In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.
Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.
While logic is firmly rooted in reason, perceptions are just as firmly rooted in one’s senses and can easily be corrupted. Many kinds of faulty logic or perception interfere with our ability to think critically, for example, superstition, argument from ignorance, false analogies, irrelevant comparison and fallacies. Therefore, I believe that perception is certainly not reality and most mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logics. Perception is defined as the ability to see, hear or becomes aware of something through the senses (Nature of Logic and Perception). However, since the senses are susceptible to personal interpretation, they are therefore potentially unreliable sources of data.
He used sensible experiences to falsify Parmenides views which isn’t a fair objection. Sensible evidence is just the evidence that is impossible if Parmenides theory is correct. Although Parmenides makes good points, his argument for motion not existing is based solely on his extreme viewpoint of non-being equating to absolutely nothing. Referencing absolutely nothing on many occasions to push his argument. He also uses absolutes in comprehending.
Just what is the cause of my existence? I accept nothing on authority. A hypothesis must be backed by reason, or else it is worthless - and it goes against all the dictates of logic to suppose that you made me” (Asimov 36-67). This quote is important because Asimov shows us that Cutie has learned to think on his own and is questioning his very existence. He is showing the
‘’Empiristic knowledge’’ is sooth only in measures of past experience, and there are no guarantees that future experience will not refute it. Any cognition, by Hume, can be just probabilistic but not reliable, and visibility of its objectivity and necessity is investigation of habit and faith in immutability of experience. “Must confess, -Hume wrote, -that nature holds us on respectful distance from our secrets and gives us just cognition of a couple of surface’s qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles, from which actions of these objects entirely depend.’’ Hume is considered an empiricist because he thought that there is no link between cause and effect, except of causal. Causal link can be detected only in experience. Most important thing is experience.
The question of body-mind dualism has been debated throughout the centuries by many philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and many others. Among them, Descartes could be designated as representing a modern viewpoint about this controversial subject. Disapproving the Skeptics who doubt, or at least try to undermine all the bases for knowledge, Descartes tries to find a certain and absolute knowledge. Very known for his famous Latin quote “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), Descartes tries to establish the distinction between the soul (the mind) and the body. This dualism takes root in the fact that these two entities do contrast and differ in their inner nature.
Second, when Kant’s theory is interpreted as two object interpretation it seemed that the theory implies a radical form of skepticism that traps each of us within the contents of our own mind and cuts us off from reality. According to Kant’s, things in themselves are real while appearances are not, and hence we cannot have experience or knowledge of reality. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical
Rationalism is beliefs in the external world that give somethings like a power or transcendent being. Empiricism is belief in sensation experience that looks like a science. I think both concepts are conflict in some situation and compatible in some situation. For example, you can’t test or examination about the God’s existence but you can’t say it is true or false or meaningless because may be verified in the future. The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism.
He argues that if we seek to answer the question of what it means to exist, we have to study the unique entity that has an understanding of what it means to be (i.e. Dasein) and how that entity’s existence differs from that of all other entities. In understanding the distinction between Dasein and other entities, we are able to understand the unique phenomena of Dasein’s existence, that is, being-in-the-world. Heidegger rejects the assumption maintained in many philosophical frameworks that all forms of existence are equivalent; instead, he claims that there is an ontological difference between