Is death of a salesman an example of what's good, bad, or both of the Essay

Is death of a salesman an example of what's good, bad, or both of the American Dream - Essay Example The characters depict very different opinions about success and American dream. The author portrays the vision of an American dream of Willy, the main character of the play. Willy sees this world purely in materialistic way and according to him success can only be measured through monetary gains. He also considers use of personal relationships important in attaining success in the society. Through the character of Willy Arthur mocks the materialistic nature of American society. Willy once says to his son â€Å"†¦the man who makes an appearance in the business world, the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead (Miller, 33). This is the version of Willy and this story of success is told by the author in order to show the real face of ‘The American dream’ to the audience. Also the reaction of the society towards Willy is also very important. Throughout the play he is not liked by anyone and not even his customers. Willy only favors personal relati onships in order to gain monetary benefit but he is not successful. He also measures success in terms of tangible things. For these reasons he is not liked by anyone. Arthur has deliberately tried to make Willy like this because he wanted to show the downside of blind ambition for ‘the American dream’. ... They present the idea of success that is consistent with an American dream. It is again a tangible thing with which the materialistic society of America is obsessed. The success of Ben is also an ironic portrayal of the American society as Ben sacrifices all interpersonal relations for his success. He wanted to go see his father (Miller, 48) but instead ended up successful. Charley is the neighbor of Willy and is a respected man. Willy considers him successful because of his humility and nice nature but explicitly always degrades him. Charley can be considered as a real successful person because he does not brag. Also he acts reasonably throughout the play. Charley’s true nature becomes evident when he offers Willy a job. All this shows the good nature of Charley. Biff Loman, son of Willy, portrays a deviant fellow who resists the ideas of success that are believed by his father. He does not agree with his father’s version of American dream and wants to live a happy and a free life. His definition of success widely differs from his father. He says â€Å"Shipping clerk, salesman, business of one kind or another. And it's a measly manner of existence; to devote your whole life to keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling or buying. When all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off and still that’s how you build a future† (Miller 22). This shows that Biff identified the fakeness that existed in the American society and tried to change it. Biff wants to travel and enjoy his life. By Biff the author is portraying the rebellion that will come in future. All these characters had different ideas of success. The views of Ben and Willy on success represent materialism. They view success in attainment of ‘the American dream’ and value

Scientific Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Scientific - Essay Example 180). The latter permits replication of plasmid in host cells while drug-resistance gene is essential in allows growth of host cells by destruction of antibiotics especially carbenicillin. The use of restriction enzymes, in obtaining cloning sites through cleaving of the vector acts as the initial step in insertion of foreign DNA (Seviour and Nielsen, 2010, p. 365). Sticky ends especially single-stranded ends can results from cleavage of palindromic sequence GAATTC by EcoRI (Russell et al., 2013, p. 393). The resultant single-stranded ends have hybridization ability with similar EcoRI pieces of DNA. Using the principle, scientists take sequences of foreign DNA for cloning and mix them with cleaved vectors after digestion with EcoRI (Brown, 2013). After hybridization of the plasmid and foreign DNA through the sticky ends, the next step involves sealing with phosphodiester linkages to form recombinant plasmid. DNA ligase enzyme remains imperative in the sealing process. Consequently, the aforementioned replication origin, resistance gene, and DNA fragment remains present on the newly created recombinant plasmids that collectively forms circular library. The inherent recombinant plasmids have each of them possessing unique foreign DNA fragment. Subsequent stage involves addition of E. Coli bacteria that acts as host cells to the recombinant plasmids. At this stage, the study has made the cells permeable to DNA through treatment with CaCL2. Some cells resist taking recombinant plasmids while others do through a process known as transformation. Thereafter, the researcher pours the E,Coli cells into an antibiotic carbenicillin plate nutrient agar. It is important to note that only cells that have resistance to carbenicillinin antibiotic would grow in the agar as opposed to the rest. Growth and multiplication of the aforementioned cells remains possible at 37

Global sourcing Essay Example for Free

Global sourcing Essay 1) What is global sourcing? Global sourcing is defined as the process of identifying, developing, and utilizing the source of supply for the enterprise through expanding purchasing activities internationally. It is a part of post reengineering activities which is an useful measure of cutting cost. Global sourcing is a typical example of foreign construction outsourcing firms which process construction by distributing each process of construction work to vendors instead of running on its own. Such construction method not only does reduce costs in terms of managing construction sites such as labor cost and equipment cost including vehicles, but also is being adopted by various companies for value-adding construction management (CM) project. For instance, global sourcing was utilized when building Daewoo Business Center at Warszawa, Poland, on March, 1997. The process of erecting the center was alloted to vendors; construction was executed by VOICE(England), design through RTKL(U.S.), facility management was duty of Dongwoo which is a department of Daewoo Group, hotel management by Hilton hotel(U.S.). 2) Global sourcing factors Global sourcing factors that must be understood and balanced can be segmented into 5 categories. First factor is material cost. The bottom line of execution of global sourcing is reduce cost by minimizing material cost. Another category is transportation cost. Various costs including inventory delivery cost can be dwindled through global sourcing. Moreover, significant amount of transportation expense can be reduced when marketing products at outsourcing regions. Cross-border taxes, tariffs, and duty costs are third factor which form global sourcing. Instead of relying on domestic production but rather outsource each process internationally, costs can be reduce by avoiding trade barriers which include cross-border tax, tariff and duty cost. Next factor is supply and operational performance. With effective resource management and cheap labor cost, supply and operational performance can be efficiently managed which enables global sourcing companies to manufacture high quality-low price merchandises. The last category of global sourcing is supply and operational risks. Cultural and geographical disparities can yield additional costs such as labor cost and transportation cost. If not managed thoroughly, they can militate as huge risks in terms of conducting sourcing. 