Sentence examples for direct acquaintance that from inspiring English sources

Since it is things with which we have direct acquaintance that are the least questionable members of our ontology, it is these objects upon which Russell ultimately bases his epistemology.

Is the awareness or acquaintance that is the alleged source of noninferential justification propositional or conceptual?

The person with stroke was asked to identify an acquaintance that would be considered his or her main, informal caregiver.

In fact — and here we return to conceptualism — on the basis of what Auriol has said, we can deduce that every particular thing, e.g. Socrates, has several potential intentional existences: one for each of Socrates' rationes, those basic units of intellectual acquaintance that direct the mind to form certain concepts of him.

It allows for persons to be directly acquainted with experiences, and it is this direct acquaintance, rather than any causal relation, that justifies our beliefs about experiences.

The problem is that categories do not allow direct acquaintance as objects do.

The direct acquaintance theorist does presuppose the intelligibility of a world that has "structure" independent of any structure imposed by the mind.

In De Magistro, for example, Augustine argues that the efficacy of language is ultimately dependent upon direct acquaintance with the external world, and even our ability to learn from others presupposes that what they tell us can be reduced to elements with which one has had some prior acquaintance [De Magistro 11.37].

The question we are supposed to ponder is: given that learning is really a matter of being reminded, and given that all such occasions of being reminded depend upon acts of direct acquaintance wherein we are taught by the things themselves [De Magistro 12.40], what does this imply about our relation to those truths that cannot be accounted for by sense perception?

If knowledge by acquaintance is restricted to belief in propositions where one's epistemic situation precludes the possibility of error, critics might well be right in suggesting that we have a tiny body of knowledge secured by direct acquaintance.

Sometimes this view is conjoined with the view that de re but not de dicto belief requires some kind of direct acquaintance with the object of belief.