Professor Owen JAMES
ARW Section AI
8 May 2007
Reaction to Meiland’s “Why Reasons Matter”
Summary
In “Why Reasons Matter” Meiland argue that beliefs are supported by good reasons. First, if the beliefs are supported by good reasons, the beliefs are credible. It doesn’t mean, however, we don’t need to confirm those beliefs. Next, basing beliefs on good reasons are really important for us because they liberate us from avoiding frustration and encourage us to achieve our goals. This function is called “pragmatic” justification. So we can get along better in the world. Third justification is called “social” justification because basing beliefs on good reason fits together well with our democratic way of life and help to achieve the aim, to be ideal person, to make the environment which we want to live. Forth, if we have the belief which supported by good reasons, we don’t have to bother whether it is true or not because good reasons let us avoiding when we are challenged. Last function of good reasons is deeper understanding. If you pursue the good reason, you will gather more specific information. So you get better, deeper, understanding. We are using the functions of good reasons while we are unconscious. Therefore the good reasons are supporting the beliefs.
Discussion
According to the Meiland, beliefs are supported by five functions of good reasons. So you don’t need to bother whether they are true. But the five justifications are originally the same. It is because the five functions appear at the same time. When you do the first justification, searching for good reason to make your own belief credible, you have to gather a lot of information. So you automatically do the second, “pragmatic”, justification: to let you to get along better in the world, and fifth one, to understand about the belief deeper. When you search, you have the purpose finding the good reason and understand about the belief better. These are the second and fifth. While it is happening, the third and forth justifications are also appearing. In the one hand, the third, “social”, justification to make you or the environment around you pleasant is found in discussion. You frequently use the way gathering information through discussion. Thus the third justification is discovered there. On the other hand, the fourth justification is also in the discussion. But it is difficult to find because the definition is abstract. Meiland’s definition is “If you know the grounds-the good reasons or justification-for your beliefs, then when your belief is challenged, you can defend your belief, not only to other people but to yourself too.” In short, in my interpretation, if the belief has the forth justification, you can hold the self-confidence. Wait a minute, do you remember the first justification? It is similar to the forth justification, isn’t it? The forth justification is just an aspect of the first justification. So the forth justification is inevitably happened together. Thus it is obvious the five justifications are happened simultaneously. Therefore the five justifications are originally the same.
In “Why Reasons Matter” Meiland argue that beliefs are supported by good reasons. First, if the beliefs are supported by good reasons, the beliefs are credible. It doesn’t mean, however, we don’t need to confirm those beliefs. Next, basing beliefs on good reasons are really important for us because they liberate us from avoiding frustration and encourage us to achieve our goals. This function is called “pragmatic” justification. So we can get along better in the world. Third justification is called “social” justification because basing beliefs on good reason fits together well with our democratic way of life and help to achieve the aim, to be ideal person, to make the environment which we want to live. Forth, if we have the belief which supported by good reasons, we don’t have to bother whether it is true or not because good reasons let us avoiding when we are challenged. Last function of good reasons is deeper understanding. If you pursue the good reason, you will gather more specific information. So you get better, deeper, understanding. We are using the functions of good reasons while we are unconscious. Therefore the good reasons are supporting the beliefs.
Discussion
According to the Meiland, beliefs are supported by five functions of good reasons. So you don’t need to bother whether they are true. But the five justifications are originally the same. It is because the five functions appear at the same time. When you do the first justification, searching for good reason to make your own belief credible, you have to gather a lot of information. So you automatically do the second, “pragmatic”, justification: to let you to get along better in the world, and fifth one, to understand about the belief deeper. When you search, you have the purpose finding the good reason and understand about the belief better. These are the second and fifth. While it is happening, the third and forth justifications are also appearing. In the one hand, the third, “social”, justification to make you or the environment around you pleasant is found in discussion. You frequently use the way gathering information through discussion. Thus the third justification is discovered there. On the other hand, the fourth justification is also in the discussion. But it is difficult to find because the definition is abstract. Meiland’s definition is “If you know the grounds-the good reasons or justification-for your beliefs, then when your belief is challenged, you can defend your belief, not only to other people but to yourself too.” In short, in my interpretation, if the belief has the forth justification, you can hold the self-confidence. Wait a minute, do you remember the first justification? It is similar to the forth justification, isn’t it? The forth justification is just an aspect of the first justification. So the forth justification is inevitably happened together. Thus it is obvious the five justifications are happened simultaneously. Therefore the five justifications are originally the same.
Work Cited
Meiland, Jack W. Why Reasons Matter:College Thinking:
Meiland, Jack W. Why Reasons Matter:College Thinking:
How to Get the Best Out of College, 1981. (The ELP Reader, 2007)
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