Descartes asked himself

Descarte’s conclusion is that because there is thought, he can be said to exist. In opposition to sceptical argument that suggests that we may not exist at all, Descartes reveals that regardless of anything else that can perhaps be denied, our thinking posits an existential being and so identity that can be deemed as evidence for our existence. In this he separates body from mind; physical reality from intellectual reality. 2. Hume states ` [t]hat the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise.

` What reasons does he offer for claiming statements such as this? What role does the relation of cause and effect play in his argument? Do you agree or disagree with his skepticism? (Offer a cohesive team response to this last question) Come up with an example that supports your teams views on Humes claims against the validity of induction. Hume rejects the rational method relating to knowledge. His is namely in the way in which a statement matches an event that occurs in experience. That is to say, that events can only occur within experience.

For example, if you were not to experience something then the claim is as valid or as invalid as any other. Essentially, he suggests the empirical method over the rational and that only through falsification (until something is proven wrong) can something be said to be untrue. 1. In statements like `S knows that P` (-Subject- knows that -Predicate-; i. e. : John knows that rainbows are multicolored; where S is John and P is rainbows are multicolored), what do authors like Crisholm claim are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge? What is Gettiers argument against this?

In Justified True Belief accounts, there are three conditions that need to be maintained so that a statement can be considered a truth. This is believed by Crisholm et al as being P is true, S believes that P is true and that S is justified in believing that P is true. However, Gettier suggests that this is not necessarily the case due to essentially arbitrary factors that indicate that the predicate may not match with the knowledge. For example, Gettier suggests that although the claim may be correct, it may not be through knowledge that the statement is correct.

This means that the necessary conditions for knowledge are compromised. 2. What is James’s conception of knowledge and truth? With James and Gettier in mind, discuss and debate with your team-mates what constitutes knowledge and truth. James’s conception of knowledge and truth is that if a belief or statement turned out to be true in its conception, then it can be said to be truth. In this, knowledge is a procedural form in which only outcomes justify the truth of a statement. This essentially means that knowledge and truth are pragmatic and that all that matters is that any statement will come to bear results.

As to how and why these statements have come to be fruitful is of lesser concern as this would be, for James and Gettier, an indulgence of pedantry. Knowledge therefore, is essentially whatever comes to be true, regardless of the particular process used. 1. What is the role of the senses when it comes to forming knowledge in Wells story `The Country of the Blind`? How did the notion of being the `One-Eyed King` contribute to the misunderstanding between citizens in The Country of the Blind and Nunez (Bogota)? How would William James explain this misunderstanding?

In this story, the senses form all knowledge. The story of the one eyed king contributed to the story and in particular the acceptance of Nunez as he thought that the people could learn and be better civilised had they utilised his ability to see. However, this failed as they depended upon only their own knowledge based upon sightless experience. James could have explained this by neither of them having the same experience. 2. Descartes attributed the `I` as a thinking being found in the mind. What is the relationship between the mind and the body for Descartes?

How does Dennett explain the complications of having such a view in `Where am I? ` In your reasoned opinion, who or where was the real Dennett? Descartes ‘I’ is indicative of a split between the mind and the body. This duality can be understood in terms of the mind as a non-physical, intellectual entity, which forms the existence of the being. Whereas, the body is the physical vessel in which the mind is bound, but not informed. However, Dennet argues that the intellectual being is in direct relation to, and has an impact upon, the physical being in terms of shaping it.

In this sense, we can perhaps place the identity of Dennett within the discourse of evolutionary debate, seeing his body as his experimental agent. 3. Briefly discuss and justify the correct choice for the following logic questions: (a) There is a country where the only inhabitants are `truists`, who always tell the truth, and `falsies`, who always lie. Mary lives in this country and she states `Robert and I are both `falsies`. ` What can be deduced about Mary and Robert? A. Both Mary and Robert are `truists` B. Both Mary and Robert are `falsies` C. Mary is a `truist` and Robert a `falsie`

D. Mary is a `falsie` and Robert a `truist` E. Nothing can be deduced from the information given D. Mary cannot be a truist if she calls herself a falsie. Therefore, she must be a falsie. However, if she is a falsie, then she must lie about Robert otherwise her statement is true. This means that Robert is a truist. (b) A Cretan says: `All Cretans are liars` Is this statement true? No. Nothing can be said of other Cretans. (c) The Monty Hall Problem The Zahir is an ancient gold coin probably worth millions. It is either in my pocket, my right hand, or my left hand (exclusive use of or).