3) Advantages of global sourcing There are three major merits of performing global sourcing; gumption to changes, reduction of cost, and trade barriers avoidance. To begin with, global sourcing allows a firm to develop capacity to cope with changes in market condition. Importing numerous raw materials and resources economically and steadily can be done through global sourcing. With such abundant resources, a firm can flexibly adopt to environmental alterations when confronting unexpected economic crisis. Secondly, average 20% of cost saving is possible. Components of products or raw materials procured from abroad is advantageous in terms of price. Furthermore, many countries such as American and Europe are sourcing materials to cut cost in terms of distribution industries. As a result, China has become the hub of production base for global sourcing. Even in case of Korea, sourcing products from China are 30%~40% cheaper than Korean domestic goods. In particular, simple functional merchandizes whose design and quality are relatively less considered are largely influenced by global sourcing. Consequently, over 70% of commodities and clothes are imported from China. Last merit of global sourcing is evasion of trade barriers. In case of global sourced goods, the price is lower, leading to economical purchase, by avoiding trade barriers such tariffs and cross-border taxes. On top of that, firms are able to acquire restricted raw materials and resource. Thus, unique and competitive products can be created. 2. Case-Study (LiFung) 1) Introduction LiFung is a professional trading company which specializes in global sourcing and was founded in 1906. It functioned as a broker between Asian manufacturers and foreign traders and expanded as a trading company later on. Today, LiFung acts as a professional sourcing and distribution firm focusing on toys and textile. Becoming an intermediary, it reconstructed the business by forming it as a connection and manager of diverse supply chains. LiFung is the representative of smokeless factory without owning any equipment and factories regarding production process from raw material to final goods and distribution of final products. 2) Business area / Present condition LiFung won the rewards in Fabulous 50 selectied by Forbes Asia, 50 for 2012 from Morgan Stanley, and The most influential companies 25 from Business week. The sales of LiFung in 2007 was 92.4 billion in Hong Kong dollars, approximately 36% increase in sales compared to that of 2006. Net income reached 30 billion dollars(2007) and LiFung Co. Ltd. succeed in gaining 19.8% increase in sales (110.7 billion Hongkong dollars)than that of previous year. After 1998, foreign companies such as The Limited, Gymboree, American Eagle, Warner Brothers, Abercrombie Fitch, Bed, Bath Beyond, Tesco, Avon Products, Levi-Strauss, Reebok have become major customers of LiFung, and Royal Ahold, Guess Jeans, Bebe also joined as major customers of LiFung in 2000. As a result, LiFung currently has 68 offices in the 38 countries, and shareholders numbers 17,900. In addition, it consists of 107,000 employees engaged in the business associated with LiFung, especially 40,000 related businesses only in the United States. Thus, it can be said that LiFung has entered plateau stage as a company settling new form of SCM rather than just being a simple trading firm. 3) Platform / Operation System LiFung is one of the enterprises which effectively employ platform strategy. In terms of strategy, LiFung adequately balances SRM and CRM strategy to manage producers and customers. LiFung distributes textile component orders to vendors as soon as receiving orders from textile industries. It makes most of 15,000 subcontractors which are located around the globe. When producing a jacket, for example, LiFung procures materials from diverse vendors; outshell is from Korea, Zipper from Japan, lining is done from Thailand, and trademarks and thread from Hongkong. Fabric is dyed in Southern Asia, China sews, and finally quality inspection and packaging are done in Hongkong. Then, headquarter in Hongkong generally manages cash flow and value-added process. 4) Success Factors Success factors of LiFung can be categorized into three elements. The first factor is IT evolution. Through IT development, product lead time dwindled through forming network among producers and customers, and even efficiently manage vendors. Another facet is SRM and CRM, especially have strength on SRM. LiFung analyze customer’s needs and scrutinize supply chain to meet the desires. Since firms tend to focus on maximizing their capability instead of in accordance with needs, LiFung can otherwise strive to fortify supply chain or value chain for customers. In other words, the key role of LiFung is to direct manufacturers of supply chain to the intended direction. For that specific purpose, it establishes education to producers on scattered network management rather than having strict control system for managing vendors, and emphasizes on trust and active empowerment. Lastly, LiFung follows 30/70 rule, which is to set a standard(from 30% to 70% of total production) on production quota to LiFung. This enables LiFung to have loose liaison among subcontractors. Minimum 30% of total production allows LiFung to possess minimum supply from each subcontractors and prevention vendors from being subordinates can be done by setting maximum 70%. The core objective of this principle is to assure vendors of gaining huge profit from being a member of the network and on the other hand guaranteeing flexibility of business and availability of a room for growth. Other vendors also benefit from the principle by being expose to opportunities to work with others, which help them to learn and come up with innovative ideas. Such principle demonstrates value of LiFung on making supply chain more dynamic and lively. Thus, change in partners frequently happens in supply chain of LiFung. In conclusion, LiFung shows contradictory management of pursuing stable and long-term partnership whereas also demanding loose network instead to forming strict organization. 