Probably the only time you’ll see at VS

… snagging my favorite scent. That- and buying someone else a gift. It’s nothing against their brand (I happen to like how they make their products and all that cute stuff ) I’d just rather prefer not spending $50.00 on a bra when I can pay less than half somewhere else. Oh- this is my favorite perfume in Bombshell. I thought why not buy a travel-sized one that can fit in my purse :)?

Advertisements

Time is a delicate art

One to twist and contort to our liking

Our duty as timekeeper’s- to offer ourselves to the pendulum time

We accept this, therefore one with its force, a linear sequence of motion

consistently molding into being the contents of entirety: the good, forgotten, iconic new, tasteless, ravish ironic and reused

Our potentialities are of infinite of infinite substance

DRAFT! Empherical Justification- Foundationalism, Coherentism and Skepticism

Foundationalism, coherentism and skepticism are theories of knowledge within epistemology. All three approaches are systems of empirical evidence that attempt to justify beliefs. I present support for foundationalism and skepticism, which hold the most merit in terms of justification for belief. Introspective beliefs (those in which we evaluate our own mental states) are generally regarded as illegitimate sources of justification because of their assumed lack of connection to reality. I claim that introspective beliefs are a vital component of reality. On the other hand, coherentism, which is a system a product mutual beliefs that form coherence, are not an efficient means of justification.

The theory of foundationalism rests on the idea that empirical justification has a foundation. Empirical (or some posteriori beliefs) are beliefs that are based on our senses and which guide our experiences. There are the two categories of beliefs, basic and derived beliefs. Basic beliefs do not need further confirmation because they remain independent from all other belief and are the source of justified belief. In contrast, derived beliefs are dependent upon other sources of belief, that have been legitimized. The reliance on already justified belief is essential for derived beliefs to be justified themselves.
Foundationalists generally use the regress argument to support the need for basic beliefs and at times, it is used as tool for arguing in skepticism. The regress argument subjects all belief to further inquiry, which all supportive reasoning claimed from the initial question can be questioned further; thus the initial belief is subject to the beginning of an infinite stream of inquiry about the belief (that is if the belief isn’t already proven false due to lack of support for it, which would ultimately dismiss the justification for the belief entirely.) As an example, “Q” will be used to represent an initial belief. From there, a question is raised, the evidence to counter or provide support for the question (Q,) (which will be Q2.) If (Q2) is justified, another question is asked to further legitimize (Q3) and so on. Essentially, there’s a kaleidoscope of ways in which one could raise other objections, question the support or ask for further explanation. At this rate, no single belief can be justifiable.

Foundationalism contains perceptual and introspective beliefs. Perceptual beliefs apply to our sense perception experience, and introspective beliefs pertain to our own evaluation of mental states. The more modern form of foundationalism are perceptual beliefs, which are beliefs that are believed to be more relatable to external reality. Speculation on the connection between introspective belief and its credibility to the outside world. The internal state of our thoughts are reflective of the external world. We take in information about the external world constantly. This information can be built upon by means of other information we store, it can be used to refute and create infinite possibilities. Both the external world and our internal states work in conjunction to each other. Problem solving can require prior knowledge of the outside world which is used to build upon the outside. Mathematic is composed of various symbols and numbers, which we have given properties to. These reflect outside world and are used to make sense and build upon the nature of our surroundings. Things like architecture, astronomy and engineering all contain mathematical expressions which help us frame beliefs and impressions with our surroundings. With that said, introspective belief is fluidly connected with the outside world, (and vice versa) requiring both to work off each other.

