DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemology.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemology.Pdf Epistemology An overview Contents 1 Main article 1 1.1 Epistemology ............................................. 1 1.1.1 Background and meaning ................................... 1 1.1.2 Knowledge .......................................... 1 1.1.3 Acquiring knowledge ..................................... 5 1.1.4 Skepticism .......................................... 7 1.1.5 See also ............................................ 7 1.1.6 References .......................................... 8 1.1.7 Works cited .......................................... 9 1.1.8 External links ......................................... 10 2 Knowledge 11 2.1 Knowledge ............................................... 11 2.1.1 Theories of knowledge .................................... 11 2.1.2 Communicating knowledge ................................. 12 2.1.3 Situated knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.4 Partial knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.5 Scientific knowledge ..................................... 13 2.1.6 Religious meaning of knowledge ............................... 14 2.1.7 See also ............................................ 15 2.1.8 References .......................................... 15 2.1.9 External links ......................................... 16 2.2 Belief ................................................. 16 2.2.1 Knowledge and epistemology ................................. 17 2.2.2 As a psychological phenomenon ............................... 17 2.2.3 Epistemological belief compared to religious belief ..................... 18 2.2.4 Formation ........................................... 18 2.2.5 Justified true belief ...................................... 19 2.2.6 Modification ......................................... 19 2.2.7 Partial ............................................. 20 2.2.8 Prediction ........................................... 20 2.2.9 Religion ............................................ 20 2.2.10 Systems ............................................ 23 i ii CONTENTS 2.2.11 See also ............................................ 24 2.2.12 Notes ............................................. 25 2.2.13 Further reading ........................................ 27 2.2.14 External links ......................................... 27 2.3 Truth ................................................. 27 2.3.1 Definition and etymology ................................... 28 2.3.2 Major theories ........................................ 29 2.3.3 Formal theories ........................................ 32 2.3.4 Notable views ......................................... 34 2.3.5 In medicine and psychiatry .................................. 38 2.3.6 In religion: omniscience .................................... 38 2.3.7 See also ............................................ 39 2.3.8 Notes ............................................. 39 2.3.9 References .......................................... 42 2.3.10 External links ......................................... 44 2.4 Criteria of truth ............................................ 45 2.4.1 Authority ........................................... 45 2.4.2 Coherence ........................................... 45 2.4.3 Consensus gentium ...................................... 45 2.4.4 Consistency (mere) ...................................... 45 2.4.5 Consistency (strict) ...................................... 45 2.4.6 Correspondence ........................................ 45 2.4.7 Custom ............................................ 46 2.4.8 Emotions ........................................... 46 2.4.9 Instinct ............................................ 46 2.4.10 Intuition ............................................ 46 2.4.11 Majority rule ......................................... 46 2.4.12 Naïve Realism ........................................ 46 2.4.13 Pragmatic ........................................... 46 2.4.14 Revelation ........................................... 47 2.4.15 Time ............................................. 47 2.4.16 Tradition ........................................... 47 2.4.17 See also ............................................ 47 2.4.18 Footnotes ........................................... 47 2.5 Theaetetus ............................................... 47 2.5.1 The framing of the dialogue ................................. 48 2.5.2 Midwife to knowledge .................................... 48 2.5.3 Philosophical labor ...................................... 48 2.5.4 Examining the offspring .................................... 48 2.5.5 Abusing the “orphan” of Protagoras ............................. 48 2.5.6 The absent-minded philosopher ................................ 49 CONTENTS iii 2.5.7 The men of flux ........................................ 49 2.5.8 The mind as aviary ...................................... 49 2.5.9 Socrates and the Jury ..................................... 49 2.5.10 Knowledge as judgment with an account ........................... 49 2.5.11 Conclusion .......................................... 50 2.5.12 Significant references in the dialogue ............................. 50 2.5.13 Notes ............................................. 50 2.5.14 References .......................................... 50 2.5.15 Selected secondary literature ................................. 50 2.5.16 External links ......................................... 51 2.6 Gettier problem ............................................ 51 2.6.1 History ............................................ 51 2.6.2 Knowledge as justified true belief ............................... 