Philosophical Foundation By: Surrendra Gangadean
Description
Vocal Characteristics
Language
EnglishVoice Age
Middle Aged (35-54)Accents
North American (General) North American (US Midwest- Chicago, Great Lakes)Transcript
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
Chapter one, clarity, philosophy and reason on clarity. Some things are clear, the basic things are clear. The basic things about God and man and good and evil are clear to reason. Skepticism denies that some things are clear. If nothing is clear, then the distinctions between a and non a being and non being true and false, good and evil are not clear. Consistently held. Skepticism leads to nihilism. The loss of all meaning human beings are more or less conscious and consistent in understanding the meaning and implications of their beliefs. There are many degrees and kinds of skepticism arising from degrees of consistency and basic belief as well as from differences among persons. All skepticism is grounded in uncritically held assumptions. These assumptions will be critically examined in preparing to show how some things are clear persons as rational beings need meaning integrity as a basic form of honesty is a concern for consistency but consistently held skepticism leads to Neals. The existential burden of neal is intolerable. It cannot with integrity, be born as nihilism increases, integrity decreases, but integrity cannot be abandoned without self deception and self justification. Lack of integrity complicates the effort to show what is clear fight is is the most common alternative to skepticism. But it too assumes that basic things are not clear in Fes, basic beliefs are held without proof. But understanding the meaning of what is clear at the basic level amounts to proof belief without proof based on understanding. Therefore, empty belief of meaning a world view based on fight is when challenged over time must offer proof or like skepticism yield to neal. Is there are many forms of fight is just as there are many forms of skepticism. One form of Fes believes that in principle, faith is opposed to proof. Another form of Fes holds beliefs based on arguments which are in fact unsound. Still another form of fad holds beliefs without proof without addressing the question of proof feed is may occur on both sides of an assertion. Fes may be both theistic and anti theistic. It may be naturalistic or supernatural. It may be sophistic or simplistic without understanding basic things that are clear pds like skepticism leads to loss of meaning and to loss of integrity. What is clear can be known by any person who is seeking to know, assuming integrity, seeking to know what is the necessary and sufficient condition for knowing what is clear. There is no rational justification for failure to know what is clear. One has to neglect, avoid, resist or deny reason. In order to avoid what is clear, a person may fail to know what is clear even while claiming to know what is clear, if one knows what is clear, one should be able to show what is clear and be able to overcome commonly held objections to what is clear. If some things are clear, then basic things are clear thinking by nature is presupposition. We think of what is less basic in light of what is more basic. If what is more basic is not clear, then what is less basic cannot be clear and therefore nothing can be clear. If there is agreement on what is more basic, which is clear, there will be agreement on what is less basic basic things are searched out in the most basic questions we can ask, how is knowledge possible? What is real? What ought I do? How knowledge is possible requires attention to the nature of thought and to reason as the laws of thought, it requires attention to the relation of truth and meaning and to reason as the test of meaning, it requires attention to experience and to the interpretation of experience in light of one's basic beliefs. What is real requires the distinction between the temporal and the eternal and attention to the questions, whether there must be something eternal or whether it is possible that nothing is eternal. It deals with the question whether all is eternal in some form or other or whether only some I E God is eternal. One's view of the origin and nature of man will depend on one's view of what is real. The question, what ought I do is based on the reality of choice and of values which assume the notion of the highest value or the good one's conception of good and evil will depend on one's conception of human nature. If therefore some things are clear and the basic things are clear, then the basic things about God and man, good and evil are clear to reason. While knowing what is clear requires ability to show what is clear, showing what is clear does not require persuading another of what is clear to show what is clear requires giving a sound argument, valid inference and true premises. Sound arguments are persuasive only if one is committed to reason and one's response to a sound argument reveals one's commitment. While sound arguments may not persuade, they compel change in the attentive hearer, the hearer must agree or try to show that the argument given is not sound. If the basic response is not merely a quibble, it will call into question what is more basic that has been taken as common ground. A response may go so far as to question the nature and the authority of reason itself. A basic belief may thus be professed apart from or against reason. This change in position is one way in which a sound argument is compelling. If basic beliefs are clear to reason, then in a step by step process by good and necessary consequences. Less basic beliefs can also be clear to reason. A set of beliefs so derived constitutes a coherent worldview. A worldview seeks to make sense of all aspects of human experience in order to satisfy the human need for meaning, a coherent worldview provides and retains meaning in light of the eternal and external challenges of reason. A coherent worldview thus secures the basis of a lasting culture.