by Victor Iwueke | Mar 28, 2025 | Article, Philosophy
Introduction
The concept of God’s nature and attributes has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. One of the most contentious issues is the notion of God as a self-subsistent being. This attribute implies that God is entirely independent and self-existent, relying on nothing else for existence. However, this concept raises several concerns and contradictions, making it one of the least appropriate names of God.
Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica is a seminal work in the history of Christian theology. In it, Aquinas explores various aspects of God’s nature, including the concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being. This assignment will examine what Aquinas said about this concept, its implications for our understanding of God, and its relevance to theodicy.
The Problem of Dependence
If God is self-subsistent, it implies that God is completely independent and relies on nothing else for existence. However, this raises questions about the nature of God’s relationship with creation. If God is entirely self-sufficient, why did God create the universe and humanity? Does God’s creation imply a form of dependence or need? This paradox highlights the tension between God’s self-subsistence and the apparent dependence on creation.
The Issue of Change and Impermanence
A self-subsistent being implies immutability and timelessness. However, the concept of God as a dynamic and interactive being contradicts this idea. If God is self-subsistent, how can God change or respond to human prayers and actions? The Bible describes God as a God who relents, repents, and changes (e.g., Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10). This dynamic nature of God challenges the notion of self-subsistence.
The Concern of Isolation
The concept of self-subsistence implies a level of isolation and disconnection from creation. If God is entirely self-sufficient, why would God bother to engage with humanity or the world? This isolation contradicts the biblical portrayal of God as a relational and loving being (e.g., 1 John 4:8). A self-subsistent God seems distant and uninvolved, undermining the notion of a personal and caring God.
Thomas Aquinas on God as Self-Subsistent Being.
Aquinas discusses the concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being in Part 1, Question 3, Article 3 of the Summa Theologica. Here, he argues that God’s existence is not dependent on anything else, but rather is necessary and self-sufficient. Aquinas writes, “God is not only His own essence, but also His own existence” (ST I, Q. 3, A. 3). This means that God’s being is not contingent upon anything else, but rather is self-subsistent.
Implications for Our Understanding of God
Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being has significant implications for our understanding of God. Firstly, it emphasizes God’s independence and sovereignty. God is not dependent on anything else for existence, but rather is the source of all existence. Secondly, it highlights God’s immutability and eternity. As Self-Subsistent Being, God is not subject to change or decay, but rather remains eternally the same
Relevance to Theodicy
Being is also relevant to theodicy, the study of God’s relationship to evil. If God is Self-Subsistent Being, then God’s existence is not threatened by the presence of evil. Rather, God’s sovereignty and power are demonstrated in God’s ability to create and sustain a world despite the presence of evil. Furthermore, Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being provides a framework for understanding God’s relationship to human suffering. As Self-Subsistent Being, God is not affected by human suffering, but rather is the source of comfort and strength for those who suffer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of God as a self-subsistent being raises several concerns and contradictions. The problems of dependence, change, and isolation highlight the tension between God’s self-subsistence and the biblical portrayal of God as a dynamic, relational, and loving being. While the idea of self-subsistence may provide a sense of God’s power and
independence, it ultimately proves to be one of the least appropriate names of God.
Thomas Aquinas’ concept of God as Self-Subsistent Being is a central theme in the Summa Theologica. This concept emphasizes God’s independence, sovereignty, immutability, and eternity. It also has significant implications for our understanding of God’s relationship to evil and h.
References
Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Davies, B. (1992). The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Oxford University Press.
Kenny, A. (2002). Aquinas on Being. Oxford University Press.
Anselm of Canterbury. (1078). Proslogion.
Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa Theologica.
Hartshorne, C. (1941). Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism.
Moltmann, J. (1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom of God.
Presented by: IWUEKE VICTOR NNAMDI.
by CWPF | Mar 10, 2025 | Article, CATECHESIS AND REFLECTIONS, EXISTENTIALIST ETHICS, MORAL PHILOSOPHY ANDETHICS, Philosophy, Poetry, Relationship expert
ACOMPARATIVE STUDY OF JEAN PAUL SATRE AND ALBERT CAMUS’S ETHICS: AN EVALUATION
BY
JOSHUA NNADIMMA AYOZIE
Michealjoshua6@gmail.com
CLASSROOM WORK
1.0 -Introduction
“Existence precedes essence” is a generally accepted motto for the existentialist movement cutting across theist and atheist in the history of existentialism. This paper tends therefore to study the Albert Camus and Jean Paul Stare’s Existentialist Ethics. To achieve this project, a comparative study or investigation into their various thoughts would beof interest to find out where they agreed and where they have disagreed. It is good to recognize that these two existentialist giants took atheistic approach in their thought and contributions in order to achieve their set out goals.
Their contributions or ethical existentialist thoughts cut across Excapism, Freedom and Responsibility, Choice, suicide, capital punishment, rejection of god’s existence and deterministic nature of man, existence preceding essence, individual subjectivism. Etc. These existentialist ethical theories cut across their thoughts here and there.
To achieve the aim of this paper, the above stated outline would be adopted with an introduction which is already achieved and followed by a brief biography of each of these existentialist philosophers leading to a comparative study of their thoughts, analysis and evaluation.
2.0- Existentialism Origin and Meaning
The word existentialism traces its root inlatin origin Ex(s) istentia which in turn based on classical Latin ex (s)istere “to exist”, appear, emerge”, a verb composed of the prefix ex-“out of” and sister “to stand” this literarily means to appear, to emerge, to exist or stand out. Hence the existentialist motto: existence precedes essence. By implication human being emerges, exist and stands out among many other being and afterward, defines himself through an essence he created with the choices he makes. Existentialism is the movement in the 19th up to the 20th centuries that attempts to address the problems of human existence, freedom and responsibility, and the place of man in the world. Its central focus therefore is how to make an authentically human life possible in a seemingly meaningless world.
