontological realism believes that there is a possibility of an objective cognition that is independent of reality. On the contrary, constructivism believes that the subject determines the existence of the association between cognition and cognition object. Additionally, Becker & Niehaves (2007) states that the third question concerns the acquisition of true cognition. According to correspondence truth theory, true proclamations match with facts. However, the consensus truth theory believes that a true declaration is the one accepted by the majority. Furthermore, the semantic truth theory deems that a true situation is different from the object and the language.

The fourth question regards the origin of cognition (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). Empiricism reckons that it comes from experience while rationalism believes that its origin is intellect. Nonetheless, Kantianism believes that cognition comes from a personal experience together with his intellect. Finally, the last question is about the method that an individual can use to acquire cognition (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). To begin with, inductivism assumes that cognition moves from a part to a whole. On the other hand, deductivism deems that cognition is from the whole to a part. Conversely, Hermeneutics believes that prior understanding influences a persons cognition.

The relationship of epistemology framework to Dr. Webers concern

The epistemology framework relates to Dr. Webers concern of metatheoretical assumptions where researchers apply the positivism and interpretivism approaches. In relation to ontology, Dr. Weber states that positivism researchers believe that people and the reality are distinct while interpretivism researchers argue that people cannot be separated from reality.

This assumption is similar to the epistemology framework where ontological realism and idealism researchers portray the same views respectively (Weber, 2004). Additionally, Dr. Weber explains that in epistemology assumption, positivism researchers deem that a persons cognition is far beyond the reality while interpretivism researchers squabble that cognition is through a persons experience. This postulation is analogous to rationalism and empiricism who possess the same beliefs correspondingly.

Moreover, Dr. Weber affirms that positivism researchers reckon that the research object possesses qualities that do not depend on the researcher. However, interpretivism thinks that the research object depends on the researchers experience. Accordingly, in epistemology framework, deductivism and inductivism hold the same assumptions as positivism and interpretivism in that order. Moreover, the correspondence truth theory described in the epistemology framework resembles the same truth theory in the metatheoretical assumption of positivism researchers (Weber, 2004). Additionally, positivism researchers believe that collected data measure the reality and this has a relation to the epistemology framework where the consensus truth theory believes that a true declaration is the one accepted by the majority.

Application of epistemology framework to theoretical explanations

Ashforth & Humphrey (1997) stated that labeling has an imperative impact on an individual, a group and an organization. This is because labeling has an influence on a persons cognition. On the one hand, it results in an individual producing quality service that leads to organization prosperity. On the other hand, it increases the possibility of conflict among employees. In line with the epistemology framework, labeling operates under constructivism, deductivism and consensus truth theory (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997).

According to constructivism, the cognition of a labeled person will determine whether he will assume the behavior associated with that label. In case he ignores the label a conflict can occur. Nonetheless, deductivism believes that the possibility of a person assuming behavior associated with a certain label is very high because the label comes from the majority. To emphasize this, the consensus truth theory believes that a true statement is from the majority. As a result, labeled people always mold their personalities to fit the label because they believe that the label possesses the truth.

When designing an electronic system for use by the community for knowledge dispersion, the community members need to be fully engaged in that process (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This is because these people hold values and beliefs that can make them reject or accept the system. For instance, hermeneutics believe that peoples understanding of a phenomenon is manipulated by an understanding of the whole concept (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Thus, people should be involved in an innovative process. However, ontological realism who believes in an independent world is bound to fail if he invents something without the peoples participation. This is because many people believe in ontological idealism, which respects and caters to human consciousness.

The realistic group conflict theory affirms that psychology research should involve findings from various investigations (Jay, 1993). This is because the epistemology framework states that the truth comes from the majority and the world depends on the conciseness of the people. In this theory, the analysis of the group is from a holistic perspective (Jay, 1993). This is different from the epistemology framework where epistemological realism believes that an object of cognition does not depend on reality. Additionally, people derive their cognition from their experience and perception of the world.

Why the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted

The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted because different researchers use different assumptions to conduct their research. This is due to the diverse nature of the researches hence not all researchers can focus on either positivism or interpretivism. Furthermore, researchers may need to concentrate on both sides of the metatheoretical assumptions. Therefore, the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism will persist so long as the differences between them continue to exist as well as the differences in research types.

To begin with, the labeling theory focuses on both the positivism and interpretivism aspect of the metatheoretical assumptions. For instance, it applies the interpretivism aspect that there is no distinction between an individual and the reality (Weber, 2004). This is the reason why a person assumes the personality of a label because the label comes from the world and an individual is part of the world. Conversely, positivism appears in the label theory when information is a gauge of reality (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1997). For this reason, people believe in the label because it results from the collected information.

Additionally, the research about taking into the community employs both sides of the metatheoretical assumption. On the positivism aspect, the researcher believes in content analysis. As a result, an analysis of the community is imperative before any innovation is established (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). On the other hand, the researcher applies the epistemological interpretivism assumption by believing that peoples knowledge is through experience (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). This is the reason why the community members have to be involved because they have an experience of what is best for them.

Finally, realistic group conflict theory concentrate on positivism. As a result, the researcher conducts various investigations from different people because he believes that information measures reality (Jay, 1993). Additionally, the assumption of reliability is through the performance of a variety of tests because the researcher believes that reality is beyond human cognition and it depends on tests and measurements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the epistemology framework has a great relationship with the metatheoretical assumption of positivism and interpretivism. As a result, various researchers apply this framework and assumptions during the research process. For instance, labeling, realistic group conflict and taking into the community researches have applied this framework and the assumptions. Lastly, due to the variation in positivism and interpretivism, the rhetoric has persisted and will continue to persist.

References

Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1997). The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organisations. Journal of the Institute of the Management Science , 8 (1), 43-56.

Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemiological Perspective on IS Research: A Framework for Analysing and Systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information System Journal , 17 (1), 197-214.

Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Community of Knowing. Organisation Science , 6 (4), 350-369.

Jay, J. (1993). Realistic Group conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the Theoretical and Emperical Literature. Psychological Record , 43 (3), 395-410.

Weber, R. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism. MIS Quarterly , 28 (1), 3-12.

The Conceptual Practices of Power

• Male social universe is a social environment that only takes into account male interests. Smith suggests that up until recently, the entire sociological thought has been primarily male-centered. Men take front and center of sociology while their counterparts are never really taken seriously. Of course, in real life, mens and womens worlds are not completely separate, even though there are some cultural variations to it. But women are excluded from the narrative as if they never existed nor contributed to living spaces. There are two problems related to this male social universe described by Smith (Calhoun et al. 399). Firstly, for a very long time, sociology has been building hypotheses and theories about perception and human experience based on mens lives. Barely anyone cared to take into account how women saw the world  their perspective was deemed insignificant. The second serious issue with male-centered sociology is that it ignores female-dominated domains. For example, even now, the worlds of household, children, and neighborhood are still predominantly female, and they are an indispensable part of our reality. Yet, they are rarely analyzed with the same rigor and zeal as males domains;
• Sociology, according to Smith, is less of a science; at the same time, it does not serve business entirely. The researcher thinks that seeing sociology as a tool to justify and rationalize business and management decisions is wrong. Another wrong approach is to use sociology for the sake of a small group of people with their own selfish interests. Smith suggests that sociology be used to produce abstract concepts and symbols. Sociologists transfer reality into a more structured and comprehensive system that hinges on theories;
• The governing mode  is a mode that people enter when they acquire enough knowledge needed for making changes. Smith expands the understanding of governance: she says that it is not only about politics and politicians. In actuality, governing applies to many spheres of life both at micro- and macro levels. Smith explains that to enter the governing mode a person makes a transition (Calhoun et al. 399(. Typically, there are two life spaces that anyone can have more or less control of: their own body and the place where they are occupied with some kind of productive activity, for example, their workspace. The governing mode in this context is when a person reads and studies sociology to understand not only themselves but society in general. This takes the said person to the next level of consciousness where he or she can take action with a larger magnitude;
• Womens exclusion from the governing mode means womens subjugated position as compared to that of men. Smith explains that human existence is two-fold: on the one hand, we strive to occupy ourselves with intellectual labor (Calhoun et al. 399). We want to make more out of our lives and fulfill our dreams. At that, spirituality is also very important: people do realize that they are more than their bodies and pay attention to their high-level aspirations. On the other hand, there is menial bodily experience: to sustain themselves, humans have to eat, sleep, and arrange their living space in a way that would serve their needs. Smith says that genders are not treated equally nor do they unlock their potential in the same way (Calhoun et al. 399). Men can shift responsibility for household and child rearing methods to women and dedicate themselves to a higher purpose. Women, in turn, are burdened with domestic labor, and it is easily imaginable how they are left with no mental and physical energy to do anything else. Smith shows that even if a woman works in a corporate setting, she is still likely to be assigned mundane tasks (Calhoun et al. 399). In fact, she is a mediator between the material and the abstract. She does indeed realizes the companys mission and vision, but she does it by doing such things as surveying, answering the phone, writing letters, and others;
• Alienation is a Marxist concept used by Smith to illustrate what happens to women when their activities are confined to the material sphere. Alienation is the oppression that drives workers to benefit the ruling class with their labor (Calhoun et al. 399). A non-feminist example would be workers at the factory who survive off a meager wage while the owner of the factory thrives because of what their work brings him or her. Alienation in this case means that workers do not get to truly enjoy the results of their labor. From the feminist standpoint, women are alienated because they create comfortable living conditions for men who gain more authority in the meantime. The more women dedicate themselves to household matters and serve men, the more men are able to take their mind off the mundane and enter the governing mode;
• Reorganization of sociology is what needed to make this science more inclusive, as per Smiths suggestion. The researcher states that the methods and approaches need to be restructured. It is not enough to just take whatever tools we have and analyze women and their experience. These tools are primarily created by men and as much as they may make sense in other aspects, women deserve an individualized approach. In essence, Smith thinks that sociologists need to be inductive and start with experience (Calhoun et al. 400). Women need to share their perspectives, and even if every womans life may be unique in its own right, some patterns are bound to show up. So basically, it is a down-top, not top-down approach: we start with the subject (women) and make them the primary storytellers;
• Perspective vs. experience. Smith differentiates between perspective and experience in her works (Calhoun et al. 400). She states that experience is neutral: it is not good or bad, it is just what happens. A woman can tell her life story by simply lay out basic facts, and this will be her experience. A perspective is a form of experience that is conceptualized and understood. If a woman made sense of what had happened to her, it can be her perspective. For example, she had a negative experience with some aspect of her life, and now she has a clear opinion about it that goes beyond factual information;
• Bifurcated consciousness means the difference between the actual facts and their representation. Smith claims that one of the biggest challenges that sociology faces is interpreting experiences (Calhoun et al. 400). For some experiences, it is possible to get first-hand information, for instance, by talking to people. But this is not exactly the case with the majority of events. Very often, we have to deal with experiences that have already been interpreted by someone else. A good example would be reading about an event in a newspaper as opposed to witnessing it ourselves.

Black Feminist Epistemology

• US Black feminist thought addresses the experiences of Black American women. Collins argues that Black feminist thought is needed as an independent subfield and a social movement because Black women are often ignored. Sociology and philosophy are mostly shaped by White men who draw on their own experiences when making conclusions about the world. Black women are subjugated in society based on two traits: their gender and their race. Collins calls it intersecting oppressions: Black women are twice as vulnerable than women and Black people as a whole (Calhoun et al. 405). Black feminist thought addresses many important topics such as work, education, sex, motherhood, body image, and others. What is interesting is that Black women can express their affiliation with Black feminist thought in a variety of ways. For instance, they can use ethnic music, dance, or create literature, making consciousness part of their everyday lives;
• Epistemology is a theory of knowledge that makes us think why believe in certain things. The matter of truth in sociology and philosophy is a big deal. So it is only reasonable to have an entire subfield dedicated primarily to solving what is true, what is not, and exactly how we came to this conclusions. In essence, epistemology allows us to decide whom to trust out of a variety of opinion leaders and influencers. Of course, another important issue is to decide what questions are even worth answering because some things do not deserve an in-depth investigation. Collins states that in US Black feminist thought, there are two epistemological approaches (Calhoun et al. 405). The first represents the interests of White males and the other one Black feminists concerns;
• Eurocentrism is a paradigm that favors the knowledge of White people, or rather White men. To be eurocentric means discarding colored peoples experiences and choosing to believe what White people say is true. Collins says that eurocentrism permeates academia and lays foundation for theoretical subjects;
• Knowledge validation process occurs when a new piece of knowledge needs external approval. It needs to be recognized as true and trustworthy. There are two main problems with knowledge validation in modern society. Firstly, experts that validate knowledge come with their own set of beliefs and values. Given the subjugation of women and minorities, these experts are often White males. Therefore, it is readily imaginable that they can be limited in their perception of the world. In particular, Collins says that typical experts assign Black women three roles: mammies, matriarchs, and jezebels (Calhoun et al. 407). Simply put, they are maternal, dominating, or promiscuous, none of which reflects the reality of Black female experience. The second problem arising from the first is that even if an expert decides to go against societal norms, he or she might face resistance. Experts are supported by their communities because they share the same values. A single expert that wants a change may be alienated by his or her people, in which case knowledge coming from women or minorities might not be properly validated.

Another issue with knowledge validation process is the lack of Black female experts. Collins is convinced that Black women do not have easy access to academia to become accomplished in their fields (Calhoun et al. 407). There are still daunting problems of illiteracy, racism, and bias when it comes to Black female education. Therefore, it is easy to see how Black women who are denied authority positions in academia have to resort to alternative methods of knowledge validation. For example, they can channel their experiences into music, visual arts, or literature. But these artefacts are not accepted by the academic community, which once again invalidates Black female knowledge;

• Legitimacy acknowledgment is making people belief that a particular gender or race gets to enjoy more privileges. To make people acknowledge legitimacy means to convince them to accept the existing system with its power dynamics as is, without much criticism. Collins provides an interesting example of how the White male hegemony keeps everyone at bay. If no Black women are allowed in academia, sooner or later, the society will start protesting this (Calhoun et al. 408). Ensuring equal access is not an option because in this case the influx of alternative thinkers will threaten the foundations of White male thought. So the elites go about this issue in a very smart way: they allow some Black women in academia. Those women are typically compliant, and they are generously rewarded for helping an institution meet the quota. However, in the long run, their presence in the system does not really aid Black females standing;
• Positivism is a scientific methodology that seeks to determine objective facts. There are three basic principles that positivist researchers must follow:

  • the researcher needs to distance him- or herself from the object of inquiry;
  • the research process must be completely devoid of emotions;
  • the researcher cannot use ethics as a reason for scientific inquiry or as a part of the research process itself (Calhoun et al. 411).

Collins says that positivism is not exactly compatible with Black feminist thought. Many experiences that Black women have cannot be measured. For example, it is not clear how one can gauge the emotional impact of racism. And then again, emotions are prohibited from being part of the research process (the second principle). Moreover, the first principle would not allow Black feminists to research themselves and draw conclusions based on their own lives. Lastly, it is easy to see that the concern for the Black female condition cannot be a reason for scientific inquiry, as per the third principle. Therefore, it is safe to say that Black female academicians are not equipped with methodologies that would fit them;

• Agent of knowledge is someone in control of knowledge, which is made possible either through producing it or distributing it. Collins claims that throughout history, Black women have rarely been true agents of knowledge and in control of their own stories (Calhoun et al. 412). For ages, other people studied Black women and described their lives from their own, limited perspective. Today, Black feminist thought helps Black females to take a grip of the narrative, for which they often use alternative epistomology;
• Alternative epistemology is the type of epistemology that is somehow different from what is universally recognized. Collins says that for Black women, epistemology is material: it is based on real life experiences (Calhoun et al. 411). Some examples of such experiences include the history of oppression, work conditions, slavery, and other phenomena;
• Truthful identity is the end goal of Black feminist thought. If Black female academicians no longer rely on Eurocentric standards, they can discover for themselves how their lives are shaped by them being Black and female. They will approach what constitutes their truthful identity and will find their own voice.

Work Cited

Calhoun, Craig, et al. (Eds.). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Introduction

The diverse routes of knowledge have created controversy in the field of epistemology, with rationalism being the most viable acquisition strategy. Various philosophers have tried to explain how individuals acquire knowledge about their environment and every other aspect of living. Socratess pursuit of wisdom begins with discovering facts through rational inquiry (Govier,1997). He argued that individuals could find anything they desire about their surroundings by questioning everything and learning truth through research, not subjective insights. Another significant philosopher was Plato, whose contributions to the theory of knowledge are marked by the justification of reality and not a fallacy (Leuehaq, 2021). Additionally, Descartes reinforces epistemology based on the methodological approach of reason. Therefore, rationalism is a pivotal trajectory in gaining knowledge and understanding the epistemology of the world.

