1) A neurophysiologist, while establishing correlations between certain brain functions and the feeling of pain, begins to wonder whether the “mind” is distinct from the brain.
2) A perennial skeptic, accustomed to demanding and not receiving absolute proof for every view encountered, declares that it is impossible to know anything.
3) You can’t legislate morality!
3) You can’t legislate morality!
4) In spite of their stress on the use of reason, some philosophers readily concede that reason has its limits. Is the ideal of reasoning in a purely objective way (i.e., uninfluenced by bias or other factors) really possible? If not, then what?
2) A perennial skeptic, accustomed to demanding and not receiving absolute proof for every view encountered, declares that it is impossible to know anything.
ReplyDeleteI agree on some parts, although I don't think I am a 'perennial skeptic' of any sort. I believe that really, there is no way to determine anything other than my existence as true. For all I know, anything can really be an illusion. Therefore, apart from the fact that it is possible to know of one's existence (i.e. I know I exist for sure), theoretically it is impossible to know anything.
On a more literal sense, however, things (like gravity) can technically be proven. I believe in science, I choose to believe in it, but it is impossible in a sense to get complete proof because it goes back into the 'illusion' aspect.
Melanie:
ReplyDelete"For all I know, anything can really be an illusion."
Okay, you've asserted a proposition. Now, argue for it; you have not done that to this point.
" I believe in science, I choose to believe in it, but it is impossible in a sense to get complete proof because it goes back into the 'illusion' aspect."
What standard of proof is necessary for your to believe something is so? Explain fully.
I will be responding to number 4.
ReplyDeleteI think that reason has no limits. The limits, instead, are placed on the person who is using reason. For example, there is a debate about ice cream. Vanilla ice cream has been proven better, through nutrients and taste. The opposing side favors chocolate ice cream, and says that it is better, but has barely any reason to cover his opinion, but only argues for chocolate ice cream because he is biased towards chocolate ice cream. However, the man that favors vanilla ice cream has never tasted ice cream, is not biased towards any type of ice cream, but is only making his case based on already proven facts that vanilla ice cream is better, nutrient and taste wise. The man who has never touched ice cream before is using reasoning in a purely objective way, only to show that the opinion does not make a difference, but the facts that we have make a difference.
Regarding #3: As it turns out, morality is the only thing you CAN legislate. Think about the laws in our society. What gives them their force if not moral principles? Many of our laws are derived from the general principle that it is wrong to take, as our own, something that belongs to someone else. Murder is taking a life, stealing is taking property, and breaking the rules of the road is taking from society. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteRegarding #1: Some people believe that we as human beings are merely biological machines; animals like all other animals - further evolved yes, but animals nonetheless. They may think that the sum total of our being is the electrical impulses and chemical reactions that happen in our brains; that is, our consciousness evolves from these physical states. And, even though it is true that your brain will activate in various areas when you are thinking about a particular thing, the thought itself is not physical - it cannot be seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelled by the neurosurgeon who cuts your brain open; neither can anyone else KNOW your thoughts using their physical senses unless you use your physical body to make them known.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, if thoughts are not physical, then how could they be born from the physical (i.e., brain)? The idea of getting the non-physical to the physical (if you accept the argument above) is analogous to getting something from nothing. What are your ideas about this matter?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor number 2 (sorry, I found a grammar error in my previous post)-
ReplyDeleteI know that I believe that I can prove the skeptic wrong. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, you can't because in your own mind (therefore not in your real life), because you believe that you can't prove anything.
Well, p-slam, you can't actually prove what you believe/are thinking about. Someone would have to go into your mind to do that. For all we know, you could be lying or some celestial being could be changing your words before they even come out of your mouth. Of course I can't prove that the celestial being is actually there, but that just further proves the point, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete