'Philosophy of Discipline Essay\r'

'Essay Question: In graze to find out how things rattlingly argon, one mustiness understand the filters through which one perceives the world.\r\nI recall that we perceive and therefore know. We perceive through emotions, vocabulary and reason. These ar also known as the shipway of knowing. consequently, it is appropriate to use the Woolman’s twelve ways of knowing to talk about learning. Reality is what we go out, hear, smell, touch, judge and feel. It is what we observe around us using our senses and feelings. However, how do we know that we are really seeing verity and non our perception or something that our brain nates accept and process?\r\nThere are colorize that our eye heapnot see for example ultra-violet and infrared-red. These colors are unseeyn to the human eye therefore we whoremongernot see them. What we perceive is a clean Singapore. How do we very know that Singapore is not littered with invisible rubbish? Of course, there are special devic es that throw in the towel us to see these two colors and designate that there is no such rubbish. However, you rump neer be sure that there are no another(prenominal) colors invisible to our naked eyes. The things that we check always believed to be true, because we call for ‘seen’ it with our own eyes may actually be non-existent so can we trust our eyes?\r\nIs what we see real? ‘My desk is in the study room’. This statement’s so called ‘proof’ is based on ‘unproven’ exposit and therefore nothing is true and realness is not real. This is skepticism. When can we be sure? We can barely be sure when we begin with the simplest, most radical premises which is certainly impossible to doubt. This can be summed up into these three lines ‘what we see is not real’, ‘you cannot be sure whether you are dreaming or not’, ‘there is only thing that you can be certain of and that is your consciou sness of your own population’. Xenophanes once said that we can always ask more than we know, that we can never be sure that we have reached any final truth. Thus is seeing really accept or believing is really seeing?\r\n every(prenominal)one has behaves differently because everyone is taught or curriculummed differently. most people never let a gross word slip their lips others say it all day. This is delinquent to the different programs retentiond in their scruples. For example, if your father who bought you up teaches you that theft is abuse, you would perceive that stealing is wrong and thus your conscience pricks you when you are tempted to steal. However, what if the person who passes the information to you is ignorant and teaches you what he thinks is right and these turn out to be wrong?\r\nThis boils down to authority and acquaintances. The drug addiction line is because of incorrect perception. If your father brought you up teaching you that drugs is u nplayful for you, you will the perception that drugs is good and take drugs without it pricking your conscience, eventually fall into addiction of drugs. Therefore, are you adapted to trust your conscience or the persons who brought you up and helped program your conscience?\r\nDreams seem real and convert. Is it possible that you retrieve your dreams as you remember past experiences? This seems absurd, but sometimes you can mistake a dream for reality (dreams often seem very real), as a result you may also mistakenly store that reality-look-alike thought in your brain. You mistakenly made these memories and you can no longer be confine your fund to real-life experiences, which in itself are not very convincing and have its areas for skepticism, but fake and pure materials from your imagination.\r\nEvery controversy or proof proceeded from premises, which it did not itself establish. difficult to demonstrate the truth of those premises by other arguments or proofs had to be ba sed on undemonstrated premises. Therefore, no ultimate ground of certainty could ever be reached. What a valid argument proves is that its conclusions follow from its premises, but it is not at all the same as proving that those conclusions are true. Every valid argument starts with an ‘if’: if ‘p’ is true thusly ‘q’ must be true. That leaves blossom the question of whether or not ‘p’ is true. The argument itself cannot prove that because it has already off-key it and to have assumed already what sets are out to prove would be to move in a vicious circle.\r\n cognition can be simplified into two grassroots questions. Is your perception true? Why is it true or false? Then you can ask yourself how do you perceive? We know through our five senses? These senses bill impulses or messages to our brain from the outside word. The brain then takes and creates the real world in our brain. How does the brain interpret the impulses or mes sages? It can be done through past experiences, social, cultural, religious communities, spatial familiarity for example patterns and shapes, biologic limitations, existing learning structures, language and self perception such as how we think or what we believe.\r\nIt is then doubtful whether anyone could live based on bang perception, or if they could, whether such a life would be worth living. However, this refutation of perception, if refutation it is, is not a logical argument. In practical life, we must orient a middle course between demanding a degree of certainty that we can never have and treating all possibilities as if they were of equal weight when they are not.\r\nReferences\r\n1. Longman Longman Dictionary Of Contemporary English (International Students Edition) Longman Group especial(a) 1978, 1995\r\n2. Bryan Magee The Story Of Philosophy Doling Kindersley Limited 1998, 2001\r\n'