Take-Home Final Exam Questions - Assignment Example

Potthast Modern Philosophy 3 May Take-Home Final Exam Questions (Spring Why does Berkeley believe that thereis no such thing as material substance? According to Berkeley, all our knowledge depends upon sensory experience, specifically our actual vision or perception of things. All that we ever see are the qualities of an object that our faculty of vision is capable of sensing. Hence, it implies that any given thing is a mere bundle of perceptions or the summation of its perceived qualities. There is nothing out there that we do not have some perception of. Furthermore, since things like ‘substance’ or ‘matter’ is never perceived or sensed, it cannot be said to exist. And if ‘substance’ does not exist and only sensed qualities are real or all are sensations, then only thinking or as Berkeley says, spiritual or mental beings exist, for according to him, it is impossible ever to think of anything except as related to a mind. 3. Why does Berkeley believe it must be God (rather than material substance) that is the cause of our perceptions? Since any given thing is a mere bundle of perceptions, we know that physical objects exist since we can perceive its qualities. However, this raises a problem when it comes to things that we do not perceive. How then do we justify the things that do exist yet are not being perceived by us? Berkeley says then that there are other finite minds, and are therefore perceiving those other things that exist, but apart from my finite mind or that of other finite minds, there must be something or someone who is responsible for guaranteeing order in our sensations and perceptions. Moreover, something cannot come from nothing; hence our finite minds must have originated from a creator. And since all human beings are always preoccupied from things, there is then an omnipresent mind, which knows and perceives all things. The existence of material objects therefore depends on the existence of God, for God is the cause of the order found in nature and is the cause of the existence of our minds. These ideas, which exist in our minds yet do not perceive, are God’s ideas, which He communicates to us; so that what we perceive through sensation are not to be caused by material substances, but rather, by God. Hence, God constantly gives us sensations in our everyday life. He gives us certain ideas, which help us categorize in an orderly manner all our sensations. Therefore, the continued existence of objects when we do not perceive them is explained by God’s continuous perception of them. 4. Why does Hume believe that causation is not a necessary connection between events, but only an observation of constant conjunction? Hume dismisses the idea of “necessary connection” because first, each impression is a ‘separate experience’, and second, what happens in the past may not ‘necessarily’ happen in the future. And in his dismissal of ‘necessary connection’, it implies that ‘causation’ only happens in the mind and is only due to constant conjunction; meaning we experience a series of events which happen in succession. So, if the idea of necessary connection is seen in our connecting of ideas, then ‘causality’ then occurs only within our minds; it is no other than a psychological law of association of ideas, a mere “habit of the mind”. 7. Why does Kant believe that the existence of synthetic a priori truths is such a big deal? Synthetic a priori truths already contain its predicate in its subject, but are not dependent on experience and are affirmed to be universal truths. By Kant’s analysis and presentation of “synthetic a priori” truths, it enabled him to justify mathematical and scientific principles, which can give us knowledge with certainty, and thereby further extending our knowledge of the world. For example, the mathematical proposition, (1 + 2 = 3); this is classified as synthetic a priori: “synthetic” because “1”, “+”, and “2” does not contain the idea of “3” in it; and “a priori” because it necessarily follows that through the relation of 1 + 2, it must necessarily be = 3, and cannot be otherwise, thus it is a universal truth. 10. How does Kant argue that reason cannot be employed to prove the existence of God? Kant tries to test up to what extent can the powers of human reason achieve exact knowledge of metaphysical entities such as God. In his fourth antinomy of pure reason, Kant presents both thesis and antithesis. The thesis claims that the world is in space and time, and all things in the universe are subject to causal relations. These things subject to causal relations cannot be sanctioned by an infinite series of causes because if it did, then the causal series of events will not have a beginning. Hence, it will be impossible for things to come into being. But it is evident that things exist and come into being. So it must follow that God – a first uncaused cause, an absolute necessary being – causes the world, together with this causal series of events, and is not separate from the world of nature but is immanent with it. On the other hand, the anti-thesis states that God cannot be the first cause of all things because God is in the world and is thus, subject to the causal series of events where He is determined by the contingencies of the universe. With this, God cannot be an uncaused cause but a Being who is caused. Ergo, God cannot be regarded as the first cause of the world; perfect and complete. This in effect, renders the existence of God as meaningless. Corollary to