3. Problem Solution 1) Wage stagnation / Pricing pressure The first problem of LiFung is wage stagnation of China. China accounts for 60% of total global sourcing of LiFung, which means that shift in China impact LiFung heavily. After the economic liberalization of China, China has been able to attract world companies as the most suitable production base due to cheap and abundant labor. As a consequence of substantial growth, China’s wage has been increasing 16% annually. As labor cost takes up the largest portion of garment industry’s costs, Li Fung’s first half of 2011 net income dwindled 18%. Therefore, there is high necessity for finding a new production base(a new partners) and gain price competitiveness through such measure. Second problem is overseas buyers’ desire to lower supply pricing due to high uncertainty from global recession. As shown in the ‘average import price of textile in the U.S.’ graph on the right, the average import price has been continually decreasing, from $3.18 in 2006 t o $3 in 2009. Heavy pressure on supply pricing is having negative impact on net income of LiFung. 2) China U.S Trade conflict Third adversity is potential trade disputes between the United States and China. This trade conflict, which is referred to as protectionism, is noteworthy of a notice as 69% of total production of LiFung is sold to the United States. The United States has criticized China on the currency exchange rate manipulation, along with accusation of exchange dumping. In addition, Section 421 is an article which can be executed in a situation where increased import of Chinese products acts as a severe damage to American domestic industries. Accordingly, it is inevitable to exclude potential trade conflict between two countries on account of high possibility of implementing additional countervailing duty by executing section 421. 3) Expanding partners in Southern Asia In preparation for deterioration of China’s production environment and falling competitiveness of China as a sourcing region, Southern Asia is evaluated as the most practical alternative for strategic sourcing of LiFung. In terms of percentage change in world textile industry sourcing, diminution of China is noticeable, as –7%, whereas Vietnam and Bangladesh show growth, respectively displaying 1% and 20% of sourcing uprising rate. To demonstrate suitability of sourcing to Banladesh, environment of Bangladesh such as social infrastructure and facilities, and educational level should be thoroughly examined. Nevertheless, wage of Bangladesh is much cheaper than that of China, Bangladesh being one third that of China, in terms of only considering unit labor cost. Furthermore, Bangladesh is likely to be significantly equipped with garment-industry infrastructure judging from the large number of textile industries sourcing to Bangladesh. Therefore, it is no hasty conclusion that Bangladesh is the most appropriate region for new production base of LiFung. 4) Quality management system Controlling over 15,000 vendors is demanding and the possible drawback is failure of consistency in quality. Since quality is prerequisite these days, stricter vendor’s quality management system should be made. One of the tools that LiFung can utilize and apply stricter is ‘Vendor compliance index’. There are six indexes LiFung should keep attention to; efficient operation, productivity, process innovation, ensuring the quality, purchase the appropriate law material, and good working condition of labor. By balancing and fulfilling following vendor compliance indexes, LiFung will be able to afford products to customer with coherent quality. 4. Conclusion The concept having used by LiFung is highly familiar to us as global sourcing is also deployed by domestic companies such as Samsung and LG. Global sourcing can be divided into two factors; risk element and opportunity element. These two elements are in trade-off relation which means that change in one element accompanies the other, while endeavoring to maximize opportunity element. Thus, taking advantage of opportunity and risk element in a timely manner is the premise for successful global sourcing and in-depth analysis on local region and strategy should be followed when implementing global sourcing.

In Good Company Analysis

In Good Company Analysis AOTEAROA TERTIARY INSTITUTE NZIM DIPLOMA IN MANAGAMENT LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP 630 ASSESSED TUTORIAL : FILM STUDY IN GOOD COMPANY Identify two leaders in the movie? Dan Foreman and Carter Duryea Dan Foreman a) Leadership Style Dan Foreman had charismatic leadership style. According to (Daft, 2008) charismatic leaders are those who have the ability to encourage and motivate other people to do more than there would normally do. Person with charismatic leadership styles has a great concern in scanning and reading their surrounding and are able to pick up the mood and concern of individual and big audience. According to the movie The Good Company Dan took the responsibility to inform the workers when there were fired from their job because he was really concerned about their feeling and he knew he would be able to comfort them since he was the old staff and the staff was hired by him. He also had responsibility towards his family. b) Effectiveness of a leader Dan was considered as a effective leader. He was loyal to his employee and motivate them. Workers respected and trusts him he was outspoken person and stand for his employees. He had a great responsibility towards his family. He love his wife and children lot. He was so effective as a father when he saw Alex and Carter working together at his birthday party he was really concerned about that but didnt say anything. Instead he follow Carter next day to see where he goes and then he saw Carter and Alex having coffee together he got really angry that he punched Carter. He was really concerned about his daughter since she was still in college. c) Type of Power Dan held referent power which comes from leaders personality characteristics and where people respect and admire his ability. Carter who was the new boss for the company respected him lot he also had charisma power which mean it have positive influence on workers. Also has ability to create the chance for interpersonal pressure. d) How the power was used Dan used his power in a good way since he was very effective and when he speaks people would listen to him. People respect him due to his power and leadership style. He tries hard to save his job and company. Also he used his power in good way towards his family. Carter Duryea a) Leadership Style Carter Duryea had transactional leadership style. According to (Daft, 2008) transactional leadership is a exchange process between leaders and followers. Followers needs and desires are recognise and then clarifies is made on how to satisfy it. According to the movie Carter was appointed as the head of marketing for the Sports America magazine so that he can increase the sales for his company. Transactional leader are also considered as task oriented. He didnt have much experience as the head position since he was still young and was in the stage of learning. b) Effectiveness of a Leader Carter was not effective leader since he didnt have experience in the work which he was located since he had experience in his field of work also he was outspoken and was very convincing. He was also facing lot of personal problem since he was so focussed in his professional life and as not able