Historical Importance of Philosophical View

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that studies the nature of knowledge and how it is gained. The philosophy entails the investigation of knowledges sources and limits, its nature and structure, and its justification or validity (Govier,1997). The principle investigates the connection between perception, reality, and explanation. Epistemology has been significant, considering that it is a fundamental component that serves as a foundation for understanding and judging the universe (Govier,1997). For instance, Socrates argues that the world exists in the physical realm, meaning it can change and is not eternal. The only consistent factors are the worlds intellectual sensations, including goodness, beauty, and truth (Govier,1997). This factor indicates that intellectual discoveries are achieved by focusing on facts and uncovering the actual goodness and beauty within the object that is being analyzed for accurate conclusions. This factor suggests that epistemology and the notion of knowledge are integral in explaining how the environment influences learning.

Another integral importance of epistemology is that it lays the foundation for the diverse understanding of the sources of knowledge. The reason is that the theory examines knowledge acquisition and its source as the central focus. As such, many controversies have been encountered due to the diverse definitions of epistemology (Govier,1997). For instance, the dispute between rationalism and empiricism is one of historys oldest and most prominent due to its distinctive description of the origin of knowledge. Descartes and other rationalists claim that knowledge can be learned solely through the application of reason (Govier,1997). Yet, empiricists contend that all knowledge is gained by experience and interaction with the environment. This dispute has raged for centuries and remains and such debates contribute to the development and expansion of different rationales intended to support a specific claim, which enhances the literature available to enhance understanding of a specific phenomenon.

Epistemology is also significant since it is closely linked to the concept of knowledge. Knowledge is a justified true belief, and epistemology studies how information is gained, justified and assessed. Therefore, individuals would be unable to evaluate the integrity of a statement or the dependability of a source of information without epistemology. For instance, although Plato and Descartes lived in different times, their contribution to understanding epistemology philosophy relates (Govier,1997). For example, Plato argues that justification of knowledge is established y reason, which Descartes concurs with by revealing that senses cannot help individuals learn about the environment considering that they are not trustworthy considering that other complex issues such as the influence of the mind affect the understanding of truth (Govier,1997). These factors indicate that epistemology has been significant in history for revealing the formation of learning and discoveries.

Philosophers Approaches to Epistemology

Many philosophers supported the idea that knowledge is not established through the experience of emotions but through reality. Socrates is among the philosophers whose idea of Epistemology is focused on rational inquiry. Socrates epistemology is inextricably linked to his concept of knowledge, meaning that learning has to be actively pursued rather than passively obtained. The philosopher believed that knowledge could be attained only through a rigorous process of inquiry and examination (Govier,1997). His thoughts were that knowing oneself and their views and ideals helps one better understand the world around them. For instance, to discover how the ecosystem works on the planet, they must search for literature that addresses that inquiry to know how each specie is dependent on the other in reality (Govier,1997). This idea indicates that people can learn about their environment through scientific investigation and not dwelling on preconceived notions which are baseless and lack depth.

Other principles created by researchers include applying concepts to discover the world. Platos philosophical thought is that knowledge is innate and proper understanding can only be attained through education, inquiry, and introspection. He believed knowledge was universal and could be discovered by studying philosophy, mathematics, and scientific knowledge (Govier,1997). Plato defined knowledge as more than just a collection of facts, considering that it represented an understanding of the universes underlying realities. For instance, learning mathematics is not acquiring knowledge, considering that gaining insights into the numerical principle is through applying concepts (Govier,1997). An example is just after people learned about numbers, they developed time to reinforce the application and appreciation of numerical data. This knowledge can be used to uncover insights into the world and its surroundings, which promotes learning.

Descartes is another influential philosopher who contributed to understanding epistemology and the notion of knowledge. Descartess principles support the idea of rationalism by explaining that knowledge is acquired through the methodological application of reason. Deductive reasoning about the environment is attained by exploring truths through academic inquiry (Govier,1997). The philosopher contended that all knowledge must begin with specific, undeniable facts that cannot be questioned. He believed the only way to get information was to start with the certain and then improve to establish a claim. He thought that information should be gained through conceptual insight rather than the senses, and he condemned knowledge based on incorrect preconceptions (Govier,1997). He stated that rather than relying on logic or other peoples views, a person should rely on their intellectual prowess for inquiry to achieve knowledge. This factor indicates that individuals can discover facts about their surroundings through rationalism.

Counter-Arguments

Some people can argue that epistemology and the notion of knowledge about the world can only be achieved through rationalism. The reason is that other philosophies justify other means of knowledge acquisition, such as experience. Empiricism is an epistemological concept that explains that knowledge is gained by experience (Leuehaq, 2021). It is the basis of the scientific method and one of the primary foundations of modern philosophy and science. Empiricism maintains that all knowledge is obtained from sensory experience and that sensory perception is the only source of knowledge (Leuehaq, 2021). In contrast, rationalism holds that specific knowledge can be obtained solely through reason or deductive inquiry. This viewpoint refutes other methods of inquiry such as experience, which can be contended.

Empiricism is a crucial component of knowledge since it holds that learning is obtained via experience. In other words, information is not just innate and given but must be actively sought out. This factor indicates that learning occurs through observation, experimenting, and reasoning. People acquire knowledge using their senses to explore the world and evaluate the data they collect (Leuehaq, 2021). This information is then utilized to generate hypotheses, which are assessed and validated through experimentation. For instance, individuals can learn to distinguish different flowers by differentiating their distinct scents (Leuehaq, 2021). This sensation can stimulate learning, known as empiricism, and this type of knowledge is not achieved through deductive inquiry. Therefore, knowledge can be obtained through various approaches depending on the individuals interests and focus when studying about the ecosystem and its interactions.

Another philosophy that can restructure the idea of rationalistic knowledge is coherentism. This philosophy indicates that knowledge can be gained by correlating variables with similar properties. Coherentisms primary argument is that beliefs can be justified by their logical relationships to other concepts (Ogaba, 2019). This factor means there is no need to rely on external proof or logic to validate a viewpoint. Instead, the beliefs coherence with different opinions is assumed adequate for its justification. This contrasts with other justification theories, such as rationalism, which maintains that ideas can only be justified if they are supported by external evidence or reason (Ogaba, 2019). The coherentism theory indicates that knowledge acquisition is established by focusing on the links between each variable or relating the concepts to an individuals experience.

This philosophy of coherentism is also used in the concept of social constructionism, whereby knowledge is established socially in the process of discourse and information dissemination. For instance, most philosophical works have been sponsored by the results of other researchers. This factor indicates that relating different inquiries helps establish a discovery that promotes learning and understanding (Ogaba, 2019). This factor suggests that people can learn through different avenues, including through interrelating specific aspects of life with other phenomena that are relatable (Ogaba, 2019). Despite the various elements of knowledge acquisition, rationalism is still the best strategy for understanding the world around us, considering that it promotes deductive reasoning, which is justifiable. Therefore, it promotes an aspect of full exploration of materials to gather information about a specific inquiry before any insights are obtained.

Conclusion

Rationalism is a school of philosophy that maintains that reason is the fundamental source of knowledge. This philosophy, as opposed to empirical observation and experimentation, indicates that knowledge can be gained through logical deduction. Other philosophies, such as empiricism and coherentism, claim that knowledge can be achieved through experience and sensations and by relating different ideas with concepts within the environment. However, the rationalistic view establishes that knowledge focuses on abstract thought and logical reasoning, which enhance understanding. The philosophy stresses the significance of deductive reasoning, drawing specific conclusions from more general ones. Additionally, rationalists reject the concept of innate knowledge, claiming knowledge is gained by logic and analysis. Therefore, this strategy is ideal for understanding the epistemological paradigm, considering that all deductions must have proof and be justifiable by valid claims.

References

Govier, T. (1997). Socrates children: thinking and knowing in the western tradition. Broadview Press.

Leuehaq, T. A. (2021). Basic ideas of rationalism and empiricism and some epistemological implications. Journal of Filsafat dan Teologi, 2(2), 145-158. Web.

