Arguments Revolving Around This Theory 1. An interesting conversation between Gassendi and Descartes Gassendi: “There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.” Descartes: “Suppose a person had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading. How would he proceed?
René Descartes, considered to be the father of modern philosophy, was the first person to formulate a theory about mind-body dualism and to try to reject existence. By trying to prove that we do not exist, he found that there is no way that we do not exist. "Cogito Ergo Sum", which is a famous quote of Descartes, signifies that it is through thinking that we can affirm our existence. René Descartes reached this synthesis by several trial of doubting, but he could not doubt his existence because by ignoring his mind existence, he realised that it is a thinking process. Thus he confirmed that existence is true, and it is through thinking that it is acquired.
However, it is precisely the idea of workmanship and therefore human’s impersonal lives, as well as consent of the governed which spurs discussion and tension. In the First Treatise of Government, Locke set out to dethrone Robert Filmer’s ideology of inherited authority while invoking the Bible for authoritative evidence. Ultimately, Locke argues that because Adam’s lineage cannot be traced, no one human has authority over another CITE. Furthermore, the only entity to have control over humans is God because God created humans, so God can do what he likes with his creations. Humans cannot as they “live together by no other rules but that of beasts” (Second Treatise 2).
Knowledge Argument against Physicalism Physicalism is a branch of philosophy which states that everything in this world is physical. There is nothing like non-physical. Physical facts are the truth in this world. Physicalism is also called ‘materialistic monism’. Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world.
The doubter is known as the evil deceiver, because it creates the complex explanations which can’t be verified, makes the truly vulnerable and breakable. However, in order to have a doubt, an individual is thinking or doubting an idea it means, they exist. As he mentioned in one of this mediations, I think, therefore, I am.” Descartes believes, that human mind is the foundation where all the ideas and the perceptions are being tested, either the truth is absolute, possible or impossible. Similarly, in his mediation, he has talked about the idea of individualism and free will. How humans mind has the ability to change an idea or perceptions if they doubt something, in his mediation he has mentioned, “I am so imperfect that I am always deceived”.
It might be said that a sweet lie can be better than the cold truth; however, it may be argued that honesty is a better feeling than the experience of believing a lie. Holden, the main character of the novel The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, experiences similar attitudes towards the world of phonies that exists around him. Holden despises the phoniness of encountered characters, but he is not aware, ironically, of his own untruthfulness. This struggle to be self aware creates an ongoing conflict between what Holden believes and how he acts. Holden withholds his truths from the world, yet he seeks for truth from others, portraying a positive and negative perspective of the truth.
I would never enter the Nozick’s Experience Machine nor any human should, for certain reasons such as: Doing things rather than experience them, We want to be someone, and it limits us to what we can make. As humans, there are thing we want to achieve to feel the fullest of life. Every single human in this world want to do certain things and not just have the experience of them , such as said in the Nozick’s book. And you can easily discuss that you can do everything you want in the experience machine and be as
He believes ‘I think, therefore I am, [is] so certain and so evident that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics [are] not capable of shaking it’. However, there are flaws in his argument. French philosopher Pierre Gassendi objects Descartes quote ‘I think, therefore I am’ by pointing out that Descartes had not yet proven that it was in fact himself who was thinking. Instead be the case that the thoughts he was having could have come from somewhere or someone else, and thus a more accurate thing to say would be ‘there are thoughts’. If we can doubt Descartes ‘I think, therefore I am’ we can also doubt ‘I am, I exist’, and resultantly it means that the following beliefs put forward by Descartes do not have solid ground, meaning the only thing we know to be certain is ‘there are
The advocates of such theories claim that humans are born in a blank state, then they are filled with knowledge, beliefs, and nutrition upon which their future decisions will be based. In other words, we are the products of our environments. On the other hand, existentialism proposes that humans have complete free-well, and thus human behavior cannot be expected at any point. Like nurture theories, existentialism claims that we are born in a tabula rasa state as well, but in contrast it asserts that it is up to humans to decide the essence of their being. Based on those conflicting notions about human behavior, there has never been a grand theory that could fully explain the past behavior and precisely expect the future behavior of humans.
Plato, however, disagrees. He states that not only is priori knowledge the true type of knowledge, but that posteriori knowledge is just a false opinion. This is because our senses are what are unreliable as knowledge can only be obtain through the