As an intellectual movement that exploded on the scene in mid-twentieth-century France, “existentialism” is often viewed as a historically situated event that emerged against the backdrop of the Second World War, the Nazi death camps, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which created the circumstances for what has been called “the existentialist moment” (Baert 2015), where an entire generation was forced to confront the human condition and the anxiety-provoking givens of death, freedom, and meaninglessness. Although the most popular voices of this movement were French, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, as well as compatriots such as Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century German philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Karl Jaspers as well as prominent Spanish intellectuals José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno. The core ideas have also been illuminated in key literary works. Beyond the plays, short stories, and novels by French luminaries like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, there were Parisian writers such as Jean Genet and André Gide, the Russian novelists Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Norwegian authors such as Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun, and the German-language iconoclasts Franz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke. The movement even found expression across the pond in the work of the “lost generation” of American writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, mid-century “beat” authors like Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg, and William S. Burroughs, and the self-proclaimed “American existentialist,” Norman Mailer (Cotkin 2003, 185).
3.0- Albert Camus’ Existentialist Ethics
Albert Camus’ ethical contribution in Philosophy now taking to be ethical theories or contributions are pieces of his work which could be as well named his humanitarian advocacy for a better living and existence of man gathered and applied as an ethical issue. They range from his concept of Escapism, rejection of capital punishment and suicide, rebellion and myth of Sisyphus, then absurdity. These concepts linked to one another bringing out moral or ethical flavours with their implications.
Absurdity of existence is Camusian notion in which he exposes the meaninglessness of the world which human being is facing. He uses this absurdity of existence to tackle his notion of Escapism. Camus is an atheist who denies the anything life after death. According to him, he is against those religious individual he named escapist and their view of concept of death. The escapists in Camusian view are those that believed in the life after death or immortality of soul. He believes that life should be lived to its fullness. He maintains that life is characterized by the absurd of man living his life with the hope of tomorrow when tomorrow brings us closer to death. Camus condemns any intentional act or suicide or death penalty leading to death of another person.
Why did Camus rejects Death by Suicide and Capital Punishment?
According to Camus, man builds his live on the hope of tomorrow when tomorrow brings us closer to death. As a child one of the things Camus learned about his father was that he became violently ill after witnessing a public execution. This inspired him to oppose such act of Death Penalty. This actually became his vocal point of opposition. Camus condemned capital punishment and his condemnation became explicit and implicit on his writings. In conclusion this work sets to point out the implications of Camus moral philosophy which revolves around his condemnation of death penalty and suicide for the society.
Albert Camus rejected the materialistic and idealistic conception of death. Camus rejected capital punishment or death penalty. He stated with a vocal opposition to death penalty. He described death penalty as an inhuman and irrational act. To some persons, during the execution by the guillotine, to some persons it was spectacle while to Camus it is inhuman juand barbarous. For Camus, death has no rational meaning and as such the human existence is absurd. For Camus, death robs human existence of all its meaning. Death creates fear, unhappy moment and anxiety in human life. Therefore, when suicide and death penalty is the order of the day in the society, the society tends to lose its essence, because it is the human existence that makes up this society. Camus recommends constant rebellion, constant confrontation as the two approaches to absurdity and death penalty. Therefore, life should be lived with the virtue golden mean that is moderation to ensure lasting legacy.
Despite the absurdity of life, meaninglessness and nonsensical nature of life, suicide is not an option. Camus emphatically says “no” to suicide. Suicide is against the natural inclination to preserve life and also against over self-interest or will. realizing that life will definitely come to an end one day will help man plan and channel his life. It is also significant to know that suicide and death penalty is dreadful phenomenon, it is the forceful taking of life. This is actually bad for the society. Suicide does not give room for one to confront the absurdity of life. Death penalty as capital punishment does not give the individual the chance to correct himself while existing. Inflicting death penalty does not solve it because one day the person will still die. It is better he lives to correct himself and also serve as a deterrent to others.
4.0- Jean Paul Sartre’s Existential Ethics
Freedom and responsibility, existence precedes essence, you are the choices you make, capital punishment, suicide and individual subjectivism
Jean Paul Sartre, a French philosopher who lived from 1905 to 1980 was a staunch defender of existentialism. Though Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger had already laid the groundwork for existentialism, Sartre was responsible for much of its philosophical formulation. He also popularized it through his plays, novels, and essays. Existentialism is primarily an ontological theory, and thus about the nature of being. Sartre sees the ontology of the human being as unique because its existence precedes its essence. Since Sartre thinks a God would necessarily pre-determine our essence before our existence, Sartre finds the very idea of God dehumanizing.
In addition, Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is, with total freedom comes total responsibility. He believed that even those people who wish not to be responsible, who declare themselves not responsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of their action. Sartre’s moral philosophy maintains that ethics are essentially a matter of individual conscience. If ethics centers on individual conscience, what about some people that their conscience are dormant or inactive?
Most consistent in Sartre’s Philosophy is the idea of extreme individualism or subjectivism and it permeates all spheres of his thoughts. It is on this note that his writings return most importantly to the human willing and action. His philosophy was basically a reaction and a revolt against the pretentious of reason, against the dehumanizing conditions of modern life, and against the attempts of sciences to reduce persons to simply one more type of object among others in nature. By this he laid emphasis strongly on human freedom. A very obvious manner, he conceived of the world as being empty. It is this idea that strengthens and makes bare his atheistic position that God does not exist. Sartre’s ethics is foundation on his saying “you are the choices you make”. According to him, through our choices, we determine or create what we will be and those choices, we choose according to what we believe we ought to compare this view to others that we are unable to choose badly. Consequently, we are creating ourselves according to what we think a person ought to be. Again, he said, you are responsible for what you are as well. Sartre argues that one is obliged by one’s own freedom to act in a manner that preserves freedom for oneself and humanity at large.
Jean Paul Sartre’s ethical existentialism is the view that the value of human freedom is the core of human existence and the foundation of all other values.It simply implies that freedom is an inherent value in man and this in extension implies choice. It is essentially the search for the condition of man, his state of being free, and subsequently an attempt to create man’s own essence having been thrown into absurd world where he has to struggle and gradually define himself. Jean Paul Sartre however turned this there is no given human nature precisely because there is no God to have a conception of it. According to Sartre, “Human nature cannot be defined in advance because it is not completely thought out in advance, people merely exist and only later on do we become our essential selves”. In Sartre ethics, man is to be judged for his action alone; his intention doesn’t count. No cause can be made by appealing to the complexity of things, or lack of opportunity to demonstrate one’s real self. The existentialist slogan “Existence precedes essence” can be applied in a variety of contexts, as man is simply nothing else but that which he makes himself, and what he makes of himself is no more than the total of his real life experiences.