Ogaba, I. S. (2019). Foundationalism, coherentism, and naturalism: An epistemological survey. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 2(2), 98-112. Web.

Evaluate Rene Descartes argument for knowledge, including the role of skepticism, the evil demon, and God in resolving his doubts

Rene Descartes believed that the best way to acquire knowledge is through the use of the doubting methodology (Moore & Bruder 110). Descartes claimed that skepticism is the key to certainty. He was able to accomplish this through the dream conjecture and the evil demon conjecture. He doubted everything.

He explained that there is a possibility that he was merely dreaming. He also doubted the outcome of his thought process, because he said that it is possible that there was a malevolent demon that deceived him. In order to erase doubts he developed a clear and distinct criterion. He discovered that there are at least two things that he could never doubt based on the clear and distinct criterion framework. He said that he could never doubt the existence of self and God.

Evaluate Hobbes view that everything is material

Hobbes reduced everything into bodies or physical objects in motion. He was aware of the problematic aspect of his theory, because emotions and intelligence are obviously non-material aspects of life. However, Hobbes attempted to clarify his view by explaining that the thinking process is merely the biological reaction to motion outside the human body.

The ability to react to the effect of external motion was called perception. Hobbes said that human beings have the capability to express these perceptions through verbal speech or sign languages. The only problem with this view is that Hobbes was unable to explain what caused the motion in the external world. His inability to provide a clear explanation for this phenomenon, weakened his ability to discredit the assertion that the thinking process originated in the human brain.

Evaluate John Lockes Theory of Representative Realism, and the primary and secondary qualities

Representative realism is just a fancy way of describing the irrefutable qualities of a particular substance. For example, the primary qualities of a piece of paper is evident to all people. If they have the sense of sight and the sense of touch, then, they could arrive at the same description of the piece of paper placed before them.

Locke utilized the term representative realism because he asserted that aside from primary qualities there are secondary qualities. The secondary qualities are the less obvious qualities of the paper. Lockes idea is flawed if one will consider the fact that people are in agreement when they described the object set before them.

Evaluate Spinozas view that God is everything

Spinozas view that God is everything must be interpreted through the context of pantheism. It is wrong to assume that Spinoza was an atheist simply because he denounced Judaism. In reality, the said philosopher was a pantheist. A pantheist believes that God is all.

Spinoza believed that everything comes from one infinite substance called God. This is similar to Conways view that there is a common denominator, however, Conway believes that God created everything. Spinoza on the other hand believed that there was no personal God that created everything, because these substances are merely a modification of the infinite substance called God.

Evaluate Spinozas view that we are determined to be free in the context of the notion of free will

Spinoza argued that free will is an illusion. This assertion is based on the idea that a persons decision is influenced by his nature. Thus, free will is not the driving force that enables a human being to eat or sleep.

It is his biological nature and biological needs that compels him to eat. This metaphysical view is acceptable if viewed in the context of breathing air, sleeping, and similar biological functions. However, it is flawed when viewed in the context of random actions. For example, Fred loves to eat hamburgers while John loves to eat sushi. Both Fred and John have the capability to decide what they want to eat. At the same time, Fred has the freedom to decide not to eat.

Evaluate Anne Conways monadology in light of the fact that she argues for 2 distinct substances

Conway developed a metaphysical concept called monadology. She said that everything in the universe are reducible to a single substance (Moore and Bruder 107). It is essentially the same as atomic theory minus the discussion of subatomic particles. However, Conway went even further when she said that these are created substances, and they are dependent on God. Thus, they are called creatures, because they are Gods creation.

She also said that all creatures have both an individual essence, and an essence that is common to all (Moore and Bruder 108). It can be argued that her justification to the existence of a common denominator was based on the assertion that God created these things. She said that all substances have both a mental and physical component.

Evaluate the two versions of epiphenomenalism: occasionalism and parallelism

Parallelism and occasionalism explain the connection between the mind and the body. This is especially true when it comes to physical movement. Advocates of parallelism argued that the mind does not actually cause the body to move.

They needed to develop this theory in order to maintain the separation of the material and immaterial realms. However, they needed to determine the enabling power that allows the mind to move the body. When an artist decides to pick up a brush and paints, he is able to do so without difficulty. They suggested a solution, and they labeled it occasionalism (Moore and Bruder 110). In this theory, God is the enabling power.

Evaluate Olivia Sabuco de Nantesas view on the connection between mind and body

Olivia Sabucos metaphysical view was the forerunner to modern day holistic medicine. Sabuco did not intend to develop a medical solution to certain health problems,. However, she was able to develop this idea in her attempt to solve the connection between the mind and the body. Sabuco argued that the mind resides in the soul. Nevertheless, there was a need to facilitate the function between the body and the soul.

Sabuco resolved this dilemma when she proposed that the brain functioned as the facilitator. It was an impressive insight if one considers recent findings regarding the connection between the human body and the human brain.

Evaluate George Berkeleys view that to be, is to be perceived

It can be argued that Berkeley borrowed extensively from Lockes ideas. However, Berkeley focused on the primacy of the human mind. Berkeley shared common ground with Locke, especially when it comes to the use of the senses.

Nevertheless, Berkeley argued that only the mind has the power to perceive things. Berkeley created one of the best epistemological frameworks. Nonetheless, there is one problematic aspect of his treatise. Berkeley was convinced that nothing exists outside the mind. It is difficult to accept this proposition based on the modern worlds understanding of science. Scientific principles enable people to see that even in the absence of human thought, the universe will continue to exist.

Evaluate Leibnizs view of monads

According to Leibniz, monads are indivisible units of force. His idea was a forerunner to a contemporary view that certain particles are a form of energy. However, the said philosopher believed that monads are non-physical. This simply means that Leibnizs theory was affected by the limitations of his physical senses. He made the assumption that an invisible substance is automatically labeled a non-physical substance.

Nevertheless, Leibnizs contribution was evident when he asserted that something exists even if it is not visible to the naked eye. Without Leibniz and similar minded thinkers, it would have been difficult to analyze things that are not perceptible to the senses.

Evaluate David Humes arguments against induction (uniformity of nature)

Humes argument against the validity of the uniformity of nature makes a lot of sense. Inductive reasoning made on the basis of a series of observations does not guarantee the truthfulness of a certain conclusion that was based on those observations. For example, a certain school bus arrives at particular destination every 7 in the morning.

According to Hume the clockwork precision of the bus driver does not allow the observer to conclude that the said school bus will arrive at the same destination next week. It is possible for the school bus not to arrive on time. However, Hume failed to acknowledge the significance if someone was able to predict the arrival of the bus. Hume failed to consider the possibility that someone can make a scientific guess, and make predictions based on information gleaned from observations made earlier.

Evaluate Immanuel Kants notion of the noumena and the phenomenal

Kant is in agreement with Locke and Berkeley when it comes to the combined effect of experience, and the ability of the mind to perceive. However, Kant disagreed with Humes view that there is no way to ascertain the truth. Kant argued that it is possible to reach a certain level of certainty when it comes to knowing something. However, the limiting factor is the concept called phenomena. In other words, objects and events must be experienced through the senses.

Kant developed the concept of noumena, and this means that there are things that are outside the realm of experience. He argued that when it comes to noumena no one can be certain.

Evaluate Hegels arguments against the concept of noumena as described by Kant

Kant created a caveat in order for him to establish certain truths. He said that as long as the philosopher avoids ideas and concepts related to noumena, then, there is a way to ascertain truth based on the capability of the human mind to perceive things.

Hegel on the other hand said that the human mind must not be limited to such notions. Hegel believed that the world is perceived through the expression of infinite thought (Moore and Bruder 140). Hegel made his mark when he asserted that it is possible to view reality in absolute terms.

Evaluate Schopenhauers pessimism

Schopenhauers pessimism is rooted in the assertion that human beings are driven by their will. He added that the problem is not that people are driven by their will, but on the fact that the will has no moral compass. Therefore, the world is in disarray, and there was no lasting peace because human beings acted as if they are animals governed by an instinct geared towards destructive behavior.

The problem with this view is that it ignores the fact that children are innocent. It also ignores the fact that human beings are capable of acts of heroism and other noble deeds.

View of Metaphysics or Epistemology

It is impossible to pinpoint the most reasonable epistemological or metaphysical view from the given body of information. The best way to develop the most reasonable epistemological or metaphysical view is to combine different perspectives. In my opinion the best way is to combine the ideas of Locke, Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel. By combining their theories one can ascertain the truth not only through the power of the senses, but also through the power of the mind.

