PHIL 2 UCI Wk 1 Puzzles & Paradoxes Philosophy Criteria Knowledge & Skepticism Essay
Question Description
I’m working on a Philosophy discussion question and need a sample draft to help me study.
A substantive post is generally >100 words and introduces a new idea.
In the problem of the criterion, Chisholm asks us to choose between these three options:
(A) We start with criteria and use them to get knowledge.
(B) we start with pieces of knowledge and then derive criteria from what they share in common.
(C) we are stuck in skepticism, where we dont know anything;
What do you think is the best option out of these 3? (Or can you think of another option not included in here?) Argue for this position by giving reasons for why you think it is the best. They dont have to be knockdown proofs; you can for instance say that one option is more intuitive than another. But if you do say that, you would have to explain what makes that option more intuitive than the other.
Have a similar assignment? "Place an order for your assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."