to give time to his wife. He just had a divorce after 7 moth of married. c) Type of Power Carter held legitimate power which means it is a authority that is granted from a well known position in the company. In the movie Carter had a position in the company he was the head of marketing. He held this power because he was very good in decision making, active, intelligent in his work and convinces people. d) How he used his power Carter also used his power in good and effective way. He power was used to motive people and identify common goal of the company. He also misuse his power to cost cut the expense for the company. He started firing the staff. Carter discuss this with Dan and he was really upset and that you cant fire then because those staff are from my time I have hire them. Dan also mention that Iam paid more wages why not fire me instead. And Carter used his power in good way saying that I can fire you but think about responsibility you have. 2) Situation from movie identified that illustrates analysis for each leader. Leadership theories referred to support discussions above. Situation that was chosen from the movie for both leaders were when Dan asked question to Teddy K when he was talking about put one section about computers in sports magazine suddenly Dan interpreted and asked Teddy K what he is trying to say which shows how effective he was while asking question and shows that he was listening to it. Leadership theories that Dan held was influence theories which refers to leadership influence based not on position or formal authority but on the qualities and charismatic personality of the leader( Daft, 2008). Dan didnt held any formal position in the company but people respect him due to his qualities. Another situation was when Carter was discussing about sacking some workers from sales department. As he was a transactional leader he had to follow his companies rules and procedures. He had behaviour theories refers to what a leader actually do on the job and which relates to the content of managerial activities role and responsibilities. Since he was a head of department he had responsibility towards his job. Dan tried to save his old workers and suggested to Carter that his salary is more than workers why not sack him instead of others. But Carter cant do much he had to listen to his boss and follow his orders. 3) Type of organisation, level of seniority and its effects on leaders behaviour? The movie Good Company is about a sports America magazine which is owned by Globecom, it is recognize as a national sports magazine where Dan had worked for 20 years as head of advertising sales department. But due to some problem company is bought by multimedia company and Carter is assign as a new boss. He had one of the most senior position in the company responsible for companies sales and managing staff. Also had power to rewards and punish anyone in the company. In the movie both the leaders are struggling to maintain their position and to get along with each other. Carter is half the age of Dan and he is still young learning the work. He thinks that he could to better for the work therefore he chose to replace Dan who is 51 years old and is a executive in his company. He feels uncomfortable to work with Carter. Carter had highest level of seniority based due to his position in the company and becomes the boss of Dan and all workers has to his instructions and listen to his ord ers (Uk essay,2014). This was due to legitimate power which Carter held. Dan didnt have any legitimate authority after the company was taken over he just had a position on wingman in the company but still he had respect from his colleagues. He was given this position since he had lots of experience in his work. 4) Leadership theories referred to support discussions above. Leadership theory that was illustrate to large extend in this movie was contingency theory. The idea behind this theories is that leaders can analyse their situation and tailor their behaviour to improve leadership effectiveness (Daft, 2008). Leader effectiveness in group is depend on two factors is change in situation and relation motivation or leader task. Leader who have high marks on scale are those people oriented than those who get less mark on scale is task oriented. According to the movie Dan had high mark in least preferred co workers because he was concern about his employees. Even he was ready to leave his job to save his co workers job. Carter had less mark on scale since he was only concern about his task. He hold a position in the company therefore he had to follows orders given by his boss and also be on management side. He doesnt think about workers and fired some employees from the company. 5) Individual culture and its effect. Culture played a very important role in Dan and Carter life. Dan is 51 year old with a very lovely family. He was happily married with two daughters he believed in honesty trustworthiness, charisma, reliability and has respect for everyone. Whereas Carter is 26 year old man newly married and is dumped by his wife just in 7 months of relationship as he had a promotion. Later he is having affair with Dans daughter. He had authority to reward and punish anyone in the company. He is always on management side and workers according to company policies and procedures. This happens in really life in many companies the management level workers are always on company side. Both leaders way of thinking was different Dan was more thinking about building and maintaining relationship. He had a good relationship with his co workers despite some workers been fired from work their still came to attend his birthday party. Dan also had better relationship with his daughter when he saw pregnancy kit in t he dustbin he was so worried and thought that it is Alex. He goes and talk with Alex and tell her that if you have any problem always come and discuss with me. Whereas Carter way of thinking was a corporate world he was thinking about bottom dollar. He didnt think about his personal life he just work hard to get promotion but as soon as he get this his wife leaves him. At the work he was just sacking the staff to reduce the cost and make profit. He was so money minded. 