51 2.6.3 Gettier’s counterexamples ................................... 52 2.6.4 False premises ........................................ 52 2.6.5 More general Gettier-style problems ............................. 52 2.6.6 Other responses to Gettier .................................. 53 2.6.7 Notes ............................................. 56 2.6.8 References .......................................... 57 2.6.9 External links ......................................... 57 2.7 Reliabilism ............................................... 57 2.7.1 Objections ........................................... 58 2.7.2 References .......................................... 58 2.7.3 External links ......................................... 59 2.8 Internalism and externalism ...................................... 59 2.8.1 Moral philosophy ....................................... 59 2.8.2 Epistemology ......................................... 60 2.8.3 Semantics ........................................... 61 2.8.4 Philosophy of mind ...................................... 61 2.8.5 Historiography of science .................................. 62 2.8.6 See also ............................................ 62 2.8.7 References .......................................... 62 2.8.8 Further reading ........................................ 63 2.8.9 External links ......................................... 63 3 Acquiring knowledge 64 3.1 A priori and a posteriori ........................................ 64 3.1.1 Examples ........................................... 64 3.1.2 Analyticity and necessity ................................... 64 3.1.3 History ............................................ 65 3.1.4 See also ............................................ 66 3.1.5 Notes ............................................. 66 iv CONTENTS 3.1.6 Footnotes ........................................... 66 3.1.7 References .......................................... 67 3.1.8 Further reading ........................................ 67 3.1.9 External links ......................................... 68 3.2 Analytic-synthetic distinction ..................................... 68 3.2.1 Kant .............................................. 68 3.2.2 Logical positivists ....................................... 70 3.2.3 Two-dimensionalism ..................................... 71 3.2.4 Quine’s criticisms ....................................... 71 3.2.5 See also ............................................ 72 3.2.6 Footnotes ........................................... 73 3.2.7 References and further reading ................................ 73 3.2.8 External links ......................................... 74 3.3 Empiricism .............................................. 74 3.3.1 Etymology .......................................... 74 3.3.2 History ............................................ 74 3.3.3 See also ............................................ 81 3.3.4 Endnotes ........................................... 81 3.3.5 References .......................................... 82 3.3.6 External links ......................................... 83 3.4 Rationalism .............................................. 83 3.4.1 Philosophical usage ...................................... 84 3.4.2 Background .......................................... 86 3.4.3 History ............................................ 86 3.4.4 See also ............................................ 88 3.4.5 References .......................................... 89 3.4.6 External links ......................................... 91 3.5 Constructivist epistemology ...................................... 91 3.5.1 Tenets ............................................. 91 3.5.2 Origin of the term ....................................... 91 3.5.3 History ............................................ 91 3.5.4 Constructivism and sciences ................................. 93 3.5.5 Constructivist trends
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socrates and the Theaetetus
    THE ORIGIN OF THE ‘GETTIER’ PROBLEM: SOCRATES AND THE THEAETETUS Michael JENKINS ABSTRACT: This article discusses the origin of what has become known as the Gettier Problem. It examines the claim put forward, though not expounded or defended, by J. Angelo Corlett in Analyzing Social Knowledge that the basis for Edmund Gettier’s article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” was originally argued for in Plato’s Theaetetus. In his article, Gettier argues that the Justified True Belief condition is not sufficient for knowledge. However, Corlett questions the originality of this argument. This article examines Gettier’s article followed by the Theatetus. After which, the two articles are compared, and the claim is shown to be correct in accusing Gettier of failing consider the full work of the Theaetetus. Socrates also argued that the Justified True Belief condition was not sufficient for knowledge. However, this article concludes by arguing that Socrates went further with his examination than Gettier did. Socrates not only put forward the claim that this condition was insufficient for knowledge, he also tried to supply answers to the problem. KEYWORDS: Gettier, Theaetetus, epistemology, Socrates, coherentism, justification 1. Introduction In Analyzing Social Knowledge, J. Angelo Corlett states that Edmund L. Gettier, in his infamous article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”1 seems to merely reiterate what Socrates (in Plato’s Theaetetus) already articulates: that “simple justified true belief is insufficient for knowledge.”2 In this article, I will argue that Corlett’s statement is correct. I will argue that it originated not with Gettier, but at least as far back into the writing of western philosophy as Socrates.