Works Cited

Moore, Brooke, and Kenneth Bruder. The Power of Ideas. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.

Introduction

The word epistemology refers to studying the source of knowledge. In this respect the reality and truth of what a man writes or says more or less props up against the thoughts and ideas being told and outlined previously. In other words, everything which surrounds an individual can be used or assumed as a theme for further discussion. A man can be judged on the knowledge which he/she possesses at the moment. Moreover, such concern is fair in terms of parallel achievements and efforts in the social or working dimensions. Thus, the need for current updated knowledge seems to be vital for a contemporary human being. The real value of life can be achieved in an extent of knowledge about this very life encompassed by an individual.

Evaluation

While discussing the idea of source materials for the essay writing and current analysis of them I chose two different writing papers considered with, as for me, rather significant ideas for life. Management in Business and U.S role in withdrawal of troops in Iraq provide a scope of ideas and statements which I use for making my everyday conviction in state and economic affairs rather strong and untouchable. Having personal opinions of the serious themes diminishes the influence of other opinions on me. Thus, it does not mean that I reduce every rationale toward a definite problem. Authoritative sources of information contemplate a rather deep and gradual research in a particular area of work or knowledge.

This is why in my writing I tried to implement the reciprocal approach toward the ideas reflected in both papers. It means that both scientific thoughts and social or political surveys on the problem were taken into account for making my suppositions and assumptions argumentative and logical. Thereupon, in terms of management in business the idea of current well-known examples of successful people and events being etalons for making people concerned about the problem of positive rational course of actions was supported by modern data from official educational and expert websites in this field. This is why my own ideas were not so vague and unpersuasive. Referring to last updated sources I suggested a background for present day situation in the sphere of business management with space for a readers assumptions as for the future development in this sphere also with past prospects regarding business historical data. Epistemology serves here as an indicator of a writers credibility and capability to use literature sources for making statements in the paper or work more attractive and convincing, as it was mentioned before. In this respect even if a person has own thoughts about a definite significant topic of discussion, the evaluation of such papers by authoritative representatives (teachers, professors, lecturers) may have doubts or disagreements at all, unless being referred to or marked with an authors standpoints in the body of the text.

To develop my understanding in a particular field of interests I look, first of all, at the contemporary extent of research in this particular area of knowledge. Then I invoke my personal attitude toward the main ideas about the issue and its implementation in both theoretical and practical dimensions. In this case I see at the results of the practical part most of all, as a final estimation about some definite problem. In this respect I attempted to find out the key objectives of the war in Iraq and the role of the US participation in this conflict. My thoughts seem to be banal because of the bilateral approach toward the idea of war: one can be for or against it. On the other hand, my arguments as of my position can be similar to other individuals, but they presuppose my original attitudinal framework about the case. In other words my thoughts were supported by public opinions and mass media constant discussion of the war in Iraq and conflicts in the Middle East. When you are perpetually put in the picture about such a theme, you become unintentionally reckoned with standpoints about the problem. By this I mean that my opinion is implied in the essay without additional resources because of straightforward relation of the problem to my social and political position as of global change and transformations in the world.

Conclusion

To sum up, I attempted to work out my knowledge during writing the essay because of the right and correct attitude toward themes raised in the essays. By this time some thoughts had improved in my mind. Looking at the web publications of newspaper, journal, magazine articles and books from day to day I have a deep persuasion that if an issue is specific in its theme and evaluation a reporter or writer should definitely refer to proper sources. If there is a widely or universally discussed theme, he or she is able to provide own thoughts in order to make the discussion even wider. All in all, epistemology is rather usable in my case. I do not want to be an illiterate and unconversant man in my life. Development of the epistemological approach in me serves as a guarantee for further success and conviction in everyday environments and people filling it.

There are many different views on God’s existence and the questions of belief nowadays. Many scientists, philosophers, and researchers, regardless of what position they support, build many theories and suggestions related to religion. One of such theories is reformed epistemology, which started its development in the middle of the 20th century and was fully articulated in the 1990s. This paper examines reformed epistemology and its weaknesses as it relates to the apologetical task of demonstrating God’s existence. For the purposes of this paper, it analyzes the concepts and theories suggested by one of the pioneers of reformed epistemology, a philosopher named Alvin Plantinga. As a theological theory, reformed epistemology appears to have many weaknesses as it only denies the necessity for a rational explanation of God’s existence instead of demonstrating it.

First, it is essential to discuss what epistemology is and the role reformed epistemology plays in the modern understanding of religion. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge that investigates whether a particular judgment or statement should be identified as a justified belief or just someone’s opinion. Thereby, religious epistemology aims to determine whether people’s specific positions on God’s existence relate to one or the other category. One of this theory’s components is reformed epistemology, which has a particular core thesis. This thesis suggests that religious beliefs “can be rational without being based on propositional evidence or argument” (Baldwin and McNabb 3). Reformed epistemology examines three crucial components of the belief in God: rationality, reasonability, and intellectual propriety of the corresponding statements. The theory was defended by an American philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his work God and Other Minds (Baldwin and McNabb 3). That particular work and the whole theory of reformed epistemology attempt to prove that the belief in God is rational, reasonable, and intellectually appropriate.

The first significant argument in favor of God’s existence that reformed epistemology suggests is related to some fundamental beliefs. For example, the philosophical idea of solipsism suggests that there are no other minds but one’s own since the opposing arguments fail to establish a solid conclusion (Baldwin and McNabb 4). Nonetheless, people mostly find it foolish or irrational to believe that other minds do not exist, making the existence of multiple minds natural and thereby rational. The same is true for many beliefs: the belief in the existence of one’s self, the external world, the present, and the past. Reformed epistemology suggests that the belief in God, in many respects, resembles those beliefs as most people find them rational even without solid evidence of their existence (Baldwin and McNabb 5). In other words, the supporters of the theory of reformed epistemology propose that God’s existence does not need solid arguments to be rational.

However, the described viewpoint seems more like a weakness of the theory than its strong side since it does not present an actual argument or at least a reasonable or valuable suggestion. Reformed epistemology, in this sense, explains the existence of God based on the concept of parity of reasoning: some points do not require any argument, and God’s presence is one of them (Baldwin and McNabb 5). It does not appear as a valid point since such a suggestion relies on other beliefs that are not related to the subject. That argument can prove why some people believe in God without rational reasoning: they do not need it as their faith is strong enough. Such a position is entirely acceptable in justifying one’s beliefs, but it is unacceptable in demonstrating God’s existence. A theistic person can use that point to explain their beliefs to themselves, but they would not be able to persuade someone who is not a believer with that argument.

Following the thought of believers, there is another notable point in the theory of reformed epistemology suggesting that believers’ confidence does not come from rational arguments. Plantinga, for example, argues that “because scripture proceeds from God as the starting point, believers are within their epistemic rights to take belief in God as the starting point” (qtd. in Baldwin and McNabb 4). It is a fundamental truth: people in the modern world respect each other’s beliefs, and there is little chance a person would be insulted or disrespected just because they believe in God’s existence. However, that argument deconstructs the whole point of building a theological theory such as reformed epistemology to try and prove the rationality of believing in God. That argument succeeds in explaining one’s belief in God, but it fails to demonstrate God’s existence to other people.

Most theological theories’ main goal is to explain the essence of God to other people so they can accept it and understand why God exists and what rational reasons can prove it. That goal is the primary reason for multiple discussions and arguments in modern theology. There is a critical contradiction in the case of Plantinga’s views on reformed epistemology. As mentioned in the previous sections of the paper, some of the reformed epistemology’s main components are rationality and reasonability. However, the theory argues that believers do not “need arguments or propositional evidence for their belief in God to have rational justification” (Baldwin and McNabb 4). If one accepts that position, a question will arise on the purpose of a theological theory. Reformed epistemology, in many senses, explains why believers have the right to believe, but nobody tries to take that right from them, meaning that there is no need for the whole theory. The theory is needed to demonstrate God’s existence to people who cannot or do not want to accept it, and the described argument fails to achieve that goal.

