Major Questions in Philosophy - Essay Example

Epistemology: Traditionally, rationalism and empiricism have been the normal ways that philosophy attempts to answer the question, what do I know and how do I know it? But what do you think? Of both rationalism and empiricism, which of the two theories better explains human knowledge? Why? Be sure to include some substantive text based information and to explain and evaluate your responses in a manner consistent with the explanations of these terms in the Instructions. Rationalists and empiricists have conflicting views within epistemology. The theory of rationalists is based on the statement that Reason independent of Experience can give way to knowledge. There are things that we know from our birth and they do not need to be proved anyhow. These things are priori like 2+2 = 4, they do not need any evidences and explanation why it is so. The views of empiricists are quite opposite; they think that only experience can give way to knowledge. All the suppositions, which are considered by rationalists to be priori, empiricists considered as “trifling” if they were not proved by experience (Blackburn). As for me I can’t state that I agree with any of these theories, both of them are useful. Philosophy is a science, in which we can’t find right or wrong opinions. However, I must say that the views of empiricists are closer to my own views. The fact is that I do not believe in things I did not see with my own eyes. Thus, in my opinion, the experience is very important and every supposition must have its own evidence to become a statement. We can state something only if it was already proved and we have the proofs. 2. Kant: Why, for Kant, is the rationalist argument insufficient to explain knowledge? What does it mean to know something is “a priori”? How exactly does the connection between our reason and sensory impressions work? Be sure to include some substantive text based information including the role of synthetic a priori propositions? According to the great philosopher Immanuel Kant, it is useless to support something without the evidences received from experience. Every statement should be proved with the help of experience. The theories based on such approach like rationalist theories can’t be helpful anyhow. Thus, further work was needed to be done in this direction. These views were reflected by the great philosopher in his work called the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant distinguishes between priori and posteriori knowledge. Priori knowledge is the knowledge independent from experience and posteriori knowledge is given to us by experience (Blackburn). According to Kant, the word “sensibility” and the word “sense” are closely connected in meaning. That is why, sensibility is connected with sensory impressions. There is a notion of “sensory experience”. We receive this experience, then classify it and make conclusions. Thus, theoretical knowledge appears, while reason provides us with practical knowledge. Kant also distinguishes between synthetic and analytic propositions. For example: “All painters are single”. Here we see an analytic proposition with predicate in its subject matter. But if we say “all painters are unfortunate” we will have a synthetic proposition with no predicate in its subject matter (Blackburn). 3. Minds and Computers: How much like a computer is the human mind? Is the mind a model of a computer, or is it the other way around? What difference does it make, ultimately, if any? Be sure to include some substantive text based information including the significance of functionalism and any other theories regarding the mind/body problem and/or artificial intelligence, in this debate.  There are many differences between the computers and human brain. First, in contrast to human brain, computers are digital. The computer does not have ability to think, it uses only the databases. For example, when we here the word “cat” we think about beautiful animals and good-looking men or women at the same time; or the world “key” reminds us about the thing we open the door with or the spring. Source engine also can provide us with all these results, but it is only due to its reach database, not the ability to think and learn. It is not easy for computer to learn. However, the computer can implement several tasks at once and it is difficult for our brain to do that. When we concentrate on something, we have better results and when we try to do several tasks at once, we usually fail the one or even all of them. Finally our brain is able to think out something new, it can innovate, while computes are designed to follow the tasks and if we can admit that one day the computer will be able to communicate with us, it goes without saying that it will never be able to innovate. 4. Religion: Over the years, but particularly within the last 1,000, it has become popular with Philosophers/Theologians to try to show that belief in God is not only rational, but provable--Of the proofs or positions given, is there one that is particularly convincing? Which one? Why? Be sure to include substantive text based information including a consideration of the logical soundness of the argument and other advantages and disadvantages of your choice compared to the others. Your choices include the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments as well as the pragmatic and fideist positions. Be sure to include some substantive philosophical material and not just your own opinion. People have always been unsure about the fact if God really exists. However, we can state that we prefer to believe in God than not to believe. Maybe, our belief helps us hope that our life will change for better and we will be able to become happy and to get what we want. Our belief really helps us and here I would like to provide the views of Blaise Pascal that I consider to be very argumentative. The philosopher built his views on the logical chain, not on his own ideas or preferences. According to Pascal, we really do not have scientifically proved evidence of God existence, but it would be better for us to believe than not to believe. If one believes in God and God exists, he/she is not guilty; if one believes in God and God does not exist, he or she is still not guilty; but if one does not believe in God and God does not exists, he/she can’t be sure that he is innocent; but if one does not believe in God and God exists, than he or she is sinful. Thus, it is better to believe in God than not to believe and I consider the advice given by Blaise Pascal to be wise. . Works Cited Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1996. Read More