In under 1500 words, drawing on various aspects of metaphysics and epistemology, construct an argument motivated by pragmatism.
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.
In the broadest of terms, I think my set of core beliefs could be characterized as located on the naturalism-realism-pragmatism spectrum. In philosophical terms, this is largely due to particular and related ontological and epistemological commitments: Reality is a natural place, not a supernatural one, and there is nothing beyond our natural reality; that is, ‘this’ is all there is. And, accordingly, observation, experience, science, and reason are the only ways by which to know our natural reality. But why have these ontological and epistemological commitments as the bedrock of one’s core beliefs? Why not some other (usually implicit) commitments, such as that there is more to reality than the natural, and that there are extra-natural ways in which to ‘know’?
I think there are limits to how far back and down we can go in understanding why and what we believe the way we do, limits almost entirely divorced from truth and justification...
This is only a preview of the solution. Please use the purchase button to see the entire solution