5.0- An Evaluation
we are therefore looking at the ethical implication of some of the ethical issues raised in Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre’s ethics. First of all, the issues of Suicide and Absurdities in Camus’ ethics. Suicide is an admission of our inability to face the absurd. To subscribe to suicide is to go against the core essential element of dignity and value which Camus says are necessarily included in the human existence. For him, suicide is an act of cowardice and there is no moral ground for suicide its it is self-killing, self-murder and self-assassination. In his words, dying voluntarily means that you have recognized even instinctively, the ridiculous character of the agitation and the uselessness of suffering”
Camus agreed with Jean Paul Sartre on the concept of death. Death for them is a meaningless absurdity that project on earth. It is on this note that Camus treats death as that which brings everything to its end. Camus is against the escapist’s concept of death because of their believe in life after death and immortality of the soul. Camus rejection of life after and immortality of the soul believed by the escapist is in line with Sartre’s notion “You are the choices you make” because it is a direct denial of anything called god who created and has predetermined man’s existence and operations in the world leading to atheism.
Capital Punishmentrejected by Camus which leads to death as stated earlier was as a result of his father’s encounter. His father according to history took ill after witnessing capital punishment meted on someone. Camus sees death penalty as that which goes against the core essential value of dignity of man which includes: individual right, free choice, authenticity, personal responsibility and self-determination. The capital punishment of death penalty does not give the person an opportunity for amending his or her ways.
6.0- Conclusion
While an intentionally ending of one’s life is intrinsically wrong not only because Camus and Sartre both believe that it goes against absurdities and responsibilities, capital punishment in my thinking should not be abolished because the total rejection of it would give room to breeding unnecessary moral and social vices in the society. Although life should be preserved at all cost not when a capital crime is done against another man or against the state. In case you would like to ask the question if taking life could replace a loss life the answer might be in negation but at least it would serve as lesson to deterrents living and could reduce crime rates in the future.
The concept of Escapism in Camus and the statement you are the choices you make in Jean Paul Sartre may linked up in the concept of rebellion and humanism but at the same time denies the concept of religious god. The total rejection of god and religion might also lead to an increase in moral and civil crime rate and vices. In all, we must keep doing good, avoid anything wrong while improving on who you are and wished to become.
Camusian and Sartre’s position which denied the existence of God, fate, life after death and immortality of the soul make man a super being in an empty world without destination because everything depends in man’s might and rejecting divine providence. The question is, does death define the total and actual ending of man? Camus and Sartre have not provided us with a valid answer since it delves into metaphysical realm. They are free to take a position of their choice but whatever answer they have given is not an absolute answer. Their rejection of capital punishment and suicide contradicted what they set out to achieve. Their concept of non-existence of God is such that could encourage suicide because people who consider it think life ends here for them and no eternity. Capital punishment is needed to be adopted by the government to ameliorate crimes but its absence encourages even moral vices.
ENDNOTES
Available at https:www.etymonline.com assessed 3rd March,2025
Francis Chibuzor Alo, “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 14,(2021): 88
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy assessed on 3rd March,2025
Joseph Nnameka Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 10, (2018) : 537-538.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, 522.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”,.520-521.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, 522,
Chukwuma,“Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”,.523.
Available at https://gratton ocurse.wordpress.com assessed on 5th March,2025.
Chinedu Ifeakor, “A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom,”(2023):39 available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Ifeakor, “A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom”,.35.
available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Ifeakor, A critical Analysis of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Ethical theory of Freedom”, 37.
available at https://www.acjol.org assessed on 5th March,2025
Franklin Chibuzor Alo, An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism, 2021, 88
Alo, “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, 90.
Albert Camus, “Caligula and three other plays” Arans, Staurt Cuilbert New York: Vintage Books, 1958, 121.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9 Issue 10, p.537, 2018.
Chukwuma, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”.543.
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
Alo, Francis Chibuzor. “An Interrogation of Jean Paul Sartre’s Ethical Existentialism”, International Journal of
Research in Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 14,( 2021): 88
Chukwuma, Joseph Nnamek, “Albert Camus Moral Philosophy: Implication for the Society”, International Journal
of Scientific and Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 10, (2018) : 537-538.Available at
https:www.etymonline.com assessed 3rd March,2025
Camus, Albert. “Caligula and three other plays” Arans, Staurt Cuilbert New York: Vintage Books,
1958.
Camus, Albert,“The Stranger” Arans. Joseph Laredo, England: Penguin Books (1983), 109
Available at https://gratton ocurse.wordpress.com assessed on 5th March,2025.
Martins, V.A.“Absurdity” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1. (U.S.A. Jack Hearty, and
Associate, 1967.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy assessed on 3rd March,2025Jean Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness. London: Routledge, 1969. Print Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism in Humanism. London: Methuen press, 1973. Print Jean-Paul Sartre. Nausea. Trans by Lord Alexander. New York: New Directions Publishing
by Paragon | Feb 12, 2025 | Article, Philosophy
THE SORROWS OF THIS WORLD VIS-A-VIS IT’S ATTACHMENTS
The world is full of sorrows. Almost everyone in the world is living in one sorrowful moment or the other. The reason of all these are not far fetched. Attachment is the root cause of sorrows in the world. It is necessary, we detach ourselves from the things of the world, if we intend to live a happy and joyful life on earth.
In leadership, people who could not make it to be leaders become sorrowful because they could not climb the ladder of leaders. Those who lead, do everything possible to maintain their leadership position either by hook or by crook simply because of the earthly possession and wealth. These people can go any length in oder to maintain their standard. They sometimes, kill, abuse, matreat, exploit and do all sorts of evils in the name of leadership quest. They do all these because they wouldn’t like to be kicked aside or remained a nobody in the society. They are so attached tenaciously to leadership positions that they hardly can let it slips off their hands because of the sorrow that would definitely follow it.
