In other words, are epistemological hierarchies still valid? Wouldn’t it be more effective, beginning with teaching, the narratives were free of obstacles between them? As knowledge advances, themes expand and intertwine.To the point that we can affirm that the current understanding ends up reflecting our ignorance a whole lot more than our reply to the various problems. In actuality, the most profound questions remain open for discussion.
I believe this is a boon in at least two ways. First, at any time, new”truths” could be reached – albeit provisional, which is translated by the timeless saying of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951):”to point out the jar”. Second, it’s necessary to recognize that this unfinished search allows us to be rationally free from the dominion of other men. At this point, we could say, then, that philosophy is truly just a procedure. In other words, philosophy does not give us knowledge, but understanding, and this can be frustrating, as Sir Anthony Kenny noted. Wildlife Removal Palm Bay
Subsequently, Wittgenstein requires this philosophical understanding more as the experience of a trip than since the arrival at a destination. (And journey is everything; that is what we learn from Konstantinos Kaváfis’ poem”Ithaca”). In short, for Wittgenstein, philosophy is a process or activity. It appears that we’re constantly coming”home” in doctrine. After so many centuries, the founding stance seems to be losing its raison d’être. Regardless, and this comes Wittgenstein’s proposal, we need, perhaps, to understand philosophy or the search for knowledge as a search for clarity.
Therefore, meeting the longing for generality, we have to conclude, with Wittgenstein, that it is no longer possible to fail the specific data, but to look at that if building a model of description of the phenomenon or information under study, we’ve done everything or almost everything that was possible to do right now. The always provisory characteristic of human investigation.
After all, Wittgenstein recognized that the logical structure of speech could be visible on its surface. The Austrian sage did not want to propose theories. But describe in detail what is going on: this summarizes your own analysis. To sum up, it is up to the philosopher to”set things” clearly. The Wittgensteinian approach is, therefore, descriptive.