Philosophy: Mind, Meaning and Metaphysics - Assignment Example

Philosophy: Mind, Meaning and Metaphysics Section A: Q1 According to Thales, what is the ‘principle’ of all things? How did he justify his theory of the ‘principle’ of all things? Ans: Thales, the founder of that branch of philosophy which believes that the principles of matter were the only principles, believed that the principle of all things is water. The implication of this is that Thales was of the opinion that water is the basis and origin of all life and from which all life return to and in fact thought that the earth has water for its bed. Thales’ rationale for making water the basis and the ultimate reality of all things was largely unknown and hence was a matter of conjecture of other philosophers. Aristotle, for example, hypothesized that there may be two principles for which Thales’ based his “water as the principle of all things” philosophy: one, water and heat are the basis of all life and that Thales somehow believed that water is the basis of heat, and that all things, like seeds, have moisture, and; that water is the only thing that can be transformed into three states: liquid, solid and gas. The chief objection to Thales is one that is already accepted by all: that water is only one of the states of things as well as only one of the elements of nature. Although water is essential in the basic sustenance of life on earth, there are other things as well like air and food and certainly no one would subscribe to the idea that heat comes from water. Not everything comes from water nor does everything ultimately go back to water form. Man, for example, is said to come from dust and to dust shall return, the second part of which is partially true as flesh of corpses, after some considerable period of time, eventually turn to dust. In the process of cremation, for example, the burning of the body would leave as result ashes and not water. Section B: What is Plato’s definition of love in the Symposium? How, according to Plato, is love related to beauty and procreation? Ans: Plato, whose conception of love was taught to him by a wise prophetess named Diotima, defined love as “wanting to possess the good forever.” This is because the possession of good things results in happiness and happiness is the ultimate desire commonly wished and pursued by all. Therefore every person is in love because everyone wants to be happy, a state which can only be achieved by having the beautiful and the good. In support of this principle, Socrates first dispelled the theory that Love was a great god and belonged to beautiful things. It was neither beautiful and ugly or good and bad, but it lies between the two contrary spheres just as correct judgment without reason proves the middle ground between wisdom and ignorance. Hence, Love could not be a god because, unlike it, gods are beautiful and good. This is an important principle because a thing cannot desire something that it has already and love desires the good and the beautiful because it does not possess them in the first place. Love is related to beauty and procreation in that the purpose of love is to give “birth in beauty, whether in body or soul.” Love does not seek beauty in itself but to reproduce in beauty. This is because everything and everyone has the desire to perpetuate themselves and love is no exception. And because Love desires the good forever, its need to perpetuate also includes the perpetuation of this desire. As previously stated goodness contemplates beauty and happiness, thus perpetuation of the good includes beauty. In addition, the “giving birth in beauty” requires the distinction between two kinds of birth: the inferior or the human birth which is a bodily reproduction, and; the birth by the soul with offspring like wisdom, virtue, beautiful deeds and the like. The second one is undoubtedly a superior kind of birth and can easily be called “giving birth in beauty.” Section C: Q9 What is Descartes’ procedure of radical doubt? Give one reason for criticizing this procedure. Ans: The procedure of radical doubt, also called universal doubt, as employed by Descartes in his pursuit of philosophical truth is the rejection of all notions that are not completely certain. This is the method of setting aside anything and everything that admits of even the slightest doubt like the mere “testimony of the senses, the existence of the world, even the simplest mathematical truth.” To Descartes, this is the way to begin any pursuit of knowledge – starting off with a clean slate. The only truth which a philosopher can initially arm himself with is the principle of cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) – the self in the process of thinking is the ultimate proof of existence. The principle of cogito, which links, and is the sine qua non, of the fact of thinking to existence, became the basis of many western philosophies The matter with Descartes’ philosophy as a means with which to pursue philosophical truth is that it would make all knowledge borne out of extensive experience in life and accumulated through the years useless and irrelevant. If one is to discard everything that has even a tinge of doubt in them, this would mean discarding almost everything because no single thing is really a hundred percent certain. Besides, the theory of cogito ergo sum presupposes that the thinking person is always rational and correct. This is rather difficult considering that the principle of cogito implies introspection on the basis only of personal thought processes and therefore means that it involves the truth only from one person’s point of view. Yet, truth can be subjective and changing from one person’s perspectives to another. In addition, this principle implies that anything that does not think does not also exist. Yet, it is a fact that many creatures exists whose survival is not dependent on the power of thinking but on their instincts. Section D: Q10 According to Locke, in what sense is the mind like a ‘tabula rasa’? Give one reason for objecting to Locke’s view. Ans: Tabula rasa, which means blank slate, is Locke’s principle that humans are born with minds that are like empty cabinets. This means that initially the mind has nothing until sensation and reflection acquire knowledge and ideas and slowly fill up this blank slate. The processes of perception, reflection, contemplation and judgment are vital in the acquisition of potential mental materials. The simple ideas borne out of sensation and reflection constitute the building blocks which ultimately form complex ideas. The processes of sensation and reflection allow a person to perceive the characteristics and qualities of things like their shape, sizes and colors but not the things directly. From these general ideas of things, the mind, through the processes, form knowledge. The most common objection to the tabula rasa philosophy of Locke is the contrary philosophy of innate knowledge espoused by philosophers like Ralph Cudworth and Henry Lee. These philosophers subscribed to the idea that men are born with certain predispositions, a theory that serves as the basis of moral philosophy. The innate philosophy believes that men are so created by God to have foreknowledge of the distinction between good and evil. Thus, men do not have equal predisposition for all things but tend to exercise discriminatory disposition to the truth and goodness over falsity and evil, a predisposition that antecedes education, experience, customs and subsequent knowledge learned as a person matures. These inclinations and predispositions therefore belie the tabula rasa claim of Locke that the mind starts out as a clean slate and accumulates all forms and kinds of knowledge only after the senses are exposed to the external world. Section E: Q16 State the main characteristics of what Sartre called ‘being-for-others’. Give one reason for questioning Sartre’s characterisation. Ans: Sartre’s philosophy of ‘being-for-others’ involves the decentralization of one’s world upon knowledge of the existence of others. Initially, a person is essentially egocentric, that is the world largely revolves around him. The fact however, of the existence of other human beings creates a decentralization effect of this largely egocentric universe because of the conflict entailed by this co-existence. The awareness of the existence therefore reduces a person’s existence to an object and his actions are no longer as free as it was when he was alone. This can be illustrated by the concept of shame. On his own a person can look and see at anything he wants but the presence of others tend to limit this freedom. He may now need the urge to look through the keyhole instead of actually opening the door wide to see what is inside the room for shame that the other person may know that he wants to see what is inside the room. In short, the awareness of the existence of others limits and subjects the self to certain feelings and self-conceptions and a person becomes a being-for-others. The existence of another or others reduces an individual to a pure facticity, a being-in-the-midst-of-the-world. Their presence makes an individual acquire new characteristics and yet at the same time an alienation from his original characteristics as he melded himself to take into consideration and perception of others. References: Pomerleau, Wayne P. “Twelve Great Philosophers” Rowman & Littlefield pp 174-175 Thales. Sept. 10, 2008. http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Thales.htm Tully, James. 1993, “An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts,” Cambridge University Press. Read More