Category: Philosophy 1203

My research project aims to give an account of the presence of fairies in modern society. This project work will also examine the significance of fairies in modern society. This subject concerns us because fairies are widely believed to be troublesome to men and women. Fairies would prove the existence of the Devil amongst the human race. Stories told by people that involve fairies raise concern among the Christians as they are viewed as being illustrations of the devil.

The behavior of fairies is described by their activities on human beings. For instance, fairies are associated with the devil and through this, cause natural diseases that would be attributed to demons or demonic origin. Fairies would be compared to devils that have harmful effects on the Christian fraternity. When they possess humans, they raise the blood to levels that would deceive the eyes and other senses. At times, they would visit homes, and their expectation would be to be received warmly by the hosts. At instances where they would not be treated well, profane omen would befall such a family. Some literature works portray them as creatures that would abduct young children and older people in society.

Some of the questions that ring in the minds of people may include issues regarding the true existence of the fairies and their mode of action. Another question would be whether they would be eliminated totally within the human race. Still, another question would be on their relation to the devils an aspect dismissed by Christians.

At first, I will examine fairies in modern settings within the human lifestyle. This will encompass a wide range of issues that would include; fairies painted on costumes, in tattoos, in poetry and in modern literature. The research will seek to interview girls with fairies-related tattoos aiming at determining what they symbolize to them. The research would seek to confirm the views of some writers.

Second, I will encompass issues that perceive fairies as being polite and kind creatures. An example would be the tooth fairy myth that is told in the United States of America. Such tales are meant for the children who would have individual views concerning fairies.

Then, fairies would be portrayed as being sex symbols. This would examine their activities or their involvement on issues that would encompass sex activities. This work will seek to determine what fairies have led to in relation to sexual activities.

Also, I will focus on the perception of Christians on fairies. It will reflect the views on the demons or the devil in reference to the activities of the fairies Christians dismiss fairies and such a study would give reasons for the same practice.

Finally, I will look at the correlation between fairies and ecology. It will for instance determine whether fairy myths still exist. If they exist, then the issue in question would be why they exist and their connection to expression in relation to social identity.

I will analyze to bring out the social psychology of the individuals within the society. This would be on how their feelings, thoughts and beliefs are affected by the activities of fairies. This study would be done to enable the researcher to determine the reflection that fairy tales portray about fairies in various cultures. This would be used as an identification criterion.

Questions are usually used by many people to set the base for an inquiry. Therefore, any constructive conversation must contain some questions. This piece of work therefore tries to explain whether limits should be put to what should be questioned or not. Philosophy is a discipline that is characterized by many questions and any person who can ask a question can be considered a philosopher in his or her own right. A philosopher should not blindly accept an answer without analyzing it critically. At the same time, a philosopher should avoid ambiguity when asking questions but should ask questions that can compel the respondents to think critically when answering them. Russell once stated that in Philosophy as a discipline, the answers that are given to questions are not important but what is important are the questions themselves (Lewis, 81). This dictum is absolutely correct because if a question is not properly presented, the answers to it may not appropriately solve the intended problem. Care also has to be taken otherwise irrelevant may be given to a question that has been properly posed. On the other hand, a person may tactfully ask a question so as to conceal or even reveal an idea. A person may ask a valid question but frame the question so as to be biassed towards a particular answer (Lewis, 81). This implies that the dictum by Russell should be taken seriously so as to pose correct questions.

Philosophy deals with all sorts of questions but more concentration is given to fundamental questions. It deals with questions that can make sense to any individual but they require critical thinking to attempt answering them. One can only attempt to answer philosophical questions but cannot give definite answers to them because there are no specific answers in philosophy. One cannot find answers to fundamental questions by simply applying scientific methodologies or common sense but creative thinking and critical reasoning are required. Many scholars have also found it very difficult to give the same definition of philosophy because it does not deal with any specific subject matter. This makes it very difficult to come up with a specific universally accepted definition of philosophy. Some people have also tried to define philosophy by defining a philosopher. According to Bernard Russell, A true philosopher is not bound by any particular truths that set limits to his/her urge to continue asking questions (Zunjic, 1). This implies that any person who subscribes to philosophical principles should not shy away from questioning beliefs that have been considered to be true by many people.

Philosophy is full of questions and I, therefore, think that there are no limits to what should be asked. Russell described philosophy to be a discipline that deals with vague questions and uncertainties. We get to learn and know more about ourselves and our environment by asking questions. If there are limits to questions that should be asked, many great ideas cannot be generated. If people are free to ask as many questions as they please, they may ask some important questions that can compel the respondents to think critically and creatively. In the process of thinking critically, the respondents may generate great ideas that may be beneficial to a given society or even the whole world. People should therefore feel free to ask any question from any subject because it could be the foundation for developing new inventions.

However, people should always try to ask questions that are relevant to the subject matter being talked about. In other words, valid questions should always be asked to avoid ambiguities and irrelevancies when giving out the answers. Valid questions are those that are within the context matter under discussion. If a question can yield reasonable answers, it is considered a reasonable question. This implies that people should not just as questions for the sake of it but rather employ the use of logic when asking questions.

