What is Philosophy

The study of knowledge has been around for a long time, and philosophers have been studying it for even longer. For a long time, the term "knowledge" has been divisive. As a result, it has piqued the interest of philosophers as well as literary institutions. Many philosophers have studied the study of knowledge because it is one of the most fundamental and perhaps one of the most critical areas of study. Knowledge, according to “the standard” definition of philosophy in contemporary philosophy, is a belief that can be justified. In his own words, the great philosopher Plato states that knowledge is a justified belief. On the other hand, Descartes weighs in on this matter by considering some aspects; "what makes knowledge, what kinds of things do we know, what are the limits of what do we know," putting all these together Descartes defines knowledge as what we know, and we can arguably believe (Searle, John R., ed., vol. 39) However, the definition raises some controversies because no one is sure on what is the fact on what to think. In his discussion, Plato argues that for an accurate assert to be known; it must give us knowledge of the world only by concurrence which should be right and justified. For instance, one may provide a claim that aliens exist but if we don't provide adequate evidence of the application, then that cannot be termed as knowledge.

Interestingly, social dimensions of the scientific knowledge get the most philosophical attention. There has been a dynamic shift in the field of philosophy; it entails the effects of research especially on human life, the aftermath of social interactions, the worth of study and virtues of scientific research, and even the social perspectives of inquiry. The combination of various factors forms questions that are salient and critical to the construct of contemporary philosophy. A quick check into these factors includes; "emergence of social movements, ice environmentalism, and feminism, critical of mainstream science."

Apparently, when it comes to justifying our beliefs, the main problem comes in, and we find ourselves in doubt of whether all the justified claims are knowledge-can we trust our rationalization? Is it adequate or relevant? As a result of this uncertainty, philosophical skepticism comes in referring to doubts and many disagreements on what to believe on particular vital issues. According to Descartes, he considers skepticism as the first meditation. He further puts forward a postulation, "what can we can call into doubt opens with the mediator reflecting on the number of falsehood." Several forms of skeptics are available, but all of them tend to revolve around the philosophical issues. For example, one may hold doubts on their personal experiences on what to believe: is there a substantial proof that what we see, hear, smell and touch are beyond our doubt and if so why do colorblind people don't see the similar color?

Most philosophers believe and pay more attention to factual knowledge more so because this part of education mainly focuses on making us realize how we can accomplish truth about the world. Accurate knowledge focuses on facts which we all believe in and there is no doubt about them. For example, we know that the sun sets every evening and rises every morning that's a solid fact, it's true, and no one can argue otherwise. Consequently, factual knowledge relies on true affirmation and false affirmations are therefore not real knowledge about the world (Wolff, & Janet, 20) Nevertheless, some philosophers argue correct assertion which is not known can exist necessitating the need to differentiate between right and false affirmation. On the other hand, skepticism says that there is no ground for justifying any claim that is strong enough to support any factual assertion that we might make.

Descartes, a rationalist, believes that using intuition and deduction can help reduce uncertainty if we stop over relying upon observations because if we hold beliefs that we aren’t sure of that cannot be termed as knowledge. In his argument, Descartes on Meditations on First Philosophy, his main aim is to show that we can always be sure of every belief we hold. Thus, he presents his arguments against the skepticism which expectations that one's view does not meet the criteria of knowledge. For instance, there may be some skepticism about the opinions we have about religion

Whereby we know, certain religious beliefs are real such existence of God. This uncertainty may argue that our belief s do not qualify as knowledge as they lack real affirmation. According to Descartes view, a belief can be eligible to be known if the evidence is substantial to answer any skeptical doubt. Moreover,

Over the years, many philosophers are combining theology and philosophy teaching which evolved in the cathedral schools in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries which gave rise to scholastics. Apparently, Latin fathers and Aristotle commentators command scholasticism which has facilitated in developing a system that is clear and definitional in tone. Scholastics attempts to give a comprehensive idea basing their arguments on classical Roman and Greek writings by the christen scriptures. The method of scholasticism encompasses theology, law and philosophy synthesis through a reasonable argument basically to give evidence on disputed views. The first iconic scholastic was Anselm of Canterbury who is majorly known for his investigation of issues surrounding GOD in a religious viewpoint.

Scholastic such as Aristotle and Hobbes had a notion that we got knowledge from the senses other than from a mere observation. However, they had a different perception on how minds work in acquiring knowledge. For example, Hobbes argues that we cannot solely rely on senses on account of obtaining education because according to him the things that are vital in acquiring knowledge only matter and their interactions. Hobbes also argues that we cannot rely solely on senses since we need to spend a considerable amount of time trying to figure out the meaning of our feelings.

