Reddit Reddit reviews Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition

We found 9 Reddit comments about Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Philosophy
Consciousness & Thought Philosophy
Politics & Social Sciences
Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition
Routledge
Check price on Amazon

9 Reddit comments about Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition:

u/simism66 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Maybe try Robert Audi's or Michael William's introduction. They come at issues from somewhat different angles, but both are quite good.

u/Egikun · 5 pointsr/visualnovels

I haven't read Subahibi, so I'm just going to take your question as "how do I get into philosophy."

Philosophy is one of the most diverse fields that we currently have. Philosophy is more than just pondering the meaning of life, it also is about uncovering the mindsets on discoveries and how people came about the knowledge we have today. You should start more simple over diving into people's work like Nietzsche so you can get the full picture on why they say what they say.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, metaphysics is the study of existence (not to be confused with existentialism, which is even more meta and theoretical), Aesthetics is the study of art, Ethics is the study of morality, and there are philosophies of politics, mind, body, religion, and all sorts.

I would shy away from direct writings from philosophers, as contemporary books are the literal collection of all of their knowledge presented in an easier to digest way.

u/Underthepun · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

Ding ding ding. Welcome to the wacky wonderful world of epistemology. Let Robert Audi be your guide.

u/peritrope_ · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Popper's ideas are of the practical kind, regarding scientific inquiry. It is not epistemology in the traditional sense. For example, would you say that your empirically based idea X is knowledge? If you say yes, how do you know that tomorrow you won't discard it for an idea that fits the criteria even better, even if today you don't think anything could possibly fit the criteria better than your current idea? Many ideas that fit the criteria are eventually discarded not because a detail or a few in them can be improved, but because they turn out to be completely false (look at the history of physics, for example). Such epistemology is practically useful, however, it says nothing about epistemic justification.

There are a lot of theories in epistemology. Read the 'epistemology' entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Find a book about epistemology, such as this

u/ajantis · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

It seems to me that your comments encompass wide range of topics but i think the problem of truth and meaning is at the center. Of course there is a huge literature about these topics but for a start Nietzsche's On Truth and Lie in An Extra Moral Sense can work as a thought provoking piece.

If you are into more scientific type of literature Maturana and Varela's Tree of Knowledge offers a theory of cognition which basically argues that all experience and knowledge are self-referential and constructed relative to the organisation and history of living systems.

In English speaking philosophy William James and Whitehead's different versions of empiricism are good places to look. In continental philosophy Foucault's writings on truth/knowledge can be helpful to put the concept in context of a more sociological perspective.

Edit note: The philosophical field which focus on these issues is called epistemology, some secondary and introductory type of books can work. For example Robert Audi's [Epistemology] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epistemology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/041587923X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373061172&sr=1-2&keywords=epistemology).

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

If you're getting started in epistemology, I recommend Roderick Chisholm's Theory of Knowledge. This one is a little older, but in my opinion it's still one of the best. Another decent introduction is Robert Audi's Epistemology. Another good introduction is by Goldman and McGrath, but in my opinion it tries to do too much for an introduction.

As far as ethics is concerned, depending on your level, a good place to start is Gensler's Ethics. This is a decent survey of a number of ethical 'schools', although the downside is that it is too clear that Gensler is heavily biased towards the Golden Rule, and the tone of the book is a little on the sophomoric side. Another decent introduction is this book, which selects some writings from major philosophers and gets your feet wet at least. Of course there are many more books, but I am assuming you're at an introductory level, so there you go.

u/jez2718 · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

I don't think that is an especially good definition, since epistemology and metaphysics are separate areas. Though 'first principles of knowing' could refer to questions like "what is truth?" or how the world gives beliefs content, which would be metaphysics. To motivate my point, check out the table of contents of these standard textbooks:

Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction

Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

You'll note that your first three topics all appear in the former book and not in the latter.

u/n1n2n3n4n5n6 · 1 pointr/movies

> I'm fine with you or someone else saying, "based on this and this definition for an objectively good movie, I find X movie to be objectively good" what I am not fine with, is if someone just says "Y is an objectively good/bad movie" without context. This would be a miscomunication as the person who said that uses a different defeinition than most others.

Yes, one needs to be clear on the conception of beauty being used.

>I couldn't disagree further

On what grounds? I encourage you to read up on epistemology - the field that specializes on knowledge, reason, evidence, and the like. Robert Audi's introduction to the field is good!