Furthermore, there is another critical contradiction in reformed epistemology that cannot be ignored, and it relates to the theory’s views on other sacramental beliefs. Some opponents of reformed epistemology provide a counterargument that has received the name of the “Son of Great Pumpkin objection” (Baldwin and McNabb 10). The essence of the objection is the following: the absence of the necessity to provide a rational explanation for God’s existence can make various communities legitimately claim that their beliefs are rational. For example, Voodoo believers can claim that they follow their ways based on the concept of rationality, as Christians do (Baldwin and McNabb 10). There may be communities based on irrational or even dangerous beliefs, such as the proponents of the flat-earth idea or devil worshipers. If God’s existence did not need a rational explanation, then other beliefs would not need it, as well, which could potentially lead to negative consequences.

Nevertheless, the mentioned contradiction is not as much related to the objection itself as to the reformed epistemology’s response. The theory under discussion, replying to the Son of Great Pumpkin objection, suggests the following. If humanity’s “cognitive design plan is not set up to form belief in the deities of voodoo or the Great Pumpkin, then belief in such things would be mistaken” (Baldwin and McNabb 10). In other words, people’s minds have always been established to believe in God, which frees that belief from rationality, but people’s cognition does not suggest believing in Voodoo, making that belief irrational. There is an evident contradiction in this statement related to the fact that there is no evidence that God’s existence is a fundamental element of humanity’s cognition. In many senses, the described response to the objection means that people should believe in God since they are supposed to believe in God on a cognitive level. As the previous points of the reformed epistemology, this one does not present an argument and makes belief in God look natural, neither demonstrating God’s existence nor proving it.

Overall, reformed epistemology appears as a weak theological theory as it does not provide arguments in favor of God’s existence, claiming that belief in God is fundamental and does not require a rational explanation. The whole point of the theory is correlated with rationality and reasonability, as stated in reformed epistemology’s core thesis. However, the proponents of the theory contradict that thesis in their position, suggesting that believing in God is a concept that can exist without rational evidence. Reformed epistemology suggests that people do not need to argue for their beliefs, and their faith in God does not need to be rational. It is a solid and respectable viewpoint that cannot and should not be argued, but it does not prove God’s existence to those who believe in it. People do not need a religious theory to believe in God, meaning that reformed epistemology may need reconsideration in terms of its goals.

Work Cited

Baldwin, Erik, and Tyler Dalton McNabb. Plantingian Religious Epistemology and World Religions: Prospects and Problems. Lexington Books, 2018.

Introduction

The epistemology is defined as a “general set of assumptions about the best ways of inquiring into the nature of the world” (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, p.17). It is obvious that it is connected to the notion of ontology which describes the basic ideas of the nature of reality. This kind of assumptions, even though they may change over time, tend to be tacit, which means that the researchers who advocate them do not always do it consciously, even though realizing one’s philosophical ideas is usually required of a scientist (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, p.34). Given these facts, it becomes evident that the epistemological stance of a researcher has a significant impact on his or her research.

Epistemological Stances

From the point of view of social research knowledge, two epistemological views are typically defined: positivism and social constructionism, both of which can be “strong” (radical); apart from that, the mentioned approaches can be mixed (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, pp. 22-25). According to positivism (which corresponds to the realist ontological stance), the existing world and its properties are affected by the external forces and, therefore, should be measured with the help of objective methods. Social constructionism is a more recent paradigm that has arisen as a reaction to positivism and, naturally, criticizes its ideas.

According to social constructionism, the reality is not exterior to society; instead, it is “socially constructed” which means that the detachment of the researcher from the “object” is not only unnecessary but is actually harmful to the research (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, pp. 23). The subjective opinions and views are accepted within this paradigm since the idea of a single truth is given up in favour of accepting numerous, socially conditioned truths. As a result, it appears that while the epistemological stance is significant for any researcher, for the strong constructionism, it is of particular importance, since, for this stance, the researcher is deeply engaged in the process of research and the reflexion on it (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, pp. 25-26)

Other types of epistemological stances also exist. For example, the critical theory explains the controversy of the two main approaches and appears to accept the right of both of them for existence. The theory draws a line between the research of inanimate objects (natural sciences) and those where the “objects” are capable of contributing to the understanding of the situation (the social sciences). Similar is the approach of structuration theory which claims that the laws of science are universal while the social sciences “depend upon the context” (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, pp. 30-33).

Epistemological Stance and Research Process

The epistemological stance of a researcher affects all the stages of research beginning with the problem statement and ending with the evaluation of the results; different epistemological approaches favour different methods and tools (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, pp. 25-27). While, for a positivist, it is natural to start the research with a hypothesis and to develop the design of the research prior to the action, for the strong constructionism it is more logical to develop the design in the process (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, p. 39). The choice of the epistemological paradigm defines the questions that a researcher finds important and worth of studying (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson 2012, p. 23). To demonstrate this fact, the issue of transformational leadership effectiveness as compared to the transitional one will be used as an example.

From the strong positivist point of view, the issue of the effectiveness of transformational leadership would be connected to the employees’ and company’s performance, and that is the kind of information that epistemology stance would seek to confirm its hypothesis. In this case, the problem would most certainly be presented as the influence of transformational leadership on employee effectiveness. A regular positivist might spot other factors that can be influenced by the type of leadership, for instance, by including the factors of teamwork that could be assessed through the conflict situation in the team and the employees’ job satisfaction. This information would be used to prove the hypothesis that there are numerous aspects of an organization performance that are influenced by leadership style.

For constructionism, the mentioned data would also play the role; however, the primary focus, in this case, would be on the employees’ view and perception of the leadership style as the researcher strives to determine different views. The opinion of managers would also be taken into account since it forms another aspect of the issue. For the strong constructionism, this focus on various views will even mean that the design of the research will not be really planned out, but emerge naturally in the process. A transitional type of epistemology stance could bring in additional aspects. In feminism, for example, that would include the consistency of transformational leadership with the gender equality principle or gender mainstreaming as a major and, possibly, main factor of the effectiveness.

Therefore, the epistemological stance of a researcher affects the research already on the stage of problem formulation. As the research progresses, other aspects will also be modified by the researcher’s philosophical preferences.

Reference List

Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R & Jackson, P 2012, Management research, 4th edn, SAGE Publications, London, UK.

In the contemporary society, ontology and epistemology is a popular topic that exhibits a polarized debate in the philosophy of science that offers no compromising solution. Several authors who seek to unravel its mysteries have undertaken various discussions on the topic. Different writers assume various assumptions and adopt a unique discussion on the issue. Also, the ideas may fail the test of incorporation of material facts on the issue or give a narrow picture.

The arguments advanced by these writers in their articles call for review and critique to ascertain their weight in the issue. Critique is a way of vividly analyzing the contents of a written material and posting your views that are not necessarily going to be considered by the writer on the same (Trevino, 2008). This writing aims to analyze an article on this issue and advance various recommendations and feelings towards the writing.

Critique of the title and analysis of the abstract

The title of the article (Anonymous, 2009) is relevant to the writing. The writer has properly chosen the phrases used to depict the vivid insights of the research. Holistic, a term used by the writer, is appropriate as the nature of the writing tends to elaborate the idea of describing the concepts of knowledge as a whole and the differentiation of parts that are relatively addressed in the article. However, the usage of the term holistic together with epistemology opens room for a wide array of interpretations. Relatively, epistemology is dealing with a given area or scope which can be interpreted to mean a small group coverage.

On the other hand, the term holistic is meant to address issues in a wider manner while looking vividly into other aspects that are part of the whole thing individually. The writer, to some extent, has captured the true picture of the article in his abstract. The summary fails to elucidate what exactly the article is all about; it fails to capture the systematic discussions and relevant conclusions of the article (Meier, 1992). The writer largely failed to provide the reader with a clear glimpse of the writing. Also, the writer failed to be brief and to the point in explaining the exact summary of the writing. The writer’s abstract failed in the representative nature of a serious journal. The skeleton provided needs some flesh about the holistic nature of the study and how various issues have been addressed single-handedly in the paper.

Critique of the introduction

The writer’s introduction has captured the main objective of the article. According to the writer, the article is unique from the past various scientific researches. The writer managed to post a challenging question in his introduction. This is good in bringing his views home while addressing the issues of holistic ontology. The question is related to the nature of knowledge (Anonymous, 2009). Knowledge according to the question is taking two attributes, whether it is hard or softer. Various writers, according to the writer’s references, have discussed the issue of knowledge. He has correctly singled out past articles opposing the question and cleverly, he distances from these writers’ beliefs. The identification of different scientific beliefs and subsequently change of paradigm enabled the article to set a good course on its purpose of viewing life in a holistic manner (Anonymous, 2009).