In his meditation o the first Philosophy, Descartes argument has been replied. For example, one primary evidence questioned is whether there exists a mark to distinguish between dreaming and waking up. To answer this claim, Hobbes believes that the absence of the consciousness during dreaming is a significant difference. Although sleeping people are too much



In his dream argument, Descartes argues that there no difference between dreaming and also on waking up since these experiences can be as a result of delusions and even went further to liken dreaming as walking. Descartes based his argument on the fact that there exists a similarity between dreaming and waking life because most of the dreams reflect the waking life experience. However, there exists critic’s on Descartes argument because it lacks consistency and apparently assumes and denies the truth of the fact (Welter, & Brian, 728). Ryle, a philosopher, criticizes this case from illusion. For example, Ryle gave an example that one cannot provide an example of a counterfeit coin while in the real sense the genuine currency does not exist. Thus the inconsistency of the dream argument appears to be present throughout from one point to another.

Descartes observes that whenever he is sleeping, he sometimes believes to have woken up in the middle of something whereas he is dreaming. However, his experience in the dream does not appear very distinct as his present experiences. Descartes argument probably betrays him because his arguments justify that our experiences are delusions since we are sleeping. The fact that sometimes illusions deceive us that we are awake while we are sleeping cannot be used to develop indications for differentiating waking from dreaming. In general, Descartes dream argument has two parts. In the first part of his claim, Descartes argues that there is no specific for differentiating walking and dreaming. On the other hand, in the second part, he explains that it is necessary to have a clear distinction between sleeping and waking to establish on what to follow. Descartes dream argument cut two sides in a way because it fails to indicate on how it is committed to its consistency.

A question of whether we may need evidence to know whether we are awake may arise. Whether we may require proof or not is a matter of debate among several philosophers, but in all, the issue of assumption to distinguish between realities and dream is the central fact. For instance, if you ask a person what they remember or sensed in a dream an idea we can identify specific aspects which vary from sense when one is waking up. Dreaming is in phenomenological delusion which most of the time we don’t need the evidence to know that we are awake and its perceptions can be sharply distinguished. The proponents of both the hallucinations and an illusion beliefs state that dreaming in itself is easily identified from waking up phenomena with a good number of philosophers asserting this claim. For instance, Bradley argues that during sleep, there is an absence of movement that means even if we dream moving around the fact will be that we will only remain inert. Thus, we don't need any evidence as to whether we're awake because we can distinguish the two crystal clear.

Descartes applied the phenomena of dreaming and showed that most of the thing that we dream reflects on our current beliefs that we hold. However, it is sometimes possible to believe something in a dream while in the real sense we don't think it. Descartes suggests that whatever we dream is commonly a mirror of what we experience in our waking life. For example in a dream, one may believe that there is no existence of God while in the real sense they do believe that God exists. Dreaming is the motive behind Descartes doubt on the general perception of knowledge through general observation.

In addition, it is agreeable that perception must be remarkably identical in both reality and in dreams. For instance, “are you what you sense or remember in a dream”. Notably, there are regularities in observation that must be distinguished from those in a dream. Interestingly, even though one is in dreaming right now, then provided the dream disappears, two distinct realities will play out. This nullifies the need to conclusively state this is a dream.

According to the contemporary American philosophy, we view common sense as a test of appreciation as well as acceptability. It forms the basis of metaphysical postulation a conditional statement that cannot be verified. For common sense to be justifiable, it must be consistency on its own. Common sense restricts the ability to be creative and enhance intellect; this is logic by itself. Most philosopher rhyme on the part of the truth. Truth must be acceptable and applicable universally. Common sense cannot validate philosophical principles partially. Consequently, this will lead to rejection on meaningless notwithstanding the creativity of a philosopher( Searle, & John, vol. 39) Therefore, common sense cannot commensurate human experience.

In conclusion, therefore, we can authoritatively argue that knowledge has to be justified. We must have an empirical backing. Furthermore, common sense must be based on logical human experiences.













Works Cited

Wolff, Janet. Hermeneutic philosophy and the sociology of art: an approach to some of the epistemological problems of the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of art and literature. Vol. 4. Routledge, 20

.Lehrer, Keith. Theory of knowledge. Routledge, 2015.

Feser, Edward. Scholastic metaphysics: A contemporary introduction. Editions Scholasticae, 2014.

Welter, Brian. "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction." The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 16.4 (2016): 727-730.

Searle, John R., ed. The philosophy of language. Vol. 39. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.