I thought we could do with a laugh, but it is to do with innate ideas and stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLPyPJTwEC4&feature=related
watch from about 6:50
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
God and evolution, the meaning of life
The Meaning of life
I am thinking that humans as a species are only a link in a chain - at the end of the chain will be the ultimate knowledge of the 'meaning', but in order to get to that stage we need to evolve, evolve to something greater than human.
When the meaning is finally found by one thing, this ultimate meaning will give that thing ultimate knowledge, with knowledge comes power and with power brings the ability to be good, so basically a new 'God' shall be created....this is the only explanation i can give to how the God that is here now exists.
Once the new God is created, the old God (the one present) will die, however - its not really a death as the new being that is God will have all the same powers that God has so surely can be called God?
We say that shakespear lives forever due to his stories....he’s not physically living....can this not be the same with God...the powers stay the same, the being changes?
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Reason and Experience: Introduction
Where does our knowledge come from? How do we acquire it? Epistemologists argue about what knowledge is – ie what its necessary conditions are. Is it, for example justified true belief? What properties must a mere belief have before we can count it as knowledge?
Epistemologists also argue about whether knowledge is a unitary concept: is knowing that Obama is the US president the same kind of thing as knowing how to swim or knowing your neighbour (knowledge by acquaintance)? But the arguments we are concerned with are about the sources of knowledge.
No doubt a great deal of what you know has come from other people (friends, parents, teachers) telling you things – ie testimony. Some people think they know things as a result of revelation – it has been revealed to them by a vision, or voices or a miracle. We might argue that our own memories can be a source of knowledge for us. But the main arguments traditionally have revolved around the claims that rationalists have made for reason as the primary source of knowledge, and the claims made by empiricists for experience as the only true source of knowledge.
On the whole, empiricists argue that none of our ideas come from reason alone, whereas rationalists argue that some do. Rationalists concede that much of our knowledge depends on sensory experience, but insist that the true foundations rest on what we know by reason alone.
Rationalism argues that we can know things by reason alone: thinking can give us truths without help from our senses. The truths of maths and logic are often used as examples. A solitary thinker sitting in front of his fire, with a candle burning by his side – Descartes’ meditator – can discover certain truths in his own mind. His senses may deceive him, he may be the victim of the tricks of an evil spirit, but certain clear and distinct ideas or intuitions can give him certain knowledge. In this way Descartes’ meditator achieved certain knowledge of his own existence and of the existence of God (the cogito argument and the ontological argument). He also discovered in himself innate knowledge of God(the trademark argument). He was then able to use such certainties as foundations on which to build a secure body of knowledge – the existence of the external world, science, etc.
So the twin claims of rationalism are that we can have knowledge without help from the senses (a priori knowledge) and we have a certain stock of innate knowledge or innate ideas (eg God, morality, rules of reasoning). These are separate claims and it is important not to confuse them. We could reject one without necessarily having to reject the other.
Two separate claims can be differentiated in the a priori claim: firstly, that substantive knowledge (facts) can be achieved by pure thought or intuition, and, secondly, that analytic truths can be known without sensory input – they are true by definition. Again, we could reject one without having to reject the other.
Both traditions, rationalism and empiricism, have generally (until the twentieth century) been forms of foundationalism. This is the idea that we justify our beliefs or claims to knowledge by connecting them to chains of reasoning going all the way back to basic foundational beliefs, the ones you can’t go beyond. For empiricists the basic foundation of all knowledge is sense experience – the raw sense data that comes into our mind from the outside world via our five senses. This is the Given; it is immediate, incorrigible, present. Rationalists argue that we can’t trust our senses: they can deceive us, so they cannot provide secure foundations for our judgements; absolutely certain knowledge can rest only on what we discover in our minds by pure thought.
One of the problems for empiricists is to explain how propositional knowledge (knowledge that p) can be built on perceptual experience, which is knowledge by acquaintance. But then rationalists have to explain how it is that we can discover propositional knowledge already in our minds. How did it get there? The problem for both traditions is to explain how something that is subjective and private (sense experience or thoughts) can be the foundation of something that is essentially public and shareable – knowledge.
At the end of the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant tried to reconcile rationalism and empiricism through his idea of an innate conceptual scheme, and in the twentieth century philosophers have questioned foundationalism and the possibility of founding knowledge on private experiences. Various versions of coherentism argue that beliefs are only ever justified by other beliefs: what you belief is justified and rational when it fits into your existing web of beliefs. There are no foundations. This opens the way to relativism about truth and knowledge.
