Abstract
This philosophy paper investigates how knowledge is acquired in science, art and economics by exploring whether more knowledge is gained by breaking or following the conventions prevalent in that subject. The paper first looks at the difference between information and true knowledge. It then shows the differences between different areas of knowledge and shows that while knowledge is acquired in different ways, breaking conventions ultimately provides a greater knowledge than following the same conventions.

From the Paper
"The methods through which knowledge is gained are some of the most important aspects of knowledge. Within different Areas of Knowledge (AOKs) knowledge is acquired by working in and around the paradigm that prevails at the time. A paradigm is the set of assumptions and concepts that constitutes the way of viewing reality in an intellectual discipline . In the various AOKs, knowledge is acquired differently and even within an individual AOK there are differences in the acquisition of knowledge when it is done by following and breaking with the convention of the time. Science is an AOK that works inside and outside of its conventions, deriving knowledge that is heavily based in fact. Scientific knowledge has been gained in areas such as the Big Bang Theory."

Tags:Humanities, Maya, paradigm, advancement, learning, gains

Abstract
What is existence? This essay categorizes existence, with reference to the conceptions of reality made by Aristotle and Sartre. The paper asks if existence of something unknowable is possible? Is metaphysics a legitimate enterprise based on an authentic order to the world? The paer shows that existence is to be examined as whole and all encompassing, and that reality and non-reality are necessary components for experience.

From the Paper
"When we consider our experience, and the "place" in which it occupies, many questions come to mind. What is this experience? Is what I experience all that exists? Do things out there exist? Why does this exist? And so on. It is my contention that all of these questions, and many others of a similar nature are all related in a fundamental way to the question of infinity. Naturally enough, when we think of infinity, we think of it pertaining to something, as a property of something. It is this question of whether a thing is finite or infinite that comes before all others, even whether it has the "property" of existence. This is due to the fact that finity and infinity define two possible values of existence. Finite existences have a subset of properties that establish its nature. Infinite existences, or possible existences, also have another subset of properties that establish its nature. It is my further contention that infinity represents an ultimate logical impossibility in the establishment of existence, and threatens the "wholeness" that establishes a reality. With that in mind, we can rule out the subset of properties associated with infinite existences, as they turn out to be the very properties of non-existence, which, as I will show, if a fundamental aspect to a reality itself. In short, this essay will systematize reality from non-reality, existence from non-existence using the notion of absolute finitude as a touchstone."

Tags:epistomology, existentialism, infinity, logic, metaphysics, philosophy

Abstract
This paper answers these questions from a philosophical point of view: How can we know of the existence of Paris at this very moment unless we are sensing Paris? When we examine our world, we are testing our knowledge of the world. But if our knowledge arises from the world around us, and the world around us alone, how could we possibly think testing it against the world would lead to truth? The paper concludes that what is needed is a systemization of truth, reality and knowledge, through the concept of possible worlds.

From the Paper
"Heidegger once stated that the central question for metaphysics was why there was something rather than nothing. Existentialism bases its philosophy squarely on this question, or, as Sartre might have put it, on the negation of this question. The critical issue at hand here, is the position of man as being-in-the-world in Heidegger as opposed to Descartes view of man as being in and of itself. The concept of existence has changed. It was once a view of an outside observer peering into the world, using knowledge to poke and prod reality, forcing it to come forth. This is the view Kant emphasized in his brilliant Critique of Pure Reason. Heidegger paints a much different picture of reality and knowledge. Reality is the creator of all, but an unusual creator. No longer is the creator totally separated from the created. Man becomes the maker of himself. Reality becomes intertwined with knowledge in such a way that the word paradox does not even begin to describe it. Heidegger's world is a much more complex and subjective one than Kant imagined. Where man's "prodding" at the world is a prodding at his very reality. This blur of self and world, this modern idea of knowledge and reality intertwining is of great importance in metaphysics and epistemology, and the relationship between knowledge, reality and order must be further understood."

