Rachels discusses Descarte’s thoughts on the dreaming state, and how if we can be made to believe that our senses are correct there, than they cannot be trusted. The author discusses Philosophical thoughts on Idealism, in which it is considered that our perceptions of physical objects are not “real”, they are only mental ideas as recorded by our senses and imagined by our brains. Rachels discusses the attempts by Descartes to find a foundation for knowledge by identifying absolute truths, and concludes that the task may too difficult, or impossible. Quotes: I found it intriguing where the author wrote, “The mind does not simply record what passes before it; instead, the mind actively interprets experience according to certain built-in principles. Therefore, what we think of as “simple”
We will compare and contrast the different scenarios and information of all three sources to make up our own analysis of reality and knowledge. The similarities in these three scenarios are obvious. Descartes, in the Meditation on First Philosophy, 1641 and Neo, in The Matrix, started feeling skeptical about life, questioning life itself. They faced doubts about the reality of what they were seeing, skeptical of the reliability of their senses. Thinking that they were facing the possibility of a dream and not reality, they believed that they were unconsciously living manipulated by deception.
Descartes then begins questioning most of his, and in essence, our, beliefs. He explores our many senses and reiterates that what the senses have taught us throughout our lives is not necessarily the truth. According to Descartes’ we have become so prone to believing everything taught to us by the manner in which we sense things and by our experiences that this has become our truth. This truth that has been created for us “from or through,” our senses often deceives us and forces us into believing in false truths. He uses three examples or ideas that question the existence of truth and of all that he has learnt.
Russell says that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought (p.18). According to Bertrand Russell, “Philosophy aims primarily at knowledge, the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices and beliefs (Perry, John, Michael Bratman, and John M. Fischer, p.18).” It cannot be said that philosophy has had a very great success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. Although philosophy is unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, “Philosophy is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.
Philosophers, Joseph Butler and Thomas Aquinas and neurologist and psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud all had different beliefs and ‘teachings’ on how far we should go in listening to the conscience, the conscience being the complex idea of a moral guide to what’s right or wrong and commonly seen as a guide to your actions. All three theories have strengths and weaknesses although Aquinas seems to have a more thought-out and logical theory regarding the view of whether the conscience should be obeyed. Butler believed that morality is simply a matter of following an innate human nature we all share and possess. He also believed that we are influences by two major interests, self-love and benevolence. Butler suggested that the conscience adjudicates between these two interests and that as a gift from God, has the ultimate authority over ethical judgements and moral actions.
Book Review of “Mind: A Brief Introduction” by John R. Seale, Oxford (2004) “All of the most famous and influential theories are false.” From the very first page, this bold and no doubt provocative statement of intent by Searle, makes no apologies for its effect. A point, it appears, needs to be proved and in “Mind: A Brief Introduction” John Searle is out to do just that and “try to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to falsehood”. Referring to the ever contentious issue surrounding the philosophy of mind, Searle directs the majority of his effort towards the “mind-body problem”, the relationship between the physical and biological experiences and the mental experiences in our so called “mind”. His main aims are to introduce readers to the main theories of what the mind is, why they’re all simply wrong and to present his view on the matter. Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out.
| | | |Begin to recognize the problems inherent in|Deceiving myself about my ability to | |The Beginning Thinker |my thinking and have confidence in reason. |recognize that I have problems with my way | | | |of thinking. | | |Realize that thinking in all aspects of my |Deceiving myself about my ability to | |The Practicing Thinker |life must be subject to scrutiny. |recognize that I need
Although both have something to offer neither can claim full victory over truth. It is a delicate balance of the holistic and the sectional concepts that constitute the whole brain affect in cognitive psychology (Gutierrez & Ormsby, 2010). One of the earliest concepts of cognitive concepts was found in the science of phrenology. Phrenology stated that there were specific areas of the brain that directly related to personality traits and cognitive ability. This concept although well intentioned and closer to the truth than originally thought failed to stand up to the
The fundamental belief of metaphysics solely relies on the belief in oppositions of values. But Nietzsche questions this, ‘all is to be doubted,’ asking how do opposites originate – why is truth and deception or selfless and selfishness evil opposites? What if “value for life … [is] … ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust”? [§2] There is a fundamental faith in opposites here that has never been questioned, these ‘highest values’ originated from where? Nietzsche asserts this prejudice is the first major fault philosophers make, these provisional perspectives identifies held prejudices, priori beliefs upon which they build theories of ‘truth’.
The point of the experiment is to show that we cannot successfully think of such a being without thinking of a being that exists. Guanilo’s counter-argument represents usage of the same logic and reasoning as St. Anselm’s inference to prove the existence of another being. Guanilo proves that in his case St. Anselm’s argumentation is incorrect and hence, St. Anselm’s ontological argument is incorrect as well. In his response, St. Anselm emphasizes inaccuracy of Guanilo’s interpretation by distinguishing two kinds of beings and, as a result, strengthens his argumentation. Ontological argument is the argument for the existence of God, based only on premises derived only from logic reasoning and analysis.