Saturday, March 21, 2020

Word Choice Ensure vs. Insure - Proofeds Writing Tips

Word Choice Ensure vs. Insure - Proofeds Writing Tips Word Choice: Ensure vs. Insure Although ensure and insure sound similar and differ in spelling by only one letter, they are typically used in very different contexts. Nevertheless, due to their similarity, they are often mixed up in writing. However, repeated misspelling of the word ensure, or confusing it with the word insure will reflect badly on your attention to detail. As such, you should try to memorize what these words mean. Ensure (Make Certain) Ensure is a verb meaning make certain of something. It is commonly used in academic assignments when checking that something is accurate or guaranteed. For instance, we might say: To ensure that the results were accurate, we repeated the test. If you need to use ensure several times in one paper, you may want to use synonyms such as guarantee or make certain to vary your word choice. Insure (Guarantee Against Loss or Harm) To insure something is to secure it against potential damage, loss or harm by arranging for compensation should anything unfortunate occur: My house is insured against fire and water damage. It is most often used when discussing finances, specifically the idea of getting insurance against a risk: Before you go abroad, make sure to get travel insurance. Sometimes, you can also use it in a more general sense to mean take precautions, as in the sentence: By apologizing to the headmaster, the children hoped to insure themselves against detention. Ensure or Insure? Although they look similar on the page, there is a clear difference in meaning (and spelling) between these two words. To ensure that you use the correct one in your paper (see what we did there?), remember the following: Ensure = Make certain/guarantee Insure = Take out financial protection against a risk If you would like more writing advice, get in touch with the professionals at Proofed today!

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Rationalism in Philosophical Traditions

Rationalism in Philosophical Traditions Rationalism is the philosophical stance according to which reason is the ultimate source of human knowledge. It stands in contrast to  empiricism, according to which the senses suffice in justifying knowledge. In one form or another, rationalism features in most philosophical traditions. In the Western tradition, it boasts a long and distinguished list of followers, including Plato, Descartes, and Kant. Rationalism continues to be a major philosophical approach to decision-making today. Descartes Case for Rationalism How do we come to know objects - through the senses or through reason? According to  Descartes,  the latter option is the correct one. As an example of Descartes approach to rationalism, consider polygons (i.e. closed, plane figures in geometry). How do we know that something is a triangle as opposed to a square? The senses may seem to play a key role in our understanding: we see that a figure has three sides or four sides. But now consider two polygons - one with a  thousand sides and the other with a thousand and one sides. Which is which? In order to distinguish between the two, it will be necessary to count the sides - using reason to tell them apart.For Descartes, reason is involved in all of our knowledge. This is because our understanding of objects is nuanced by reason. For example, how do you know that the person in the mirror is, in fact, yourself? How does each of us recognize the purpose or significance of objects such as pots, guns, or fences? How do we distinguish one similar object from another? Reason alone can explain such puzzles. Using Rationalism as a Tool for Understanding Ourselves in the World Since the justification of knowledge occupies a central role in philosophical theorizing, it is typical to sort out philosophers on the basis of their stance with respect to the rationalist vs. empiricist debate. Rationalism indeed characterizes a wide range of philosophical topics. How do we know who and what  we are?  Ã‚  Rationalists typically claim that the self is known through a rational intuition, which is irreducible to any sensorial perception of ourselves; empiricists, on the other hand, reply that the unity of the self is illusory.  What is the nature of cause and effect? Rationalists claim that causal links are known through reason. The empiricists response is that it is only because of habit that we come to be convinced that, say, fire is hot.How do we know which actions are ethically correct?   Kant argued that the ethical worth of an action can be understood only from a rational perspective; ethical evaluation is a rational game in which one or more rational agents envisage their actions under hypothetical conditions.   Of course, in a practical sense, it is almost impossible to separate rationalism from empiricism. We cannot make rational decisions without the information provided to us through our senses, nor can we make empirical decisions without considering their rational implications.