The starting point for all modern philosophy is Descartes’ cogito ergo sum argument in Meditations. It was published in the 1640s at the dawn of the new age of experimental science, which combined observation and experiment with mathematical reasoning – in other words, it combined the empirical with the rational. Particular empirical observations needed to be generalised into theorems, principles and laws of nature. Descartes and others considered that you need the empirical data but you also need to interpret the data in the light of the general, universalisable truths that rational methodologies have discovered. Observation gives us data but reason gives us understanding. So the philosophical debates about reason and experience have real significance for science, for how we interpret the world to ourselves. Empiricists and rationalists have to achieve generalised truths or laws of nature in different ways.
Another key moment was when John Locke, towards the end of the senventeenth century, rejected innate ideas and argued that we are born without any ideas or knowledge- the tabula rasa argument. So, what are the key arguments for and against innate ideas?
Epistemologists also argue about whether knowledge is a unitary concept: is knowing that Obama is the US president the same kind of thing as knowing how to swim or knowing your neighbour (knowledge by acquaintance)? But the arguments we are concerned with are about the sources of knowledge.
No doubt a great deal of what you know has come from other people (friends, parents, teachers) telling you things – ie testimony. Some people think they know things as a result of revelation – it has been revealed to them by a vision, or voices or a miracle. We might argue that our own memories can be a source of knowledge for us. But the main arguments traditionally have revolved around the claims that rationalists have made for reason as the primary source of knowledge, and the claims made by empiricists for experience as the only true source of knowledge.
On the whole, empiricists argue that none of our ideas come from reason alone, whereas rationalists argue that some do. Rationalists concede that much of our knowledge depends on sensory experience, but insist that the true foundations rest on what we know by reason alone.
Rationalism argues that we can know things by reason alone: thinking can give us truths without help from our senses. The truths of maths and logic are often used as examples. A solitary thinker sitting in front of his fire, with a candle burning by his side – Descartes’ meditator – can discover certain truths in his own mind. His senses may deceive him, he may be the victim of the tricks of an evil spirit, but certain clear and distinct ideas or intuitions can give him certain knowledge. In this way Descartes’ meditator achieved certain knowledge of his own existence and of the existence of God (the cogito argument and the ontological argument). He also discovered in himself innate knowledge of God(the trademark argument). He was then able to use such certainties as foundations on which to build a secure body of knowledge – the existence of the external world, science, etc.
So the twin claims of rationalism are that we can have knowledge without help from the senses (a priori knowledge) and we have a certain stock of innate knowledge or innate ideas (eg God, morality, rules of reasoning). These are separate claims and it is important not to confuse them. We could reject one without necessarily having to reject the other.
Two separate claims can be differentiated in the a priori claim: firstly, that substantive knowledge (facts) can be achieved by pure thought or intuition, and, secondly, that analytic truths can be known without sensory input – they are true by definition. Again, we could reject one without having to reject the other.
Both traditions, rationalism and empiricism, have generally (until the twentieth century) been forms of foundationalism. This is the idea that we justify our beliefs or claims to knowledge by connecting them to chains of reasoning going all the way back to basic foundational beliefs, the ones you can’t go beyond. For empiricists the basic foundation of all knowledge is sense experience – the raw sense data that comes into our mind from the outside world via our five senses. This is the Given; it is immediate, incorrigible, present. Rationalists argue that we can’t trust our senses: they can deceive us, so they cannot provide secure foundations for our judgements; absolutely certain knowledge can rest only on what we discover in our minds by pure thought.
One of the problems for empiricists is to explain how propositional knowledge (knowledge that p) can be built on perceptual experience, which is knowledge by acquaintance. But then rationalists have to explain how it is that we can discover propositional knowledge already in our minds. How did it get there? The problem for both traditions is to explain how something that is subjective and private (sense experience or thoughts) can be the foundation of something that is essentially public and shareable – knowledge.
At the end of the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant tried to reconcile rationalism and empiricism through his idea of an innate conceptual scheme, and in the twentieth century philosophers have questioned foundationalism and the possibility of founding knowledge on private experiences. Various versions of coherentism argue that beliefs are only ever justified by other beliefs: what you belief is justified and rational when it fits into your existing web of beliefs. There are no foundations. This opens the way to relativism about truth and knowledge.
