These metaphysical questions are aimed to establish a basis from which the Meditator, Descartes, may then build a basis for a clear conception of not only his own existence but also the existence of matter or material things. This then follows into Descartes description to the interaction of mind and
Again, Strawson clarifies the Basic Argument that moral responsibility is impossible, this time "in very loose- as it were conversational- terms"(219). In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.
But the rationalist's claim to know this, substance, without explanation of its workings is a flaw Locke argues lies at rationalistic thought. Indeed, substance helps hold the universe together and is an unavoidable idea which we can’t do without, but to say we innately know the complex mysteries of substance cohesion (including attribute, mode, etc.) isn’t justifiable according to
As such we must question if this interaction leaves space for deception by either party. Based on the theory of Descartes, our self forms our thought, beliefs, and ideas; the processing behind data taken in from our body, our senses and our brain. As such, with the examples given above, there would be more than enough error taken in from our body to provide a wrongful interpretation from our self. Whereas vice versa, the incorrect interpretation by our self would relay in a wrongful response to the body. Neither the self nor the body can therefore be perfect within the mutual
“Never ignore a gut feeling, but never believe that it’s enough” Robert Haller. This quotation suggests that an instinctive judgment is not enough to draw conclusions. Ways of knowing need to verify our gut feelings. Before we can actually jump to conclusions, we require ways which we can use to understand the world around us, these are ways of knowing. Sometimes we need to make sure that what our innate feelings tell us; is true.
Minimal foundationalism claims that the basic beliefs are non-doxastically justified. And to keep them non-doxastic, minimal foundationalists must ensure that basic beliefs do not involve the application of concepts because if they involve application of concepts, they will be tainted by other beliefs and, consequently, will turn into doxastically justified beliefs. Thus, they will lose the status of basic beliefs. I believe that this criticism is disastrous for all types of foundationalism. It ultimately reveals the fact that foundationalism is unable to bridge the gap between the object-belief and the very object of belief.
Indeterminism which is the philosophical view opposing determinism. Many versions of indeterminism views were proposed by various philosophers, but those versions, which intended to save “Free will”, did not actually succeed for reasons that are to be presented. The first version of indeterminism is the “non-causal indeterminism” which simply states that choice is not determined by prior reason-states, as reason-states are themselves “non-causal” (Ginet 1990). This argument raises a lot of problems, as it directly opposes the principle that any event has a prior cause. This idea of that some events are non-causal seems to be vain, because it does not work in a universe that is governed by deterministic physical laws, at least at the macro-scale
How to draw conclusions on this inductive reasoning has opposite way with the deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning premises must be known before drawing a conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning requires conclusions by observing the examples and then drawing a general conclusions from the
The method he invented — the radical and methodical doubt —is a reproducible model for demarcation between subjective opinions and objective truths. However, not only is the application of his method of radical doubt unfeasible, but his insistence on the “purity” of knowledge as sciences that are certain, indubitable and, independent of the existence of corporeal things is also questionable. First, Descartes assumes that he is capable of detaching himself from all of his opinions. However, his theory is both practically unfeasible and theoretically inapplicable, for as long as one is situated in the world, what he thinks cannot
If there is no reference to demonstrate the existence of a mind without a body, then the clear and distinct perception which Descartes relied on needs to be reviewed. The guarantee of this premise was based on the fact that God is not a deceiver. But if this clear and distinct idea was invalid, then God would be a deceiver. However, given God’s non deceiving nature, all clear and distinct ideas must be true. Therefore, if it turns out that God doesn’t exist, the grounds of Descartes’ claim can no longer be justified.