To some reasonable extent, I agree with people who claim that there are limits to what should be questioned. This is because, if no limitations are put to what should be questioned, some people may question some things that are completely out of context. For example, ignorant people do not usually care about the subject matter and they may decide to ask irrelevant questions. Fake arguments may arise from irrelevant questions and therefore no constructive conclusion can be arrived at in a discussion. Some unreasonable questions cannot be realistically addressed and thus may only result in wastage of time and energy. There are some specific situations in which there should be limits to what should be questioned. In a meeting of board members of a banking institution, questions should be limited to factors that affect the banking institution in one way or the other. In other words, questions should be related to the banking institution in one way or the other. Top management of the bank may therefore give an order that only questions that are related to the banking sector should be addressed during meetings.

Even though I have stated that I agree with some people who believe that there are limits to what should be questioned, I still hold on to my previous opinion. In fact, as a philosopher I have to accept criticism and consider opinions by others. According to Descartes, all false opinions can be prevented by simply rejecting all beliefs that can be doubted. A question is usually asked when a person does not know anything about the subject matter or when the person wants to know more about the subject matter. A person may also ask a question when in doubt about an idea, theory or opinion. According to meditations of Descartes, he said that he found out that he held beliefs that were wrong. He later found out the truth after asking himself very many questions. He started asking himself questions when he doubted what he was believed in.

From meditations of Descartes, there are no limits to what should be questioned. If Descartes did not question his earlier beliefs, he would not have known the truth. If limits are put to what can be questioned, one may not find out an appropriate truth when in doubt. For example, if a question has been asked and the answer to the question given, the answer may not be appropriate and therefore people may want to ask more questions. If more questions are not allowed, people may accept the given answer but with some doubts. Any opinion can either be false or true and therefore one is right when seeking to know more about the opinion. To eliminate unnecessary doubts, there should be no limits to what should be questioned.

On the other hand, one of the characteristics of philosophers is that they accept diversity of opinions. I therefore agree with the opinions of people who may say that Descartess meditations demonstrate that there are limits to what should be questioned. Descartes had many doubts that led to endless questions. One may argue that if every belief is doubted, no truth can be found. For example, when a person is thinking about a certain great idea and at the same time the person doubts whether it is a dream or a reality, the great idea may not be beneficial. It is therefore important to limit what should be questioned and let people trust valid opinions that have been proved to be true. However, the limitations should not be to deny people chances to know the truth but rather restrict engagement in fake arguments.

According to Peirce, valid arguments can be derived from principles of good reasoning. This implies that employing logic when asking questions is very important because logic is one of the qualities of good reasoning. A person who has good reasoning capacity can ask a question that makes sense thus leading to valid arguments. Therefore there should be no limits to what should be questioned as long as a person has a reason to question a belief and can use the principles of good reasoning. All questions start by doubting something. One cannot be forced to hold on to a belief even if there is some evidence that the belief might be false. For example, if people are forced to believe in theological doctrines they may not benefit from the beliefs especially when they have doubts about the beliefs. If the same people are left free to question the beliefs they may find out that whatever they believe in is false.

It is known that some governments around the world imposed policies and ideas on citizens who were not allowed to question the ideas and policies. Citizens who dare question or ignore the policies faced harsh punishments such as death penalties. This was happening many years ago and it led to the rise of dictators to power. Many people lost their properties and lives because of such cruel regimes that put limits to what could be questioned. The citizens of the countries that were ruled by the dictators currently lead relatively better lives after the oppressive regimes have been eliminated. This is because they were not allowed to question bad policies that were used by people in power to benefit themselves. After several decades of struggle of questioning why the regimes were using bad policies, political changes took place and thus democracy is now being embraced by many regimes. With a good democratic space, people lead better lives because they can decide how they want to live.

In conclusion, I still hold on to an opinion that there are no limits to what should be questioned. This is because many benefits have been achieved through asking questions without limits. Just as described by Weinstein, many beneficial political and religious changes have been due to philosophical questions. Religious changes that have occurred allow individuals to practice religions that they believe are good for them. This started when people doubted certain religious beliefs thus prompting them to question the validity of the beliefs. He further explained that abolition of slavery, development in modern science and even liberal education have been because of philosophy, which questioned many aspects in these fields.

Works Cited

Lewis, Stephen. On the Question of Questions. (2004). Web.

Zunjic, Bernard. What is Philosophy? The Value of Philosophy by Russell. (2010). Web.

