"If Science never proves anything right, why do we trust it so much?"
"If Science never proves anything right, why do we trust it so much?" To the majority of the Western World, Science can be called upon when something cannot be explained in straight forward means. Science over the past has had the ability to explain creation, disease and death, just to name a handful. Unfortunately, humans do not have the ability to answer things beyond doubt totally, and there is always some ambiguity in all of the arguments put forward, this stands in science just as much as any other area. In this case, the word proves refers to an inductive proof which is predominantly found in the areas of science. Inductive proof is when the proof is based on experience and is not simply an idea. Inductive proof is only probable which is its weakness, opposed to deductive proof which is certain as it is a tautological argument. 'Right' in this case is what could be seen as truth. Truth is a misused word but it can be meant to mean, three types of truth, correspondent, coherent or pragmatic. In this case the truth is of the correspondent type because it is widely accepted and as is not necessarily truthful to an extent to be considered totally true. 'Trust' in this case is that of faith and reason. There is a difference because faith can be considered believing in something that is not necessarily right. Faith is usually referred to as something which people just
Describe three characteristics of mental states which are held to distinguish them from physical states. Asses the view that the characteristics of mental states make it impossible for those states to be within the physical world.
Describe three characteristics of mental states which are held to distinguish them from physical states. Asses the view that the characteristics of mental states make it impossible for those states to be within the physical world. There are both physical and mental states going on in space and time. We can always locate physical things, events and processes-they take place somewhere. Unlike physical states, mental states do not appear in physical space. Mental states are not visible to the public world and are only real in the sense that they occur in your experience. Physical objects, processes and events are all publicly observable while mental states are private to the individual and cannot be experienced by anyone other than the experiencer. Mental states are known from direct or immediate acquaintance. Intentionality is the feature whereby many mental states posses a representational content. They seem to be about or directed upon other states of affairs. Some intentional states, such as beliefs, portray how the world actually is. If a the world is as a belief represents it as being, the belief is true, otherwise it is false. Other intentional states, such as desires and intentions, represents how a person wants the world to be. Desires and intentions that do not succeed in bringing about the state of affairs at which they are aimed are frustrated or unfulfilled.
Explain Plato's concept of the soul and its relationship to the body.
Explain Plato's concept of the soul and its relationship to the body. A commonly studied topic in Philosophy is the study of the relationship between the internal and external body; that is to say, the distinction between the body and the soul. There are three basic 'Theories of the Self.' 'Self=internal,' 'self=unity of internal and external,' and 'self as a material body.' The first Theory of Self ('self = internal') is known as the dualist approach, the second ('self = unity of internal and external') is known as a psychosomatic or monist approach. Plato was a dualist. That is to say he believed that every human being is made up of two substances: The physical body that belongs to the material world. It is through this body that we are able to experience and sense things, and thus form opinions. And the mind, which is a far superior thing that belongs to the 'World of the Forms,' it is through the mind that we can achieve true knowledge, rather than from the basic opinions that our physical bodies produce. These two components belong to two different worlds: The World of Appearances and the World of the Forms. Since Plato thought less highly of the world of Appearances (as it symbolizes the limited world as described in his allegory of the cave), Plato believed that as the body was part of the World of Appearances, we should not be slaves to its urges. However, he
Explain Plato's metaphor of shadows in the analogy of the cave.
The Analogy of the Cave Luke Hodgkinson a) Explain Plato's metaphor of shadows in the analogy of the cave. In the analogy of the cave Plato puts forward the theory that a group of men (representing the vast majority of mankind) are captured at birth and chained in a cave, so they can only look at a wall. Behind them, the captors build a fire and then walk in front of the fire on a road running perpendicular within the cave so that shadows are cast on that wall. The captives can only see the shadows on the wall, for their heads are fastened so that they cannot turn around. The captors carry by various birds, animals and objects, making noises whilst doing this, and the prisoners think the shadows are making these sounds, and start giving names to the different shadows, believing they are the real objects, for they know nothing of the real objects. The captives compete with one another, and try to remember the order in which the shadows will appear, These shadows represent the illusion of the particulars; they represent everyday life, and the way most people see it; at face value and not truly understanding the meaning of it, nor in fact trying to, the cave is the physical, changing world that we accept at face value everyday. A freed prisoner would be able to see beyond this illusion, after adjusting his eyes to the brighter light, as he can see the real objects being
Outline the teleological argument for the existence of God.
The Teleological Argument Q: Outline the teleological argument for the existence of God. The Teleological argument is the oldest known and arguably most influential and widely accepted argument for the existence of God. The argument first appears in Plato's Timaeus, written over two thousand years ago and appears on numerous occasions in a number of different expositions up to the present day, the most famous of which being Thomas Aquinas' fifth way, and more recently, that of William Paley in his natural theology written in 1802. The Teleological Argument is an a posteriori argument, i.e. one based on knowledge of the phenomenal world (as opposed to an a priori argument, which is based independently of experience). Paley initiates his argument with the simple analogy of the watch. We are asked to imagine walking along and finding a watch in an isolated, deserted place. Paley claims that if we were to examine the watch we would notice its complicated and intricate workings, and from this would assert that some intelligent designer has designed it. The basic premise is that design (i.e. the watch) implies a designer (e.g. a human). This, Paley holds, is analogous to the world. The watch represents the world; its complex and intricate workings representing those of nature, for example the way that all animals are so well adapted to their surroundings. Just as the
Sartre is a very strong proponent of strong determinism, that is, he does not merit any sort of determinism at all when considering human action.
