Mpye 003 PDF

• Facebook-https://www.facebook.com/dalal.
tech
• telegram - https://t.me/DalalTechnologies
• YouTube-https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCilEr1rW-SIrJlJ5_ioKQfw
MPYE-003: Epistemology
Note:
i) Give answer of all five questions.
ii) All five questions carry equal marks.
iii) The answer of questions no. 1 and 2 should be in about 500 words.
1. What do you understand by Holism and Hermeneutic Circle? Write a short note on the limits of
Holism.
Ans.
Holism, In the philosophy of the social sciences, the view that denies that all large-scale social events and
conditions are ultimately explicable in terms of the individuals who participated in, enjoyed, or suffered them.
Methodological holism maintains that at least some social phenomena must be studied at their own autonomous,
macroscopic level of analysis, that at least some social “wholes” are not reducible to or completely explicable in
terms of individuals’ behavior (see emergence). Semantic holism denies the claim that all meaningful statements
about large-scale social phenomena (e.g., “The industrial revolution resulted in urbanization”) can be translated
without residue into statements about the actions, attitudes, relations, and circumstances of individuals.
In psychology, holism is an approach to understanding the human mind and behavior that focuses on looking at
things as a whole. It is often contrasted with reductionism, which instead tries to break things down into their
smallest parts.
This approach suggests that we can only understand the parts when we view them in relation to the whole. In
terms of psychology, the holistic view suggests that it is important to view the mind as a unit, rather than trying
to break it down into its individual parts. Each individual part plays its own important role, but it also works
within an integrated system.
The hermeneutic circle can be explained in two ways: a procedural-ironic way, and a technical way. The technical
one understands the hermeneutic circle as the underlying process of interpretation; the procedural-ironic way
understands it as a logical process, thoroughly embedded in the nature of understanding.
I. The hermeneutic circle a process of interpretation:
Nothing is illogical, but something is illogical, everything is illogical. So it is very difficult to understand meaning.
But people have claimed that they know something; but the “hermeneutic circle”, which is a philosophical word,
really, is supposedly the opposite of that notion: we do not know nothing, we know something, and we are
interpreting the world based on what we ‘think’ to know. So it is related to another question: What is knowledge?
II. The hermeneutic circle as a logical process:
Something is nothing; nothing is nothing in particular; nothing in particular could be anything; anything is
something; something is nothing; et cetera.
Holism Limits: - Holism refers to the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When you consider
a complex organism like a human, this means that though the organism is composed of numerous small parts
(cells, atoms, mitochondria), the person as a whole interacts with its environment in complex ways that make it
more than just a combination of physical substances. In social sciences, the holistic perspective acknowledges
that a person can be affected by internal and external forces, and that these forces interact and influence a human's
behavior and reactions to their environment. Additionally, holism or "holistic" approaches often seek to address
all aspects of a human's life, mind, body, and environment in order to improve wellbeing.
Disclaimer/Note
These are just the sample of the answers/solution to some of the questions given in the assignments. Student should
read and refer the official study material provided by the university.
• Facebook-https://www.facebook.com/dalal.tech
One advantage of holism is that it sometimes feels truer to the lived experience of human beings. Illnesses and
psychological problems usually don't exist in a vacuum; rather, they arise in response to complex forces
interacting in a single human being. The disadvantages stem from the very nature of holism; it is harder to break
down and point to one cause of an illness or ailment when there are so many interacting forces that cannot be
separated. This makes holism harder to test in a scientific way.
2. Write an essay on Verbal Testimony (Sabda Pramanya) in Indian Philosophy.

Ans.
Verbal Testimony- Sabda Pramana (Nyaya Philosophy)

A sentence which is a means of valid knowledge is called verbal testimony. It is the fourth kind of valid knowledge
in Nyaya philosophy, it is called Sabda or agama or authoritative verbal testimony. Its means is called Sabda. It
is defined as the statement of a trustworthy person (aptavakya) and consists in understanding its meaning. A
sentence is defined as a collection of words and a word is defined as that which is potent to convey its meaning.
The power in a word to convey its meaning comes, according to ancient Nyaya, from God, and according to ancient
Nyaya, from God, and according to later Nyaya, from long established convention.
Verbal Testimony is of two kinds:

Vaidika and secular (laukika). The Vaidika testimony is perfect and infallible because the Vedas are spoken by
God; Secular testimony, being the words of human beings who are liable to error, is not infalliable.
A sentence in order to be intelligible must conform to certain conditions. These conditions are four:
1. Akanksa: It is mutual implication or expectancy. It is the capacity of the words to become objects of enquiry.
When we hear a word describing or signifying a course of action something of that course of action becomes our
object of enquiry. The words of a sentence are interrelated and stand in need of one another in order to express a
complete sense. A mere aggregate of unrelated words will not make a logical sentence. It will be sheer nonsense,
eg., ‘cow horse man elephant’.
2. Yogyata: the words should possess the fitness to convey the sense and should not contradict the meaning.
For e.g., ‘water the plants with fire’, it is a contradictory sentence. It is the condition of consistency.
Disclaimer/Note
3. Sannidhi: The third condition is the close proximity of the words to one another. The words must be spoken
in quick secession without any long intervals. If the words ‘bring’, ‘a’, ‘cow’ are uttered at long intervals they
would not make a logical sentence. It is defined as contiguity.
4. Tatparya: The valid of a sentence depends on it purport not on its literal meaning. It is the condition of the
intention of the speaker if the words are ambiguous. For e.g., the word’ saindhva’ means salt as well as horse.
Now if a man who is taking his food asks another to bring ‘saindhava’, the latter should not bring a horse. Hence
this condition can also be said to be interpreted on the basis of common sense.
3. Give answer of any two questions in about 250 words each.
a) What are the conditions to be a hetu in Nyaya Philosophy? Critically Evaluate.

Ans.
The Nyaya metaphysics recognizes sixteen padarthas or categories and includes all six (or seven) categories of
the Vaisheshika in the second one of them, called prameya. These sixteen categories are pramāṇa (valid means
of knowledge), prameya (objects of valid knowledge), saṁśaya (doubt), prayojana (aim), dṛṣṭānta (example),
siddhānta (conclusion), avayava (members of syllogism), tarka (hypothetical reasoning), nirṇaya (settlement),
vāda (discussion), jalpa (wrangling), vitaṇḍā (cavilling), hetvābhāsa (fallacy), chala (quibbling), jāti
(sophisticated refutation) and nigrahasthāna (point of defeat).
The Nyaya theory of causation

A cause is defined as an unconditional and invariable antecedent of an effect and an effect as an unconditional
and invariable consequent of a cause. The same cause produces the same effect; and the same effect is produced
by the same cause. The cause is not present in any hidden form whatsoever in its effect.
The following conditions should be met:
1. The cause must be antencedent [Purvavrtti]

2. Invariability [Niyatapurvavrtti]
3. Unconditionality [Ananyathasiddha]
Nyaya recognizes five kinds of accidental antecedents [Anyathasiddha]

1. Mere accidental antecedent. E.g., The colour of the potter's cloth.
2. Remote cause is not a cause because it is not unconditional. E.g., The father of the potter.
3. The co-effects of a cause are not causally related.
4. Eternal substances, or eternal conditions are not unconditional antecedents. e.g. space.
5. Unnecessary things, e.g. the donkey of the potter.
Nyaya recognizes three kinds of cause:

Disclaimer/Note
1. Samavayi, material cause. E.g. Thread of a cloth.

2. Asamavayi, colour of the thread which gives the colour of the cloth.
3. Nimitta', efficient cause, e.g. the weaver of the cloth.
c) Make a distinction between Internalism and Externalism.