6) Other leadership concepts and ideologies that was identify in the movie ? i) Other leadership concepts and ideologies that was identify in the movie were building and maintaining relationship both personal and professional. Dan was able to balance his relationship both personal and professional he takes out time for his wife and kids often go out and play tennis. Dan keeps his professional life at work and does not discuss anything at home during family time. Whereas Carter was not able to keep his personal and professional life balance. Due to his professional he was not able to give time to his wife which lead to separation after 7 month of relationship. ii) Responsibility was the other concepts Dan had a great responsibility towards his family. He was the only breadwinner in the family he had to look after his wife, two teenage daughter who were in college. His older daughter Alex moved out to live on her own and Dan had to take second mortgage to meet all his expenses. On top of his wife was pregnant with their third child. He also had responsibility towards his work he tried hard to save his job and magazine towards the end of the movie he goes out and do door to door sale. Dan was so concerned towards his daughter when he saw Alex and Carter together he was so angry that he punched Carter he was so protective. iii) Set Example is the other leadership concept that was identified in the movie. Dan set good example to Carter. In the end when Carter was out of job Dan offered him a position in the company. Carter was happy and he said that I will be grateful to get the job and since I have learn so many things from you but he was not sure what he want to do. Dan set good example to Carter in regards to professional life. iv) Respectful is other concept that was identified in the movie. Dan had worked for 20 years in the company and he had lot of respect from all his co workers. Dan had demotion from his position and Carter become the new boss but still all the workers listen to Dan. He was a senior staff and Carter also respected him and was eager to learn more from him. Carter also respected Dans family when the first time he went to visited them he said this the type of family and home Iam looking for. Also other concept can be believing in what you are doing Dan had believe that he can save his job and magazine. He goes out with Carter for door to door sale to save the magazine since he was give 24 hours time. He believe that he can do it and he was able to do it. From this concept we come to know that if you believe in something and works towards it you will be successful in your life. References Daft R L Pirola-Merlo (2008). The leadership experience: Asia Pacific edition 1. Melbourne: Cengage Learning. UK essay (2014) The Whale Rider Movie Theology Religion Essay http://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/the-whale-rider-movie-theology-religion-essay.php UK Essay (2014) The Lord of The Ring Theology Religion Essay http://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/lord-of-the-rings-theology-religion-essay.php

Shakespeare’s Usage of Foils Illustrates Man’s Deceit :: Essays Papers

Shakespeare’s Usage of Foils Illustrates Man’s Deceit 1. William Shakespeare, the most popular playwright of all time, experiments with comedy, mystery, betrayal, romance, and tragedy in his play, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The author uses a variety of characters from different social backgrounds to give us an elaborate picture of deception. From the opening line of "Who’s there?" the reader gets the impression that people are not what they seem in this play. The interrelationships between the royalty and people of the court are well-developed to illustrate the major and minor similarities and differences between the characters. Shakespeare reveals the deceptive nature of man and the ruin it causes through his use of foils. [Many of the other essays did not follow the directions and used the definition of foils as the introduction. This writer understood that the essay was to be about the use of foils in the play. The introduction, therefore, is about the play, and it leads up to a thesis which briefly states the function (m eaning) of the foils within the play. The thesis, in other words, does not simply state that the essay will discuss foils in the play, but rather that the essay will show how the foils help reveal the deceptive nature of man and the resulting ruin. This is, I believe, also the only writer who alludes to "Who's there?" and thereby nicely connects the essay -- and thus the foils -- to much of what I emphasized in class discussions of the play.] 2. Foils are integral to this play, because many of the devious plots are revealed to the reader through them. A foil is a secondary character which [*1] illuminates certain things about a primary character to the audience. The major character may reveal secrets, such as murderous plots or traps, or feelings, for example, a perspective on death or the love of another character. This can happen if the minor character is primarily a listener on stage. Another scenario is if two characters, major and minor, share similarities, but have distinct differences. These variations in personality will reveal something important about the main character. The "something important" could be a fatal flaw or a good point of their personality. Many foils are used in this play, but there are two important ones which happen to be for the same character.

Harriet Beecher Stowes Uncle Toms Cabin - The Book that Started a War :: Uncle Toms Cabin

The Book that Started a War    Uncle Tom's Cabin, also called Life Among the Lowly, was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe.   It is a realistic, although fictional view of slavery.   The main characters in this story are Uncle Tom, Eliza and George Harris.   Uncle Tom is a pious, trustworthy, slave.   He never wrongs anyone and always obeys his master.   A very spiritual person, Uncle Tom tries his best to obey the Bible and to do what is right.   Eliza is a beautiful slave owned by George Shelby, Sr., the same person who initially owns Tom.   Eliza has a son, Harry.   Eliza's husband, George Harris, lives on a nearby plantation.   George is a brilliant man, and invented a machine that was used in the factory he works in.   His owner became jealous and demoted George from his factory job to doing hard labor on the plantation.   This story takes place throughout the states of Kentucky and Mississippi.      Chapters 1-5      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Because his Kentucky plantation was overwhelmed by debt, George Shelby, Sr. makes plans to trade some slaves to a slave dealer named Haley in exchange for debts being canceled.   The dealer selects Uncle Tom as payment for the debt.   While the two are discussing the possible transaction, Eliza's son, Harry, comes rushing into the room.   Haley decides he wants to take Harry also, but Shelby refuses to part with the child.   Eliza, overhearing part of the conversation, is frightened and confides her fears to her husband, George Harris.   The fact that George's owner is mistreating him, combined with a possible sale of his son persuades George to begin planning to run away.   After inferring from an overheard conversation between Mr. & Mrs. Shelby that they are indeed going to sell Harry and Uncle Tom, Eliza warns Tom and she runs away.      Chapters 6-15      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Eliza is able to cross the Ohio River and get to a safe place before Haley's two hired slave-catchers can catch up with her.   Although he was warned, Uncle Tom stays on the plantation, leaving it up to God to protect him.   At the same time, George Harris begins his escape.   Disguised as a Spaniard, George takes his time finding a route on the underground railroad.   He just happens to go to the same place where Eliza and Harry are being hidden.

