Week 8.

Philosophy can reach nearly every corner of life in our world, so we should not make an exception for religion. I believe philosophy in religion happens every day, in every church, temple, atheist chat room...we just do not refer to it as "philosophy in religion." For me, philosophic arguments are a time when we need to take our emotions out of perspective and try to view the bigger picture. This is almost impossible to do with religion because, for most people, religion is their emotions. Philosophy has the capability to expand our view of religions across the world, but we have to open our eyes.

A strong philosophical argument is capable of changing our opinions on reality, space and time, knowledge, and even our minds. However, one concept that seems to stay constant throughout the changing tides of philosophy is religion. Faith, while having no reason, is a large part of believing in a God-like being. Therefore, a passage from a textbook or a classroom discussion would not change a true believers (such as fideists) perspective. I do, however, think that philosophy of religion would help certain agnostics and natural theists. For those that are still waiting on something bigger, or more relatable, philosophy opens the mind up to thinking about God in a way that can be sometimes shunned.  

Week 6

With all of today's technology, it is hard to differentiate ourselves from our computers. Some philosophers would say that computers are programmed just like their creators: mankind. Is artificial intelligence that artificial anymore? 

John Searle's Chinese Room theory presents a valid point. If someone in a room was translating Chinese script, it would appear to the people outside as if the whatever was in the room spoke and understood Chinese. However, that is not necessarily the truth. We can be taught (or "programmed") how to do something without actually understanding in full detail what it is we are doing. 

Take multiplication for example. In second grade, we are taught our multiplication table through charts, worksheets and even songs. We learn our "twelves" simply by memorization, then we use that memorization to reason what the next multiple must be. We do not add 12 + 12 + 12 + 12+ 12 to get 12 times 5 every time we need to come to that conclusion. We know it because the process has been "programmed" into us by our second grade teacher. 

Here is where that theory comes to a halt:

Certain things cannot be programmed. We are not programmed to react a specific way to a kiss, or a fight, or a song. Every reaction can be different and random, every time to each person. Those feelings certainly cannot be programmed into a computer or artificial life source. 

And here is where that theory turns right back around:

As a species in a highly cultural society, we are automatically programmed by hundreds of years of traditions and morals. Humans are programmed to know right and wrong, even though parents do have to enforce it. That can almost be compared to a software tutorial. Sometimes the hard drive can go bad when it comes to having morals, but it is generally the same in everyone. We are programmed to want to accomplish something in our own lives. Whether that be succeeding in a career, having a family, or robbing a bank. Everyone has that ingrained in them from the start. 

I know I have been all over the place on this topic. Are we programmed the same way as computers? I believe the answer is yes and no. 

Week 5

Our culture over the last 2,000 years and beyond has led us to believe our souls live on after life and to do this our bodies and "minds" must be separate beings. Most believe this because that is how is was explained to them by their religion, or maybe they believe it because it is easier than facing a completely physical world. Is is true that if our universe is completely physical, God and other supernatural beings cannot exist? No, I do not believe that is true. However, I am not quite ready to answer the question of how, exactly, God is possible in any universe (dualist or physical). The more we learn about our world and our own bodies, the more a physical approach makes sense. Every action, every thought, every desire can be explained by brain waves, hormones, or basic survival instincts. Every supposed "non-physical event" can be explained by an extremely physical function. This will just become more apparent in the coming years. 

We, as a society, have transformed in just a few hundred years. Transformed from what was a suspicious, almost ignorant, way of living to a open-minded, liberal perspective on topics such as science, religion, and the unexplained. Just imagine for me briefly: if we could make such progress from then until now, imagine the exponential gain in knowledge we will have in the next hundred years. By the time 2100 rolls around, it will be impossible to deny a physical world.

One may ask: how do you explain that fact that our mental life is nothing like the physical world? For example, our consciousness.

I am a firm believer in evolution and I found it interesting that it is completely ignored in this section of my reading. We have a stream of consciousness because over the years we have learned that certain things can harm us. Humans have seen what bad behaviors and actions can lead to, so we have learned to avoid them. The key word being learned. Our brains have become extremely advanced tools and, if given the proper knowledge, we can teach our minds anything.


SIDENOTE: When reading about eliminativism, I couldn't help but think of Spock from Star Trek. Yes, Spock. Eliminativists, much like Vulcans, think our beliefs, wants, and desires are just psychological states that can be reduced to a biological level. They would say: our "emotions" are similar to folklore and are doing us more damage than good. It sounds crazy, but I could see our scientists having a similar viewpoint in just a matter of years. Just a weird, nerdy correlation I picked up.

Week 4

Unlike some of the Pragmatists and Feminist Epistemologists, I do not think that knowledge is a detached activity, or something separate from our selves. Knowledge is constantly happening all over the place, all the time. In our minds, we have no control over knowledge. Yes, it is a pro-active activity, to gain knowledge, but we cannot simply stop knowledge from coming into our lives. That would be similar to saying we could stop the sun from rising and spreading light over the horizon. I would like to agree with Epistemologist, John Locke, in saying that we actively organize our thoughts and ideas to gain knowledge and beliefs. Some ideas may be so simple to us that we do not even notice we are compounding and abstracting them,  but that is because we have years of practice. Also, there is no way knowledge can be detached if the Feminist's "View from Nowhere" argument is false, which I believe it is. Not to dip into Theism, but only a God-like being would be able to see our external world with view free from cultural background or biased perspective. 


