Problems of philosophy - Essay Example

?Problems of philosophy Introduction The fearless efforts by philosophy to trend even those grounds which are fearedby other disciplines have rendered it susceptible to unresolved issues. As a philosopher, one will realize that its ability to accommodate almost every idea from whatever person makes this even worse. Therefore, it can be deduced that philosophical problems do not exist far from the mere lay sense. These serious philosophical problems are compounded together and assigned either questions or names in line with the reasoning behind every method. This synthesis has afforded, the would be untenable, categories of philosophy to be managed easily and vividly in their respective assigned topics. These topics, among others, are; logic, epistemology, metaphysics, theology, aesthetics and ethics and in this paper I am going to shown how each of the readings of units 8 though unit 12 has dealt with at least each of these problems. Unit 8A is Interview with Spinoza/ David Brahinsky In this interview we get the opportunity to list to an interview between David Brahinsky and Spinoza. Baruch Benedictus Spinoza is counted among the greatest rationalists of the west. The discussion starts by Spinoza being given an opportunity to talk about his religion and he is categorical in stating that he became non-religious when such an idea was rare in the society. Although later in the discussion we see him stating that reasoning can be boosted by the understanding of the divine itself and for that case the divinity of God. His rationalism as a topic of philosophy is expounded by his strong belief in the power of reason, thought and logic. According to Spinoza reason can impact our thinking and lives and these include also our emotions and spirituality. This is where his metaphysics meets with his rationalism and we see even his interviewer being interested in the way Spinoza’s ideas have been incorporated in the constitution of the current United States. What also strikes is his disbelieve in duality and he holds hat there is nothing like body and mind, just like there is no superior mind which watches over us. In this speech the writer tries to expose all what Spinoza held dear in his philosophy although there is a leading voice in the way he conducts the conversation and most of the ideas discussed are in line with the writer’s right wing in philosophy. Unit 8 Dialogues Of Philonous and Hylas Readings: Gill, 257-275 In this dialogue, Berkeley launched a discussion through a dialogue between two men; Hylas and Philonous. The idea of epistemology kicks off the dialogue with both men discussing critically their nature of experiences on how things come to be known. The argument is hinged on metaphysics, specifically seeking to explain the ultimate nature of reality; immaterial and material. As a branch of philosophy, metaphysics seeks to examine the world and the basic tenets of being and in its rudimentary form; it seeks to answer two fundamental questions: what is there and what is it like. Therefore, the way we define object is the import and subject matter of this problematic branch of philosophy. Back to our conversation between Philonous and Hylas, another problematic topic is deployed as a means of justifying metaphysics. This is none other than epistemology which seeks to define knowledge, the way it is acquired and the way we know that we possess such knowledge. Both men in this dialogue, therefore, attempted to justify their metaphysics epistemologically, an approach which could be the easiest for these two intertwined topics. This use of epistemology becomes therefore an approach to trying to solve the problem of answering the questions; what is there and what it is like. It is agreeable that Philonous represents a wise philosopher and teacher because of his clear reasoning and authoritative assertions. Hylas is as if being treated to a lecture which is evident in the way his questions are being responded to by Philonous and the way he is taken through a logical parapet of arguments to the conclusion. Right from the onset and through the dialogue, the reader may think that the discussion is stagnant and a quick judge could talk of who is fooling who when one argue with a fool. In his materialistic ideology, Philonous dismisses the idea that material or matter exists against the chagrin of some philosophers, Hylas included. On the other hand, it is important to note that in the discussion, that Hylas has it that the concept of matter is the one which explains best our experience. Philonous stand is that it is impossible to come out of our minds in order to prove that matter exists but we are sure that mental entities exist. It is after the dialogue becomes almost irresolvable that Philonous brings what we can call a magic wand and talks of a universal mind to fill the gap of inconsistency and agreement of impressions. Actually at the end of the dialogue, material idealism defended by Philonous seems to take home the winning trophy but wait, should we say that there is nothing like matter? Of course no. As we saw in the introduction, metaphysics and other topics of philosophy are made problematic and irresolvable because of the fact that, philosophy gives each a chance to explain its point and does not in whole draw clear conclusion of which way is true. As a result it is held that no argument in philosophy is devoid of value and