    [Show full text]
  • "There Is No Right to Be Stupid": a Voegelinian Analysis of Islamist
    "There is No Right to Be Stupid": A Voegelinian Analysis of Islamist Terrorism with Reference to the "Elements of Reality" Copyright 2005 Celestino Perez, Jr. In the following essay I make three claims. First, in agreement with Eric Voegelin and Barry Cooper, I illustrate why a comprehensive study of politics requires that attention be paid to the symbols "God and man," "the Good", and "the soul" (Section I). I then briefly wonder if Voegelin and Cooper, despite offering cogent analyses of pernicious ideologies, ask too much of their readers? If so, what are the prospects for a competent political science and a healthy democratic populace (Section II)? In Section III, I suggest a different way of applying Voegelin's theory to an analysis of Islamist ideology, wherein I lay out ten "elements of reality" and five distilled "fundamental truths" derived from these elements. To the degree that someone distorts or neglects these elements of reality, he is a pneumopath. He may be very smart. But, alas, he is a "philosophical and religious ignoramus,"1 [1] and hence stupid. And, as Voegelin reminds us in Hitler and the Germans, "There is no right to be stupid." To be sure, if we allow ourselves to submit to stupidity, the gangster animals will be sure to mockingly let us know: 1 [1] Barry Cooper, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism ( Columbia : University of Missouri Press , 2004), xii. Cooper describes Sayyid Qutb's and other terrorists' "dogmatic certainty" as resulting from their being "philosophical and religious ignoramuses." "Yoohoo, silly ass!"2 [2] In the Concluding Notes, I lay out what I consider to be the gist of Cooper's argument, and I briefly comment on his Appendix in New Political Religions.
    [Show full text]
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Aenesidemus Upon Fichte and Schopenhauer
    Richard Fincham 97 Pli 10 (2000), 96-126. subject from both object and subject and is referred to both".4 Fichte shows that although this may suffice as the first principle of theoretical knowledge, it cannot be the first principle of all philosophy.s Therefore, for Fichte, principles of theoretical knowledge can only be satisfactorily grounded upon the self qua reflective consciousness of Kantian and Reinholdian transcendental idealism once the existence of such reflective The Impact of Aenesidemus upon Fichte and consciousness is itself grounded upon an absolute foundation. It is of Schopenhauer course in response to this perceived requirement that Fichte constructs a system of transcendental idealism which asserts that the self itself ­ conceived of as primordially an absolute self-reverting activity - should RICHARD FINCHAM be the absolute foundation of all philosophy. This article will show why it is that for Fichte, 'reflective consciousness', which for Kant was the ground of all explanation, becomes conceived of as itself requiring explanation. It will be argued Fichte's reconfiguration of Kantian transcendental idealism is motivated that this is due to an engagement with a sceptical attack upon the by an engagement with two specific 'commentaries' upon it. Firstly, transcendental idealism of Kant and Reinhold named after (and Fichte was clearly convinced by Reinhold's complaint that the Critique's supposedly expounded by) the neo-Pyrrhonean sceptic Aenesidemus, principles can only "become universally binding"l by being grounded [I which was published anonymously in 1792, but was later revealed to be upon a universally valid and indubitable "self-explanatory,,2 foundation, the work of G.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Reflections on Gettier's Problem
    Some Reflections on Gettier’s Problem Golam Azam * It is one of the basic problems of epistemology to define knowledge. Epistemology is one of the branches of philosophy that discusses about the definition, sources, validity and limitations of knowledge. From Socrates to till date this problem is being discussed by most of the eminent philosophers; ancient, medieval, modern or contemporary- eastern or western- Indian, Muslim, Chinese or Buddhist philosophers. Why knowledge is important, what the criterion of truth is, are also the basic issues of discussion of the philosophers of the ages. E. Gettier, an American epistemologist, published a paper of only three pages entitled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” in 1963 where he challenged the age-old definition of knowledge. Traditionally knowledge is defined as ‘justified true belief’. Gettier showed that these three conditions are not enough for the definition of knowledge. In this paper, Gettier’s conception regarding the definition of knowledge will be analyzed and in this connection the reaction of the contemporary epistemologists will also be interpreted and analyzed. It will be showed that now a day the fundamental problem of knowledge is not to define ‘knowledge’ rather the problem is mainly regarding the justification of the statement of knowledge. I Before the publication of Gettier's paper knowledge was widely defined as justified true belief. It is the pre-Gettier definition of knowledge. After the publication of Gettier’s paper the term ‘Gettier problem’ has become well known to the contemporary philosophers. Gettier problems or cases are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics
    Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics Hasen Khudairi June 20, 2017 c Hasen Khudairi 2017, 2020 All rights reserved. 1 Abstract This book concerns the foundations of epistemic modality. I examine the nature of epistemic modality, when the modal operator is interpreted as con- cerning both apriority and conceivability, as well as states of knowledge and belief. The book demonstrates how epistemic modality relates to the compu- tational theory of mind; metaphysical modality; deontic modality; the types of mathematical modality; to the epistemic status of undecidable proposi- tions and abstraction principles in the philosophy of mathematics; to the apriori-aposteriori distinction; to the modal profile of rational propositional intuition; and to the types of intention, when the latter is interpreted as a modal mental state. Each essay is informed by either epistemic logic, modal and cylindric algebra or coalgebra, intensional semantics or hyperin- tensional semantics. The book’s original contributions include theories of: (i) epistemic modal algebras and coalgebras; (ii) cognitivism about epistemic modality; (iii) two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, and interpretations thereof; (iv) the ground-theoretic ontology of consciousness; (v) fixed-points in vagueness; (vi) the modal foundations of mathematical platonism; (vii) a solution to the Julius Caesar problem based on metaphysical definitions availing of notions of ground and essence; (viii) the application of epistemic two-dimensional semantics to the epistemology of mathematics; and (ix) a modal logic for rational intuition. I develop, further, a novel approach to conditions of self-knowledge in the setting of the modal µ-calculus, as well as novel epistemicist solutions to Curry’s and the liar paradoxes.