The starting point for all modern philosophy is Descartes’ cogito ergo sum argument in Meditations. It was published in the 1640s at the dawn of the new age of experimental science, which combined observation and experiment with mathematical reasoning – in other words, it combined the empirical with the rational. Particular empirical observations needed to be generalised into theorems, principles and laws of nature. Descartes and others considered that you need the empirical data but you also need to interpret the data in the light of the general, universalisable truths that rational methodologies have discovered. Observation gives us data but reason gives us understanding. So the philosophical debates about reason and experience have real significance for science, for how we interpret the world to ourselves. Empiricists and rationalists have to achieve generalised truths or laws of nature in different ways.
Another key moment was when John Locke, towards the end of the senventeenth century, rejected innate ideas and argued that we are born without any ideas or knowledge- the tabula rasa argument. So, what are the key arguments for and against innate ideas?
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Survival
Derek Parfit (Oxford) has argued that it is not personal identity that matters to us. Why should we care if what survives of us is or isn't the selfsame person as previously? (The police and the insurance company and the Inland Revenue might care, of course). So what do you want to survive of your present self 1) into old age, 2) after death?
Parfit's point is partly that something of us can survive - not enough to satisfy your interest in immortality, perhaps, but something, for a time. Not even in your own continuous consciousness, perhaps, but in the thoughts and memories of others. "What will survive of us is love", Philip Larkin said in a lovely poem ("An Arundel Tomb"). Not just love, though: also, the way we may have affected the world, influenced others, etc.
Would this be better than nothing? What would you prefer: that you survive your death as a disembodied consciousness or that tangible effects on the world or on other people continue without you?
NB Get ready to revise Reason and Experience.
Parfit's point is partly that something of us can survive - not enough to satisfy your interest in immortality, perhaps, but something, for a time. Not even in your own continuous consciousness, perhaps, but in the thoughts and memories of others. "What will survive of us is love", Philip Larkin said in a lovely poem ("An Arundel Tomb"). Not just love, though: also, the way we may have affected the world, influenced others, etc.
Would this be better than nothing? What would you prefer: that you survive your death as a disembodied consciousness or that tangible effects on the world or on other people continue without you?
NB Get ready to revise Reason and Experience.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Mars Teletransporter Thought Experiment
You're in a hurry, so you take the quick route to Mars. You enter the cubicle on Earth and every cell of your body is (somehow) recorded and the information transmitted instantly to Mars, where the cells are replicated. The original cells on Earth (ie your body) are annihilated. A qualititively identical thing steps out of the cubicle on Mars. Is there numerical (quantitative) identity between the you that entered the cublicle on Earth and the one that steps out of the cubicle on Mars? Is it you?
Because all the cells of your body have been replicated, including brain cells, the assumption is that the new body will have all the thoughts, memories, etc of the old one. There is psychological continuity.
What are your intuitions about this? What can a thought experiment like this really show or prove? Would your intutions be different if the original body were simply replicated, but not annililated, so there is now one "You" on Mars and the original still on Earth? Perhaps one could have a conversation with the other.
Would your intuitions be different if what your thoughts, memories, etc were replicated in on Mars wasn't physically identical (qualititively) to your body - if it were more obviously a machine, if the medium were different but the content the same?
Because all the cells of your body have been replicated, including brain cells, the assumption is that the new body will have all the thoughts, memories, etc of the old one. There is psychological continuity.
What are your intuitions about this? What can a thought experiment like this really show or prove? Would your intutions be different if the original body were simply replicated, but not annililated, so there is now one "You" on Mars and the original still on Earth? Perhaps one could have a conversation with the other.
Would your intuitions be different if what your thoughts, memories, etc were replicated in on Mars wasn't physically identical (qualititively) to your body - if it were more obviously a machine, if the medium were different but the content the same?
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Itunes
I was just looking on iTunes and found the iTunes U section in the menu, if you go on this there appear to be many different video's on philosophy for free, the on that I have found is from the Missouri State University and is called PHI: Introduction to Philosophy - Lecture videos.
Just in this selection is some video's on empiricism and Dualism as well as other's, i'm sure there are many more to find,
hope this may be of some help and hope everyone's having a easter,
Matt
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Fun Logical Mathematics
Here is something some one sent me that is indisputable mathematical logic :D:D
Caution:
This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint.
