What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory?
The empiricist's theory of knowledge is a very interesting one because understanding the biological function of the human mind and body, our senses are extremely helpful. If we did not have any senses, we would not be able to do anything. Areas of knowledge that support this theory are ideas should be tested by tracing it back to an original experience. Also, they believe that the rationalist's universal truths are simply highly probable generalizations from experience (ex: every shape has a size). Also, unified objects such as a pear are made up of three activities of the mind; compounding, relating and abstracting.
However, our minds also help us gain knowledge about the world. For instance, all animals have senses such as the wolf, or a worm in the soil. They rely on their senses to gain knowledge about their environment and uses it to survive. The only thing is, they are not capable of reaching the level of knowledge that human beings do because their intellectual capacity isn't as strong. Senses are very important, but the mind of a human is the strongest in this world.
There are a few types of knowledge that creates a problem for the empiricist, for example, triangles can only have three sides is a universal truth that cannot be changed, unless one debates that with experience we can come to know what a triangle is. Another example is that humans need food to live, no amount of experience can say that we can live without it. Also, we are born with feelings of hunger that must be taken care of.
Personally, I am more on the side of Kant, we need both the rationalist's and empiricist's ideas to understand knowledge and how it comes about. It is the same thing for nature vs nurture, some people believe we are born a certain way, giving us our personalities at birth, and some believe our environment influences who we become. People are very different and nature and nurture both play a role in the life of a person, therefore, you need both reason and experience to acquire knowledge. Watching my younger brother grow up, I observed his knowledge and I have seen that it comes from reason and experience.
For instance, when we would take him outside in the stroller, we would wait for the train, and once the train was stopping the wheels made noise as it was slowing down (it always makes the same sound). And I noticed my brother began dancing in the stroller to the sound of the train moving. He couldn't have learned that from experience because he or I have never seen someone dance from the sound of a train in NYC. The strange reaction to the moving train was something that came from him, and I assume he already had some knowledge about hearing a rhythm and moving along to it, no matter what the object was. But with experience, he learned other things such as properly brushing his teeth, putting on his clothes and preparing his own breakfast as he got older. Therefore, I agree with Kant that we need both reason and experience to acquire knowledge.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Thursday, February 16, 2017
WEEK 2: Skepticism and Rationalism
What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?
Methodological skepticism is very popular, and the quote "I won't believe it until I see proof" sets questions to whether this form of questioning is a good strategy or not. As humans may know, it is practically impossible (for now I assume) for us to test the accuracy of subjective things such as the existence of God or aliens. Many scientists have used the scientific method to piece out mysteries of the world and our limited knowledge, and sometimes there is no concrete answer. I have heard science professors say themselves that science itself is not 100% absolute, meaning anything we may know now could possibly be false. This supports the skepticism Descartes had for his beliefs and the world, but he concluded if knowledge is not absolute then we do not have knowledge at all.
I do not see it that way, although our knowledge is not absolute, it only means we have limited knowledge that can be improved over the years. Humans may never know the absolute truth to anything, however, continuing to discover knowledge such as medicine, fine arts, building materials and more can help improve our quality of life, even if it is not the absolute truth of the world.
There are many different kinds of people in the world, but connecting the Allegory of the Cave to this assignment, I say that many people accept to believe what they are told. For instance, one's values such as religion and being a responsible person can come from how the parents raised the individual, or by the media of a society. It is easy to accept what is being given, and sometimes one truly does believe in it, but it may not be the truth. Descartes doubted his beliefs because he knew he could argue for or against it, making it a weak belief that is not knowledgeable unless it is an unshakable truth.
A quick example is when people debate on the same topics repeatedly; should abortions be legal? Is it okay to possess a gun? There are no true answers to these questions because both debaters make great arguments. This leads to people leaving their opinions on what they think is better and that varies from the individual. Rationalism is very popular as well, people think if something is logical, it cannot be questioned such as 2+2=4. Ethics such as not killing anyone is universal false beliefs (according to the textbooks). But we can never figure out why the world agrees to believe certain things such as this.
There is much to the world we do not know about, but I believe in the overall happiness and wellbeing of an individual and the community. What keeps us at peace and prosperity is what is important. Skepticism and rationalism are good methods of understanding the world, but they should not be the only methods because the world is extremely complex and can be seen through different methods that work.
Methodological skepticism is very popular, and the quote "I won't believe it until I see proof" sets questions to whether this form of questioning is a good strategy or not. As humans may know, it is practically impossible (for now I assume) for us to test the accuracy of subjective things such as the existence of God or aliens. Many scientists have used the scientific method to piece out mysteries of the world and our limited knowledge, and sometimes there is no concrete answer. I have heard science professors say themselves that science itself is not 100% absolute, meaning anything we may know now could possibly be false. This supports the skepticism Descartes had for his beliefs and the world, but he concluded if knowledge is not absolute then we do not have knowledge at all.
I do not see it that way, although our knowledge is not absolute, it only means we have limited knowledge that can be improved over the years. Humans may never know the absolute truth to anything, however, continuing to discover knowledge such as medicine, fine arts, building materials and more can help improve our quality of life, even if it is not the absolute truth of the world.
There are many different kinds of people in the world, but connecting the Allegory of the Cave to this assignment, I say that many people accept to believe what they are told. For instance, one's values such as religion and being a responsible person can come from how the parents raised the individual, or by the media of a society. It is easy to accept what is being given, and sometimes one truly does believe in it, but it may not be the truth. Descartes doubted his beliefs because he knew he could argue for or against it, making it a weak belief that is not knowledgeable unless it is an unshakable truth.
A quick example is when people debate on the same topics repeatedly; should abortions be legal? Is it okay to possess a gun? There are no true answers to these questions because both debaters make great arguments. This leads to people leaving their opinions on what they think is better and that varies from the individual. Rationalism is very popular as well, people think if something is logical, it cannot be questioned such as 2+2=4. Ethics such as not killing anyone is universal false beliefs (according to the textbooks). But we can never figure out why the world agrees to believe certain things such as this.
There is much to the world we do not know about, but I believe in the overall happiness and wellbeing of an individual and the community. What keeps us at peace and prosperity is what is important. Skepticism and rationalism are good methods of understanding the world, but they should not be the only methods because the world is extremely complex and can be seen through different methods that work.
Monday, February 6, 2017
WEEK 1 Post: The enlightened life vs. the ignorant comfort
In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?
There is a well known saying, "ignorance is bliss", meaning not knowing something is beneficial to the person instead of knowing the truth, which can be harsh.
For instance, there could be a family consisting of a husband, wife and two children. The husband is in the army and was called to war and has not been back in five years. The mother is aware that her husband has died in battle and suffers because of this. She tells her children that he will come back one day, sparing them the suffering of losing their father.
For some people, "ignorance is bliss" makes sense and sometimes it is all they know.
A less tragic example is the average person such as you and me watching the news, watching the political debates and looking at advertisements. According to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we are ignorant and the images are only the shadows of the real issues. Most people accept information given to them and focus on their lives. However, without conducting our own research or asking questions, we become followers of society and this stops us from thinking critically, not using our intelligence to the fullest extent.
I agree philosophy is liberating, having knowledge on the world allows us to make decisions to improve the communities.
A relevant example is the new President Donald Trump, his election sparked an interest in politics through-out the United States. Many Republicans in large states that have not voted in years due to a Democratic rule, responded to this election. This also awakened people in other states such as New York, understanding the lingering racism and sexism present in the American society today. This includes the Muslim ban, reversing abortion rights and funding for PlannedParenthood, and deporting illegal immigrants back to their countries. People who have been part of protests did more than watch the news or debates, they organized protests and researched possible changes that can affect their lives negatively.
There are also people who are only watching what is happening unfold and moving on with their daily routines. Some people prefer to focus on themselves and their well-being than step outside their comfort to change a society. Plato would call these people prisoners because they choose not to expose themselves to an unpredictable understanding of the truth. Plato's view on these people are very pessimistic, and I see these people as mostly "moderate" who do not want to stand out and risk getting injured, or simply do not see any reason not to stay the same.
Briefly connecting to this, I read a play called Antigone by Sophocles and Antigone went against the law of the king to bury her brother, while the rest of the citizens followed the king's rule to avoid the risk of punishment. Antigone ended up sacrificing herself for her beliefs, being sentenced to death.
Another great example is Martin Luther King Jr. who fought against the separation of races and died for his belief. Many people would stay out of it, not die for their beliefs to continue to live for another day.
The same for philosophical enlightenment, it could liberate someone, causing positive change in their life such as the liberated prisoner in the cave, or be seen as something not worth leaving the comforts of one's life, or the cave.
There is a well known saying, "ignorance is bliss", meaning not knowing something is beneficial to the person instead of knowing the truth, which can be harsh.
For instance, there could be a family consisting of a husband, wife and two children. The husband is in the army and was called to war and has not been back in five years. The mother is aware that her husband has died in battle and suffers because of this. She tells her children that he will come back one day, sparing them the suffering of losing their father.
For some people, "ignorance is bliss" makes sense and sometimes it is all they know.
A less tragic example is the average person such as you and me watching the news, watching the political debates and looking at advertisements. According to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we are ignorant and the images are only the shadows of the real issues. Most people accept information given to them and focus on their lives. However, without conducting our own research or asking questions, we become followers of society and this stops us from thinking critically, not using our intelligence to the fullest extent.
I agree philosophy is liberating, having knowledge on the world allows us to make decisions to improve the communities.
A relevant example is the new President Donald Trump, his election sparked an interest in politics through-out the United States. Many Republicans in large states that have not voted in years due to a Democratic rule, responded to this election. This also awakened people in other states such as New York, understanding the lingering racism and sexism present in the American society today. This includes the Muslim ban, reversing abortion rights and funding for PlannedParenthood, and deporting illegal immigrants back to their countries. People who have been part of protests did more than watch the news or debates, they organized protests and researched possible changes that can affect their lives negatively.
There are also people who are only watching what is happening unfold and moving on with their daily routines. Some people prefer to focus on themselves and their well-being than step outside their comfort to change a society. Plato would call these people prisoners because they choose not to expose themselves to an unpredictable understanding of the truth. Plato's view on these people are very pessimistic, and I see these people as mostly "moderate" who do not want to stand out and risk getting injured, or simply do not see any reason not to stay the same.
Briefly connecting to this, I read a play called Antigone by Sophocles and Antigone went against the law of the king to bury her brother, while the rest of the citizens followed the king's rule to avoid the risk of punishment. Antigone ended up sacrificing herself for her beliefs, being sentenced to death.
Another great example is Martin Luther King Jr. who fought against the separation of races and died for his belief. Many people would stay out of it, not die for their beliefs to continue to live for another day.
The same for philosophical enlightenment, it could liberate someone, causing positive change in their life such as the liberated prisoner in the cave, or be seen as something not worth leaving the comforts of one's life, or the cave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)