My philosophy on knowledge lies somewhere between all of the Epistemologists I have read about over the past few weeks. Here is a recipe to explain my beliefs:


INGREDIENTS FOR KNOWLEDGE:


3 cups of raw sense experience


1 1/2 cups of Locke's "operations"


A dash of primary and secondary qualities


4 teaspoons of phenomena (and noumena if you can find it)


2 slices of intuitions 


1 whole package of instrumentalism 


A sprinkle of the Generic Humanity Assumption (optional)



Mix with Hume's Fork and bake for 2,000 years (or until cause and effect are unjustifiable.) 

Week 3

It is easy for me to agree with empiricists that all of our knowledge comes from sense experience. Someday, I think we will prove that we are born with certain "innate" ideas or prior structures in the mind. For now, though, there is absolutely no evidence that people know anything when they come into the world. 


Let's take my little sister, Sylvie, for example. When she was 3 years old, she burnt her hands on the stove not once, not twice, but three times. The only previous experience she had with the stove was that macaroni and cheese came from it. She had no way of knowing the feeling of a hot pot on bare flesh. No one else's knowledge (my mother's, in this case) can prove to your own senses the truth. So, she touched the stove the first time and burnt her fingers. How was she to know that it was not a one time thing? She needed regularity in order for it to become a certain truth. The third time she finally pieced together the puzzle. This is a silly example, I know, but as adults we do the same thing everyday on a less severe scale. We have to teach ourselves something through our own senses, rather than getting it secondhand from someone else's.


So yes, I believe we get most of our knowledge from the use of our senses. This does not mean that knowledge does not exist outside of our senses though. Before we realized that the Earth revolved around the Sun, before we created the science of Geometry, and before God blessed us with linear equations (sarcasm)....all of those truths were already true. Just because I can add one block and one block to make two blocks, does not mean that those blocks do not still equal two when my senses aren't around. That claim would mean that all math and science cease to exist unless there is someone there to observe. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes, it absolutely does. 

Week 2

A) If I walk over to the table and sit in a chair, the seat will be there to catch my bottom. If the chair is not actually there, I will fall to the ground.

B) If I walk over to the table and sit in a chair, the seat may catch my bottom, but how do I know that something is actually supporting me? I think I am sitting in the chair, but who is to say that something is just making me think my weight is being supported by an object?

Which statement makes more sense? 

Obviously, to Rene Descartes it would be statement "B". Methodological Skepticism bathes all ideas in doubt, until it can raise the idea back up with absolute certainties. Nothing except our own existence is safe from this shower of disbelief. For example: "I think I am sitting in a chair, because I am not on the ground. However, I may be dreaming and actually be lying down in my bed." How in the world are we supposed to apply this form of philosophy to any sort of normal activity? 

Most people, myself included, would say that statement "A" makes more sense. We, as a current people, tend to believe something, anything actually, until we are given some reason not to believe it. No one uses skepticism on a regular basis. For example: If a friend tells you "I am going home to work on my homework," you would have no reason to doubt that claim unless you read on Facebook that your friend was going to the movie theater just five minutes after that conversation. 

Methodological Skepticism is a radical idea, but it really cannot be used in our daily life. Sure, anyone can sit down and reduce all of their beliefs to doubts, but it simply does not make sense to use this as an everyday strategy. This does not mean, however, that this form of skepticism has not shaped philosophy/epistemology over the past 400+ years.

SIDE NOTE: Descartes three stages of doubt led him to believe that the only thing we can truly be certain of is our own existence. "I think; therefore, I am." To what level can we actually be certain of our existence? To be honest, a lot of Descartes writings sound like the junior high school journal of a mad man. So I am going to go out on an equally as insane limb. The fourth stage of doubt: the imagination. How do we know we exist? We could simply be a figment of someone else's imagination. A background to another person's dream. Would there be any way for us to know if we were just a molecular spark in the back of someone's mind? Anyway...just a thought. (no pun intended)

Week 1

After re-reading Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we are reminded how easy it is to choose to see only the surface (or shadow) of things. Can you imagine how many people in our society do not even wish to see what is beyond the shadows, but would rather stay in their comfortable, warm caves? Narrow-minded people (or even people that don't care enough to expand their horizons) are prisoners of their own decision to remain in chains. 

When Plato speaks of these "prisoners" he is speaking of people who are not yet (or choose not to be) enlightened by wisdom. Philosophy is represented by the light, color, and dimension of the world just outside the cave walls. Philosophy (allegorically speaking) freed Plato's prisoners from their chains and brought them to the truth. 

Socrates is right to be pessimistic about life without philosophy, because life without philosophy is ignorance. In Plato's writings, the prisoners who had not yet escaped to see the real world denied the new ideas brought into the cave. Even if we do not understand the true shapes of shadows, if we can admit that there is something more than what we have always known, we have already begun the enlightenment process. 

SIDE NOTE: While reading, I had an odd thought. If you think about it, The Wizard of Oz is a sort of variation on the Allegory of the Cave. Kansas is a "cave" in which everyone sees the world in a narrow-minded, dark perspective. Once Dorothy "escapes" she see starts to see things as they actually are, though she has some resistance at the start. She eventually returns to the "cave" because of the guilt she feels for leaving her fellow prisoners (her family) only to be told that what she saw could not possibly be reality. It totally is the Allegory of the Cave!

Philosophy 100

 I had such a hard time coming up with a name for my blog, so I decided on something silly. I look forward to posting on "Neutral Nonsense" and learning throughout the semester.