    [Show full text]
  • Kantian Psychologism
    Kantian Psychologism Kantiaans Psychologisme (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de door Peter Sperber Promotor: Prof.dr. P.G. Ziche Copromotor: Dr. D.K.W. van Miert Copyright © 2017 by Peter Sperber All rights reserved Cover art: Rabih Mroué Leap Year´s Diary, 2006-2016 Collage on paper 23 x 16,5 cm, framed Courtesy the artist & Sfeir-Semler Gallery, Hamburg / Beirut ISBN 978-94-028-0665-6 Printed by Ipskamp Printing To my parents, for everything Acknowledgments During the four years in which I wrote the present dissertation, I was very fortunate to have many people in my life who, directly or indirectly, contributed to my research in important ways. To begin, I am incredibly grateful to my supervisor, Paul Ziche. Not only did he hire me four years ago, without which there would not have been a dissertation in the first place, but during these years, Paul also turned out to be the most entrusting and supportive supervisor a doctoral candidate could wish for. Though I probably took the research project in a very different direction than he envisioned when he first wrote the funding proposal, he always made me feel like I had complete freedom in following my own research interests, which was incredibly motivating. Perhaps even more importantly, Paul was never narrowly focused on the research alone, but also encouraged me to develop myself more broadly, both as a scholar and as a person, and provided all the support that I could possibly have hoped for. Finally, it has been a pleasure to work with him academically.
    [Show full text]
  • Mit Einer Logischen Kritik Der Mathematischen Logik Und Bibliographie Der Logik
    GRUNDRISS DER PYRAMIDALEN LOGIK mit einer logischen Kritik der mathematischen Logik und Bibliographie der Logik Lehrmaterialien aus dem Philosophischen Institut der HHU Düsseldorf Forschungsabteilung für Wissenschaftstheorie Prof. Dr. L. Geldsetzer A AB AC ABD Copyright 2000 vorbehalten Kopieren zum Studiengebrauch erlaubt 2 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS Vorbemerkung Zum Konzept der pyramidalen Logik 4 I. Einführung 4 II. Die logischen Elemente 20 1. Intensionen 20 2. Extensionen 21 3. Der Begriff 24 a. Die reguläreBegriffsstrukturDielogische a. 24 b. Negative Begriffe 25 c. Der widersprüchliche Begriff (contradictio in adiecto bzw. contradictio in terminis) 26 d. Der Dispositionsbegriff 30 e. Der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff 32 f. Der Zahlbegriff 33 g. Sogenannte Relationsbegriffe, Ähnlichkeitsbegriffe und "Familienähnlichkeit" 44 h. Der Begriff des Begriffs in der stoischen Logik 47 i. Methoden der Begriffsbildung: Induktion, Deduktion, Analyse und Synthese 50 4. Die Junktoren 55 a. Die urteilsbildendenDie a.Junktoren 57 1. Die unbeschränkteDie (allgemeine)1.Implikation 57 2. Das unbeschränkte (allgemeine) "Zukommen" 58 3. Die korrelierende Implikation 58 4. Die Kopula bzw. die materiale Implikationmateriale 58Kopula die Diebzw. 4. 5. Das spezielle "Zukommen" bzw. die formale Implikation oder Inklusion 58 6. Die Negation 59 7. Der Existenz- bzw. Produktjunktorbzw.Existenz- Der 7. 59 b. Die ausdrucksbildendenDie b. Junktoren 61 1. Die QuantifikationDie 1. 62 2. Die ÄquivalenzDie 2. 63 3. Die unvollständigeDie Disjunktion3. 63 4. Die vollständige Disjunktion oder Alternative 63 5. Die AdjunktionDie 5. 64 c. Die mathematischenJunktorenDie c. 65 1. Die Summenbildung Die 1. (Additionsjunktor) 68 2. Die SubtraktionDie (Differenzenjunktor)2. 68 3. Die ProduktbildungDie 3. (Multiplikationsjunktor) 68 4. Die Division (Quotienten- oder Proportionsjunktor) 69 5. Die PotenzbildungDie (Potenzjunktor)5.
