Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error?
Does Descartes manage to defeat scepticism and leave room for human error? Descartes believes he has defeated scepticism by acknowledging the idea that there clearly and distinctly exists a being that is 'independent and complete'1- God. He finds it necessary to demonstrate the existence of God in order to seek knowledge of things other than the assertion 'I am thinking, therefore I am'. Descartes highlights that there is a contradiction in saying that God is a deceiver because that would imply that God is malicious. Furthermore Descartes says that within him is 'a faculty of judgement'2 of which he is certain has come from God. Thus for Descartes God would not give him a faculty that would make him capable of error. Despite these observations Descartes acknowledges that we are capable of error. The latter seems inconsistent with the previous statements. Since God is not the source of human error Descartes works on finding an alternative explanation. Descartes says as humans are not supreme beings they are prone to making mistakes. Thus human error is not due to God but due to the fact that they are defects. In other words God has not given me a faculty that makes me go wrong, it is just that my 'faculty of judgement' is finite unlike God's. However it is incomprehensible that a perfect creator does not create something which is perfect. If God has the power to make me
Compare and contrast rationalist and empiricist approaches to human nature.
Compare and contrast rationalist and empiricist approaches to human nature. In order to compare and contrast the different approaches to human behaviour that the rationalist and empiricist have, it will be necessary to look at several psychologist and their theories. It is most important to first look at the main differences in the approaches that rationalist and empiricist take and secondly to look at the theories of Rene Descartes (1596-1650): Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): John Locke's (1632-1704) and lastly an overview of the thoughts of: Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Rationalism is Latin for 'reason' and in science it means 'do not trust your senses as they can be misleading'. Rationalists do not trust senses and put their faith in mathematical proof. In psychology rationalist believe in the 'mind' and innate qualities. Rationalism tends to thrive in France and Italy. Empiricism is Greek for 'experience' and in science means 'trust your senses'. Empiricists use observation, facts and experience to guide them on what can be known. In psychology empiricist believe that all behaviour is explained in terms of learning through experience. Empiricism tend to thrive in England, Ireland and the USA The first modern psychologist, Rene Descartes was also a French scientist and mathematician
Outline the arguments for and against life after death?
Outline the arguments for and against life after death? Questions of life after death have intrigued the dawn of mankind for millennia. This is one of the fundamental questions that none of us escapes. At some point in every person's life, they must come to grips with a universal principle - all living things inevitably will die. Even in the brilliant and celebratory moment of our conception, we are already cloaked in the mantle of bodily death, and we know it. Although much in life has changed over the centuries, when it comes to death and what happens after, we are little different than our ancestors. Although modern medicine keeps many of us alive longer, death inevitably holds away. Then like previous generations, we find ourselves face to face with that which we cannot control or understand. Most people do believe that there is some type of existence after the physical body is gone, and one good explanation for this is that there is no compelling reason not to believe it. What would be the point of going through this sometimes very hard life if we were just going to be reduced to dust after all is said and done? Whatever we believe about death (and what happens after death), its inescapable nature is not in debate. But knowing that death is a universal requirement does not end our predicament - it only pushes our need to understand what life is all about, what its
How, if at all, does the Cogito help to ground our knowledge securely?
How, if at all, does the Cogito help to ground our knowledge securely? The Cogito is the name given to the famous statement Descartes considers of which he is sure of its certainty: cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am". In the Meditations, Descartes actually uses "I think, I am", but this is practically indistinguishable from the former, which appears in Descartes' other main works. Descartes considers that the Cogito to be indubitable, and that he is able to use it to ground his knowledge securely. The Cogito, however, can be said not to be as wide or as useful as Descartes considers it to be. Its apparent indubitably may be said to be one way of securing some knowledge, but it is likely to be the case that the only knowledge which is actually secured is that contained within the Cogito itself. As the Cogito is such a simple proposition to make, Descartes himself commented that anybody could have written it. Its simplicity flows from its clear self-evidence: when one reflects on the proposition, one is thinking, and thus one can neither doubt that one is not thinking nor not existing (at least as long as the proposition is being considered). For this reason, it can be said to be very effective at securing knowledge of oneself: even if a sceptic were to claim that the malicious demon could influence the mind as well, Descartes could reply that even if he were to
What kind of claim is, 'cogito ergo sum'?
What kind of claim is, 'cogito ergo sum'? The Second Meditation sees the development of Descartes' arguably most famous claims, 'cogito ergo sum' translated as 'I am thinking therefore I am'. The question about what kind of claim this is has been of heated debate since its establishment. Previous to the Second Meditation Descartes has established that he must doubt everything. In response he asks 'So what remains true?' at the beginning of the Second Meditation. The very fact that he is thinking about doubt establishes for him that he exists necessarily, for as long as the demon continues to deceive him 'he will never bring it about that I am nothing'. In other words as long as the demon is allowed to deceive him, it implies that he exists. At this stage Descartes establishes that 'I exist' but refrains from making judgement about what this 'I' is. Also he says this 'I' only exists as a thinking thing and not in any material way, which continues to remain an uncertainty. Thinking is 'inseparable' from existence for Descartes, for it does not depend up on the senses as previously thought. He had come to realise whilst sleeping that there were many things that he appeared to perceive through the senses, which he afterwards realised he did not perceive through the senses at all. This thing was 'thinking'. Thus this is inseparable from 'I'. The fact that 'I think' does not
"How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?"
