Reference no: EM133426491

Question

Philosophers like Hume, are very concerned that propositions are accepted as knowledge that concern things that can't be investigated, nor can be shown to be internally consistent in such a way that would have any real implication for the world, do they have a point? Consider Plato's view of democracy for example. He was concerned that people who are easily mislead would have the ability to have an effect upon the political decisions that determine the course of the state. Nietzsche was concerned that we still have to contend with the metaphysical assessments and ethical prescriptions of a nomadic tribe lost in the desert during the bronze age. The god of those people has never been in evidence, and yet we continue to allow such ideas to shape our culture, despite a long history of intellectual stagnation, hypocrisy, wars and intolerance. Would the world be a better place if we only believed what can be demonstrated to be true? Are believing things that are beyond demonstration, slow the development of the human intellect, thereby preventing a society based upon real human understanding?