Question Details

(solution) Turnitin Originality Report Outline and Draft by Angela

Can someone help me with this paper? Due Date Dec, 12th, 2015 ?Words-1, 200

PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY! I had assignments before and the professor stated that I do not follow instructions, when it comes to sources and the in text citations (which is extremely important) are not included in the paper correctly. So please read the instructions very carefully, to avoid back and forth. I really appreciate your effort!


PLAGIARISM IS NOT ACCEPTED. Check your papers to correct and avoid plagiarism at: checks You can look for this website at GOOGLE if you can?t get access directly.

DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA as a research source.

My Personal Philosophy Paper

By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:

  • Competency 1: Employ sound logic in philosophical reasoning.
    • Support and defend logically each of these convictions with clear logical argumentation.
  • Competency 2: Classify alternative approaches to the origin and reliability of human knowledge.
    • Show that these distinct elements fit together to form a coherent philosophy of life in the context of traditional Western epistemology.
    • Assess the proper role of philosophical reasoning in practical life.
  • Competency 4: Interpret human behavior in philosophical terms.
    • State and explain a clear position on the ultimate meaning of life.
  • Competency 6: Formulate a personal philosophy of life.
    • Describe personal convictions about philosophical issues in contrast to alternative views of the same issues.
  • Competency 7: Communicate effectively in a variety of formats.
    • Use proper APA style and formatting to write effectively.

It is time to finalize your personal philosophy paper, the course project you have been working on for weeks. Using the outline you developed in Unit 7, write an essay that states and defends your own philosophy of life.

As you finish this assignment, take a moment to congratulate yourself on the success of your achievement. If anyone asks you what philosophy has to do with real life, you know exactly what to tell them!

Your paper should meet the following requirements:

  • Written communication: Written communication should be free of errors that detract from the overall message.
  • APA formatting: Resources and citations should be formatted according to APA (6th ed.) style and formatting standards.
  • Number of resources: Minimum of five resources.
  • Length of paper: Approximately 1,200?1,600 words, typed and double-spaced in Microsoft Word.
  • Font and font size: Arial, 12-point.

Review the Personal Philosophy Paper course project description to ensure you have met the requirements of the course project and understand how your assignment will be graded.

Prior to submitting your paper to the instructor, submit your work to Smarthinking for review and feedback from an online tutor. Once you have done this, reviewed the feedback from your peers, and made any necessary revisions, submit your paper as an attachment in the assignment area.

Turnitin Originality Report


Outline and Draft by Angela Moore


From u07a1:Outline and Draft (PHI1000 - Oct 12 2015 to Dec 18 2015 - Section 01)


? Processed on 27-Nov-2015 9:26 AM CST


? ID: 606391154


? Word Count: 933 Similarity Index




Similarity by Source


Internet Sources:








Student Papers:








2% match (student papers from 28-Nov-2012)


Submitted to Capella Education Company on 2012-11-28




2% match (Internet from 27-Aug-2014),3(2)pp323-356.pdf




2% match (Internet from 27-Jul-2012)




2% match (student papers from 13-Sep-2015)


Submitted to University of Evansville on 2015-09-13




1% match (student papers from 19-Dec-2012)


Submitted to Cranfield University on 2012-12-19


paper text:


Outline and Draft Angela Moore PHI1000 ? Introduction to Philosophy Professor Garth Kemerling November


27, 2015 Introduction Williams, (2001) depicts that most philosophers contend that it is necessary to


transgress the reasoning capacity of human beings to discover new knowledge. Numerous ancient and


contemporary philosophers have construed some philosophical assumption regarding limits to knowledge by


distinguishing between the known and the unknown, and ultimately suggesting a variety of theoretical


assumptions. Some philosophers such as Kant have even gone as far as developing explicit scientific based


metaphysical structures. The following paper will attempt to compare and contrast a variety of knowledge


based limitations suggested by different philosophers. An analysis of knowledge limitation concepts identified from a variety of ancient and Modern-day philosophers First and foremost, this part of the essay will elaborate


on Descartes's epistemological approach to understanding the metaphysics of knowledge. After initially


setting up the fundamental rule for philosophical studies, Descartes placed emphasis on the need for


validating reason and at the same time eliminating doubt. By developing knowledge of mathematical and


geometric assumptions, Descartes was able to assert that the empirical propositions could be found based on


reasoning only despite acknowledging the essence of experimenting and observation (Polanyi, 2012). The


