David Hume’s account
According to Hume, causality is only a collection of consistent mode of perceptions. Casual relations are neither matters of idea nor fact but only a sense of habit that arose from experiences. Since it is neither an idea nor a fact, it cannot have any rational justification and does not fall under the category of knowledge. We have come to believe that casual relations are justifiable and considered as knowledge because these things, the causes and the effects, have been embedded into us as habits.
Through our experience, we have come to associate a certain cause from a certain event because of the frequency of its happening although it cannot be justified. (3. ) What is Immanuel Kant’s doctrine of transcendental idealism (and please explain how it allegedly reconciled elements of empiricism and rationalism)? Kant’s doctrine of Transcendental Idealism follows that the mind contributes experience to the world and that the mind is also capable of knowing the limits of knowledge and attaining experience using both perception and cognition.
Transcendental Idealism is composed of both the ability of the mind to know the limits and attain experience. The ability of man to know his limits via the things that he knows is grounded on empiricism – making man a suitable measuring device. On the other hand, the ability of man to acquire experience in the world through his innate ideas is grounded on rationalism. Hence, the definition of Kant’s Transcendental Idealism is basically a combination of both empiricism and rationalism. (4. ) Where is Dennett?
Please answer using Hamlet, Yorick, Fortinbras, Hubert and so on, as appropriate, and support your answer in terms of any of the arguments raised and philosophies of mind discussed in the on-line lecture on the mind. Dennett is both in Yorick and Fortinbras because Yorick is where his original mind is and that Fortinbras, although only a replacement of Hamlet, can be perceived in the same fashion as Hamlet by Yorick. On the other hand, Hubert should not be considered the same as Yorick because the former is only a machine.
Following Searle’s argument, Hubert only simulates Yorick’s capabilities and that it can only serve as Dennett’s extension. Although they follow the same consciousness and have the same memory, Hubert can still not be Dennett. Following Kant’s critique of Hume about the prerequisite of judgment in defining a mind, Hubert only contains a collection of ideas and things, and its so-called judgments are only predetermined decisions arising from past processes. What Hubert possesses is only a simulation of judgments by Yorick, and they are not judgments per se but are mere simulations.
In addition to this, Hubert does not have, what Hume called, an imagination. Now although Fortinbras is only Hamlet’s substitute, it would be Yorick’s job to shape it as Dennett pleases. Using Chalmer’s Property Dualism argument, we could see Fortrinbas as having consisted of both a physical and experiential component. The experiential component tackles the probability of Fortinbras being shaped upon Dennett’s wishes (through Yorick) while having that exterior difference with Hamlet.
(5. ) Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language is bound up in what we collectively and socially do with it, that is, language is an essentially public and norm-guided phenomenon. As a result, Wittgenstein argued that we could not possibly have a private language that is unique and unlearnable by anybody else. Do you agree; and, if so, why, and, if not, why not? Historically speaking, each different dialect coming from a certain culture will adopt, through time, a universal language.
This is due to the universal need for understanding, add to that the fact that communication tends to move in a global direction. Another argument would be that, taking the “Beetle Box” example, assessing a certain sense about mental states is logically impossible given that behavior alone could not precisely picture it. In that case, the only way to comprehend it is to apply a publicly used definition (or language) that could be applied by everybody. Subsequently, all roads to comprehension will now lead to a public language.
(6. ) In arguing for the elimination of the mental in favor of the material (eliminative materialism), Paul Churchland offered at least three arguments in support of his view. Please select one of Churchland’s arguments and defend or critique it. Churchland’s meta-inductive argument grounded on the history of science as replacing commonsensical ideas to empirically adequate theories only takes into consideration its contemporary features but not its process of conception.
The history of science was not grounded from purely empirical evidence on the start, rather, it was grounded on observations and hypotheses based from pure reason alone. Taking it from the context of the scientific process, theories start from mere observation – a feat that does require the mental. Physical figures used as empirical evidence in science do not speak to us right away of the theories they may behold. It is up to the mental to grasp these figures and shape it into theory. Hence, the mental is still needed to form facts.
As an addendum, it is much better to apply Chalmer’s Property Dualism (which treats information, or in this case the physical figure as having consisted of both a physical and experiential state) because it gives the physical figure added depth that would link it with pure reason. (10. ) Imagine that you are a district attorney for a large city that has enjoyed a fairly low crime rate. Unfortunately, a crime wave has recently begun because of the efforts of one man, a brutal and brilliant master criminal who has yet to face a successful conviction.
He is involved in everything from illegal drugs and prostitution to armed robbery and murder for hire. When he has been arrested and brought to trial, either the evidence is insufficient or witnesses end up unexpectedly rich or dead. Oddly enough, a murder has been committed and all of the evidence points to the brutal and brilliant master criminal, but the master criminal didn’t commit the crime. You, and only you, know that the master criminal couldn’t have committed the crime because you know who really did it and it wasn’t the master criminal.
In fact, you, and only you, know that the real murderer is now dead, so the real killer will not live to kill again, and you suspect that you could successfully prosecute the master criminal for the murder precisely because he didn’t actually do it! If the master criminal really did commit the murder, he would most definitely have covered his tracks better. If you were to successfully prosecute and convict the master criminal, you would most likely bring the crime wave that is currently afflicting your city to an end.
Would prosecuting the master criminal for a crime you know he didn’t commit be justified on act utilitarian grounds? Please explain your answer. Utilitarianism teaches us that whatever would benefit the world is considered as moral. In the case presented above, I chose to prosecute the master criminal because that would eventually end the mass hysteria that has been formed by the crime wave. Even though I really knew that the alleged criminal did not have a hand on the series of crimes, the masses have prosecuted him by themselves through their hasty judgment.
Letting the criminal free would just cause panic to the masses. It could even be considered as a ground for them ousting the administration who freed him. It could even destroy trade. Letting the criminal free does not only strips us of benefit but it can also destroy the state and, using the context of utilitarianism, the deed would be judged as immoral. Prosecuting the criminal on the other hand would ensure peace and safety throughout the state, and this would be acceptable in utilitarianism.Sample Essay of PapersOwl.com