Love is a beautiful thing but when we love to the extent we can’t do without our lover; it becomes an attachment which goes with sorrows. People who are into relationships commit all kinds of evils because of this particular thing called attachment. Often times, people who do not want to lose their lovers go extra miles to keep them to themselves some times they do charms to keep them all to themselves forever. People become frustrated, depressed and mentally demented because their loved ones died or severed the relationship. This should not be, we should not be too attached to anyone to the extent that when the person leaves us, we end up sorrowful. Even your parents, siblings should not make you to be sorrowful to the extent you cannot do without them because of how you are attached to them.
In our lives as a human beings, the vices or ambitions or desires of men and women are often accompanied by attachment. We are jealous, envious, gluttonous, materialistic, insensitive, uncharitable, selfish to name but a few because of too much attachment to many things. We must learn how to detach ourselves from all these, so that our living here on earth will be sorrow-free.
In all, we are encouraged to make use of material things very well, make friends, enter into relationships, become leaders, have lofty ambitions or desires, love and be loved by people and so on and so forth; in all these, we should not be grossly attached to them in the sense that we cannot or we will find it extremely difficult to do without them. The only Being we should be attached to the extent we cannot do without Him is God.
…Samsonmary Iyida
by Eucharia Amadi | Feb 3, 2025 | Article, Philosophy
Always is mind
That fateful night was a wonderful one. The moon and stars were boldly smiling so much on rafters, hills and valleys, fields also in the village squares where young maidens who wish to generously showcase their dancing steps and twisting waists assembled. It was a melodious night as the sound of crickets added to the clapping and singing of the girls.
Greg, it was warm in your arms which I enjoyed. The rhythm of your heart was the music I would listen to everyday of my life. Your whisper in my ears, the calmly smiles instilled good memories into my heart. Your set of brown teeth though not loved by many albeit cherished and admired by me.
Then it happened, you were gone. Just like that with no trace, no warning, nothing. I woke up to stand alone in this lovely world, against the world all by myself. It used to be you and I against the world but now left in this wide universe for no reason I guess. I remembered the day you first wooed me. You said, ‘baby I love you, please accept and marry me, I will make you happy forever’.
So, why did you deceive me? What crime did I commit? Why left in this manner? Many questions but no answers, I reached out to your family members, friends, colleagues and neighbors yet no response. No positive reply from any angle but hurt tears running down their chicks. It was the most taunting day of my existence on mother earth. OR is that the way you fulfilled all your promises?
It could have been a happy and joyful ending if you had lived but grave argued otherwise and you willingly succumbed with no thought of your lover in mind. Well, time may heal it all but your gentle touch won’t be erased as long as the memories we shared lingered in my spirit being. Greg, my night is never ended without your shinning face in my dreams as if day should not appear again.
Your absence has created a gap that can’t be filled with anyone but then your maker must be respected. But wait a minutes! Is there anything like another world? Oh yes, I suppose. Then my optimism is vehemently high as my unclosed eyes will again coddle you and endless joy shall be met. Adieu Greg though had to say but no choice.
AMADI EUCHARIA EBUBECHI
by Maryann Okpala | Feb 3, 2025 | Article, Philosophy, Poetry, Relationship expert
This woman complained of a sudden change in behavior of her husband and when it was inquired upon, the husband disclosed that
“My wife was charming before I married her. Her code of dressing made me to fall in love with her and I desired her more to be my life partner but surprisingly, after giving birth to our first child, she dresses and appears shabby”.
Where are our women? The above words came from a grieving or helpless man. He desired his wife to ever remain the queen of his life. Dear Mrs., it is not over ‘until death do you part’. O yes, you appeared gorgeous when the young man fell in love with you. He desired your beauty, your neatness, your awesomeness, until now. Why the change? Were you assuming another self? I mean, were you pretending? Or were you deceptive?
Don’t push me to considering, this saying that “as a single lady, she dresses nice to attract her desired husband but as soon as she gets one, the Mgbeke in her would surface” as current societal norm. Now that you have gotten that love of your life, remember that it does not end at that. You ought to keep spicing your marriage with those charming outfits (spaghetti tops, etc). You need also to keep your fitness on check. It implies that after childbirth you need to work on your body weight especially your tummy. Just as you kept to neatness to get his attention to your beauty and yourself, keep on never relent. Do not forget to wear that nice fragrance perfume that made him smile at your presence before your marriage with him. Mind you, he wants you to look at him again and tell him how handsome he is. Surprise him with your charming looks.
I frown at those women who tie wrapper around their waists to welcome their husbands from work. Imagine a man coming back from work after the stress of the day, and expects to go back home to experience a relief from the stress of the day’s work from his wife but arriving at his home to found his house unkept and a wife who came out to welcome him in a tattered clothes.
Habba! Adjust nah!
On the side of the young men, why have you chosen to keep dirty beers knowing that your spouse doesn’t like it and you expect her to clap for you? Why have you chosen to borrow those bad characters that irritate your wife? What about those sweet names you do call her? Why go so dry at this early stage in your marriage? Think of the days when you expected everyday to be weekend so that she will visit with you. Now, you stay out late just to avoid her? You took her out, bought goodies for her on daily bases. Mother of your children should be celebrated the more. Buy her gifts as usual, no matter how small the gift is. Those things are not out of place until you’re no more; they are healing ministries in your marriage. Is never a waste of time or energy? It’s therapeutic. You both should labour to spice your union. It’s never one sided. No one has the sole function of spicing up the other with gifts (both of you have this function to carry out from time to time). You ought to complement each other. Don’t keep expecting from the other! Lead the way! It works like magic!
I wonder why a lady would appear an angel to the entire family of the guy she is dating. What happened after she finally had gone to the altar with the same man to exchanges vows of marriage union is a story for the next episode. More often, the husband’s mother becomes a witch, Amusu. While the husband’s sibling’s turn out lepers colony that she wouldn’t want to associate herself with them to avoid being infected. She fights her husband for mentioning his family members’ names. Have you thought of how miserable you would be when the fire you’re fanning would be too big for you to quench.
BE CAREFUL!
