Comments on: Debate http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/01/08/debate/ Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:24:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Maria Pringle http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/01/08/debate/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Maria Pringle Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:39:17 +0000 http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=516#comment-134 I understand that the problem is to define the epistemological basis that supports the knowledge of truth as justified belief. The friend's opinion is that truth is only known by scientific method. Part 1 says that critical thinking is rational thinking, in which knowledge is justified by general deduction or particular inference. Part 2 claims that when a theory is indemonstrable it is not truth but opinion. Part 3 is an inquiry on the principles of rationality. I think that rational thinking is a scientific method and what the sciences are all about. Now, a justification for the truth of a belief is precisely that, a just kind of measuring that corresponds to what it is. This is, a complete explanation that comprehends all aspects of a thing, thus providing an appropriate grasp that we recognize as truth because it is verifiable. But how is that we verify a thing? There is the problem, how to define a basis of verification that can satisfy our “sense” of truth. Many people stop their inquiry at the quantifiable aspect of things determined by practical experience, this is the basis of sensitive emotions and belief justified by what “feels right.” Others stop at the operational determination gained in the arts and sciences; this is the speculative understanding of processes resulting in empirical truth justified by “scientific demonstration.” Still, there are fundamental aspects that belong to the virtuous level of human knowledge, which explain the original proceeding or intentionality corresponding to things, and which is an intellectual kind of measuring of what is “just truth.” Nevertheless, the epistemological basis of truth should expand to the full dimension of human understanding – which St. Thomas finds in wisdom, comprehending the first cause and the ultimate finality of a thing's “ultimate truth.” On the discussion about the structure of personal knowledge, these are the different bias and bases for individual reasoning; as said, truth is a just correspondence of an integral relation that is measured at different levels; as fact, feeling, logic, just proceeding, and comprehensive finality - the Aristotelian “why” of all things. Therefore, knowledge of truth is not only in the feeling and logic correspondence of what is just, certain and good in the reality of a thing, but true knowledge also becomes an actuality reflected in the integral virtuous life of a person. Consequently, if one measures truth such as a mechanical result from a computer; yes, the human nature is left behind; and with it the basis of any rational principle; this is the capability of human understanding itself. I understand that the problem is to define the epistemological basis that supports the knowledge of truth as justified belief. The friend’s opinion is that truth is only known by scientific method. Part 1 says that critical thinking is rational thinking, in which knowledge is justified by general deduction or particular inference. Part 2 claims that when a theory is indemonstrable it is not truth but opinion. Part 3 is an inquiry on the principles of rationality.

I think that rational thinking is a scientific method and what the sciences are all about. Now, a justification for the truth of a belief is precisely that, a just kind of measuring that corresponds to what it is. This is, a complete explanation that comprehends all aspects of a thing, thus providing an appropriate grasp that we recognize as truth because it is verifiable. But how is that we verify a thing? There is the problem, how to define a basis of verification that can satisfy our “sense” of truth. Many people stop their inquiry at the quantifiable aspect of things determined by practical experience, this is the basis of sensitive emotions and belief justified by what “feels right.” Others stop at the operational determination gained in the arts and sciences; this is the speculative understanding of processes resulting in empirical truth justified by “scientific demonstration.” Still, there are fundamental aspects that belong to the virtuous level of human knowledge, which explain the original proceeding or intentionality corresponding to things, and which is an intellectual kind of measuring of what is “just truth.” Nevertheless, the epistemological basis of truth should expand to the full dimension of human understanding – which St. Thomas finds in wisdom, comprehending the first cause and the ultimate finality of a thing’s “ultimate truth.”

On the discussion about the structure of personal knowledge, these are the different bias and bases for individual reasoning; as said, truth is a just correspondence of an integral relation that is measured at different levels; as fact, feeling, logic, just proceeding, and comprehensive finality – the Aristotelian “why” of all things. Therefore, knowledge of truth is not only in the feeling and logic correspondence of what is just, certain and good in the reality of a thing, but true knowledge also becomes an actuality reflected in the integral virtuous life of a person.

Consequently, if one measures truth such as a mechanical result from a computer; yes, the human nature is left behind; and with it the basis of any rational principle; this is the capability of human understanding itself.

]]>