    [Show full text]
  • Piaget»S Genictic Epistemology; a Theoretical Critique of Ma.In Epistemic Concepts
    1, PIAGET»S GENICTIC EPISTEMOLOGY; A THEORETICAL CRITIQUE OF MA.IN EPISTEMIC CONCEPTS LESLIE SMITH A thesis submitted at the University of Leicester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 1981 School of Education, University of Leicester. UMI Number: U323106 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Disscrrlation Publishing UMI U323106 Published by ProQuest LLC 2015. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 -îM-esri , .7 ' 11. Recognition.I'm pleased by it, of course, but it's pretty catastrophic when I see how I'm understood. JEAN PIAGET The great man who at any time seems to be launching some new line of thought is simply the point of intersection or synthesis of ideas which have been elaborated by a continuous process of cooperation. JEAN PIAGET From the amoeba to Einstein, the growth of knowledge is always the same. KARL POPPER How difficult it isi How much more difficult psychology is than physics. ALBERT EINSTEIN 111. Foreword My own view of the work of Jean Piaget is that it embodies an exciting, novel and challenging conception of human knowledge and that his theory possesses a comprehensive breadth of vision that makes it a major intellectual achievement, I mention ray personal view at the outset, not in the expectation that it is necessarily shared by others but rather because it is my personal view, one which is not a view that others have to share to want to read further in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Cite Complete Issue More Information About This Article
    Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia ISSN: 1676-3041 ISSN: 1808-4281 Universidade do Estado do Rio De Janeiro Ratcliff, Marc J.; Tau, Ramiro A networking model. The case of the International Center for Genetic Epistemology Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, vol. 18, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1215-1238 Universidade do Estado do Rio De Janeiro Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=451859498011 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Journal's webpage in redalyc.org Portugal Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative ARTIGOS A networking model. The case of the International Center for Genetic Epistemology Um modelo de rede. O caso do Centro Internacional de Epistemologia Genética Un modelo de red. El caso del Centro Internacional de Epistemología Genética Marc J. Ratcliff* University of Geneva - UNIGE, Genebra, Suíça Ramiro Tau** University of Geneva - UNIGE, Genebra, Suíça ABSTRACT The article reviews the process of conformation of the International Center for Genetic Epistemology (CIEG), which functioned at the University of Geneva between 1955 and 1986. This Center led by Jean Piaget had the collaboration of hundreds of researchers from around the world and from different disciplines. We will here review the configuration of the centripetal circuits that led to the constitution of an institution with a double centrality. On the one hand, taking into account the history of international scientific circulations, it is feasible to recognize in the CIEG a reference point from which the radial journeys of social exchanges with different scientific communities can be reconstructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM
    Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM Western Pre-Socratics Fanon Heraclitus- Greek 535-475 Bayle Panta rhei Marshall Mcluhan • "Everything flows" Roman Jakobson • "No man ever steps in the same river twice" Saussure • Doctrine of flux Butler Logos Harris • "Reason" or "Argument" • "All entities come to be in accordance with the Logos" Dike eris • "Strife is justice" • Oppositional process of dissolving and generating known as strife "The Obscure" and "The Weeping Philosopher" "The path up and down are one and the same" • Theory about unity of opposites • Bow and lyre Native of Ephesus "Follow the common" "Character is fate" "Lighting steers the universe" Neitzshce said he was "eternally right" for "declaring that Being was an empty illusion" and embracing "becoming" Subject of Heideggar and Eugen Fink's lecture Fire was the origin of everything Influenced the Stoics Protagoras- Greek 490-420 BCE Most influential of the Sophists • Derided by Plato and Socrates for being mere rhetoricians "Man is the measure of all things" • Found many things to be unknowable • What is true for one person is not for another Could "make the worse case better" • Focused on persuasiveness of an argument Names a Socratic dialogue about whether virtue can be taught Pythagoras of Samos- Greek 570-495 BCE Metempsychosis • "Transmigration of souls" • Every soul is immortal and upon death enters a new body Pythagorean Theorem Pythagorean Tuning • System of musical tuning where frequency rations are on intervals based on ration 3:2 • "Pure" perfect fifth • Inspired
    [Show full text]