Rationalism: Empiricism and Knowledge Essay

First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Thu Mar 21, 2013 The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don’t have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists’ accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge. 1. Introduction The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes place within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. The defining questions of epistemology include the following. 1. What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true? To know a proposition, we must believe it and it must be true, but something more is required, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let’s call this additional element ‘warrant’. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of warrant. 2. How can we gain knowledge? We can form true beliefs just by making lucky guesses. How to gain warranted beliefs is less clear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is unclear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist. 3. What are the limits of our knowledge? Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true. The disagreement between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the second question, regarding the sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as well. They may disagree over the nature of warrant or about the limits of our thought and knowledge. Our focus here will be on the competing rationalist and empiricist responses to the second question. 1. 1 Rationalism To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area. The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions. Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just â€Å"see† it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in it. (As discussed in Section 2 below, the nature of this intellectual â€Å"seeing† needs explanation. ) Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience. We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S’. Some rationalists take mathematics to be knowable by intuition and deduction. Some place ethical truths in this category. Some include metaphysical claims, such as that God exists, we have free will, and our mind and body are distinct substances. The more propositions rationalists include within the range of intuition and deduction, and the more controversial the truth of those propositions or the claims to know them, the more radical their rationalism. Rationalists also vary the strength of their view by adjusting their understanding of warrant. Some take warranted beliefs to be beyond even the slightest doubt and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of this high epistemic status. Others interpret warrant more conservatively, say as belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of that caliber. Still another dimension of rationalism depends on how its proponents understand the connection between intuition, on the one hand, and truth, on the other. Some take intuition to be infallible, claiming that whatever we intuit must be true. Others allow for the possibility of false intuited propositions. The second thesis associated with rationalism is the Innate Knowledge thesis. The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, independently of experience. The difference between them rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The Intuition/Deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning. The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along. According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier existence. According to others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is part of our nature through natural selection. We get different versions of the Innate Knowledge thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S’. Once again, the more subjects included within the range of the thesis or the more controversial the claim to have knowledge in them, the more radical the form of rationalism. Stronger and weaker understandings of warrant yield stronger and weaker versions of the thesis as well. The third important thesis of rationalism is the Innate Concept thesis. The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. Some claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate Knowledge Thesis; a particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the known proposition are also innate. This is Locke’s position (1690, Book I, Chapter IV, Section 1, p. 91). Others, such as Carruthers, argue against this connection (1992, pp. 53–54). The content and strength of the Innate Concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems removed from experience and the mental operations we can perform on experience the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate for being innate than our concept of the latter. The Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis, and the Innate Concept thesis are essential to rationalism: to be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of them. Two other closely related theses are generally adopted by rationalists, although one can certainly be a rationalist without adopting either of them. The first is that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason. The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience. The second is that reason is superior to experience as a source of knowledge. The Superiority of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience. How reason is superior needs explanation, and rationalists have offered different accounts. One view, generally associated with Descartes (1628, Rules II and III, pp. 1–4), is that what we know a priori is certain, beyond even the slightest doubt, while what we believe, or even know, on the basis of sense experience is at least somewhat uncertain. Another view, generally associated with Plato. (Republic 479e-484c), locates the superiority of a priori knowledge in the objects known. What we know by reason alone, a Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e. g. unchanging, eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what we are aware of through sense experience. Most forms of rationalism involve notable commitments to other philosophical positions. One is a commitment to the denial of scepticism for at least some area of knowledge. If we claim to know some truths by intuition or deduction or to have some innate knowledge, we obviously reject scepticism with regard to those truths. Rationalism in the form of the Intuition/Deduction thesis is also committed to epistemic foundationalism, the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths. 1. 2 Empiricism Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area. The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience. Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they need not. The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for some subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is that we do not know at all. I have stated the basic claims of rationalism and empiricism so that each is relative to a particular subject area. Rationalism and empiricism, so relativized, need not conflict. We can be rationalists in mathematics or a particular area of mathematics and empiricists in all or some of the physical sciences. Rationalism and empiricism only conflict when formulated to cover the same subject. Then the debate, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists has implications for the classification schemes often employed in the history of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to describe the Early Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leading up to Kant. It is standard practice to group the major philosophers of this period as either rationalists or empiricists and to suggest that those under one heading share a common agenda in opposition to those under the other. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the British Empiricists. We should adopt such general classification schemes with caution. The views of the individual philosophers are more subtle and complex than the simple-minded classification suggests. (See Loeb (1981) and Kenny (1986) for important discussions of this point.) Locke rejects rationalism in the form of any version of the Innate Knowledge or Innate Concept theses, but he nonetheless adopts the Intuition/Deduction thesis with regard to our knowledge of God’s existence. Descartes and Locke have remarkably similar views on the nature of our ideas, even though Descartes takes many to be innate, while Locke ties them all to experience. The rationalist/empiricist classification also encourages us to expect the philosophers on each side of the divide to have common research programs in areas beyond epistemology. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are mistakenly seen as applying a reason-centered epistemology to a common metaphysical agenda, with each trying to improve on the efforts of the one before, while Locke, Berkeley and Hume are mistakenly seen as gradually rejecting those metaphysical claims, with each consciously trying to improve on the efforts of his predecessors. It is also important to note that the Rationalist/Empiricist distinction is not exhaustive of the possible sources of knowledge. One might claim, for example, that we can gain knowledge in a particular area by a form of Divine revelation or insight that is a product of neither reason nor sense experience. In short, when used carelessly, the labels ‘rationalist’ and ‘empiricist,’ as well as the slogan that is the title of this essay, ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism,’ can retard rather than advance our understanding. Nonetheless, an important debate properly described as ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism’ is joined whenever the claims for each view are formulated to cover the same subject. What is perhaps the most interesting form of the debate occurs when we take the relevant subject to be truths about the external world, the world beyond our own minds. A full-fledged rationalist with regard to our knowledge of the external world holds that some external world truths can and must be known a priori, that some of the ideas required for that knowledge are and must be innate, and that this knowledge is superior to any that experience could ever provide. The full-fledged empiricist about our knowledge of the external world replies that, when it comes to the nature of the world beyond our own minds, experience is our sole source of information. Reason might inform us of the relations among our ideas, but those ideas themselves can only be gained, and any truths about the external reality they represent can only be known, on the basis of sense experience. This debate concerning our knowledge of the external world will generally be our main focus in what follows. Historically, the rationalist/empiricist dispute in epistemology has extended into the area of metaphysics, where philosophers are concerned with the basic nature of reality, including the existence of God and such aspects of our nature as freewill and the relation between the mind and body. Major rationalists (e. g. , Descartes 1641) have presented metaphysical theories, which they have claimed to know by reason alone. Major empiricists (e. g. Hume 1739–40) have rejected the theories as either speculation, beyond what we can learn from experience, or nonsensical attempts to describe aspects of the world beyond the concepts experience can provide. The debate raises the issue of metaphysics as an area of knowledge. Kant puts the driving assumption clearly: The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the sources of metaphysics can’t be empirical. If something could be known through the senses, that would automatically show that it doesn’t belong to metaphysics; that’s an upshot of the meaning of the word ‘metaphysics. ‘ Its basic principles can never be taken from experience, nor can its basic concepts; for it is not to be physical but metaphysical knowledge, so it must be beyond experience. [1783, Preamble, I, p. 7] The possibility then of metaphysics so understood, as an area of human knowledge, hinges on how we resolve the rationalist/empiricist debate. The debate also extends into ethics. Some moral objectivists (e. g. , Ross 1930) take us to know some fundamental objective moral truths by intuition, while some moral skeptics, who reject such knowledge, (e. g. , Mackie 1977) find the appeal to a faculty of moral intuition utterly implausible. More recently, the rationalist/empiricist debate has extended to discussions (e. g. , Bealer 1999, and Alexander & Weinberg 2007) of the very nature of philosophical inquiry: to what extent are philosophical questions to be answered by appeals to reason or experience? 2. The Intuition/Deduction Thesis The Intuition/Deduction thesis claims that we can know some propositions by intuition and still more by deduction. Many empiricists (e. g. , Hume 1748) have been willing to accept the thesis so long as it is restricted to propositions solely about the relations among our own concepts. We can, they agree, know by intuition that our concept of God includes our concept of omniscience. Just by examining the concepts, we can intellectually grasp that the one includes the other. The debate between rationalists and empiricists is joined when the former assert, and the latter deny, the Intuition/Deduction Thesis with regard to propositions that contain substantive information about the external world. Rationalists, such as Descartes, have claimed that we can know by intuition and deduction that God exists and created the world, that our mind and body are distinct substances, and that the angles of a triangle equal two right angles, where all of these claims are truths about an external reality independent of our thought. Such substantive versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis are our concern in this section. One defense of the Intuition/Deduction thesis assumes that we know some substantive external world truths, adds an analysis of what knowledge requires, and concludes that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Descartes claims that knowledge requires certainty and that certainty about the external world is beyond what empirical evidence can provide. We can never be sure our sensory impressions are not part of a dream or a massive, demon orchestrated, deception. Only intuition and deduction can provide the certainty needed for knowledge, and, given that we have some substantive knowledge of the external world, the Intuition/Deduction thesis is true. As Descartes tells us, â€Å"all knowledge is certain and evident cognition† (1628, Rule II, p. 1) and when we â€Å"review all the actions of the intellect by means of which we are able to arrive at a knowledge of things with no fear of being mistaken,† we â€Å"recognize only two: intuition and deduction† (1628, Rule III, p. 3). This line of argument is one of the least compelling in the rationalist arsenal. First, the assumption that knowledge requires certainty comes at a heavy cost, as it rules out so much of what we commonly take ourselves to know. Second, as many contemporary rationalists accept, intuition is not always a source of certain knowledge. The possibility of a deceiver gives us a reason to doubt our intuitions as well as our empirical beliefs. For all we know, a deceiver might cause us to intuit false propositions, just as one might cause us to have perceptions of nonexistent objects. Descartes’s classic way of meeting this challenge in the Meditations is to argue that we can know with certainty that no such deceiver interferes with our intuitions and deductions. They are infallible, as God guarantees their truth. The problem, known as the Cartesian Circle, is that Descartes’s account of how we gain this knowledge begs the question, by attempting to deduce the conclusion that all our intuitions are true from intuited premises. Moreover, his account does not touch a remaining problem that he himself notes (1628, Rule VII, p.7): Deductions of any appreciable length rely on our fallible memory. A more plausible argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis again assumes that we know some particular, external world truths, and then appeals to the nature of what we know, rather than to the nature of knowledge itself, to argue that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Leibniz (1704) tells us the following. The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. †¦ From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them†¦ (1704, Preface, pp.150–151) Leibniz goes on to describe our mathematical knowledge as â€Å"innate,† and his argument may be directed to support the Innate Knowledge Thesis rather than the Intuition/Deduction Thesis. For our purposes here, we can relate it to the latter, however: We have substantive knowledge about the external world in mathematics, and what we know in that area, we know to be necessarily true. Experience cannot warrant beliefs about what is necessarily the case. Hence, experience cannot be the source of our knowledge. The best explanation of our knowledge is that we gain it by intuition and deduction. Leibniz mentions logic, metaphysics and morals as other areas in which our knowledge similarly outstrips what experience can provide. Judgments in logic and metaphysics