that every idea is correct and right in its own respect. Therefore, it can be argued that Philonous’ argument seemed as if conclusive simply because of the position he took as a teacher and the driver of this dialogue thereby being in a position to logically control the discussion. Philonous’ final statement and mention of all knowing being puts a stop to this dialogue since that takes the subjects to a higher level of knowledge beyond their conception and understanding- metaphysics. Unable to solve the inconsistency of the matter at hand, it is as if Philonous went up a tree in a wrestling match. Unit 9 A -Interview with Kant with Dr. David Brahinsky The interview between Immanuel Kant and David Brahinsky is equally striking and interesting as the interviewer takes us through a series of Kantian philosophy. Kant is considered the father of ethics and his Kantian Cartesian philosophy which is believed to settle the long standing dispute between rationalists and empiricists. He therefore espouses idealistic philosophy. Kantian ethics is based on his categorical imperative that one should act not according to his emotions but to what is his/her duty. For instance we should not lie because by doing so we are implying that everyone should do so. His metaphysics is also the authors concern and he enquires from Kant what this meant to him and he agrees that we ought to act as if there is God. He reasons that the idea of God makes us more complete as human beings. So the problem is what breathes complete life in us, the idea of God or God. While that is debatable also, Kant is less likely to resort to this abstract idea of God when pushed in the corner just like others. Unit 9- knowledge and causality – David Hume: Gill, 69-83 In the unit eight, we are treated to a situation whereby Berkeley, impersonated as Philonous escaped the long discussion by introducing the idea of God whose presence can not be experienced. Unit nine gives almost the same dramatic discussion of a topic in philosophy where two minds are trying to reason. In this unit, David Hume’s steadfast is based solely on experience and he holds to this line of thought until the end. This interview introduces impressions and sensations in both direst and indirect ways. According to Hume, ideas can only be understood when we ask ourselves the source impression of the idea and this will reveal its validity. This is a deep empirical venture where the author analyzes that any idea, which is not derived from a direct sensation, is compound or just a matter of imagination. David Hume, in his preposition put a boundary between what would be referred to as ideas and impressions. It is clear that from different feelings we reflect on ideas and this is true based on experience. For instance feelings such as happiness, sadness, pain and so on are products of reflections from ideas. Impressions on the other hand come from sensations and reflections since it is an actual occurrence of the mind. Hume also presupposes that interior and exterior materials make up what we know as materials and therefore the interior is driven by ideas and the exterior by impressions. This way, the author seems as if trying to link the empirical with the idealism. Hume being a radical empiricist, plays with the problem that inheres in this topic by assuming that all our knowledge is derived from our experience and this position disputes that of Berkeley who hold that we can not derive from our own experience our own thoughts and thus it is never possible to know what is outside our experience. He therefore believes that verifiable knowledge is impossible and that logically derived results like that of mathematics, which are based on relation of ideas is worth calling knowledge. At last the author leads the character of Kant to a realization that although science seemed much convincing, there is a need to conjure up an idea of epistemology which would later give it more protection. In what can be analyzed as a matter of fact the author elucidates two kinds of thoughts that inhere in us namely experience and pure logic. These he calls ‘matters of fact’ and argues that it is from the facts we know that we derive our reasoning. For instance we can derive that incase we come across some human remains in the course of our mining explorations, we conclude that by cause and effect people lived in such a site one time. Our experience is the only source of what we know. This idea is justified by the fact that we can only refer to what we call cause and effect as two parts of a single entity. The only difference is placed by time frame because the effect comes after the cause just like the means versus the end. For instance; from the heavy clouds comes the rain but not vise versa. Therefore we can ask our selves, what causes the rain? A simple direct answer would be clouds but this is also subject to discussion. For this case the necessity of connection may be disputed because such a connection, though expected and a fixed, can not be confirmed by our senses such as taste, hearing, seeing and so forth. This means that this connection inheres from our minds and can not be verified through our sense. This makes him to imply that metaphysical theories are just as a result of speculations and belief which are not certain knowledge. Hume therefore brings about a very fundamental conclusion that between the stands of Lucretius and the Atomists or Berkeley vs. Descartes there is no winner because it is impossible to prove objectively whether the world exists as a material being or an idea. In conclusion, Hume does not take perception too far because as we understand, everyday is a new experience and it has never become the same day it was yesterday. Since the world is ever changing and everyday we experience a new world, so is our experiences and images. Our minds are consumers who take the changes and every time brings forth new interpretations. Therefore it is not always that where impressions are proven wrong or right, we can prove our ideas wrong. Unit 10= John Stuart mill Gill, 378-390, 490-508. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill is well known for his utilitarian philosophy which thrives in the assumption that the greatest happiness for the greatest good. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in addition to social and moral philosophy which Mills ascribed to. Ethics is an area of philosophy which has proved controversial and where objective conclusions are hard to draw. In this theory, it is clear that what it refers to as happiness must be accompanied with pleasure and thus absence of pain. The idea of pain and pleasure strikes our minds whenever we talk of unhappiness and happiness respectively. John Stuart holds that what happiness or unhappiness produces is in line with the expected results of the product. For instance, we can not be happy when we have painful experiences and so we expect that happiness implies absence of pain and presence of pleasure, whatever pleasure is. Human beings are created in need of gratification and therefore risk important things like life in search for gratification. In this unit Jesus is used as an example when he says that, “Treat everyone as you would want to be treated.” This is the perfection point of utility of simply the perfect utility should the presumption be maintained. The perfect world can only be possible if this rule is made true but it is true that this perfect world is hard to come by. The text raises the argument that it can not be always good for all people all the time and therefore raises doubts on the Christian theory. The appeal of “always treating others as you would be treated” can therefore not be a true theory because it is not applicable or even imaginable in the real world. I am not agreeing with the fact that we must have happiness to be able to give the perfect utility called happiness. In our life experience we have seen people who sacrifice their life for the sake of others. Even Jesus Christ himself sacrificed his life so that humanity can have happy eternal life and kingdom. Going by the Christian view, happiness may not be bought by happiness and this is where there is a contradiction in the way the law is applied and appeals are made. For the early church martyrs we can say that they suffered as they preached the gospel with some hope that the unhappiness and pain, for sometime, will result to eternal happiness in heaven. The book is not for the idea that there is any happiness here on earth because both happiness and pain are inevitable experiences in life. This also raises some ethical concerns when it comes to those people who sacrifice in their life for others. Therefore it should be understood that happiness is more celebrated as an end result than as a means to the pain. For instance; think of an inmate who has been sentenced to hang and has been given freedom to choose all good food there is before he dies. No matter how happy he may seem to be, there is no ultimate happiness in this because the end result is hanging for him. If he were given another option to have his legs amputated then left to live, I am sure he would opt for the latter. Utilitarianism therefore is the anchor for our judgment on what is right and what is wrong and that this is defined by pleasure and happiness for the greatest number. On liberty, Mills argues that society ought to be morally and legally allowed to control individuals and that such control is morally and legally justifies if and only if the freedom of such individual threaten the prevailing peace in a society. Therefore, in case someone is not a threat to other’s freedom, control of such a person is never justified morally and legally. In the freedom of expression and thought, he argues that social entities should be free to express their mind and thought and publish what they wish as far as their actions do not harm others in whatever way. However, this can not be true in the real society because sometimes we are required to criticize especially those in power so as to contain their excesses. This criticism comprises what can be attributed to as a harm, degradation and humiliation for the criticized. If this law is to be adhered to, all media houses would be closed because it is their defacto mission to criticize and bring forth to public the underbellies of corporate companies, governments and powerful individuals who would otherwise exploit their subjects unnoticed. It is also notable that it is important for people in a society to be free to be themselves in feeling of wellbeing or happiness. Unit 11 Karl Marx (Gill, 509-430) In this unit the book analyses Marx’s ideas as a philosopher and activist and for this case the book looks into his materialism. Materialism is a direct opposite of idealism, just as in the binary opposition’s duality theory, and it is claimed