Collective unconsciousness therefore contains archetypes that are common to all human beings. (Wise geek). (2003,2010). The arguments presented by Adler concerning human personality are explained theologically. In other words, the parts of a person’s unconscious self work together to change the feeling of inferiority to that of superiority and not completeness.
John Locke’s version of empiricism begins with his propositions on the certainty and the extent of human knowledge by refuting the idea that human beings are born with certain ideas and principles already in their minds. Locke argues against these ideas and then represents his own theory about the origins of knowledge. Locke believed that each and every person was born with a “clean slate” or “Tabula Rasa”. He believed that we learn through perception, sensation, and most importantly experience. I agree with Locke that we most definitely learn through these things and I would also argue that experience is one of the most fundamental and crucial aspects of our gained knowledge, but to say that we can only learn through it is not accurate.
“Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad – but it does not carry instructions on how to use it.”(64) Feynman supports This statement with a very interesting quote “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”(64) My interpretation of this quote and how Feynman is relating the quote to value of science, it is humans who have to decide how to get to either heaven or hell based on the instructions they create from themselves. Scientist must do the same when creating scientific knowledge, they must create instructions to
Kuhnian Paradigm shifts A Scientific revolution occurs when scientist encounter anomilies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress thereto been made. Paradigm in khunis view is not simply the current theory but the entire world view in which it exists. Science and Paradigm shifts A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigms shifts and the dynamic nature of science with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists are a case for relativist, the view that all kinds of delief systems are equal, Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation, and status that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different. Examples of paradigm shifts Natural sciences Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are: * The transition in coismology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one. * The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics.
Most ancient philosophers’ theories fall somewhere in between these two ideas. Determinism also creates the dilemma of moral responsibility; if one cannot control one’s own actions, how can one be held responsible for them? Forces outside of an individual’s control determine many events and actions, but there are always decisions that one can make for oneself. “Determinism is the idea that everything that happens, including all human actions, is completely determined by prior events” (Determinism). Not only are the events around humans out of their control, their very thoughts and feelings are determined separately from any free will that they might possess.
Speech according to him is the transition of the mental to the verbal; he puts words to the superior position claiming that there is no possibility of science without words and perceptions thus neglecting empirical methods. Also we have desires and aversions, and those things that contradict our desires or aversion are seen as evil opposite – good. Further the power is defined as an instrument to get the desired object or to put another way to fulfill the appetite, one’s power may collide with another one’s that is what hold people from using it and it is called fear, not to use power because of fear is called manners. There are two types of power – one acquired from the moment of birth another through the experience. The state of nature is the war of all against all since not regarding that some maybe stronger than others everyone has capacity to kill, but people also have the Natural Rights like The Right for life – clash of these two takes place.
We act selfishly in order to survive. This idea is often understood as Psychological Egoism, which Kavka defines as “the doctrine that all human action is selfishly motivated”. This idea is central to Hobbes’ idea that in the State of Nature, a hypothetical situation in which there is no form of government, humans will live in a state of universal conflict. Kavka describes this as “the perils of anarchy”. It is not just this universal egoism, however, which results in this conflict, but rather humans’ insatiable desire for power.
Behaviorism insists the importance of behavior in psychology rather than consciousness. Behaviorism emphases subjective consciousness should be abandoned, and all the mental activities are actually physical activities. As for the methods of behaviorism, it abandons the introspection and use some objective ways such as objective observation, conditioned reflexes, or some other ways. Except John Watson, so many psychologists established some important ideas and have some debates about behaviorism. Considering the contribution of the establishing and development of behaviorism, Ivan M. Sechenov, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Vladimir M. Bechterev, John B. Watson, and William McDougall are the most influential ones.
If all my actions, my beliefs and my desires are determined by preceding conditions, how can I ever be free? This is the conflict presented by traditional theories of determinism and freewill. But analysis of such a concept of freewill shows it be incoherent. In this case, we must either reject the thesis that we have freewill, or reformulate our concept of freewill so that it is coherent. I will argue that such a reformulation is not only compatible with determinism but also necessary, if we are to maintain that we have any kind of freewill.
All people have their own principles and beliefs, but, undeniably, not all of them are certainly true. But how can we examine our beliefs whether they are correct or not and how can we attain absolutely correct beliefs? In order to get rid of uncertainty a lot of people tried to answer these questions and Descartes gives his own opinion in his meditations to these questions. Summary. In the second meditation, Descartes realizes that none of the human beliefs can be trusted; therefore, we should put aside all of them and find Archimedean point, that is the point we can be absolutely certain about.