The concept of coherentism entails that a belief must be supported by other related beliefs which coincide and flow consistently with one another for epistemic justification. This is referential to the concept of the coherence theory of justification, which all beliefs are justified by their coherence. The coherence theory of justification expresses the idea that coherent beliefs are a plausible reflection of reality. Linear Coherentism involves the issue of circularity, in which all reasoning for a belief proceeds in a linear fashion. Belief A1 is supported by belief A2, which is supported by belief A3 (and so on) and eventually back to A. This process implies that any belief has reason for justification and we are left with a circular sequence of support for the belief in question. Unlike the regress argument, this theory does not provide a foundation for basic belief. Holistic coherentism regards mutually supportive beliefs presumed to be more likely to be true (such as eyewitness accounts of an event.)
Cognitively speaking, it has been illustrated that our memory recall is highly inaccurate in terms of what we perceive to be a belief in many instances. In cases of eyewitness testimony, our belief about events can be skewed by factors such as timing and how others present questions to us. The manipulation of words has shown to impact on how we recall an event. There have been studies in which people have witnessed car accidents. Witnesses were asked to recall how fast a car was speeding before it hit the other car. The words used to describe the impact were highly reliant on what words were used. For example, words such as “crash, contacted and hit” were among words used. When the word “crash” was used in question, the witnesses recalled a much higher speed than the car had gone. On the other hand, when the word “contacted” was used, the speed was underestimated, whereas “hit” generally drew the closest speeds. Additionally, it is shown that the more you recall an event, the less likely it is to coincide with what really had occured. The event, (which is processed and stored in your long term memory) can easily be distorted with other fragments of memory, belief and sensory input when recalled. The next time the instance is brought up, the fallible contents that are created are stored within your long term memory, thus we can unknowingly recreate situations that are incoherent with what had actually occurred. Additionally, group settings (those in which people start to cohere with the group’s mentality rather than their personal account) can influence the legitimacy as well. The coherence of multiple beliefs are not immediate grounds for justification.
Skepticism questions our certainty of knowledge and is essential to empherical justification. Skepticism presents the ability to question the and critically examine theories. Without the use of skepticism, we would lack the liberty to question both foundationalism and coherentism. An important contributor to the use of skeptical inquiry was Renee Descartes and methodological doubt. Descartes built a system in which the use skepticism was essential for his work. By ridding himself of all present and past belief in order to question the certainty of knowledge, including all bodily and sensory knowledge. His goal was to build a foundation certainly in which true knowledge can be built from the ground up. His hyperbolic doubt has inspired many philosophers, not only to try refuting it, but also the development of similar systems of knowledge.

The action of questioning the potential falsehoods of perceptions and ideas is comparable to foundationalism. Foundationalism claims there basic beliefs stand at the core of inquiry, existing independently of all other belief. Like, the efforts of Descartes search for certainty by use of his own skepticism, foundationalism requires a stripping of all belief down to its essence too. Coherentism is not as an intricate process as both skepticism and foundationalism. In terms of coherentism, fallible beliefs (which are not subject to skepticism) could very easily be mistaken for empherical reasoning.

Foundationalism, coherentism and skepticism are theories of knowledge within epistemology. All three approaches are systems of empirical evidence that attempt to justify beliefs. I present support for foundationalism and skepticism, which hold the most merit in terms of justification for belief. Introspective beliefs (those in which we evaluate our own mental states) are generally regarded as illegitimate sources of justification because of their assumed lack of connection to reality. I claim that introspective beliefs are a vital component of reality. On the other hand, coherentism, which is a system a product mutual beliefs that form coherence, are not an efficient means of justification.

The theory of foundationalism rests on the idea that empirical justification has a foundation. Empirical (or some posteriori beliefs) are beliefs that are based on our senses and which guide our experiences. There are the two categories of beliefs, basic and derived beliefs. Basic beliefs do not need further confirmation because they remain independent from all other belief and are the source of justified belief. In contrast, derived beliefs are dependent upon other sources of belief, that have been legitimized. The reliance on already justified belief is essential for derived beliefs to be justified themselves.
Foundationalists generally use the regress argument to support the need for basic beliefs and at times, it is used as tool for arguing in skepticism. The regress argument subjects all belief to further inquiry, which all supportive reasoning claimed from the initial question can be questioned further; thus the initial belief is subject to the beginning of an infinite stream of inquiry about the belief (that is if the belief isn’t already proven false due to lack of support for it, which would ultimately dismiss the justification for the belief entirely.) As an example, “Q” will be used to represent an initial belief. From there, a question is raised, the evidence to counter or provide support for the question (Q,) (which will be Q2.) If (Q2) is justified, another question is asked to further legitimize (Q3) and so on. Essentially, there’s a kaleidoscope of ways in which one could raise other objections, question the support or ask for further explanation. At this rate, no single belief can be justifiable.
Foundationalism contains perceptual and introspective beliefs. Perceptual beliefs apply to our sense perception experience, and introspective beliefs pertain to our own evaluation of mental states. The more modern form of foundationalism are perceptual beliefs, which are beliefs that are believed to be more relatable to external reality. Speculation on the connection between introspective belief and its credibility to the outside world. The internal state of our thoughts are reflective of the external world. We take in information about the external world constantly. This information can be built upon by means of other information we store, it can be used to refute and create infinite possibilities. Both the external world and our internal states work in conjunction to each other. Problem solving can require prior knowledge of the outside world which is used to build upon the outside. Mathematic is composed of various symbols and numbers, which we have given properties to. These reflect outside world and are used to make sense and build upon the nature of our surroundings. Things like architecture, astronomy and engineering all contain mathematical expressions which help us frame beliefs and impressions with our surroundings. With that said, introspective belief is fluidly connected with the outside world, (and vice versa) requiring both to work off each other.