involve forms of necessity beyond what experience can support. Judgments in morals involve a form of obligation or value that lies beyond experience, which only informs us about what is the case rather than about what ought to be. The strength of this argument varies with its examples of purported knowledge. Insofar as we focus on controversial claims in metaphysics, e. g.that God exists, that our mind is a distinct substance from our body, the initial premise that we know the claims is less than compelling. Taken with regard to other areas, however, the argument clearly has legs. We know a great deal of mathematics, and what we know, we know to be necessarily true. None of our experiences warrants a belief in such necessity, and we do not seem to base our knowledge on any experiences. The warrant that provides us with knowledge arises from an intellectual grasp of the propositions which is clearly part of our learning. Similarly, we seem to have such moral knowledge as that, all other things being equal, it is wrong to break a promise and that pleasure is intrinsically good. No empirical lesson about how things are can warrant such knowledge of how they ought to be. This argument for the Intuition/Deduction Thesis raises additional questions which rationalists must answer. Insofar as they maintain that our knowledge of necessary truths in mathematics or elsewhere by intuition and deduction is substantive knowledge of the external world, they owe us an account of this form of necessity. Many empiricists stand ready to argue that â€Å"necessity resides in the way we talk about things, not in the things we talk about† (Quine 1966, p. 174). Similarly, if rationalists claim that our knowledge in morals is knowledge of an objective form of obligation, they owe us an account of how objective values are part of a world of apparently valueless facts. Perhaps most of all, rationalist defenders of the Intuition/Deduction thesis owe us an account of what intuition is and how it provides warranted true beliefs about the external world. What is it to intuit a proposition and how does that act of intuition support a warranted belief? Their argument presents intuition and deduction as an explanation of assumed knowledge that can’t—they say—be explained by experience, but such an explanation by intuition and deduction requires that we have a clear understanding of intuition and how it supports warranted beliefs. Metaphorical characterizations of intuition as intellectual â€Å"grasping† or â€Å"seeing† are not enough, and if intuition is some form of intellectual â€Å"grasping,† it appears that all that is grasped is relations among our concepts, rather than facts about the external world. Moreover, any intellectual faculty, whether it be sense perception or intuition, provides us with warranted beliefs only if it is generally reliable. The reliability of sense perception stems from the causal connection between how external objects are and how we experience them. What accounts for the reliability of our intuitions regarding the external world? Is our intuition of a particular true proposition the outcome of some causal interaction between ourselves and some aspect of the world? What aspect? What is the nature of this causal interaction? That the number three is prime does not appear to cause anything, let alone our intuition that it is prime. These issues are made all the more pressing by the classic empiricist response to the argument. The reply is generally credited to Hume and begins with a division of all true propositions into two categories. All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, â€Å"Relations of Ideas,† and â€Å"Matters of Fact. † Of the first are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic, and, in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to half of thirty expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would forever retain their certainty and evidence. Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner, nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality. (Hume 1748, Section IV, Part 1, p. 40) Intuition and deduction can provide us with knowledge of necessary truths such as those found in mathematics and logic, but such knowledge is not substantive knowledge of the external world. It is only knowledge of the relations of our own ideas. If the rationalist shifts the argument so it appeals to knowledge in morals, Hume’s reply is to offer an analysis of our moral concepts by which such knowledge is empirically gained knowledge of matters of fact. Morals and criticism are not so properly objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt more properly than perceived. Or if we reason concerning it and endeavor to fix the standard, we regard a new fact, to wit, the general taste of mankind, or some other fact which may be the object of reasoning and inquiry. (Hume 1748, Section XII, Part 3, p. 173) If the rationalist appeals to our knowledge in metaphysics to support the argument, Hume denies that we have such knowledge. If we take in our hand any volume–of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance–let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. (Hume 1748, Section XII, Part 3, p. 173) An updated version of this general empiricist reply, with an increased emphasis on language and the nature of meaning, is given in the twentieth-century by A. J. Ayer’s version of logical positivism. Adopting positivism’s verification theory of meaning, Ayer assigns every cognitively meaningful sentence to one of two categories: either it is a tautology, and so true solely by virtue of the meaning of its terms and provides no substantive information about the world, or it is open to empirical verification. There is, then, no room for knowledge about the external world by intuition or deduction. There can be no a priori knowledge of reality. For †¦ the truths of pure reason, the propositions which we know to be valid independently of all experience, are so only in virtue of their lack of factual content †¦ [By contrast] empirical propositions are one and all hypotheses which may be confirmed or discredited in actual sense experience. [Ayer 1952, pp. 86; 93–94] The rationalists’ argument for the Intuition/Deduction Thesis goes wrong at the start, according to empiricists, by assuming that we can have substantive knowledge of the external world that outstrips what experience can warrant. We cannot. This empiricist reply faces challenges of its own. Our knowledge of mathematics seems to be about something more than our own concepts. Our knowledge of moral judgments seems to concern not just how we feel or act but how we ought to behave. The general principles that provide a basis for the empiricist view, e. g. Hume’s overall account of our ideas, the Verification Principle of Meaning, are problematic in their own right. In various formulations, the Verification Principle fails its own test for having cognitive meaning. A careful analysis of Hume’s Inquiry, relative to its own principles, may require us to consign large sections of it to the flames. In all, rationalists have a strong argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis relative to our substantive knowledge of the external world, but its success rests on how well they can answer questions about the nature and epistemic force of intuition made all the more pressing by the classic empiricist reply. 3. The Innate Knowledge Thesis The Innate Knowledge thesis joins the Intuition/Deduction thesis in asserting that we have a priori knowledge, but it does not offer intuition and deduction as the source of that knowledge. It takes our a priori knowledge to be part of our rational nature. Experience may trigger our awareness of this knowledge, but it does not provide us with it. The knowledge is already there. Plato presents an early version of the Innate Knowledge thesis in the Meno as the doctrine of knowledge by recollection. The doctrine is motivated in part by a paradox that arises when we attempt to explain the nature of inquiry. How do we gain knowledge of a theorem in geometry? We inquire into the matter. Yet, knowledge by inquiry seems impossible (Meno, 80d-e). We either already know the theorem at the start of our investigation or we do not. If we already have the knowledge, there is no place for inquiry. If we lack the knowledge, we don’t know what we are seeking and cannot recognize it when we find it. Either way we cannot gain knowledge of the theorem by inquiry. Yet, we do know some theorems. The doctrine of knowledge by recollection offers a solution. When we inquire into the truth of a theorem, we both do and do not already know it. We have knowledge in the form of a memory gained from.