This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific. In this essay, I aim to argue that while Fish makes a valid point about Freud's use of the unconscious as a rhetorical device, to consider it as only a rhetorical device and to dismiss its importance as a scientific concept is not only unjustified, but also impractical in psychological theories of the mind. Freud's theories, I argue, are no less scientific than other theories in science. Before I assert my own arguments concerning this matter, I shall examine Fish's position in greater detail, in order to understand the extent of his claim. A rhetorical device, according to Fish, "is entirely constructed and stands without external support", and "that insofar as it has been installed at the centre of a structure of conviction it acquires the status of that which goes without saying and that against which nothing can be said".
There are obvious flaws in this idea but an explanation that Berkeley gives clears it up a little. He explained that even though we can not see space or distance, we know it exists from past experiences. Rationalists such as Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, and Baruch Spinoza argue that our senses are not the ultimate source for knowledge since what we percieve may be decieving. Rationalism is the view that all ideas come from knowledge and reason and can be deduced. On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed.
His skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology. He wrote several books which he published during his life time, some of them are: A Treatise of Human Knowledge (1736), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), Natural History of Religion (1757), and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion which was released after his death. The aim of this write-up is to elucidate Hume’s theory of knowledge, most especially his position on induction and causation and how his position constituted a relapse into skepticism. HUME’S EPISTEMOLOGY Hume begins his philosophy with an analysis of our perceptions. According to him, our perceptions are the contents of our consciousness and our perceptions falls into classes, namely: Impressions and Ideas.
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
Augustine also believed that when one believed or used any doubt, then that one is disclosing his/her existences. (Moore, Bruder, 2011) In an argument of something being real or not, when the other is using doubt, you could simply say- “Well I guess I am not talking to anyone because you do not exist!” This is a quick answer to those who doubt. One other method of thought that Augustine uses against skeptics is the sense of perception. He says that deception in
Critically assess two arguments in support of widespread local skepticism. Skepticism may at first seem like a fruitless field of study, for how can the study of a topic which claims knowledge is impossible provide any greater insight into the philosophical realm as any conclusions themselves are knowledge. It could be said this is true yet discounting this view totally would be ignorant due to the arguments that have been put forth in its favour over its time in existence. Local as opposed to global skepticism differs in that a local skeptic does not believe all knowledge is impossible but that certain kinds of knowledge such as about time, the external world, other minds and of empirical generalisations. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time.
Spiritual philosophies are often presented in the beginning, before scientific data results are utilized to analyze religious philosophies. These discoveries of science are regularly met with cynicism. Science and religion survive in a power struggle. Science tries to dismiss religious philosophies with established technical philosophies and religion doubts the scientific philosophies with faith. Even though he was a writer, not a scientist, C.S.
Investigating a Positivist Approach in Human Geography ‘Positivism is a philosophy that denies our knowledge of the real and affirms our ignorance of the apparent. Its longest exponent is (Auguste) Comte, its broadest (John Stuart) Mill and its thickest (Herbert) Spencer’ such was the view of renowned American journalist editor and cynic Ambrose Bierce. He felt it dramatically failed to correctly represent human social interaction. Other criticism’s of positivism is that it’s findings do not hold up in the real world, rather their findings were a direct result of what happens when positivists’ use historically misrepresented scientific methods and findings in their work. Despite much scrutiny any criticism throughout the ages Positivism has remained at the forefront of Philosophical and Scientific thinking and research.
The Behaviorism Perspective Kimberly A. Hill Psy 310 December 5, 2011 Donna Allgood The Behaviorism Perspective Psychology has been forever in a position of everlasting fluctuation during its history, more so it would seem than any other intellectual specialty. Behaviorism, rooted in comparative psychology, was largely an American trend. Behaviorism, emphasizing both the importance and the possibility of learning by determination, became one of psychology’s most influential theories. Behaviorists were the first to believe that psychology was a science, although that idea was not fully realized until the middle of the nineteenth century. Infinite arguments, boarding on a power struggle and often acrimonious, have been about essential issues that normally would be expected to come to a resolution by now but strangely have not been (Harzem, 2004, p. 5).
I believe that even though he took off the piece of the mouse trap and used it for something else the primary function ceased to exist. It doesn’t support my initial hypothesis because the primary use is used for something completely unattended for. Going back and evaluating my initial hypothesis I still believe in the intelligent design theory. Intelligent design is where we as humans came from a higher power with all the proper parts to function. If you take away one of our parts like our brain or our heart will we have no function and our parts will have no function outside of our body.