This leaves Malvolio with no way to prove his sanity, as he can either agree the room is bright and contradict reality, or he can stick to the belief that the room is dark and be deemed insane by Sir Topas. Sir Topas is just demonstrating the contradictory nature of determining sanity, and the fact that it is a vicious circle, as no matter what Malvolio say’s Sir Topas can say he is mad. He immediately after gives an example of this confliction between sanity and reality, “Why, it hath bay windows transparent as barricoes, and the [clerestories] toward the south-north are as lustrous as ebony; and yet complainest thou of obstruction?” (iv.ii.38-41). These lines are full of contradictions, such as, bay windows as transparent as barriers, and high windows as
Nagel offers the example of the bat and states that one could try to imagine what it is like to be a bat by “imagining some combination of additions, subtractions, and modification”(Nagel 5). However, we can see that this imagining would only tell us what it is like for ourselves to be a bat. This is important because it shows that, although we can break down the objective properties of a bat, it doesn’t allow us to understand the bats subjective character. Lastly, the two-pronged conclusion. As of now psychophysical reductionism seems to be “at worst unprovable.” I am arguing this because reductionism is inherently flawed due to its inability to explain the most important part of the mind-body problem, consciousness.
In educational purposes, there can be misunderstanding from his metaphors of how it should be understood, what should be a metaphor to analysis Darwin’s reasoning. There is personal and emotion attraction when metaphor is used but there should be a border line of when to use it and take it as literal or
Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component
To say that it is possible for there to be an evil demon whose singular purpose is to deceive me, is a claim that requires robust support which Descartes fails to do. Although Descartes contemplates unlikely possibilities in his process of doubt, he only proposes that such a thing could exist. Descartes’ skepticism position weakens his evil demon argument because if I’m in doubt, I’ll also doubt the possibility that an evil demon exists. So, my skepticism regarding the possibility of an evil demon reduces the greater doubt that is expected to be created by the evil demon. The evil demon must exists to create so much doubt, but Descartes doesn’t provide enough backing for possibility of the evil demon’s existence.
Percy’s anecdotes all contain a character who suppresses their ideas, beliefs, and opinions in order to conform to the more widely accepted standard with which they are familiar. To Percy, this represents a loss of sovereignty, and it is a negative experience. He introduces the idea that the foundation of any worthwhile discovery is rejecting all pre-existing norms to maneuver yourself around symbolic complexes and get a full understanding of a topic. Also in Percy’s writing, his concern with the effect that symbolic complexes have on learning and experience is evident. The easiest way to not see something, he says, is when you look at it through someone else’s perspective, or in other words a symbolic complex.
Justified, true belief knowledge is only real if there is no conceivable doubt, but nothing can truly be inconceivable fact. In “Mediation I: What can be Called into Doubt”, Descartes tries to find solutions to this, but he only raises more questions about the world. Skepticism arises to challenge the idea of a perfect knowledge and to question the human mind and the world. Descartes reflects on the countless falsehoods he believed that became his knowledge about the world and wipes everything out of his mind to begin anew. Descartes starts with the foundations of knowledge, deciding only to accept opinions as truths when there isn't any conceivable doubt in his mind.
However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility.
We our easily deceived by the senses because it prevents and distracts us from seeing “reality” (64e-66). - There are things such as Just and Beauty that exist and cannot be detected by the human eye. So, whatever prepares a person best to grasp this concept will come the closet to achieving knowledge. A true philosopher believes that there is some path to guide us from evil and confusion. We need our body to nurture us throughout the journey, but as long as we have a body, the soul is under sin and temptation (“the body causes war, civil discord, and battles” 66c).
According to him, “There are some truths not fit to be told; where for example, the discovery of a small fault may do great mischief; or where the discovery of a great fault can do no good, there ought to be no discovery at all…” (Cato No. 32 pg 1). Libel is libel, regardless of its validity, and should be punished. The possible consequences of libel could result in disturbances in society that could be detrimental for the general