The beauty of marriage is seen when you are in love with your husband’s parents and the siblings. If you succeed in winning the hearts of your husband’s people, my dear you have everything you needed in your marriage. Your husband will cherish you beyond your imagination. When he toys with you he awakes the anger of the siblings.
DO NOT RELENT IN SPICING YOUR MARRIAGE! DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHEN IT CONCERNS THE PEACE OF YOUR HOME!
Try it!
Sr. Maryann Chioma Okpala
(Ugonnaya)
by CWPF | Dec 16, 2024 | Philosophy
TOPIC: RODERICK CHISHOLM’S PROBLEM OF CRITERION: AN EXPOSITION
AUTHOR: JOSHUA NNADIMMA AYOZIE
CLASSROOM PAPER
EMAIL:michealjoshua6@gmail.com
1.0- Introduction
Two quite different questions of the theory of knowledge are questions “What do we know?”and “How are we to decide, in any particular case, whether we know?”The first of these may also be put by asking “What is the extent of our knowledge?”and the second, by asking “What are the criteria of knowing?”If we know the answer to either one of these questions, then, perhaps, we may devise a procedure that will enable us to answer the other. If we can specify the criteria of knowledge, we may have a way of deciding how far our knowledge extends. Or if we know how far it does extend, and are able to say what the things are that we know, then we may be able to formulate criteria enabling us to mark off the things that we do know from those that we do not. But if we do not have the answer to the first question, then, it would seem, we have no way of answering the second. And if we do not have the answer to the second, then, it would seem, we have no way of answering the first. It is characteristic of “empiricism”(but not only of” empiricism”) to assume that we have an answer to the second of these two questions and then to attempt to answer the first on the basis of the answer to the second. Experience, in one or another of its various senses, is said to be the source of our knowledge; every valid claim to knowledge, it is sup-posed, will satisfy certain empirical criteria; and these criteria, it is then concluded, may be used to determine the extent of our knowledge. Empiricism thus begins paradoxically with a general premise .But if Hume is right, a consistent application of these criteria indicates that we know next to nothing about ourselves and about the physical objects around us.
Therefore, this paper tends to investigate into an already existing epistemic question and problem “the Criterion or rather the criteria of knowledge”. Be that as it may, this paper would study and provide an exposition on the criteria of knowledge following Roderick Chisholm’s approach and after which comes up with its epistemological relevance. It is not out of place to state that the problem of Criterion was first investigated by Sextus Empiricus in the ancient time but this paper shall focus on Rederick Chisholm’s. To achieve the objectives of this paper, this paper shall take up the below out line. That is to say that outside this introduction, this paper would look into some sort of explication of terms like: a workable meaning of epistemology using etymological help, what does criterion or Criteria means, has criteria an epistemic meaning outside its literal meaning, is knowledge the same thing with Epistemology? That is, can the both terms be used interchangeably?
Those are hardly all; this paper would further provide an exposition for the Roderick Chisholm’s approach on Criterion of Knowledge with its epistemological relevance as stated above. Finally if need be this paper shall then conclude with some sort of conclusion and evaluation.
1.0- Explication of terms
What is Epistemology? (Etymology and a workable meaning)
The word Epistemology, etymologically speaking is derived from the ancient Greek words “epistēmē”, meaning “knowledge”, and the suffix “-logia”, meaning “logical discourse” (derived from the Greek word logos meaning “discourse”). An extension in meaning of Logos could as well means science, study etc. By implication and interpreting the meaning from the etymology present by this paper, it shows that Epistemology is a discipline and if need be one should know that it is a branch of philosophy whose work is to present to its lover and human beings imbedded with rational faculty a logical discourse and not every or any how discourse on knowledge. That is to say that “Epistemology” as a branch of Philosophy would address the question of what it means to know and how one could know that one knows and criteria of knowing.
It is not outside of the scope of epistemology by implication, to address the question of “the implication” around the statement “I know”. For one to say that one knows exactly what one is insinuating, saying, stating and talking it means that the one in question must have had oneself purged of such things that could hinder one’s clarity of knowing and faculty of reasoning. That is to say that epistemology does the work of helping one let off those illusions that can affect thoughts, thinking, and reflection. Seeing, touching and speaking. One who thinks that one is sure of what one speaks and should be a one with a clear thinking.
Is it out of place to say that epistemology in itself is logical? Because from every indication not everything said to be knowledge is free from biases but whenever it is taken to be epistemic it means that it must have passed through the tests of logic and philosophy. This paper would hence state that Epistemology is branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, what is said to be knowledge and known, the truthfulness and validity of what could be known and criteria to determining what knowledge is and what could be knowledge that is certain and reliable.
2.0- Is knowledge the same thing as Epistemology?
Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. It is of importance to note that the essence of this exercise is not to repeat what is already obvious with the given etymological approach to what epistemology is. Rather this paper would just pick out the necessary thing, which is finding out if “knowledge” is at the same time “epistemology” and if by implication the both could be used interchangeably.
The term “epistemology” comes from the Greek words “episteme” and “logos”. “Episteme” can be translated as “knowledge” or “understanding” or “acquaintance”, while “logos” can be translated as “account” or “argument” or “reason”. Just as each of these different translations captures some facet of the meaning of these Greek terms, so too does each translation capture a different facet of epistemology itself. Although the term “epistemology” is no more than a couple of centuries old, the field of epistemology is at least as old as any in philosophy.
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge). By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology.
Be that as it may, the both terms “Epistemology” and “Knowledge” are nouns hence epistemology is translated as knowledge but epistemology is the science and philosophical branch that investigate into the nature, origin and correct means of knowing, knowledge and at the same time criteria and sources of knowledge.
4.0-What does Criteria means? Could there be an epistemic/Philosophical meaning outside its literal meaning?
Criteria is the plural of criterion—a standard or principle for judging, evaluating, or selecting something. Criteria are the ideals or requirements on which a judgment, evaluation, or selection is based.
Criteria are often the particular requirements that someone or something must meet in order to be considered or qualify for something. An applicant for a job may be evaluated based on several criteria, including their education, experience, and references—each one of these standards is a criterion. Your grade in a class may be based on certain criteria, such as your test scores, your grades on homework and other assignments, and your participation in class. Similarly, a gymnast’s score is based on several criteria involving how well they performed certain moves.
