I agree with you, the question is poorly worded. But I don't think the previous answerers have caught the gist of your question.
By "principle issues" I think the question is refering to three critical questions pertaining to epistemology.
One such question is, can reality accurately be perceived by our senses?
Do all of our senses perceive reality in the same way?
Is logic the only reliable, universal principle for obtaining absolute knowledge?
I admit I may be wrong, but I think this is what the question is asking.
Hope this helps. Cheers, mate.
2007-01-14 01:19:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'm not that good at phylosophy, but let's take a look at theoretical physics for example... for a point (particle) anywhere in space, you can know only one thing of two: it's postion or it's speed. You cannot know both thing on the same time.
On the other hand, evetything is in motion and absolute change, so it's a matter of relativity: what is known now (this absolute present time) will change (no doubt about that) in the next very small part of a second (i don't really know the exact number, but it's something like 0.000000...0001 seconds).
Therefore, i don't think that something can be certain. That goes for love, truth, universe... and just about anything...
2007-01-14 07:02:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by blue_veek 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
No it is not possible to know anything with absolute certainty. It's all theory. How do you know anything? You learn from experience (based on concrete sensory information which can be faulty, your memory is flawed, affected by biases & other limitations), you learn from outside sources -- books, peers, friends, family, society as a whole (also flawed, how can you know anything? What is the ultimate source of truth? Who is the authority? Textbooks can lie. People can lie. Even your eyes can deceive you.) Philosophy is guesswork. It asks questions more than give definitive answers. It presents theories (which may be very convincing but each one is merely a theory. Theories often disprove each other.) Philosophy ponders the meaning of life, it thinks about thinking, it investigates the origin of things. It explores the territory between theology & science. It explores the human mind. It can give no absolute answers...
This is just a guess on my part! What do I know?
2007-01-14 07:19:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by amp 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The principle issues would be "main issues" rather than "principles of action/thought/nature".
I don't know what the main issues you have been studying are, but you should: if you summed a particular philosophers view of epistemology in one sentence what would it be?
EG foundationalism, which can be summed up as "if you do not start with some incorrigable facts to build on you end up going in circles". So one principle issue with certainty is whether and how we can "get started" and on what basis we can found our knowledge.
2007-01-14 08:44:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by anthonypaullloyd 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is something called the Principle of Uncertainty - devised by a German philosopher called Heisenberg - that states that the act of observing something changes its nature insofar as one can be sure of its character, whereas the character of something unobserved may be different, and because it is unobserved we cannot tell. I suspect that it is this that the person who set the question is driving at, so try both "Uncertainty Principle" and "Heisenberg" in Google or another meteseach engine and you should get a load of hits - but be warned, some will involve serious high-level mathematics.
2007-01-14 06:58:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tony B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Deborah says: It's chancey, but it's more rewarding, but if you don't soldier on you achieve nothing. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Glenn says: You can believe, but be prepared for disappointments. Get a life.
Joybelle says: Expect the unexpected because with certainty it will happen.
We have just had the most interesting discussion (in fact it got heated) about this question. We finally agreed that with certainty birth occurs followed by death. All within our experiences. Everything else is subject to conjecture. Best of luck. We're still going on about it. :-}
2007-01-14 07:11:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by joybelle with warm water 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I were you, I would most likely discuss the advantages of not being certain in different circumstances as well as the levels of certainty that exist and why they are advantageous.
Here are two quotes from Bertrand Russell that may provoke some thought:
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. "
2007-01-14 09:37:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eleanor 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quite confusing indeed.
Theoretically, it is very difficult to know with absolute certainty....
But,
traditionally, enlightenment just means also the 'capability' to KNOW anything at anytime, instantly... and when it is known to an enlightened being, nothing in the universe or elsewhere(wherever) would ever be to the contrary or different !
And, this may not be acceptable by your academic authorities 'officially' or 'academically', but it is true.
2007-01-14 07:12:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Spiritualseeker 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
truth reality and stuff, are all subjective. the only thing we know is that we don't know, and what we know is within our senses which are limited.//
2007-01-14 07:36:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by phoenix! 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
principle as in precept? or principal as in main?
2007-01-14 06:54:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by and_y_knot 6
·
0⤊
0⤋