Hume On Empiricism The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that we do. We can most certainly make inferences based on causal reasoning, but these inferences have no proofs.
Primary qualities o... ... middle of paper ... ...would see things the way they appear and would know what they are. He also doesn't believe in an external mind. Berkeley believes that God perceives us knowledge, which I do not think is believable. John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers that believe in different things. They have things in common such as the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience.
Descartes argues how can anyone be sure of something and that what we believe may not be entirely true or correct. He argues that the mind and body are two different aspects entirely, the mind is thinking and the body is extending and the two aspects are completely different.... ... middle of paper ... ...ves that our senses will determine our existence, how does having the ability to see or touch determine that we currently exist without thinking about it? It is the mere fact that we have thought about how we can see and touch determines our existence, because we used our minds doubting our senses as proof. I will also explain which of them is more relevant as a means to gain insight into local and contemporary life in general. The role of Professor McLaughlin's sceptic is to introduce certain 'sceptical hypotheses', hypotheses which imply the falsity of most of what we believe about the world.
Whether reasoning can expose truth is determined... ... middle of paper ... ... that can ever be certain is a philosophical idea called “Solipsism”. This theory determines that the only thing that can be known for sure is the self. I can be sure that I exist, and that I think. However, this theory also has its complications, because there can only be one solipsist. Therefore, there is no means of proving this hypothesis.
To the empiricists, our mind is a blank slate when entering the world and only through experience are marks left on it. Empiricists are content with believing in conclusions that are probable rather than absolutely certain (Lawhead). Our sense experiences may not provide complete certainty as rationalists would like, but it is all we have to go on. Empiricists are against the speculation that rationalists tend to make. Empiricists believe every idea, concept, or term must be tested by tracing it back to an original experience from which it was derived (Lawhead).
You might ask yourself, “What are the things that are in this certain world?” Well, basically everything that is not the mind is considered to be part of this world. Lastly, skepticism are against the idea that you can know things from the material world, therefore they believe that you cannot be sure about anything that you perceive. In “The principles of human knowledge” George Berkeley responds to the skeptics view about the external world. As we already talked about, skepticism is against the belief that you can know anything because even saying that you “know” something is a big contradiction itsel... ... middle of paper ... ...intellect, nothing will be able to exist without a mind. If minds did not exist to perceive things then how could anyone know anything?
In this paper I will explain why Stace’s argument fails, more specifically his approach to inductive reasoning. In doing so, I will also dispute Stace’s proposed thesis that the only things that exist are minds and sense data; his denial of the existence of material objects. Stace reasons that when one uses deduction to prove the existence of unperceived objects, it results in two assertions about the object that turn out to be inconsistent when held in conjunction: object X exists now and that it does not exist when no one is experiencing it. Stace then goes on to explain why reasoning by induction does not result in a justified reason to believe in unperceived objects as well. His argument goes something like this: To reason from induction, one must have “found certain observed cases true that will also be true in unobserved cases.” According to Stace, this also fails because there are no observed cases of an unobserved object.
Finally, the faculty of sense perception is an entirely passive ability to receive ideas of physical objects. As one does not have any control over such ideas, it follows that the ideas must be produced by some external source (ie: a body itself). Descartes also suggests that other bodies must exist if a non-deceiving God exists. For a non-deceiving god wouldn't allow Descartes to believe that something exists if infact it wasn't real. As to whether Descartes believes other minds exist is a question left unanswered.
(Lock 2010)However rationalists such as Popper reject the idea of relativism as he believed that unless all individuals shared the same framework of basic knowledge, there could never be agreements made. (Benton 2001) From a conceptual relativism viewpoint Philosophers can give their opinions regarding speci... ... middle of paper ... ...s to be very time consuming as a greater depth is sought. (Bryman 2004) In conclusion conceptual relativism sets out to explain the world in term of the human mind to construct realities, and is concerned with truth and knowledge and radical Social constructionism is concerned with the idea that a variety of phenomena’s are socially constructed. This is then linked with the idea of radical anti-realism in relation to reality and the validity of science. Both are definitely problematic for any claim that the social sciences produce reliable knowledge for if knowledge is only meaningful to one group how can that have the same meanings to another group each individual sees the world through their own glasses so each and every individual holds a different opinion and no one opinion can be correct.
In other words the mind combines and compounds sensory impressions or "ideas" into more complex concepts building it's conceptual understanding. There was skepticism in the empiricist position mainly from the rationalist orientation. Locke recognized there was no guarantee that all human ideas of things genuinely resembled the external objects they were suppose to represent. He also realized he could not reduce all complex ideas, such as substance, to sensations. He did know there were three factors in the process of human knowledge: the mind, the physical object, and the perception or idea in the mind that represents that object.