I'm stuck and I need some help on this topic PLEASE..?

Question

I am working on a philosophy term paper, and I have chosen my topic to be: Internal vs. external views of the epistemic justification of knowledge. Here's my problem (other than having to pick a side and prove why it's better), but.. when I start getting into the idea of knowledge and how we attain it, and it starts getting into perception as an external source, then it starts getting into the concept of "does what we perceive really exist outside our own minds". I don't really want to get into solipsism on this paper, but how can I avoid this? Also, who would be good philosophers to use who would AGREE that "we only know what we know because we have to be justified in our belief of what we know from others around us and not just ourselves"? (external view) and who would be good philosophers to use who would agree that "we only know what we know from a prior knowledge given to us by a higher form before we were born, we just use our existence in a journey to recollect this knowlege"

(internal) meaning that our minds were given a true Form of "knowledge" but in our existence in THIS limited ability to acquire knowledge we can never achieve the true Form of knowledge which we've always possessed? I was thinking Plato for this one. Was Plato an externalist?

Answer 1

I really don't know the answer to this but felt I had to point out the fact that Foolhardysage knew exactly what the Mad Scientist was trying to say is proof that there is someone out there for everyone!

Answer 2

haha! I ran into a similar situation in a philosophy paper that I did. Here's the deal. A philosophy paper is unlike other research papers simply because we are not expected to reach any conclusions! (Certainly not beyond our primary sources. We are not expected to out-philosophize Plato...) Should you find yourself "arguing" pro or con, consult some secondary sources supporting your arguments. At least that way, you aren't standing alone in a cornfield shaking your finger at Socrates!

Instead, identify philosophers of each school of thought and explore THEIR ideas - through your own perspective, of course. I don't imagine your professor expects great profundity; more likely than not, he/she is concerned with your grasp of the material and the numerous implications.

Descartes' Meditation Two: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That it is Better Known than the Body: treats the "internal" justification of knowledge very well. Aristotle, Locke and Hume are considered to be fundamental empiricists. Both schools of thought, however, make many theoretical concessions on the ability to acquire knowledge and the nature of knowledge itself.

Good luck!

Answer 3

i think part of the problem is the fact that you are trying to argue and cover all of your bases at the same time. if i understand your question correctly, you already have ample counter-arguments to your 'side'... and you are trying to either snuff them out, or argue why they aren't justifiable for your main argument. (i have this problem upon occasion too).

its much easier to argue for external perception (naturally) because its the easiest to usher mental surrender. plato is good for 'forms' as you said... and as i understand it, so too is aristotle -- but in a different light.

while i'm sure i have offered absolutely no help with your quest, i do wish you the best on your paper. brings back memories. =)

.

Answer 4

Wow, what a great question. I am no genius, but seems to me that the "internal" subject is more interesting than the external. If you read through the Bible..you will find great philosophers and the answers to many questions.

Answer 5

Papers like this is why I never made it through college. Good luck.

Answer 6

bj?