Ans.
INTERNALISM VERSUS EXTERNALISM

Internalism in epistemology is a thesis about the nature of epistemic normativity, or the sort of normativity that
is involved in the evaluation of cognition. Specifically, internalists claim that the (epistemically) normative status
of a belief is entirely determined by factors that are relevantly "internal" to the believer's perspective on things.
By contrast, externalists in epistemology deny this. The externalist says that the epistemic status of a belief is not
entirely determined by factors that are internal to the believer's perspective.
When internalism and externalism are characterized in this way, several things become apparent. First, internalism
is a rather strong thesis, in the sense that it says that epistemic status is entirely a function of internal factors. By
contrast, the denial of internalism is a relatively weak thesis. Externalism in epistemology holds that some factors
that are relevant to epistemic status are not internal to the believer's perspective. A second point to note is that
there are several kinds of epistemically normative status, corresponding to several kinds of epistemic evaluation.
Third, we get different understandings of internalism (and externalism) depending on different ways that we may
understand the phrase "internal to the believer's perspective." The most common way to understand the phrase is
that something is internal to a believer's perspective just in case the person has some sort of privileged access to
the thing in question. For example, some fact F is relevantly internal to some person S's perspective if S can know
by reflection alone whether F obtains. A related, though not equivalent, understanding of "internal to S's
perspective" is as follows: Some factor F is internal to S's perspective just in case F constitutes part of S's mental
life. For example, a person's perceptual experience counts as internal on this understanding, since how things
appear perceptually to S is part of S's mental life in the relevant sense.
Finally, it is apparent that some varieties of internalism are initially more plausible than others. That is, some sorts
of epistemic evaluation are obviously externalist on the previous understandings. Most importantly, and perhaps
most obviously, whether a belief counts as knowledge is an external matter, if only because a belief counts as
knowledge only if it is true, and whether a belief is true is typically an external matter.
Disclaimer/Note
4. Give answer of any four questions in about 150 words each.
a) What is Foundationalism? Discuss.

Ans.
Foundationalism
Epistemic foundationalism is a view about the proper structure of one’s knowledge or justified beliefs. Some beliefs are
known or justifiably believed only because some other beliefs are known or justifiably believed. For example, you can
know that you have heart disease only if you know some other claims such as your doctors report this and doctors are
reliable. The support these beliefs provide for your belief that you have heart disease illustrates that your first belief is
epistemically dependent on these other two beliefs. This epistemic dependence naturally raises the question about the proper
epistemic structure for our beliefs. Should all beliefs be supported by other beliefs? Are some beliefs rightly believed apart
from receiving support from other beliefs? What is the nature of the proper support between beliefs? Epistemic
foundationalism is one view about how to answer these questions. Foundationalists maintain that some beliefs are properly
basic and that the rest of one’s beliefs inherit their epistemic status (knowledge or justification) in virtue of receiving proper
support from the basic beliefs. Foundationalists have two main projects: a theory of proper basicality (that is, a theory of
noninferential justification) and a theory of appropriate support (that is, a theory of inferential justification).
c) Discuss Correspondence theory of truth.
Ans.
The correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated
by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly
embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a
characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in
many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ
various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying,
picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality
(facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting
multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences.
d) Critically evaluate pragmatic theory of truth.

Ans.
A Pragmatic Theory of Truth holds (roughly) that a proposition is true if it is useful to believe. Peirce and James
were its principal advocates. Utility is the essential mark of truth. Beliefs that lead to the best “payoff”, that are
the best justification of our actions, that promote success, are truths, according to the pragmatists.
The problems with Pragmatic accounts of truth are counterparts to the problems seen above with Coherence
Theories of truth.
Disclaimer/Note
First, it may be useful for someone to believe a proposition but also useful for someone else to disbelieve it. For
example, Freud said that many people, in order to avoid despair, need to believe there is a god who keeps a
watchful eye on everyone. According to one version of the Pragmatic Theory, that proposition is true. However,
it may not be useful for other persons to believe that same proposition. They would be crushed if they believed
that there is a god who keeps a watchful eye on everyone. Thus, by symmetry of argument, that proposition is
false. In this way, the Pragmatic theory leads to a violation of the law of non-contradiction, say its critics.
Second, certain beliefs are undeniably useful, even though – on other criteria – they are judged to be objectively
false. For example, it can be useful for some persons to believe that they live in a world surrounded by people
who love or care for them. According to this criticism, the Pragmatic Theory of Truth overestimates the strength
of the connection between truth and usefulness.
f) Briefly discuss three components of hermeneutical enterprise.

Ans.
The growth of hermeneutics attests that there is a movement from the interpretations of the text to the understanding of
‘understanding’, existence and life-world. Therefore, the author, the text and the reader are the three basic components of
any hermeneutical enterprise. However, language, culture, and other elements cannot be ignored in the hermeneutics.
The Capacity of The Text

The text in the strict sense of hermeneutics is the key component. Text generally understood as that stretch of written
language which has a beginning and end. In a metaphorical sense text can be extended even to include messages generated
by sign-systems of various religious, economic, social etc. structures, non-verbal body indicators etc. Text is the basis on
which the operations of hermeneutics take place.
The Capacity of The Reader / Interpreter