limiting concept identified in Descarte?s assumption resulted from the fact that he intentionally chose to


disregard experimentation and observation, even though they are crucial parts of gathering knowledge other


than reasoning. Hume?s assumption that intellectual reasoning ought to be delimited by number and quantity


resulted in an entirely different knowledge limitation. Hume asserted that any book lacking both intellectual


quantitative reasoning and experimental reasoning was an example of an illusion. Just like Descartes, Hume


comprehended the essence of observation in scientific procedures, but ultimately chose to limit the sphere of


knowledge to details. In the end concluding that human beings should only believe in crucial facets of


existence: the existence of an exterior world; the consistency of experience; the presence of a unified cause,


effect, self, and moral order (Popper, 2014). Hume's premise essentially makes sense; nonetheless it may be


prudent to note that scientific generalizations are made based on the same aspects disregarded by Hume?s


theory. In addition to this, Hum initially insisted that knowledge began in experience but failed to realize that


knowledge can contribute to an individual?s experience. A critical re-examination of metaphysics by Kant


resulted in the third knowledge limiting concept. Being a major critique of Descartes and Hum, Kant sought to


evaluate the nature and limits of pure reason as part of a larger strategy to identify the genuine relationship of


thoughts to knowledge. In explicating knowledge, Kant?s critical philosophy, approach uses a twofold


approach (Hogan, 2015). The phenomenal approach illustrates that the actual experiences and the faculties


of judgement that take place in the mind are responsible for triggering the formation of knowledge. Based on


the fact mentioned above, it is impossible for human beings to experience true reality other than the reality


organized by human comprehension. As the second approach used by Kant, nominal is the non-perceptive


human reality commonly referred to as objective reality. Kant?s twofold theory may be in a way logical, but the


noumenal reality is a limiting concept since it cannot be assigned any affirmative content (Wittgenstein &


Docherty, 2001). It may be unnecessary to speak of some non-existent reality. Kant contends that though it is


not possible for human beings to experience nominal, transcendental close the gap between nominal and


phenomenal. The three main transcendental ideas identified by Kant encompass self, cosmos, and God.


These ideas are Considering Kat?s assumption; it is even meaningless to discuss the three traditional


metaphysics if the theoretical knowledge only culminates in transcendent illusions. The fourth point originates


from the Sapir/Whorf relativism assumptions that it is impossible for human beings to grasp the reality of life


with limited knowledge to clarifications conditioned by culture, language, and history. The Sapir/Whorf


relativism approach further states that the human behaviour associated with dividing up nature and shaping it


into ideas entirely depends on the language structure. This argument is a limit concept in itself. It is wrong to


claim that human beings barely know themselves and hence making relativism a questionable philosophical


term. Habermas (2007) explains that for relativism to count as a solid philosophical reason that hinders


knowledge, exemption from restricted nature of knowledge is a necessity. Finally, Hillary Lawson responds to


the problem above by making both sides of the unequivocal hindrance parts of the philosophical theory.


Lawson describes knowledge attainment as his assurance of openness in a certain way. Lawson elucidates


that the theory does not claim that human knowledge is unlimited as it is difficult to elaborate openly on this


fact Lawson?s idea of openness and closure are definite closures and not decisive descriptions. Lawson?s


theory is a singular method of holding the world; hence his theory does not transgress its limit to describe


them. Conclusion In conclusion, the limits of knowledge can be identified from the philosophies of both


ancient and modern day philosophers. Some of the knowledge, philosophers identified in the essay include


Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Sapir/Whorf. References 2Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of


modernity. Twelve lectures. Horgan, J. (2015). 3The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the


twilight of the Scientific age. Basic Books.2Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of


scientific knowledge. Routledge. 5Polanyi, M. (2012). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical


philosophy.4University of Chicago Press. Wittgenstein, L., & Docherty, P. (1991). The Blue and Brown Books:


Preliminary Studies for The Philosophical Investigation'. Williamson, T. (2001). Knowledge and its Limits.


Oxford University Press. 1Running Header: OUTLINE AND DRAFT 1 Running Header: OUTLINE AND


DRAFT 2 Running Header: OUTLINE AND DRAFT 3 Running Header: OUTLINE AND DRAFT 4 Running




Solution details:

This question was answered on: Jan 30, 2021

PRICE: $15 (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free solution (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question






Jan 30, 2021





We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.


Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.


Order Now