The word criteria is often used with the word meet, as in your entry meets all of our criteria for inclusion in the exhibit. Having looked at the literal meaning of Criteria and having seen that it has to do with requirements to meet to be considered to arriving at something this paper will therefore see what it means in the field of Philosophy.
Criterion (κριτήριον, κρίνειν, to discriminate; κριτὴς, judge).—(1) An organ by which truth is attained; (2) a ground of judgment, or a test of certainty, including forms of evidence, or standards of judgment. It has been distinguished into the criterion a quo, per quod, and secundum quod—or, the being who judges, the organ or faculty by which he does so, and the rule according to which he judges. The last is criterion in the proper sense. Since this paper’s objective is based on the epistemic value, the meaning this paper is trying to derived and arrived at would not be that outside the scope of its objectives. Therefore, criteria: simply put, cannon to be adopted and followed to attained knowledge, and its certainty. Again, the philosophical meaning is not farfetched from its literal meaning following what is already given. In other not to deviate from the requirements of this paper, the need to present an exposition of criterion (criteria) based on Roderick Chisholm’s thought is necessary.
5.0-Roderick Chisholm’s Problem of Criterion: An Exposition
One of Chisholmís earliest formulations of the problem of the criterion can be found in his Perceiving: A Philosophical Study, published in 1957. A modified account is found in his Theory of Knowledge , originally published in 1966. Chisholmís Aquinas lecture, published in 1973, provides his most extensive treatment of the subject; the lecture was aptly named as The Problem of the Criterion I will mainly follow the Aquinas lecture as the definitive guide to Chisholmís views on the problem of the criterion. Chisholm starts off his lecture by confessing the problem of the criterion to be one of the most important and one of the most difficult of all the problems of philosophy. Chisholm’s first characterization of the problem is a paraphrase of Montaigne, and it proceeds as follows:
To know whether things really are as they seem to be, we must have a procedure for distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. But to know whether our procedures [sic]
is a good procedure, we have to know whether it really succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. And we cannot know whether it does really succeed unless we already know which appearances are true and which ones are false. And so we are caught in a circle. Chisholm seems to take it for granted that there are different appearances. Indeed, this is a plausible assumption, for our lives are filled with myriad spectra of appearances. It is not necessary that appearances should be limited to perceptual beliefs, for just as it appears to me that I see a computer in front of me, just as well it could be said that it appears to me that two plus two equals four. The latter appearance is indeed a lucid and indisputable one. However, the crucial question is, despite the vividness or clarity of some of our appearances, is there something out there that properly corresponds to them? Briefly, are our appearances true? Even if my belief that two plus two equals four appears to me as certain, indubitable, and true, is it true? Certainty does not seem to be a satisfactory criterion of truth, for all kinds of madmen and bigots are dead certain about their absurd beliefs although all the others, the sane, can easily tell how nonsensical and false the fools’ beliefs are. Surely we know things, but how can we exactly distinguish the good and true beliefs from the bad and false ones? In my opinion, Chisholm is here dealing with the most fundamental questions of philosophy. Somehow we should be able to show both that the fanatics and madmen claim to know too much, and that we can know far more than the skeptic claims . Chisholm states the problem yet in a different way, speaking now of beliefs instead of appearances. He writes: The question we started with was: How are we to tell the good ones [beliefs] from the bad ones [beliefs]? In other words, we were asking: What is the proper method for deciding which are the good beliefs and which are the bad ones and which beliefs are genuine cases of knowledge and which beliefs are not? And now, you see, we are on the wheel. First, we want to find out which are the good beliefs and which are the bad ones. To find this out we have to have some way and some method and of deciding which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Hence there are good and bad methods, good and bad ways of sorting out the good beliefs from the bad ones. So we have a new problem: How are we to decide which are good methods from the bad ones? If we could fix on a good method for distinguishing between good and bad methods, we might be all set. But this, of course, just moves the problem to a different level. How are we to distinguish between a good method [and a bad method] for choosing good methods? If we continue in this way, of course, we are led to an infinite regress and we will never have the answer to our original question.
The problem Chisholm poses seems to be relatively simple, that is, to understand, not to solve. First, we wonder whether any of our beliefs are true. Then, we realize that we need a method and that is, a criterion of truth for distinguishing true belies from false ones. Finally, we wonder whether our chosen method is a good one. The threat of an infinite regress seems inevitable. Let us see Chisholmís final formulation of the problem.
6.0-Chisholm’s Formulation of the Problem
Chisholm decides to formulate the problem of the criterion with the help of the following two pairs of questions:
A) What do we know? What is the extent of our knowledge?
B) How are we to decide whether we know? What are the criteria of knowledge? Interestingly, Chisholm notes that the above pairs of questions are relevant with respect to some of the philosophical issues that are involved here . This raises the questions of whether there are also some additional philosophical issues involved, and what are their respective contents. Maybe Chisholm just wants to remark that his initial characterization of the problem is rather broad, and on the basis of it one could drift to consider theories of perception, theories of truth, metaphysical theories of realism and idealism, and whatnot. The questions at hand, however, are not ambiguous, for here we clearly are dealing with the criteria and the extent of knowledge. At first glance, it seems that answering either question presupposes an answer to the other question. It seems that I just cannot start listing instances of knowledge and that is, to give an answer to the questions stated in A and if I have no clue how to distinguish between true and false instances of knowledge. In other words, I need a criterion in order that I could tell what I know. Thus, I should have an answer to the questions stated in B in other to answer the questions stated in A, and vice versa. A skeptical conclusion seems to close in on us. As Chisholm puts it: And so we can formulate the position of the skeptic on these matters. He will say:
You cannot answer question A until you have answered question B. And you cannot answer question B until you have answered question A. Therefore you cannot answer either question. You cannot know what, if anything, you know, and there is no possible way for you to decide in any particular case. Is there any reply to this?
On the basis of the above quotation, Chisholm sees that the problem of the criterion culminates in the following skeptical argument:
Question A: What do we know?
Question B: How are we to decide whether we know?
