This essay will consider Russell’s reasons for believing that there exists a mind-independent world. The philosopher offers few arguments, two of which will be outlined, namely, the argument for simplicity and the argument for instinctive beliefs. Though, the essay will argue that only Russell’s simplicity argument is effective since it stands against criticism. In fact, the critical discussion will be mainly focused on the simplicity argument because it provides more room for debate. Therefore, after an outline of both the arguments, this essay will aim to a narrow focus and explain only briefly why the argument for instinctive beliefs is unsound, while giving a deeper explanation of why the simplicity argument is valid and sound.
Idealism In this theory, what we think as to be real is restricted by the contents like memories, experiences and prior observations of our own mind. The observations of our senses are modified by how our mind perceives it. So we cannot have access to the higher reality. It is like we can experience thoughts that originate in our mid immediately. Idealism is a contrasting theory to the theory of materialism.
It shapes the view of a person and gives a deeper insight about the world. Science and math are a priori. The research’s conducted on these from before, help shape the future. P3 is correct because empiricists see the mind as an absorber of information, Kant disagrees and says that the mind shapes experiences into objects that an individual knows a priori. Empiricism believes that it is not possible to observe directly based off little to no observations.
I don’t believe that solipsism lines up with what Glasersfeld believes. I think that Glasersfeld has a perception that there are other things that creates the world and one’s reality. I personally lean hard on “The Reality of Experience” portion of the reading to explain his position. It is here that I think that his argument is given strength. It explains that the mind cannot be the only place to determine the world and reality.
She says that we are just a physical body. She’s a philosophical naturalist, so she believes that we should only believe things that can be proven in science. God and anything non-physical is rejected in her belief. She goes completely against cartesian dualism. She says that Cartesian dualism is inconsistent with science.
Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist, argues that morality is relative and based on one's culture or society. What could be morally acceptable in one culture is not necessarily acceptable in another culture. She believes that “the most spectacular illustrations of the extent to which normality may be culturally defined are those cultures where an abnormality of our culture is the cornerstone” (134). James Rachels, a philosopher, argues that Benedict’s argument is fallible. The conclusion of her argument does not follow from the premises.
Everything humans see within nature is remembered, thus creating new ideas and thoughts for our imagination. Lopez also states that humans should not be isolated in the universe. Therefore saying that people need to get out and explore the world, or to open yourself to new adventures. Exploring new things bring the connection between relationships and happiness that humans need.
Bertrand Russell, a founding member of analytical philosophy, was born in the United Kingdom in 1872. Intelligent and versatile, Russell earned a career most notably as a philosopher, logician, political activist, and mathematician until his death in 1970. Influenced heavily by Gottfried Leibniz, Russell was conversant with and involved in every aspect of philosophy. Russell went on to influence the evolution of analytical philosophy along with philosophers Gottlob Frege and George Edward Moore. One of Russell’s most famous essays, “The Theory of Knowledge” analyzes knowledge through three discussions: the definition of knowledge, data, and methods of interference.
Throughout this portion of his speech, Russell has a very conversational tone of voice but yet very professional. The best part of the speech in my opinion was the visualization step. He allowed the audience to visualize what police officers do and how they react. He illustrated two arms, one very weak and another very strong. His significance for an arm was to picture the amount of physical and emotional distress law enforcement go through.
We have all heard that ‘change is constant’. Yet, as January fades into February (along with our New Year’s resolutions), it is easy to fall back into the swing of regular habits and daily rituals while overlooking the daily opportunity to make a change. There is a word that describes this state of mind - inertia. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton’s law of inertia, an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalanced force. In a vacuum, inertia doesn’t sound all that bad.