A quote by Albert Einstein “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” one of the most influential people discussing limitations on the rational mind. The argument between empiricism and rationalism seems to be a back and forth battle between a bunch of old guys arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg. Although when they were brought together is when it seems to make the most sense. For rationalism we have the belief that reason is the primary source of all knowledge, only reason itself can give meaning to experience and separate reality from illusion. To understand truth we must be completely sure of it, this requires a rational method of inquiry based on doubt.
One goes by the name “Cartesian spiral”. This suggests that the distinct and clear perception that proves Gods existence is different from the other perceptions. The Cartesian spiral is based on a mathematical equation, as “2+2=4” is clear and distinct, but a judgement and that is open to error. While the clear and distinct perception of Gods existence is just an idea and with no judgement attached. We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise.
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
Because it engages the whole self without a fixed yardstick it can be called a personal reflection…. [I]n this reflection the self is in question; what is at stake is the definition of those inchoate evaluations which are sensed to be essential to our identity (117). Taylor makes this claim about responsibility for self in opposition to Sartre’s characterization of the human condition as nothingness and absolute freedom. Sartre derives from this condition an understanding of freedom as the radical, infinite openness of the freedom of our choices and concludes that it is this freedom that characterizes our fundamental moral dilemma. Taylor argues that it is not the weight of the openness that defines our moral selves or the moral dilemmas we face, but the fact that various choices necessarily blind and pull us in different directions.
At the same time, however, our personal set of opinions control how we see things around us. We are the ones that are given the choice of what is being seen and what is believed. Empiricism began with John Locke who attacked Cartesian idea that reason alone could provide us with knowledge. Locke came out with the term of “Tabula Rasa.” It means that the mind comes into life blank, or empty and is written on by experience. Later, Philosopher Hume came out with his version of the “tabula rasa” principle, the copy theory of ideas.
I will be approaching this from a Dualist point of view and I will be referring to Dualism and it’s supporting arguments, namely; the indivisibility argument and the conceivability argument which explain how, logically, alternatives to dualism are not feasible. These logical arguments offer a firm base to support Descartes’ theories but there is a problem with explaining the interaction between the mind and brain if they are not identical. However, the difficulty in understanding how an interaction can occur does not automatically lend itself to providing evidence that the mind and the body are identical. Descartes believes that the body is intrinsically the same as other material objects in the world. It is an extended thing: reg extensa and has physical properties: its size, its shape and the fact it takes up space out there in the world.
They rather offer a method of approaching this feeling of experience as opposed to describing what this experience feels like. With that said, let the unity begin… These two stories each have three parts, or worlds, or lives. The first life for Siddhartha is one of a “thinking” attachment. He is so consumed with the quest for knowledge, and the answer to “what is the Self?” that he suffers. Neo is also plagued by this search for knowledge, mainly, “what is the matrix?” and “how do I be the one?”.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
Soft determinists therefore believe that events to be determined but also believe that free will does exist and still can be applied to our actions. Soft determinists defend compatibilist and say that even though they accept determinist thesis, we still believe in freedom. If we cannot establish that actions are completely determined then soft determinists have to believe in free will. If we knew everything then we might be able to predict a person’s actions but since this cannot be done and is a big if, which is the heart of the determinist thesis, turns out to be unobtainable in practice; this simply means that in theory we are still determinists but we can also believe in free will and hold people responsible for their actions. (Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act.
Moore’s “Proof of an External World” I believe that philosopher G.E. Moore’s “Proof of an External World” was somewhat successful in explaining there being an external world, however I have reason to believe that his proof cannot be taken for granted by using logic and physics. While there are flaws to his argument, he responds to those flaws with a rebuttal, and makes the person think if they can be certain about anything in existence. Moore’s argument can be simply put that; P1) he has a right hand and he has a left hand, P2) both of the hands are external objects in the world, C) An external world exists. Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof.