1)What difficulties does Comte face in holding that the final stage of knowledge is always positive, without any theological or metaphysical residue?
2)Why does Kant reject the position that the propositions of Euclidean Geometry are analytic?
3)Why does Hegel hold that a thoroughgoing skepticism is really an insincere evasion of the question "what can I know"?
4)Why does Peirce consider operational publicity a more reliable indication of clarity and distinctness that Cartesian indomitability?
5)Why do Carnap and Ayer maintain that propositions such as "Murder is morally wrong" have no genuine cognitive content?
6)What is the principal problem with James's view that Truth, conceived as agreement with reality, is best understood as intellectual satisfaction in belief?
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.All these questions have in common the debate about rationalism and empiricism that has been ongoing in the history of philosophy. They all swirl around the problem about whether I can know from my experience (empiricism) or through innate ideas alone (rationalism). Almost all the philosophers we've studied try to argue for a third way between the two.
1. By reducing what can be known to observable facts, Comte struggles with claims to knowledge that are not merely empirical. He sought to erase our reliance on religion and the metaphysics of universal concepts, but by thinking that the only possible knowledge is the particular, he sidesteps altogether any claim to universals. For example, how do we account for the concept of the "good" without turning to a universal concept for the good?...