that Karl Marx reduced human beings into tools like hues and spades. He held that humanity lies in ones labor and that when one person controls another one’s labor, he is controlling his humanity. The book outlines Marx’s contribution in what he called material conception of theory. Metaphysical materialism is used by Karl Marx to relate to human social life. Since Marx believed that we think the way we work, he values economic activity over human nature as humans are controlled by their urge to work. Marx also holds that we are also controlled by the ruling class, which has economic and political power. The book focuses on the Marx’s theory of alienation and in the book he sees workers alienated from their work in four different ways. However this argument is flawed since right from the beginning our actions inheres in us, it is not us who inheres in our actions and therefore alienations from work does not in any way imply dehumanization. In his usual corrective stance, he delineates what he considers the sickness of industrial society and its inevitability in life. In his usual grudge with capitalism, Marx held that capitalist benefits the rich and the middle class in the society. He held that this capitalistic ideal will self destruct and pave way to socialism where workers will take over and the society will be rendered classless. Although we do not see Marx favoring communism, he hated capitalism dearly and dreamt of a social revolution which would overthrow capitalism in a ruthless way. In his atheistic nature, Marx held that, The more a man attributes to God the less he has to attribute to himself. This is emphasized by another analogy where he analyzes that the worker will end up forgetting himself if he puts more hours on the object. The more time he puts in the object, the less he allocates into himself and this to self alienation. This also touches therefore on theology and he alienates God from human being terming religion as the opium of the masses. Reasonably when Marx reduces human values to material things he opens a Pandora’s Box for himself and at last we see him contradicting himself by stating that human nature is not inherent in human labor. Unit 12: Baier's arguments concerning the need for care in ethics (Gill, 509-430) Unit 12 is dedicated to ethics as conceptualized by Baier, a philosopher who has contributed much to ethics. It is her research which is discussed in this book where she draws attention to the way men and women conjure up ethical issues. She posits that men and women are different in the way they conceptualize ethics. In her analyses on these, she holds that men think in terms of obligation, justice and equality and women on the other hand, think in terms of care, love, responsiveness and this is never included in ethics. The issue of who thinks what may be a subject of discussion but what strikes is the way she underestimates empirical experiences and ideas which are inborn. It seems she approached the subject with a feminist view rather than using a broader view of humanity. She continued to propose a new concept for ethical theory which she called appropriate trust, and she postulated that this theory bridges the gap that exists between reason and feeling. So can it be derived that she supports Plato who held that men are guided by reason and women by emotion? While this is debatable, it is very clear that she attributes two different characteristic one for feelings and passion and the other more logical and reason oriented. It makes sense when she states that for our moral will to function well, we not only need to feel obligated but care about others. I hope this is the difference between the motherly love and fatherly responsibility towards a child. She expounded on the Aristotle and Stuart Mills’ concept of happiness by reasoning that if we leave care out of morality, we would lead a bleak lonely life. As stated before, Baier expresses a lot of discontent with the male moral philosophy which is short of love and other attributes which are woman specific. This implies that to her the moral philosophy has never been representative of the social expectations. In her thinking Baier proposes what she calls an attempt to fertilize the thoughts of others and come up with a new moral philosophy (Gill 427). This new moral philosophy will benefit both man and woman because it will be inclusive of their expectations. This philosophy will be based on trust which means making oneself more vulnerable than one might have been to other’s harm (Gill 426). Conclusion Problems of philosophy, it seems, are here to stay because the more one gets into trying to solve one, the more he seems to introduce more problems to the subject. As stated, there is no single way or theory that can be objectively accepted as giving the best answer to the question of reality. For empiricists, they put forward a thesis that knowledge comes from the senses, but have no any verifiable way to show that knowledge does not come from ideas. The same applies to metaphysics; which is the escaping ground for that which can not be conceptualized in human mind. Much as ethics can not be objective, and this is undisputedly argued by Baier, no single explanation can do for the reality because it keeps changing as we change people, places and time. Works Cited Gill Jerry. The Enduring Questions.7th ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2001. Print. Read More