What make 100%? What does it mean to give MORE then 100%?
Here is a little mathematical formula that may answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Then:
H A R D W O R K
8 + 1 + 18 + 4 + 23 + 15 + 18 + 11 = 98%
K N O W L E D G E
11 + 14 + 15 + 23 + 12 + 5 +4 +7 +5 = 96%
A T T I T U D E
1 + 20 + 20 + 9 +20 + 21 + 4 + 5 = 100%
B U L L S H I T
2 + 21 + 12 + 12 + 19 + 8 + 9 + 20 = 103%
A S S K I S S I N G
1 + 19 + 19 + 11 + 9 + 19 + 19 + 9 + 14 + 7 = 118%!
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and attitude will get you there.
Its Bullshit and Ass Kissing that will put you in over the top.
Hope you enjoyed :)
Friday, 27 March 2009
Determinism Essay
Right i started this a few hours ago, it is quit difficult etc.
so lets help each other?
I can't be the only one surly?
How are you planning on righting it? Do you even plan it?
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Free Will?
I was just thinking.
Free will, can it be applied to love?
These days people tend to have many relationships before they find 'the one' a lot of those will be choices from free will.
But when you do fall in love (your you think you have) surly that is against all free will and it just happens?
You can not help who you fall for.
It was just a small thought running through my mind at work thought i would post it and see what you thought of it.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Philosophyish
Earlier today in philosophy, some of you were saying that you wanted my iphone info, so the number is 07762794706. And my email on my iphone is graeme.franklin@yahoo.co.uk.
if you also put down your emails and phone numbers then we can more easily contact each other for things e.g. philosophy, because we aren't always at a computer able to use the blog, eh?
Do you approve Mr Nutbrown?
if you also put down your emails and phone numbers then we can more easily contact each other for things e.g. philosophy, because we aren't always at a computer able to use the blog, eh?
Do you approve Mr Nutbrown?
Monday, 23 February 2009
Just a thought on free will
I was just thinking, does God really have free will if he exists?
It has been said that due to God knowing what humans will do in the future we don't have free will. However, as God knows everything surely he also knows his own future, therefore discounting his ability to have free will himself, which in turn makes it impossible for him to be all powerful as you need to be able to have free will to be all powerful.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Essay on Reason
Just a reminder of the essay to write over half-term:
Can anything be known by reason alone?
Please do not make your essay a mere series of separate points. State your conclusion and then pursue a line of argument, incorporating counter-arguments and making reference to well-known positions or examples - eg Descartes. Use the textbook.
Can anything be known by reason alone?
Please do not make your essay a mere series of separate points. State your conclusion and then pursue a line of argument, incorporating counter-arguments and making reference to well-known positions or examples - eg Descartes. Use the textbook.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Notes
Im typing it some notes, and there was a quote, " Without impressions, conception would be a blooming buzzing confusing." WHO THE HELL SAID IT ! i cant find it any where ?
Friday, 23 January 2009
Definitions
As no one else has posted apart from Graeme, I have taken it upon myself to do whatever possible to increase our knowledge of philosophy, starting with the basic definition of the word 'Philosopher', here are two different arguments for what the word means.
1. A student of or specialist in philosophy.
2. A fool who torments himself when alive to be remembered when dead.
Now I don't know about you guys but I am liking the thinking behind definition two.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Philosophy Questions
I have nothing else to do at the moment so i thought i would find some interesting philosophical questions:
1) Can you prove to me that you are not figments of my imagination?
2) What is being?
3) If life is predestined, is there such thing as good and bad? Can you punish someone who did not chose to do something, but did it because someone decided that they would do it at the dawn of time?
What do you think?
Also, heres a link to some funny philosophical questions. http://aproposofnothing.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/a-few-philosophical-questions/
With exams coming up we could all do with a good laugh :D
1) Can you prove to me that you are not figments of my imagination?
2) What is being?
3) If life is predestined, is there such thing as good and bad? Can you punish someone who did not chose to do something, but did it because someone decided that they would do it at the dawn of time?
What do you think?
Also, heres a link to some funny philosophical questions. http://aproposofnothing.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/a-few-philosophical-questions/
With exams coming up we could all do with a good laugh :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
