Agnostic.com

4 3

Epistemology of Philosophy

Nietzsche opines that the society is in constant change. In his concrete philosophy which he backs up by evidence, he argues that most leaders fall out with the electorate because they fail to embrace change. In his view, static leaders loose connection with their voters the moment they become static. Change is the only constant thing throughout the generations. On the other hand, Dr. King disproves the criticism leveled against him in Birmingham stating that he was an outsider becoming to cause trouble in Birmingham. He first addresses that concern by telling that he is there through invitation. On the other hand, King argues that he has a moral obligation to fight against injustices all over the world. That is why he came to Birmingham.
Nietzsche addresses the problem of vulnerability in the society. He observes that men are naturally beasts who would take advantage of the disadvantaged at the slightest opportunity. When the strong beat down the vulnerable, it creates an anarchic society that makes it hard for a man to survive. He further observes that a man is nothing further than a beast. Whenever man is angered or filled with power, he tends to act based on his instincts. That is why people kill for power. The Sipo matador plant shows the quest of a man seeking increase in rank. This increases his strength and therefore his bargaining power. However, the society is aristocratic and always wants climbing towards the sun like the plant.
Dr. King condemns the treatment of the vulnerable groups in Alabama and intimates that they should be treated in a humane manner. Deriving his authority from the Holy book, the Bible, he argues that all men are equal before God. The unjust enrichment by the rich and impoverishing of the poor should be condemned. He argues against slavery as well. That is his basic idea of truth. On the other hand, the truth at times cannot be what we believe in; I think that truth is just exactly what people agree to.
Philosophically, truth is what can be justified or proved. In order for people to table evidence proving their facts, they are called upon to undertake research. That is the reason why philosophy is intertwined with scientific research. In fact, without research, philosophy would always remain toothless. In other words, research justifies objective knowledge. Dr. King’s approach is religion-based. Religious basis has no concrete evidence as a support and thus has no evidence except mere faith. Only the religious people are able to buy such an idea. On the other hand, Nietzsche clearly outlines the rot in the society and gives classic practical examples to the effect. These examples explain and illustrate the aristocracy in society. His illustration of the plant is clear about the ambition of every man to increase his power and strength.
In quality writing conclusion, the epistemology of philosophy simply denotes the science of philosophy itself. It tries to explain the root and justify philosophy. The nature of philosophy is always controversial but can only be understood through abstract concepts that are always difficult to comprehend on a flat basis. Nietzsche’s argument holds weight in the sense that it illustrates the current nature of society. People need to be deep thinkers in order to comprehend philosophy. Therefore, to understand the science and nature of philosophy itself, one needs to realize the its basics. Philosophy is independent, and no one shares views with another person. That is what makes philosophy the most intellectual concept in scholarly works.

KateJohnsonnn 2 Sep 24
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Apart from spruiking for plagiarism panderers this piece is poorly written.

0

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

skado Level 9 Sep 24, 2021
0

Part of this commentary brings me back to a good point I once heard someone say online and I thought it had a layer of truth to it. It brought into question one of the basic precepts in the Declaration of Indepedence, equality. Listening to a Constitutionalist speak yesterday in a YT video was worthwhile. I see the original ideology ​does have some limitations, even though the speaker was talking about the rights of individuals vs govt being so numerous as to not be listed.
I think the point is the Constitution itself is, the Declaration of Independence is, both are documents that related to formation of self-governance and as philosophy become obsolete. "All Men are Created Equal" only applies to CERTAIN basic legal rights human beings possess and does not mean all men , and women, are TRULY equal in all regards. I think much confusion in society today stems from an assumption that we should all be equal in all regards.

Of course Dr. King was justified in pursuit of civil rights! I do believe such work IS the manifestation God's work, which I am sure will be scoffed at by unbelievers here. No matter! However there are limitations to equality. Our goal in society is figuring out exacly where one person's rights begin and end and as Neitscze stated this would be a scenario that would lead to a constant state of fluctuation and change as it is constantly being put to the test and renegociated.

This also ties back to a couple other ideas I have, but which are not fully developed (now I may have even lost the thought!l). As is stated here "People need to be deep thinkers in order to comprehend philosophy." This is a challenge in the voting public as people may vote, or allow themselves to be governed, in a way that is not truly in their own best interest if the "Deep Thinkers" of the day are unsuccessful in spreading the needed ideology for the appropriate time and place. Are we in this crisis now in some ways? We see so many issues at current and over the past year and half boiling over to create a societal discord so vehemant one wonders if it will all spiral out of control with permanent, devastating lasting effects that we will all regret. And how does it get stopped? How do we acheive acceptable compromises? I believe times like these call for new approaches. We need to break our own self-imposed grid lock on progress and find a new way.

0

Very nicely written, and choosing Nietzsche and Dr. King as counterpoints is appropriate as the first was an effective critic of the christian society into which he was born, while King championed the application of christian ethics in the modern world. Both were, in my humble opinion, big thinkers whose thoughts were often wider than the categories into which people try to squeeze them. King loomed large in the social-political world I grew up in, while Nietzsche is a thinker to whom I return again and again through the course of my life — including now — and I see myself as a philosophical person rather than a religious one in terms of world view. I like to think it allows for more flexibility and adaptability in the face of constant change. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:624309
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.