The concept of coherentism entails that a belief must be supported by other related beliefs which coincide and flow consistently with one another for epistemic justification. This is referential to the concept of the coherence theory of justification, which all beliefs are justified by their coherence. The coherence theory of justification expresses the idea that coherent beliefs are a plausible reflection of reality.

Linear Coherentism involves the issue of circularity, in which all reasoning for a belief proceeds in a linear fashion. Belief A1 is supported by belief A2, which is supported by belief A3 (and so on) and eventually back to A. This process implies that any belief has reason for justification and we are left with a circular sequence of support for the belief in question. Unlike the regress argument, this theory does not provide a foundation for basic belief. Holistic coherentism regards mutually supportive beliefs presumed to be more likely to be true (such as eyewitness accounts of an event.)

Cognitively speaking, it has been illustrated that our memory recall is highly inaccurate in terms of what we perceive to be a belief in many instances. In cases of eyewitness testimony, our belief about events can be skewed by factors such as timing and how others present questions to us. The manipulation of words has shown to impact on how we recall an event. There have been studies in which people have witnessed car accidents. Witnesses were asked to recall how fast a car was speeding before it hit the other car. The words used to describe the impact were highly reliant on what words were used. For example, words such as “crash, contacted and hit” were among words used. When the word “crash” was used in question, the witnesses recalled a much higher speed than the car had gone. On the other hand, when the word “contacted” was used, the speed was underestimated, whereas “hit” generally drew the closest speeds. Additionally, it is shown that the more you recall an event, the less likely it is to coincide with what really had occured. The event, (which is processed and stored in your long term memory) can easily be distorted with other fragments of memory, belief and sensory input when recalled. The next time the instance is brought up, the fallible contents that are created are stored within your long term memory, thus we can unknowingly recreate situations that are incoherent with what had actually occurred. Additionally, group settings (those in which people start to cohere with the group’s mentality rather than their personal account) can influence the legitimacy as well. The coherence of multiple beliefs are not immediate grounds for justification.

The concept of skepticism in philosophy is used to questio our certainty of knowledge, the holder of tmpherical justification. Skepticism presents the ability to question the and critically examine theories. Without the use of skepticism, we would lack the liberty to question both foundationalism and coherentism. An important contributor to the use of skeptical inquiry was Renee Descartes and methodological doubt. Descartes built a system in which the use skepticism was essential for his work. By ridding himself of all present and past belief in order to question the certainty of knowledge, including all bodily and sensory knowledge. His goal was to build a foundation certainly in which true knowledge can be built from the ground up. His hyperbolic doubt has inspired many philosophers, not only to try refuting it, but also the development of similar systems of. knowledge.

The act of questioning the potential falsehoods of perceptions and ideas is comparable to foundationalism. Foundationalism claims there basic beliefs stand at the core of inquiry, existing independently of all other belief. Like, the efforts of Descartes search for certainty by use of his own skepticism, foundationalism requires a stripping of all belief down to its essence too. Coherentism is not as an intricate process as both skepticism and foundationalism. In terms of coherentism, fallible beliefs (which are not subject to skepticism) could very easily be mistaken for empherical reasoning.