this, Kant argued that God cannot be thought of as transcending the world of space and time for the fact that the moment God acts presupposes that God is in motion and is therefore in time. And since God is in time, God is in the world and not outside of it. This nullifies the logicalities of a Supreme Being transcending space and time. Given this antinomy, Kant concludes that reason cannot be employed to prove the existence of God, for it leads to contradictions regarding God’s existence. One can prove God logically and can disprove him illogically. Hence, in cases such as this, human reason must recognize its limitations and give room to moral faith. Essay Question: (See Answer below) David Hume sought to define the limits of human knowledge with the help of his empiricism. According to Hume, as far as our knowledge of the external world is concerned, we are limited to our impressions and their corresponding ideas, which manifest in constant conjunction through experience. We have no way of knowing what causes them. We have no such knowledge of whether a God exists, or if an external world exists; these are all products of the workings of the imagination. Our knowledge is limited to our sense impressions and their images as ideas. We can reason with mathematics and logic in relating ideas, but we can never gain knowledge of facts herein; for they do not possess any impressions of which we can experience or sense. Here, Hume makes it clear that any form of metaphysics is meaningless; it is a mere attempt to transcend the limits of our understanding, of which we cannot know. And to top it off, he reduces scientific laws to mere psychological laws of associating ideas. Since science uses causal laws, it cannot provide objective grounds or empirical explanations of physical phenomena, or even accurate predictions of the future; for we cannot be certain that what holds for the present will still continue to hold in the future. Indeed, we assume that the regularities found in nature will occur, based on past experiences, but the truth is, we have no rational basis for such. It is in this regard that our knowledge seems doubtful. Herein is where Hume’s empiricism leads towards skepticism, for if our knowledge of the external world and its regularities are all but doubtful then we are left with nothing but our own sense perceptions and feelings. So then can we be certain that the future will resemble the past? Kant sought to find a middle ground to this dilemma by reconciling the two opposing traditions. For him, a reign of rationalism leads to dogmatism while empiricism leads to skepticism. So Kant sets out his thesis on human knowledge. In his view, the mind is an active lawgiver, which imbues organization and structure on the objects of experience. Now in conjunction to his view, knowledge is a cooperative enterprise between the perceiver and the object being perceived. That is to say, knowledge of a given object can only be attained with reference to the subject. Without the subject, knowledge of the object is impossible and without the object, the subject cannot procure any form of understanding. In other terms, knowledge of objects is dependent on our minds. Without our minds, knowledge of such objects becomes meaningless. In line with this argument, Kant declares knowledge of the phenomenal world can only be possible through a cooperative affair between our senses and reason; otherwise knowledge of reality becomes impossible. Without our faculty of sensing then our minds cannot receive any objects. Thus, our categories of the mind will become useless theoretical constructs. Without any object, our minds cannot apply its categories to secure knowledge of a given object. On the other hand, without our faculty of judging, then our senses cannot make any sense of any given empirical object. In this light, Kant concludes that in order for us to arrive at knowledge, there must be a union between our senses and reason. Without such affinity, knowledge will be void. This illustrates Kant’s attempt to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. Given Kant’s solution, if what he sought for was a middle ground, then I don’t think he was successful. I think he was more akin towards the rationalism, since fundamental to his philosophy is his a priori categories of the understanding; without such a priori concepts, his entire solution breaks down. He does give way to empiricism by stating the need for experience in attaining knowledge. But it seems that experience only come second to reason; that what is fundamental is a proper foundation for knowledge, which is constituted by a priori concepts of the mind, not of our experiences. Thus, assuming that all we can ever have knowledge of are perceptions, science can still operate with reference to finding regularities in nature, for as long as it does not overly scrutinize the manner by which our experiences affect our beliefs. Our mind assimilates what our perception receives, while creating ideas in the process of assimilation. I find no contradiction with this model. One can remain faithful to empirical theories employed in science, while acknowledging the importance of reasons as a foundation for knowledge. This explication may seem simple, but perhaps what is called for in such a commonsensical situation is simplicity. For commonsense instinctively tell us that physical objects do exist, regardless of our skepticism. And it is through this simple fact that we can thus claim that we have knowledge. Read More