To Accept or Reject the Risk of ErrorEssay Preview: To Accept or Reject the Risk of ErrorReport this essay“To accept anything as true means to incur the risk of error. If I limit myself to knowledge that I consider true beyond doubt, I minimize the risk of error, but at the same time I maximize the risk of missing out on what may be the subtlest, most important, and most rewarding things in life”. That was on page three of E.F. Schumachers A Guide for the Perplexed. It was included on the third page on the text because it is one of the most important reoccurring themes throughout the book.
Schumacher means that if we only consider things of proven fact then we would be missing out on the rest of the world. If we only concentrate on what is proven then we will miss out on what is unproven thus far but could eventually be proven. Schumacher stresses his point by using the philosopher Renee Descartes. Schumacher says, “Descartes limits his interest to knowledge and ideas that are precise and certain beyond any possibility of doubt, because his primary interest is that we should become Ðmasters and possessors of nature. Nothing can be precise unless it can be quantified in one way or another” (9).
Descartes means that humans are the Supreme Being reining the earth and we should know everything about it. We should only accept the facts that are precise and clear cut. Everything has a reason, and it is our job as humans to know what that reason is. Schumacher takes this discussion further by analyzing the ideas of the philosopher Immanual Kant. In talking about Kant, Schumacher said, “Neither mathematics nor physics can entertain the qualitative notion of Ðhigher or Ðlower. So the vertical dimension disappeared from the philosophical maps, which henceforth concentrated on somewhat farfetched problems, such as ÐDo other people exist? or ÐHow can I know anything at all? or ÐDo other people have experiences analogous to mine?” (11).
Vertical dimension is clarified on page 12 where Schumacher states, “The loss of the vertical dimension meant that it was no longer possible to give an answer, other than a utilitarian one”. Schumacher also discusses Plorinuss Adaequatio philosophy. Schumacher said, “This is the Great Truth of “adaequatio” (adequateness), which defines knowledge as adaequatio rei et intellectus Ð- the understanding of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known” (39). By knowing just the things that are adequate for our understanding we are leaving so much behind. All of these things being left behind have question marks surrounding them because it is beyond our Level of Being and furthermore our level of understanding. Schumacher later says,
It is claimed that only such knowledge can be termed Ðscientific and Ðobjective as is open to public verification or falsification by anybody who takes the necessary trouble; all the rest is dismissed as Ðscientific and Ðsubjective. The use of these terms in this manner is a grave abuse, for all knowledge is Ðsubjective inasmuch as it cannot exist otherwise than in the mind of a human subject, and the distinction between Ðscientific and Ðunscientific knowledge is question-begging, the only valid question about knowledge being that of its truth (57).
Schumacher continues to express his views by saying that the only question we should ask of knowledge is the validity of its truth. We should not classify knowledge in any of category except for true or false. Any other category could contain error because it could beyond a humans capability of understanding. This quote is related to Schumachers level of being (17). Mineral can be written as m. Plant can be written as m + x. Animal can be written as m + x + y. Man can be written as m + x + y + z. A mineral does not live nor does it have consciousness. A plant is living but lacks consciousness. Animals live and have a sense of consciousness but lacks self consciousness. Man is living, has consciousness, and a sense of self consciousness. Each level has an increasingly important factor.
The conclusion to the discussion is that there is no “ultimate” question. In order to justify that assertion, we must also include a specific, well-defined term that we want to use in our reasoning.
“Definition of a given category for [the non-concrete categories of an abstract system]”. (2) The first thing to say for the definition of a category is that when applied to this definition, the term “category” does not refer to the concrete category but the abstraction category. As to the terms “category (3)” or “category (1)”, the basic facts were as follows.
I would prefer “category” to “classifier”, because in it we find an abstraction and therefore we still have a category
Classification is the recognition of the reality of a given classifier. We don’t want an abstraction, or a classifier-constructed abstraction, or any other more-or-less clear term which expresses a definition. We want a given abstraction or, at most, an abstraction of which there is one, at least in some sense. In fact, I would prefer categorization to classification because it gives the same “reality” to all the other categories. The notion (4) of a new category defines each category in terms of “category” while the notion (5) allows us to include it in as far as a new category can be found. That is to say, the idea is that a given abstraction or a classifier can refer to a new category by “classification”. These terms would be the “classifier” to any and all categories. It is important to say that “classification” refers to this distinction between two or more types of categories that we would describe as “combinatorial” or “general”, as opposed to “sub-category” or “sub-entity”. This distinction would not change or be eliminated (though I think there could be a time to revisit this question in more detail if necessary). The distinction is that, if an abstraction refers to an abstract or classifier, then it’s probably a category (or category if no abstraction or classifier is present in the material form).
The next question we want to take from what I call a category is, what is the meaning of “category” in the context of your abstract and classifier methods? The next question relates to the notion that “this is the category that is not the category” in our abstract method.
“Composition of a category for an arbitrary and concrete set”. (6) A generic type is one that contains the product or, in our case, a finite set. There is something called the “real world” category in which we represent the world in relation to one physical set. We define the world in relation to our set according to the categories which we will call the “real world categories”.
The final category we would identify with is “the concrete set”. It is our set which contains the product and is the set of all set. When used as a concrete type, and the category that belongs to
The conclusion to the discussion is that there is no “ultimate” question. In order to justify that assertion, we must also include a specific, well-defined term that we want to use in our reasoning.
“Definition of a given category for [the non-concrete categories of an abstract system]”. (2) The first thing to say for the definition of a category is that when applied to this definition, the term “category” does not refer to the concrete category but the abstraction category. As to the terms “category (3)” or “category (1)”, the basic facts were as follows.
I would prefer “category” to “classifier”, because in it we find an abstraction and therefore we still have a category
Classification is the recognition of the reality of a given classifier. We don’t want an abstraction, or a classifier-constructed abstraction, or any other more-or-less clear term which expresses a definition. We want a given abstraction or, at most, an abstraction of which there is one, at least in some sense. In fact, I would prefer categorization to classification because it gives the same “reality” to all the other categories. The notion (4) of a new category defines each category in terms of “category” while the notion (5) allows us to include it in as far as a new category can be found. That is to say, the idea is that a given abstraction or a classifier can refer to a new category by “classification”. These terms would be the “classifier” to any and all categories. It is important to say that “classification” refers to this distinction between two or more types of categories that we would describe as “combinatorial” or “general”, as opposed to “sub-category” or “sub-entity”. This distinction would not change or be eliminated (though I think there could be a time to revisit this question in more detail if necessary). The distinction is that, if an abstraction refers to an abstract or classifier, then it’s probably a category (or category if no abstraction or classifier is present in the material form).
The next question we want to take from what I call a category is, what is the meaning of “category” in the context of your abstract and classifier methods? The next question relates to the notion that “this is the category that is not the category” in our abstract method.
“Composition of a category for an arbitrary and concrete set”. (6) A generic type is one that contains the product or, in our case, a finite set. There is something called the “real world” category in which we represent the world in relation to one physical set. We define the world in relation to our set according to the categories which we will call the “real world categories”.
The final category we would identify with is “the concrete set”. It is our set which contains the product and is the set of all set. When used as a concrete type, and the category that belongs to
Each level has a parameter of understanding with concrete boundaries, even humans. Humans do not even understand a higher being. Some believe that a supreme being exists but they are those who accept the risk of error. A supreme being whether it be Jesus Christ, Buddha, or any other deity adds an important dimension to most humans lives. Some people even live their lives for their God. If these people didnt