Tags:truth, reality, kant, heidegger, metaphysics

Abstract
This essay first examines Condillac?s treatise and its empirical tendencies. According to the author, one must not only consider Condillac?s strict empiricism ? that judgement and reason come through experience, but also the notion of memory in identity. The writer then critiques some of Condillac?s arguments and pays particular attention to the legitimacy of Condillac?s demonstration and it?s relation to human knowledge. it also examines Condillac?s notion of pleasure and whether he actually presupposes some key rationalist concepts, namely, innate ideas.

From the Paper
"Empiricism was a notion of growing importance during The Enlightenment. John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1689, outlined a conception of knowledge and identity as being produced through experience. This stood in contrast with Descartes rationalist position, and the two competing philosophies played a major part in The Enlightenment's development. Condillac's Treatise on the Sensations, published in 1745, took Locke's empiricism further still. This essay will first examine Condillac's treatise and its empirical tendencies. One must not only consider Condillac's strict empiricism - that judgement and reason come through experience, but also the notion of memory in identity. Then, I will critique some of Condillac's arguments. Here, I will pay particular attention to the legitimacy of Condillac's demonstration and it's relation to human knowledge. I will also examine Condilliac's notion of pleasure and whether he actually presupposes some key rationalist concepts, namely, innate ideas."

Tags:enlightenment, experience, locke, sensation

Abstract
This paper answers, with reference to a large body of Edmund Husserl's philosophical writings, the question of what, according to Husserl, is the properly philosophical attitude. It contrasts this with what he maintains is our 'natural attitude'. The paper argues that, for Husserl, a more philosophical attitude enables a 'first philosophy,' a rigorous and presupposition-less philosophy, and more pertinently, makes distinct the previously obscured realm of pure transcendental consciousness. The author of this paper offers his own brief criticisms of these views.

From the Paper
"What Husserl will have us do with our uncritical natural attitude is 'bracket it' or 'disconnect it' via the phenomenological method of epoche. By this we do not-as Descartes did-merely repudiate it with denials ("I shall suppose I in fact have no body," etc.) we simply "put out of action the general thesis..." (Ibid. pp.110.) The natural question is: given the general thesis's fundamentality to us, how can we simply 'put it aside', and moreover, what do we achieve by doing this? I have already suggested that in regard to the latter question, we achieve a more presuppositionless attitude suitable to the project of (first) philosophy. But the former question apparently remains entirely unanswered: how can we possibly go about this?"

Tags:descartes, heidegger, idealism, transcendental

Abstract
Nietzsche's philosophy is as misunderstood as it is prestigious. This paper traces Nietzsche's steps carefully, to find where his conception of both the apocolyptic "last man" and the glorious "overman" spring from. This is accomplished through an analytic investigation of Nietzsche's reaction to Utilitarianism, touching on the ascetic ideal, transcendence, ressentiment, slave and master moralities, bad conscience and Nietzsche's "value-judgement" epistemology.

From the Paper
"It is no secret that Nietzsche's primary goal in his philosophy was to allow for a revaluation of all values. This was not a task Nietzsche took lightly, and even a quick skim through his works reveal the depth of Nietzsche's critique of alternate moral systems, with their binary oppositions of good and evil. One such system was Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism had its strongest support within Britain, and Nietzsche's criticism came from three main perspectives. 1) That Utilitarianism was equivalent to a negation of life and as such, 2) that Utilitarianism provided a poor "instruction manual" to interpreting human history. Finally, Nietzsche amalgamates these two perspectives into 3) an argument that Utilitarianism is a subversion of mankind in general, and as such it, and theories of its type, is leading to a Dystopian state of affairs for the end of history or Nietzsche's "last man". Following from this examination of Utilitarianism, we will direct our attention to Nietzsche's more general critique of antithetical moral values. What is unusual about this critique is the constant focus Nietzsche holds for cultural relevance; Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is subtitled "Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future". The critique of antithetical values, ascetic ideals and slave moralities is not a conceptual hill to climb; it is the very issue that will decide the future of mankind. This fascinating and innovative interpretation poses a challenge to "modern sensibility"; as Nietzsche suggests an alternative moral paradigm and attitude towards existence that must be explored. Therefore, to conclude the essay, I will discuss Nietzsche's response to Utilitarianism (and Platonic/Christian thought) in the context of Nietzsche's positive morality, "Beyond Good and Evil"."