An analysis and critique of the main body

The writer has largely borrowed from the thoughts of other writers and kept the interpretation of the articles intact. This can be ascertained from the references he used; these references are sensitive to the exact writings. However, as a matter of capturing the exact facts in the interpretation, the writer has sought to arm-twist other writings in developing the course of his writing. In this light, in the case of a scientific research that seeks to define the meaning of reality, the writer has termed it skewed only to bring a notion building on the same reality but different scope (Anonymous, n.d.). The writer developed his views about the Hindu religion. In this light, he borrowed from the western scholars largely but again lambasted the skew of their research about the chosen scope. Most of the author’s discussions were based on the work of western elites.

Critique of the references

The logic behind the choice of references by the writer is questionable. Some of the references fail to capture the nature of the ever-changing scenario of the contemporary society. Moreover, some of the references chosen have no much relationship with the matter at hand. The newly born woman, an article of the early 1980s, for example, is a material that fails to add much weight to the issue being discussed by the writer. From my point of view, I propose the deletion and ultimate replacement to capture the purpose of the study.

Also, it could be prudent for the writer to base the writing on more recent researches on the subject to enable him to capture the most recent thoughts of modern writers. By the aforementioned proposal, the writer in this writing has based his writing on ‘ancient’ research going by the reference list (Anonymous, 2009). Despite the recognition of past writers being important, it is good also to appreciate the changing times and modern researches on the subject.

The writer has done impressively well in maintaining the relevance of the topic of discussion. The following of a systematic criterion in discussing different aspects is commendable. This enables the reader to follow the writer’s thoughts with ease. Some digressions from the subject matter are detectable but the writer managed to restrict himself to the ultimate goal of clearly expressing his points. The assumptions employed by the writer in the course of the writing are realistic. Different scholars have discussed the issue of change differently. Some scholars argue that change is internal while others believe that it is external, but the writer’s assumption that both the theories are relevant to the topic was prudent.

Critique of the discussion

In the discussion, the writer has overemphasized the elaboration on change. It is a fact that change is a dominator in the contemporary society. The subject was between the subject addressed in a mini-outline and the writer embarked on the elaboration of the matter in another sub-unit. Change was discussed in change and continuity and later in internal and external sources of change. The intensity of the issue led to the duplication and mix up in getting a systematic follow-up and ultimate understanding of the topic. The topic is the nerve of the title and some improvements need to be advanced to ensure the mix-up on the issue is addressed. Considering the two units are handling a similar issue, it would be prudent to discuss the issue exhaustively or make the units of discussion to follow themselves systematically in the article.

The statements used by the author in the article are clear. However, additional elaborations are paramount if a nonprofessional is to understand the content of the writing. The choice of words by the writer impedes interactions. The writer also needs to adopt a method where the statements flow systematically to enhance interest in reading. Also, the section on social ontology is in dire need of condensation. The insights are overemphasized while a summary would be relevant for a new reader.

The condensing of this section would be prudent to root out a situation where the author is viewed to have researched only a narrow area. However, there are several areas in the discussion that calls for additional work. This expansion will ease understanding by the reader. An illustrative application, for example, is one part that calls for additional attention in the article. This is an integral part of elaborating on what is being discussed in the entire article. The expansion of the issue will create a user-friendly article, where a large description is well explained in a simple illustration (Nakata, 2003).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the author has restricted himself to the objective of the topic according to his well-researched writing. This is attestable to the amount of material reference relevant to the topic of discussion. The writer has laid enough emphasis on explaining ontology in entirety. Despite the few overemphasis of material facts, the writer has displayed his prowess in bringing out the objective. The aforementioned corrections and additional review will largely improve the article.

References

Anonymous (2009). Holistic Ontology: Epistemological Implications for Organizational Studies. Paper submitted to the Journal of Management Inquiry.

Anonymous (n.d.). How to critique a journal article. UIS Center for Teaching and Learning. Web.

Meier, A. (1992). How to review a technical paper. University of California, Berkeley. Web.

Nakata, C. (2003). A philosophy of reviewing: Taking cues from Henry James. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 31(3): 346.

Trevino, L. K. (2008). Editor’s comments: Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management, 33(1): 8-10.

Introduction

Historical perspectives of philosophy entail, not only coming up with personal answers on fundamental interrogatives but also trying amicably to come into terms with the manner in which some people in the past attempted to provide responses to general questions. Therefore, when addressing any philosophical issue, the scholarly works of philosophical inquirers such as Plato, and Rene Descartes amongst others, come in handy alongside epistemological, ethical, metaphysical, and logical concerns of philosophical approaches.

What is the skeptical argument for the conclusion that there is no intellectual justification?

One can justify his or her beliefs using two approaches: pragmatic and intellectual justifications. Pragmatic justifications are depended on proof that the thing in question has an overall good, and that is why one believes in it. Intellectual justification, on the other hand, depends on giving evidence supporting the belief. Descartes is of the opinion that “the concept of intellectual justification and its role in the concept of knowledge is problematic” (Cummins 1).

For substantive final conclusive justification of an argument, a final reason beyond, which there is no other reason, must come out clearly in an argument. The substantive reason refers to the unique information that a person possesses which can back up a conclusion. However, according to Descartes’s regression argument, arriving at a justification requires a chain of reasons, which, in fact, cannot proceed forever.

With regard to this argument, “a finite chain of reasons must end at an arbitrary point, i.e., with a reason for which one has no further reasons” (Descartes “Background” 1). Unfortunately, the entire sphere of beliefs, justified by the known reason, ends up resting squarely on some unknown beliefs. Therefore, since nothing seems known, the conclusion is that there exists no intellectual justification.

What is the “method of doubt”, and what role does it play in Descartes’ strategy? What is the outcome? I.e., what does Descartes think he has discovered?

Descartes proposes a methodology of doubt, which according to him, can help in unveiling all the truth surrounding a particular philosophical argument. He proceeds by separating those things that he has some doubts about from those things he believes (Cummins 3: Haldane 19). One can only arrive at substantial knowledge by learning to doubt everything. This exposition tells why Descartes could even doubt his own existence. The main concern here is that appearance is deceiving. According to Descartes, perpetual deception lies on the foundation that the way things seem to a person, appears to him or her in a unique way (Haldane 21).

It is, therefore, crucial for one to know how things seem to him or her. Consequently, learning to doubt, therefore, can aid in sorting out what is “apparent and discrete” since it’s only such things that are immune to doubt. Reasoning from simplistic identities, as well as following the methodology of doubt in an attempt to arrive at conclusive decisions about the realities of the material world is problematic since naive realism is wrong (Descartes “Background” 11). This, therefore, paves the way to Descartes’s discovery: that the actual reality of everything defies its appearance. Hence, everything is subject to doubt!

Briefly explain the account of error Descartes offers in Meditation 4

Can one wholly avoid an error? What makes people subjected to errors? Rene Descartes postulates that an idea by itself is not false. Only when one uses it as “a representation of something else can it be erroneous, and only then we need not be naive realists in our judgments” (Haldane 41). Error is not avoidable. Therefore, if one were to avoid it, God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, could have provided mechanisms to make people free of errors.

Descartes argues, in meditation four, that limitations, such as the limitation of the processing time, may contribute to the fact that declares errors inevitable in human nature. If it were necessary, then God should have considered slowing the environmental process or perhaps increasing the processing speeds of people (Descartes “The Problem of Evil” Document 9). Considering the nature of God, it cannot be His intention to make man prone to errors. However, committing an error, according to Descartes is an indication of not possessing some vital knowledge (Shouler 22), since possessing such knowledge would render an acutely thinking being: one guided by reason, to borrow impeccably from such knowledge thus avoiding committing the errors.

In Med. 3, Descartes writes that he cannot be certain of anything until he knows God exists and is not a deceiver. Explain why this is thought to be inconsistent with Med. 2, and why it appears to involve Descartes inevitably in a circular argument

In meditation three, Descartes writes that he cannot be certain that anything exists until he is certain that God exists and that he is not a deceiver. He presents an argument that he undoubtedly believes would provide substantive grounds to prove all perfection originates from the super deity: God. Despite the fact that he views himself as imperfect, he upholds the idea that the super deity is perfect. This argument is chiefly dependent on the scholastic opinion, which claims, “there must be as much reality in the cause in as in the effect” (Haldane 28). He, however, seems to involve himself, in a circular argument inevitably.