Lets imagine you pick it to be in my pocket. Now that you have made your initial choice I further reveal that it is not in my left hand. Do you have a better chance of getting it if you switch your choice to the right hand? A. No. B. Yes. But I will stick to our original choice, the pocket C. Yes. I will switch to the right hand C. From a probability based perspective, there would be more chance of it being in the right hand as the odds are reduced from a one in three chance to a two in three chance. (d) Some laborers are construction workers. Some construction workers are female. Therefore, some laborers are female.

Is this an example of a valid argument (a valid syllogism)? Choose the best answer. a. Yes. The conclusion being true guarantees that the premises led us to the appropriate conclusion. b. Yes. This a situation where we clearly obtain a true conclusion from true premises, thus the argument is valid. c. Yes. It has the ring of truth, so it must be true. d. Yes. If we have two premises: `Some A is B` and `Some B is C`, then we can always conclude that `Some A is C` e. No. Although the premises and the conclusion are true, the form of the argument does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion from true premises.

D. 1. Caso states “Man is not a factum, rather he is the possible direction of a process, and at the same time a task, an eternally luminous goal that hovers above natural man. Man is rebirth. ” Explain and illustrate what he means by man [sic, human] in relation to the concepts of individual, person, personality, spirit, and culture. Caso implies that man or human is not a static agent of action in relation to life. That is to say, that man does not have a fixed or bound identity and uses a goal, whether spiritual or culturally defined, to direct him or her self towards something.

Essentially, Caso is suggesting that humanity and human activity (culture) is an individual enterprise taken up by the many constraints in which the human subject finds him/herself. 2. What does Ramos contribute to these concepts (particularly that of ‘personality’)? What does Ramos mean when he states that “Personality is experienced as a coherence or unity throughout the conduct of the individual…Personality is not…a fixed spiritual structure, representing an a priori form of action. ”? Illustrate via a carefully chosen example.

Ramos is indicating here that personality is not given in birth or by prior design, but is learned and adapted throughout the subject‘s experience in life. Furthermore, he is also suggesting that it is through the experience of life itself, that the subject comes to identify and realise its self in relation to culture and the larger physical and social world in which it inhabits. 1. Sor Juana suggests that philosophy may be best done in the kitchen. What arguments does she offer to support her claims about women’s education and rational abilities? (Offer a concise analysis of her premises and conclusion)

Sor Juana offers something of an early discourse regarding the emasculation and subjugation of the female experience to the male experience in her time of writing. She offers something of a critique in relation to the discourse of sin revealing that rational thinking had placed the onus of sin upon the notion of the objectified female in such notions as whoredom. In revealing the disparity in relation to the sinner (a male), she revealed the inequality that lay in the role of the female in religious and social thinking of her time. 2. In “La Conciencia de la Mestiza”, how does the issue of ‘nepantilism’ affect la mestiza?

How is this reflected in the writings of Sor Juana? Is the conflict solely a gender/race issue? Or is it more? Analyze the question carefully and provide concrete examples from both sets of readings to support your answer. In La Conciencia de la Mestiza nepentalism affects Mestiza in terms of identity as she is torn between her sex, her sexuality and her race. However, this transcends to such social issues as class and language. In the same veign as Sor Juana, the experience and identity of Mesitza is compromised across a degree of dominant discourses that deny her or demand her sub-ordinance in order to progress.

However, in many examples throughout the text she confronts such divisions making it clear that they should be approached in terms of discourse rather than used as artificial boundaries to define specific groups. Bibliography Sor Juana, `The Reply to Sor Philotea` and Anzaldua, `La Conciencia de la Mestiza` Caso, `The Human Person and the totalitarian State` Ramos, `Toward a New Humanism` Gettier, `Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? ` James,`Pragmatisms Conception of Truth

Sample Essay of PapersOwl.com