1. You cannot answer question A until you have answered question B.
2. You cannot answer question B until you have answered question A.
3. Therefore, you cannot answer either question.
According to Chisholm, there are three possible reactions to this argument. The first is the position of the skeptic, who, obviously, accepts the argument and states that there is no possible way for us to decide whether we know anything in any particular case. The other two views refute the skeptical conclusion. The so-called particularists reject the first premise of the skeptical argument, and they claim that we can determine the criterion of knowledge on the basis of our chosen sample of good beliefs. Particularists think that they have an answer to A and on the basis of it they work out their answer to B; From instances of knowledge to criteria of knowledge seems to be their motto. In other words, we are able to pick out true beliefs prior to a usage of any criterion. The last camp, the so-called methodists, proceeds the other way around. Methodists reject the second premise of the skeptical argument and they claim that we can determine the goodness of beliefs on the basis of our pre-chosen criterion. Methodists think that they have an answer to B on the basis of which they figure out their answer to A. From criteria of knowledge to instances of knowledge could be their respective motto. Thus, methodists think that we can pick out the criterion of knowledge prior to any instance of good belief.
In sum, Chisholm understands the problem of the criterion as interrelated questions concerning the criteria and instances of knowledge. According to Chisholm, there are three possible answers or positions with respect to the problem of the criterion. Skeptics claim that we cannot answer either question without presupposing an answer to the other, and therefore the questions cannot be answered at all. Particularists presuppose instances of knowledge and proceed from them to criteria, whereas methodists progress in reverse order.
Furthermore, the problem of Criterion in epistemology raises certain fundamental questions concerning the methods a philosopher ought to use in arriving at both analyses of epistemic concepts and conclusion concerning legitimate principles of reasoning and justification. Therefore, this paper is looking at Roderick Chisholm’s work on epistemology. As Chisholm develops on the problem of Criterion, it is of importance to note that it is based on the thesis “the methodological questions concerning how to identify sources of knowledge or justified belief”. Or more still, sources of knowledge and the problem of criterion, the problem most often associated with the work of Chisholm, concerns not the analysis of epistemic concepts, but the search for “sources” of knowledge and justified belief. Again, one is reminded that the problem of criterion (criteria) is often a function of the desire to occupy favourable ground in the battle with the skeptic or skepticism.
The problem of Criterion does left one first decide what one knows and then try to learn from paradigmatic( prototypical) examples of knowledge the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge? Or does one discover first the necessary and sufficient conditions for apply what one learns to discover what one knows? Or perhaps, should one conclude that it is a mistake to suppose that either sort of discovery takes priority over the other? Following Chisholm’s terminology, we can describe those who give priority to particular knowledge claims, particularists. Those who insist that we be guided by antecedent conclusions about the correct analysis of knowledge, we call generalists or Methodists. For more clarification sake, the below is a concise exposition of Roderick Chisholm’s problem of Criterion.
Again, according to Chisholm, epistemology consists of Socratic inquiry into the questions “What can we know?” and “What are the criteria of knowledge?” He thought that a puzzle faces anyone who attempts to answer these questions. It appears that to answer the first question, one needs a criterion to distinguish between things that are known and things that are not known. That is, one needs an answer to the second question. But to have an answer to the second question, he thought, one needs a list of the things one knows so that one can identify the features that distinguish knowledge from its opposite. That is, one needs an answer to the first question. Lacking such an answer, Chisholm feared, one would not be in a position to be confident that any proposed criterion of knowledge was correct.
7.0-Roderick Chisholm’s Problem of Criterion: Its Epistemological Implication
I- Chishom’s Problem of Criterion raises and Intellectual consciousness:
First of all the problem of criterion helps man to be conscious of what one speaks and talk either while in an individual intellectual voyage or while one engages in a conversation and intellectual dialogue with the others. The problem of criterion would plant this carefulness in man hence makes him to observer rules of the use of language, logic of language since epistemology seeks to arrive truthfulness of what is said to know and again, the certainty of what is said to know.
II- The Epistemic Relevance of the problem of Criterion to the Mass Communicators and the Users of Social media:
One of the epistemic relevance of the Roderick’s problem of Criterion is and should be adopted by the media houses. This is the need to subjecting every information gathered by journalism to epistemic criterion to arriving at truth which more certain and indisputable before the public consumption. If this epistemic method of criterion is adopted on this, the rate of propaganda and fallacies to communication would reduce.
III-Being Responsible of what one has reported, said and the position one is taking:
When one is aware that one will be held responsible of what one is reporting, has said, and the position one is taking, one would subject one’s information gathered and what has claimed to know to critical epistemic analysis that would pass through scrutiny. So that one would not report another thing while one is having another thing in mind. This would reduce the problem of ambiguity and vagueness. One will now examine oneself not just what one claims one knows but the knower itself.
IV-Problem of truth and certainty: It could be roughly said that, in general, criteria specify some conditions that must be fulfilled in order for some A to be B. For example, if one makes a judgment that this apple is sweet there are some specific features that form the basis of one’s judgment. Those features can be said to be the criteria of one’s judgment, and if any other object fulfills the criteria, one’s judgment should be the same. It is another question whether one’s criteria are true or universally valid; if they were, one could formulate the sufficient and necessary conditions, i.e. criteria, for the sweetness of apples. Similarly with respect to the notion of knowledge, one could say that criteria of knowledge specify the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge. Now, this paper is not interested in the definition of knowledge, which can be agreed upon as justified true belief. The problem of the criterion is about finding a touchstone for distinguishing true beliefs from false ones. In other words, what this paper is looking for is a criterion of truth. A criterion of truth should be again distinguished from a definition of truth; namely, if one defines truth as correspondence between the propositional content of beliefs and facts, it does not yet give one a criterion with the help of which one can distinguish true from false beliefs.
V- Problem of Skepticism/belief
Supposing that one should distinguish between good and bad apples; one starts picking up the apples and throw the bad apples to one basket, and the good ones to another. Now, if one is asked how one knows which apples are good and which bad, one could refer to some set of characteristics on the basis of which one recognizes the good apples. one could tell that, for example, good apples look, taste, feel, and smell different from bad apples. But now the skeptical twist comes: how could one tell the difference between good and bad beliefs, that is, between true and false beliefs? Of course one can divide one’s belief on the basis of some characteristics of beliefs, but how can one know that one’s chosen characteristics really mark out true beliefs, in contrast to false beliefs?