Daljit Malli "How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?" When reading this poem we can clearly see the difference between the way that Gittings portrays the fox and the way he describes Darwin and human presence on the island. The fox is portrayed as a beautiful, natural creature throughout the whole poem and Gittings talks as though he is awe of it, "Demurely as a pennant furled, Signal of peace and self won ease." The imagery set from this extract is very modest and beautiful, "pennant furled" being a flag rolled up in a curl. Flags mark territory as would the fox's "brush", but it is at ease. It is almost as though the fox is sitting at ease and peacefully; knowing that it's territory is marked. The reference to other animals such as, "Spear flight of a wedge of geese," is still very harmonious, although metaphorically Gittings is portraying is the arrow shape and speed that the geese fly in, spear flight is a fairly noiseless speed. It is certainly not as disturbing to the island and its residents as Darwin and his crew, both with the noise that they make and their un-natural presence, as Gittings later remarks on. "Kin to nothing on this desolate coast." Here Gittings clearly shows that Darwin and his men should not be on that island or that they have no natural reason to be. There is a fair amount of reference
"How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?"
Question 7: "How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?" Largely free of production constraints, short, experimental and deliberately shocking, Un Chien andalou is considered by many to be one of the most notorious expressions of surrealism on film in the last century. At its most radical, the surrealist movement asked us to rethink fundamentally our preconceptions about cinema; to challenge and subvert. The film allowed the rapid entry of its two young directors, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali, into the Surrealist movement. Films of this movement had been unsuccessful (for example, those of Man Ray and Antoine Arnaud) up until this point; Robert Short explaining that 'Part of the trouble was that Surrealism meant automatism - absolute fidelity to the voice of the unconscious unsullied by rational intentionality. And filmmaking cannot do without forethought, rehearsal and a certain technical expertise.'1 Bunuel himself clarifies that the film's plot is the result of a "conscious psychic automatism', and, to that extent, it does not attempt to recount a dream, although it profits by a mechanism analogous to that of dreams.'2 The surrealists were greatly influenced by Sigmund Freud, the Austrian founder of psychoanalysis. They were especially receptive to his distinction between the 'ego'
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time?
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time? When answering the above question we must analyse the nature of personal identity over time. The problem of personal identity is problematic, as we need to analyse and distinguish what exactly makes a person. We firstly need to distinguish between the body, the brain, personality, the mind and the soul. Some of these provide better identity criteria than others, as the existence of such entities as a soul are hard to prove. The two main groups we can identify a person under are that of a physical identity, and that of a psychological or mental identity. We must also be aware of the distinction of numerical and qualitative identity. The two forms of identity are both problematic when relating them to personal identity. Numerical identity requires us to be numerically exact when comparing two people over time. If we assume that a person is fundamentally a human body then we would use numerical identity to determine if we are indeed the same person we were five years ago. Biologists would perhaps suggest that we are simply a complex series of matter brought about by evolutionary processes. Our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the complex matter of our brains and there is no distinction between our thoughts and our bodies. Our brains are simply parts of our bodies,
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood.
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood. How a person judged their environment and formed their opinions justified their existence. He began to question how anyone could know anything for sure, if no one was certain of the reasoning behind it. Descartes began to doubt and disbelieve everything in order to ascertain the truths of the world. He formed the notion that, perhaps, the physical world did not exist, but was rather an image created by a powerful and malevolent demon in his mind. He was of the opinion that humans knew very few truths about their world, given that they held to traditional assumptions without questioning the integrity of these common-held beliefs. This lead to Descartes questioning the divine appointment of the King, from which Descartes' effect on the French Revolution becomes apparent. Whilst he lived between 1596 and 1650, over one hundred years before the Revolution began, Descartes' belief was carried through to become a fundamental aspect of the Revolution; questioning the King's right to govern as the sole autocrat. Descartes held that by means of questioning alone, certain self-evident truths would become apparent from which the remaining content of science and philosophy could be derived. Through these truths, the remainder of the physical world
"The body soul distinction is a myth derrived from philosophers such as Plato" - Discuss.
"THE BODY SOUL DISTINCTION IS A MYTH DERRIVED FROM PHILOSOPHERS SUCH AS PLATO." DISCUSS BY OWEN CLAYTON January 9th, 2003 Page 1 of 10 Questions that have plagued mankind for, it seems, almost as long as our existence are ones that cannot be answered in this life. " Will I survive death?" "What am I?" "Am I a unity of the spiritual and the material?" -Traditional church doctrine - "Or am I a mind/soul in a body?" -Typically Plato. There are several different views on the existence of the mind and body, exploring the existence of the mind alone, the body and mind in harmony, the body and mind separate but not linked and so on. Here the following paragraphs describe the main theories behind the body/soul distinction. In order to successfully debate this statement, one must define myth. Aetiological Myth is what is used to try to explain certain events in story form, the Tower of Babylon for example. Normal English usage is a distinction between true and false with myth representing a story, which is made up, e.g. a fairytale. There is no technical usage for the word myth in philosophy, each field of study has its own meaning of the word. The modern usage of the word does not have an inherent link between myth and falsehood, its merely a way of thinking about phenomenon which supersedes modern logical scientific thought, it exceeds the boundaries of time and Page 2 of 10