In meditation 2, he argues in the lines of how the ‘distinctive and clear’ is immune from doubt (Descartes “Background” 11). He must give reasons for holding this position, which is something that according to meditation two would end into a series of reasons without an end. However, he concludes that God exists, even in the light of being not possessing an absolute final reason that is independent of any other reason to warrant such a claim.

Descartes argued that the external world exists

The cause of his ideas about the external world

Rene Descartes makes the claim that he does not need to force himself to catch the attention of sensory perceptions. According to him, they come to him without giving consent. The sensory perceptions are thus external from an individual sense. According to him, this gives subtle evidence that something exists outside his mind. He calls this “something” the external world. He argues that all the constituents of the external world are material and that, God; the supernatural deity is free from deception, as he cannot turn around to deceive him on the information transmitted in this external world (Haldane 17).

He moves on to claim that, the super deity, the one he terms as God, has conferred to him “propensity” that makes him believe that any idea outside his senses is brought about by the material things occupying this external world.

Reconciliation of science

From one dimension, one might perhaps see Descartes as a fellow attempting to reconcile the concerns of science and religious beliefs. The mediations provide metaphysical foundations in which he pegs his attempts to justify the rationales of science alongside the human endeavor. This is similar to segregating human beings from animals by the fact that reasoning guides all human beings. Since the interaction of the external environment is predominantly non-intentional, and the super deity guides those non-intentions, scientific endeavors amount to more of doing the work of God. The subject of the existence of the external world amounts to an interrogative that may not have a subtle philosophical answer.

Why should it be like that? Considering, for example, the existence of light, taking it as to mean ‘a natural power’ (scientific explanation of what light is), does not amount to the bottom-line of the endeavors that put it with the brackets of the constituents of the external environment. Consequently, the main factor, which should matter, is looking at the question of the existence of the external world from the most simplistic foundations. The external world, if at all it exists, cannot disunite from the perceptions of the world of unreal things. Therefore, attempting to address the subject of the external world in an attempt to prove its existence, as well as the conceptualization of its form, is necessary from an intellectual dimension, as opposed to perceptual perspectives.

The ideas of material objects

The external world consists of matter and anything that can undergo a change of position, shape, and that people attribute some certain secondary traits to it. Descartes presents an illustration of this claim using wax to represent matter in general. According to him, “this lamp of wax as discernible, but shifting, bounded extension and, which perceived as currently having the secondary qualities of wax” (Haldane 10).

Coming into the cognition of the external world will demand that one ardently have “patent and discrete” perception. Perhaps, one cannot see the reasons as to why such a world responsible for bringing about the perception of its existence, already possessed by an individual, exists. Therefore, is God a deceiver?

If it were the case, then, would he deceive people by causing such perceptions that they have, about the external world and its existence? Descartes manages to prove the existence of an external world composed of matter of corporeal nature (Haldane 27), which even though may not represent the complete perceptions of such matter in people’s minds; approximate such perceptions. This follows the proof that God, who is not deceitful exists, and that he cannot deceit people by causing them to possess such perceptions.

Works Cited

Cummins, Robert. Notes on Descartes Meditations. Oxford: Oxford publishers, 1996.

Descartes, Rene. The problem of evil. New York: Word Press, 1988.

Descartes, Rene. 1641. Descartes: Background. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978.

Haldane, Elizabeth. The philosophical works of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Shouler, Kenneth. Descartes’ Two Arguments for Existence of God, 2008. Web.

Primarily, epistemology centers on the understanding of the theory of knowledge and levels to which such knowledge is legitimate. This one of the most crucial areas in philosophy, for it provides a means of understanding the precepts that make knowledge, its sources, organization, methods of verification, and its confines.

Through understanding all of this, one is able to distinguish between personal perceptions and the ultimate truth of knowledge. The reality of knowledge depends on its justifiability; that is, epistemology tends to question the truth behind human knowledge hence, through such understanding, individuals are able to form a basis of comprehending any piece of knowledge (Heylighen, p.1).

What is knowledge?

Knowledge is any belief with a verification mechanism, depending on the facts of reality behind it. Knowledge not only involves the recognition that different aspects of reality exists, but it also involves correct understanding of such aspects; hence, forming a basis of justifying beliefs.

It is important to note that, this definition of knowledge applies the tripartite theory of knowledge, a fact disapproved by the Gettier cases hence, making the preposition lacking. According to the Gettier cases, knowledge cannot be any type of belief with a verification mechanism primarily because, to some extent, the evidential support of some reality concepts maybe out of luck hence, making such evidence unreliable (Pappas, pp. 5-17).

Sources of Knowledge

Notions and beliefs held by different individuals arise due to different reasons. The varying nature of beliefs held by individuals occurs due the varying nature of wants (which can be either psychological or emotional) and varying perceptions among different individuals. Philosophically, there exists two primary propositions, which explain how humans acquire knowledge namely empiricism and rationalism. According to empiricism, individuals’ experiences play the central role in knowledge acquisition.

In addition, because perception determines individuals’ judgmental habits, it is an important component in the knowledge acquisition process. Three main classes of empiricism exists namely classical, constructivism and radical empiricism. Classical empiricism refutes the notion that individuals have inborn concepts; a fact supported by Locke’s idea of the mind being like a blank slate: hence, the importance of the surrounding environments in shaping perception.

Closely linked to this is radical empiricism, which states that, senses are the primary sources of knowledge. Therefore, because different individuals have different perceptions of differences occurrences, according to radical empiricists, individuals must have a mechanism of verifying all sensory perceptions.

On the other hand, because human knowledge depends on sensory instincts, acquisition of knowledge must go hand in hand with personal experiences. Lastly, according to constructivism, by using personal experiences, individuals are able to formulate personal guiding rules and mental representations, which they use in understanding their sensory insights and daily experiences (Moser, pp. 72-93).

Contrary to the empiricists’ ideology is the rationalists’ ideology, which postulates that, acquisition of knowledge depends on individuals’ ability to reason and encode meaning from life’s occurrences. Rationalists oppose Locke’s idea of the human mind being like a blank slate by arguing that, experiences are there to shape what humans know, because human beings are born with some innate concepts (Moser, pp. 76-94).

Justification of Knowledge

Because of the varying nature of perceptions held by different individuals on different life occurrences, the truth of a claim depends on available evidence to support such claims. Three primary knowledge justifications propositions exist namely: reliabilism, foundationalism, and coherentism.

According to foundationalism, individual infer the truth of a belief from other proved ideas; lack of other proved beliefs means that, such held knowledge is not true because it its proving will lack the justification regress concept. A good example of justified ideas is basic beliefs, a fact that makes this theory to face criticism, because selection of basic beliefs is random (McGrath, Sosa, and Kim, pp. 226-235).

Contrary to this is the coherentism ideology, which states that, for a set of beliefs to be true, then they must be coherent. The coherence of a belief depends on three properties namely: comprehensibility, consistency, and cohesiveness. For an idea to be consistency, then the primary elements forming such a belief must agree with each other.

Existence of any contractions between such elements makes beliefs to lack the coherence property hence, void. Cohesiveness of beliefs depends on the supportive and consistent nature of elements that make up beliefs. Consistence and support are important in truth justification, for it makes beliefs probable (Wray, pp. 53-66).

Reliabilism as a mechanism of truth justification is very different from coherentism and foundationalism. According to reliabilism, the justification of a belief depends on its formation methodology. Depending on the belief forming methodology; whether dependable or defective, the outcome of a justification of the truth varies; hence the existence of true and untrue beliefs (Holt, p.1).

In conclusion, the legitimacy of knowledge held by individuals depends on the ability of individuals to verify such knowledge, by inferring to other beliefs, checking their forming mechanism, or ascertaining their coherence.

Works Cited

Heylighen, Francis. Epistemology, introduction. Principia Cybernetica, 1993. Web.

Holt, Tim. Reliabilism. 2010. Web.

McGrath, Matthew, Sosa, Ernest, and Kim, Jaegwon. Epistemology: an anthology. Malden, Massachusetts, 2000. Web.

Moser, Paul. The Oxford handbook of epistemology. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2002. Web.

Pappas, George. Justification and knowledge: New studies in epistemology. Boston: Reidel Publishers, 1979. Web.

Wray, Brad. Knowledge and inquiry: readings in epistemology. Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002. Web.