In other to know, one should be able to distinguish between true and false beliefs. Thus, it seems that one needs a way to distinguish true from false beliefs. Obviously, this way equals to a standard or criterion of true beliefs. The problem arises when one proposes a criterion for true beliefs, for then it can be further asked, how does one knows that one’s chosen criterion holds good? Now, one can try to justify the initial criterion with some supporting reasons, but then, it seems, one should justify these new reasons too. Obviously, this path leads to an infinite regress of reasons.
Alternatively, one can try to avoid the regress by appealing to a preceding reason in our chain of reasons. Unfortunately, supporting one’s claim by appealing to an already stated reason equals to circular reasoning? And circular arguments are not too convincing in general. Finally, one can refuse to justify the alleged criterion and only insist that it holds well, or one can try to justify the criterion with reasons, but at some point refuse to appeal to any new reason and merely insist that the previous reason holds good. However, mere assumption does not seem to be too convincing either. Therefore, it seems that one has only three options in justifying an alleged criterion of true beliefs: either to give infinite reasons, argue circularly, or dogmatically assume that the alleged criterion holds good. Now, the skeptic claims, obviously enough, that none of these three options is acceptable, and that therefore one cannot distinguish between true and false beliefs. Furthermore, the skeptic argues that since one cannot give an acceptable and justified criterion for true beliefs, one cannot know anything. Thus, the problem of the criterion entails skepticism. To clarify, the problem in the problem of the criterion concerns one’s attempts to justify an alleged criterion of true beliefs, and then it is stated that none of the possible ways to justify the criterion is acceptable.
8.0- Conclusion
The problem of Criterion especially as raised by Rederick Chisholm is such that remained intellectual, epistemic and philosophical tools for everyone wishing to have a place in scholarship. It is such that each and everyone are mandated to remain conscious and responsible to what one speaks and know. It is do without tools in scholarship to arriving at any knowledge said to be more or less certain and indisputable. Although various schools of thought have emerged from this but the effort and novelty of knowledge derived from it cannot be down played.
END NOTES
Available at https://en.Wikipedia.org assessed and retrieved on 28th May, 2021
Available at https://www.britannica.com assessed and retrieved on 28th May,2021
Epistemology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Wed Dec 14,2005: substantive revision, Sat April 11,2020
Knowledge, Wikipedia free encyclopedia online, 29th May,2021
Criteria, Available at https://www.dictionary.com assessed and retrieved on 1st June,2021
Criterion. Vocabulary of Philosophy one. William Fleming 1st June, 2021
Chisholm, Roderick M. Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. (Thaca: Cornell University Press) 1957
Chisholm, Roderick M. 1966. Theory of Knowledge(1st edition) (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall) 1966
Chisholm, Roderick M. “The Problem of the Criterion”. In his foundation of Knowledge, (Brighton: The Harvester Press 1982) 61-75
Chisholm, Roderick M. “Reply to Amico on the problem of the Criterion”. Philosophical paper (1988) 17,231-234
Chisholm, Roderick M.Theory of Knowledge (3rd edition) (Englewood Cliffs: Pretice Hall 1989)
Cling, Andrew D. “Posing the Problem of Criterion:Philosophical Studies(1994) 75,261-292
Cling, Andrew D. “Epistemic Levels and the Problem of Criterion”. Philosophical Studies (1997) 88,109-140
Cling, Andrew D. “ Justification-Affording Circular Arguments”. Philosophical Studies (2002)111,251-275.
Cling, Andrew D. . “ The Trouble with infinitism”. Synthese (2004)138,101-123
Cohen, Stewart. “Justification and Truth”. Philosophical Studies (1984) 46,279-295
Cohen, Stewart. “Basic Knowledge and Problem of Early Knowledge” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2002)70, 417-430
Dancy, Jonathan. 1985. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell DePaul, Michael 1985)R. ‘The Problem of the Criterion and Coherence Methods in Ethics (Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1988) 18,67-86
Chisholm, R.M. Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition. (Pretice-Hall. Fumerton,Richard,1977)
Roderick Chisholm, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online 3rd June, 2021
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Available at https://en.Wikipedia.org assessed and retrieved on 28th May, 2021
Available at https://www.britannica.com assessed and retrieved on 28th May,2021
Epistemology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Wed Dec 14,2005: substantive revision, Sat April 11,2020
Knowledge, Wikipedia free encyclopedia online, 29th May,2021
Criteria, Available at https://www.dictionary.com assessed and retrieved on 1st June,2021
Criterion. Vocabulary of Philosophy one. William Fleming 1st June, 2021
Chisholm, Roderick M. Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. (Thaca: Cornell University Press) 1957
Chisholm, Roderick M. 1966. Theory of Knowledge(1st edition) (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall) 1966
Chisholm, Roderick M. “The Problem of the Criterion”. In his foundation of Knowledge, (Brighton: The Harvester Press 1982)
Chisholm, Roderick M. “Reply to Amico on the problem of the Criterion”. Philosophical paper (1988)
Chisholm, Roderick M.Theory of Knowledge (3rd edition) (Englewood Cliffs: Pretice Hall 1989)
Cling, Andrew D. “Posing the Problem of Criterion:Philosophical Studies(1994)
Cling, Andrew D. “Epistemic Levels and the Problem of Criterion”. Philosophical Studies (1997)
Cling, Andrew D. “ Justification-Affording Circular Arguments”. Philosophical Studies (2002) Cling,
Andrew D. . “ The Trouble with infinitism”. Synthese (2004)
Cohen, Stewart. “Justification and Truth”. Philosophical Studies (1984)
Cohen, Stewart. “Basic Knowledge and Problem of Early Knowledge” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2002)70, 417-430
Dancy, Jonathan. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell DePaul, Michael 1985)R. ‘The Problem of the Criterion and Coherence Methods in Ethics (Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1988)
Chisholm, R.M. Theory of Knowledge, 3rd Edition. (Pretice-Hall. Fumerton,Richard,1977)
Roderick Chisholm, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online 3rd June, 2021