Tags:philosophy, self, psychology, value, judge, man

Abstract
This paper shows how Descartes, in two meditations, contemplates the nature of existence and knowledge. It discusses the question that prompted Descartes in pursuing his two meditations "How can we know what is real?" It shows that Descartes' problem lay within connecting the properties created by God, the mental and the physical.

From the Paper
"Descartes examines the nature of existence itself, through analyzing the senses, the line between the real and imaginary and the questions basis on which we claim knowledge. In his conclusion of these meditations he only surfaces with one clear statement of which he can be entirely certain of: "I am, I exist" suggesting that an ability to think, reason, believe and doubt proves that we must exist on some level for this process to occur, even if there is no outside world beyond our own mind."

Tags:philosophy, real, knowledge, mental, physical

Abstract
This is a short assessment of Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind". Ryle stands as one of analytic's philosophy's pioneers in the field of philosophy of mind, and critiques Rene Descartes' claims of the mind as immaterial "thinking thing". Ryle's critique through the use of his "Category Mistake", forms a prototypical example of analytic philosophy's reassessment of traditional philosophical issues and warrants investigation.

From the Paper
"The problem of mind has been one of great importance to philosophy throughout its history. In his work The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle establishes his perspective on this issue. Ryle contrasts his conclusions with French philosopher Rene Descartes, accusing Descartes of what he calls a "category mistake". Ryle's justification for this judgement comes from what he identifies as differences in logic between mental and physical words. The concepts we use in our language represent the reality of the mental and physical world in different ways. It is because of this conclusion, that Ryle asserts that the mind is not in fact a substance. In this essay, I will examine Ryle's understanding of the logic of mental words and the category mistake. Then, we must see how this criticism fares against Descartes "substance model" of mind. Finally, Ryle's own behaviorism must be checked for any errors that would cause it to be a poor alternative to the dualist model of mind. Only then can we determine if Ryle has been successful in his critique of Descartes."

Tags:analytic, category, linguistic, mistake, philosophy

Abstract
Am I the same person as I was five years ago? Who was I then, and who am I now? If I am different, then how different am I? What does sameness over time depend on, and what does difference? What is free will? If there is free will, does it change over time? This paper discusses these questions and argues that both the self as a physical identity and the self as a mental being must necessarily change over time. It also argues that free will is merely a conditioned social concept.

From the Paper
"What is a person? Although this is a topic that has plagued philosophers since the beginning of the Cartesian exploration of the mind and body, personhood's exact definition has never been pinned down. However for the purposes of the following discussion, personhood will be described a conglomeration of mental, physical and emotional functions existing at any point in time. This definition is important as it outlays that personhood is very much something temporal. This is clearly important as the question asked is, am I the same person I was five years ago. If then, personhood is temporally located, we can see that changes are possible to a person over time."

Tags:descartes, free, freewill, hume, locke, nietzche, parfit, philosophy, self

Abstract
This paper begins by stating the argument Descartes gives for a version of mind/body dualism. It then considers two objections to Descartes' argument and finally assesses the validity of Descartes' argument in light of those objections.

From the Paper
"Much of the intellectual history of psychology as well as philosophy has involved the attempt to come to grips with a dilemma of mind and body. This dilemma was eventually broken into main two opposing views: one view (dualism) proposes that our universe contains two very different and equally fundamental types of entity: mental/spiritual and physical/material items. Most followers of this view hold that human mind (or soul) is to survive the annihilation of the body. The contrasting view, materialism, on the other hand, affirms that everything in our universe is composed of mass-energy, minds and bodies included."

Tags:philosophy, soul, energy