Like the text, the reader too has an impact on the text: being influenced by the text and influencing the text. Every reader
brings a horizon of expectation to the text. Horizon of expectation is a mind-set, or system of references, which characterizes
the reader’s finite view-point amidst his or her situatedness in time and history.
The Capacity of The Author
The author cannot be ignored in the hermeneutics. It is his worldview, unconsciously comes into the text and affects the
text. An author cannot dispatch himself fully from his historical condition. He feeds both the actual meaning and intended
meaning into the text. However, the text has traces of his world view and his times, which can be traced through
hermeneutics.
Disclaimer/Note
5. Write short notes on any five in about 100 words each.
a) Scope of Epistemology
Ans.
The scope of epistemology is in the field of logic which is the formal science of the principles governing valid
reasoning. Epistemology is a philosophical science of the nature of knowledge. For example, whether a given process
of reasoning is valid or not is a logical question, but the inquiry into the nature of validity is an epistemological
question. As Bertrand Russell said, ‘the two great engines in the progress of human society are the desire to understand
the world and to improve it.’ Epistemology studies whether something is true or false, reasonable or unreasonable,
justified or unjustified. In epistemology cognitive acts of human beings are
evaluated and general principles are laid down for epistemic evaluations.
c) Evidence
Ans.
The concept of evidence is crucial to epistemology and the philosophy of science. In epistemology, evidence is
often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary for
knowledge. Arguably, then, an understanding of evidence is vital for appreciating the two dominant objects of
epistemological concern, namely, knowledge and justified belief. In the philosophy of science, evidence is taken
to be what confirms or refutes scientific theories, and thereby constitutes our grounds for rationally deciding
between competing pictures of the world. In view of this, an understanding of evidence would be indispensable
for comprehending the proper functioning of the scientific enterprise.
e) Theory-Ladenness of observation
Ans.
Theory-ladenness of observation holds that everything one observes is interpreted through a prior understanding
of other theories and concepts. Whenever we describe observations, we are constantly utilizing terms and
measurements that our society has adopted. Therefore, it would be impossible for someone else to understand
these observations if they are unfamiliar with, or disagree with, the theories that these terms come from.
An example of this could be given for determining an object's acceleration. If someone is to understand the
measurement of 2 miles per second squared, he needs an understanding of the concepts of distance, time, and
velocity. Our observation of how much something is increasing in speed depends on our previous knowledge of
these theories. As a result, such an observation is said to be theory-laden.
f) Dasein
Ans.
Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) is a German word that means "being there" or "presence" (German:
da "there"; sein "to be"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence". It is a fundamental concept
in the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience
of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus, it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues
Disclaimer/Note
as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans’ while being
ultimately alone with oneself.
g) Deconstruction
Ans.
Deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida, that questions the fundamental conceptual distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western
philosophy through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and literary texts. In the 1970s the term
was applied to work by Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, and Barbara Johnson, among other scholars. In the 1980s it
designated more loosely a range of radical theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences,
including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism,
gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. In polemical discussions about intellectual trends
of the late 20th-century, deconstruction was sometimes used pejoratively to suggest nihilism and frivolous skepticism. In
popular usage the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought.
Disclaimer/Note

Mpye 003 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mpye 003 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

• Facebook-https://www.facebook.com/dalal.

2. Write an essay on Verbal Testimony (Sabda Pramanya) in Indian Philosophy.

Verbal Testimony- Sabda Pramana (Nyaya Philosophy)

Verbal Testimony is of two kinds:

3. Give answer of any two questions in about 250 words each.

a) What are the conditions to be a hetu in Nyaya Philosophy? Critically Evaluate.

The Nyaya theory of causation

The following conditions should be met:

1. The cause must be antencedent [Purvavrtti]

Nyaya recognizes five kinds of accidental antecedents [Anyathasiddha]

Nyaya recognizes three kinds of cause:

1. Samavayi, material cause. E.g. Thread of a cloth.

c) Make a distinction between Internalism and Externalism.

INTERNALISM VERSUS EXTERNALISM

4. Give answer of any four questions in about 150 words each.

a) What is Foundationalism? Discuss.

c) Discuss Correspondence theory of truth.

d) Critically evaluate pragmatic theory of truth.

f) Briefly discuss three components of hermeneutical enterprise.

The Capacity of The Text

The Capacity of The Reader / Interpreter

The Capacity of The Author

5. Write short notes on any five in about 100 words each.

You might also like