Prompt: Sartre is a very strong proponent of strong determinism, that is, he does not merit any sort of determinism at all when considering human action. I present the case for a minimal determinism that involves restriction to choices between limited options, as determined by both the mental and physical worlds. We do not live our lives in despair, constantly worrying about what may happen unexpectedly. For many people, life does seem like something that we control handedly. Life seems to be something we can direct, or at least influence. Supposing there are circumstances beyond our control, they rarely seem to present us a problem; we live contently believing that we are at least partly responsible for our fates. Seldom do we question the truth in this, of whether or not we have some say in the direction of our lives. Some would argue this is not so. Some of these people would happen to look at a deity or hard sciences to lead us to a cogent determined purpose. The fact remains that whether or not purpose lies in causality, a chain of events full of causes and effects may be explained perfectly if we had the knowledge. Determinists would argue that our free will is simply an illusion and we are deluding ourselves if we believe we have control. Sartre would argue that even the most seemingly random of occurrences are in fact entirely our fault; no matter what we
Do humans actually exist or are we part of the imagination of some greater being? Do we imagine each other?
Do humans actually exist or are we part of the imagination of some greater being? Do we imagine each other? If there is a great power capable of producing all things within its own 'mind,' and if this is indeed the nature of the universe, then this would be the only 'reality' in 'existence'. The world would be 'mind stuff,' this would of necessity include humans. However, it seems that this great power would have to impose laws on such a creation, 'natural laws' we might call them. Human minds would be individual minds within the great universal mind. Controlled by the laws, all humans would seemingly be guided into a general recognition of things in the way the great power required. Thus, if it was required that all humans should recognise, or believe in, a material existence, then so be it. Each human would recognise other humans, and would come to understand what was meant by 'life' and 'independence,' we would all 'exist' within this 'reality.' As we would all be products of this super power, then such a power could impose anything it chose on the world, including 'free will' for humans: or, if it wished to keep control then our lives would be 'determined.' Alternatively, if this super power was capable of producing 'actual' 'matter.' then it might create a 'material' world; everything, including humans, would be 'real' in the solid sense, real 'material' objects. It
A) Explain Augustines theodicy (25marks)
Explain Augustine's theodicy (25marks) St Augustine (ad 354-430), both Augustine's theodicy and his argument concerning evil were both originally based on the bible. Augustine himself had many beliefs, one of his main beliefs was that god had made the world and when making the world he had made it free from flaws. He believed very strongly that god is good, omnipotent and omniscience. As he believed for god to be these things he had a problem which was, if god is good and omnipotent and it was god that created the world why is there evil in the world? He solved this problem by saying that god is responsible for the evil in the world by defining evil as "privation". By this he means when we use worlds like "evil" and "bad" we are saying that something does not meet our expectations of what it should be like ( by nature). Augustine wrote that evil is not a substance but is in fact an absence of kind feelings. Augustine also said that god can't be blamed for creating evil himself that occurs in the world. As he said that in fact evil comes from angels and human beings who chose deliberately to deny and disobey what God had taught them, by turning away from him and what he had wished for mankind. Augustine believed that every human being was an offshoot of Adam and hence that every single person in the world is guilty of evil, this is as it was Adam who committed ultimate
What is the Mind?
What is the Mind? Determining whether the mind is part of separate from the physical world is a difficult task. There are several opinions and views working for both sides, but in the end, it seems that nothing can be proved. One can easily argue that the mind must be part of the physical world. Everything is easier to interperate if it is within a world that we understand. Scientists can conquer the physical world, and we would like to believe that everything revolves around this, as it allows us to find explanations for everything. Accepting that the mind is not part of the physical world would thrust us into the unknown, and we would find ourselves in a situation where we are clueless. People have never liked to be clueless about anything, and therefore they try to avoid finding themselves in that situation. Therefore, it is easier for them to accept the physical existence of the mind. Those who believe that there is only physical matter, is a materialist. According to materialists, all mental states are simply different brain states. This means that different neurons fire at different times, and therefore form different states- bringing on different feelings and emotions. A situation often supporting this theory would be that of pain. When we feel a pain, we immediately think that the pain is in the actual body part where the pain was inflicted. The thing that
`I know God exists, because I have an idea of perfection Discuss whether knowledge can be gained without using sense experience
`'I know God exists, because I have an idea of perfection' Discuss whether knowledge can be gained without using sense experience The argument for God's existence often prompts debate, and provides contrasting responses. The idea of perfection is often described as a state of 'completeness and flawlessness' Rene Descartes's 'trademark' argument for the existence of God is likened to the existence of a clothing brand designer. The 'Trademark' analogy claims that by searching one's interior deeply they will find the concept of God implanted within them. This is likened to finding the name of a designer on an item of clothing. The implications of this are that if this is the case, the argument for the existence of innate knowledge is relatively strong. The presence of knowledge of God's existence prior to experience would suggest that innate knowledge is achievable. The existence of innate knowledge is a view held by rationalists, whilst Empiricists are strongly against the existence of this particular kind of knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is reliant on a claim about the world, which can only be true. The view that, "we know only what our experience teaches us" is one held by many Philosophers in the empiricist school of thought. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is derived from and checked against sense experience. What we know or knowledge can be defined as a