Introduction

Phrenology has been a subject of heated debate among criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists for more than two centuries. This theory is based on the belief that the personal qualities of a human being can be deciphered from the shape of his or her cranium (Hanen et al, 1980, p. 171). In the nineteenth century, phrenology was regarded as a part of criminological science and its conjectures could be used as evidence. Naturally, they were not conclusive but some people paid attention to them while making their decisions about the suspects accused of legal offenses. Now it is usually considered to be a pseudoscience. The ideas expressed by phrenologists are discredited; moreover, they are usually believed to be dangerous for modern society as they can possibly contribute to racism and profiling. However, there is another side of the argument: some scholars suggest that this discipline immensely contributed to our understanding of the human brain even despite its follies (Simpson, 2005). In this paper, we intend to discuss the origins of phrenology, its major premises, and the methods which were employed. Furthermore, it is necessary to examine its influence on modern scientific thought. Were there any rational points in the beliefs of phrenologists, and if so, are they of any help today?

Origins of phrenology

It should be pointed out that this theory was very popular in many European countries and the United States. This popularity can be explained by several reasons. First, we should mention Charles Darwins theory of natural selection. By identifying similarities in the bodies of various species he marked out the phases of an evolutionary process. However, this subsequently gave rise to the so-called social Darwinism. In part, this philosophical school advocates the opinion that different people or groups may be at different stages of evolution. This hypothesis also suggests that some individuals may have a propensity to crime or violence only because they have subhuman intelligence (Hawkins, 1997, p. 275). This opinion was widespread among many scholars at that time therefore phrenology was met with approval by some biologists, criminologists, etc. Apart from that, we should not overlook the political and cultural situation, which emerged during that period. Many Western-European states pursued colonial policies in Africa and Asia. Social Darwinism and its offshoot phrenology were very convenient for many superpowers because with their help it was possible to call aboriginal nations underdeveloped. To some, this justified conquering many regions and nations of the world (Gould, 1981 p. 115). The same rule can be applied to the US, where some people validated the enslavement of African-Americans by arguing that they did not belong to Homo sapiens. Of course, now these misconceptions are refuted but then they were very deep-rooted in public opinion. Thus, we can argue that the rise of phrenology was due to several scientific and non-scientific factors.

The major principles of this hypothesis were formulated by France Gall who dedicated several works to the study of deviation, crime, behavior, and the connection between the shape of the skull and the character of a person (Ferri, 2009, p. 7). At present they are not treated seriously and no longer belong to the domain of psychology, anthropology, or any other science. However, when this authors works were published they were received as some breakthrough. Along with France Gall, we may as well remember George Combe, Paul Bouts, David George and many others. The range of their interest was rather diverse, ranging from anthropological studies to the theory of education.

Major Premises and Techniques

Now we need to describe the major assumptions of phrenology and the techniques for gathering and analyzing information. In the introduction, we have outlined that these people deemed the study of the human skull to be useful for exploring the inner world of an individual. Yet, such interpretation narrows down and oversimplifies phrenological analysis. According to the adherents of this theory, each part of the human brain fulfills certain functions; it is responsible for instincts and behavioral patterns. They did not give any classification of these psychological notions. For example, they spoke about the instinct of self-preservation, love, inclination to violence, cruelty, envy and so forth (Comber, 1850). Most importantly they stated that these sections or parts of the brain were not equally developed in people and during the span of life some of them could become either weaker or stronger (Tailor, 1998, p. 27). In their opinion, this affected peoples moral values, intelligence quotient, the level of social responsibility, and many other parameters by which we can judge the person. To crown it all, phrenologists claimed that the structure of the cranium showed which of the sections is developed to the greatest extent. Their research was carried out in several directions such as the differences between sexes, races, age groups, etc. But its major application was criminological science. By examining the cranium they strived to find a correlation between the brain and the conduct. At the core, their efforts were erroneous and led to no conclusion. The main fallacy of phrenologists lied in the following: they tried to adjust facts and observations to their theory and ignored those aspects that contradicted the initial hypothesis. With regard to criminological and forensic disciplines, we can say that phrenology immensely contributed to stereotyping. In other words, legal prosecutors could attach importance to their findings but they only distorted the case instead of solving it. Occasionally if not always their arguments were extremely populist: while describing the skull of the alleged crimes they tried to compare it to that one of an ape or even of another animal (Stocking, 1987, p. 69). Actually, this disciple even despite its scientific status involved a great deal of artistic imagination. The most dangerous outcome was that an individual could be labeled as criminal type even if he or she had not done anything illegal. The perils of such an approach became obvious in the nineteenth century and it was heavily criticized by many distinguished scholars. One of them was Emile Durkheim who said that deviational or criminal behavior is mostly motivated by social conditions rather than heredity and genes. Those who were interested in the functioning of the brain noticed striking conflicting data, collected by phrenologists, who were firmly convinced that the brain was constituted by various sections or compartments, which were relatively independent of each other and did not interact in any way. This conjecture was fully disproved only at the beginning of the twentieth century. On the whole, most of their assumptions turned out to be fallacious.

Influences on modern scientific thought

It is rather difficult to assess phrenology from a modern perspective. It goes without saying in many aspects this science was based on stereotypes and misconceptions. This theory has received the status of pseudoscience but in spite of all these drawbacks, it was conducive to the development of neuroscience, especially given the fact that there was practically no study of the human brain before phrenology, and at that point, it was a great breakthrough. This is why present-day scientists should not dismiss it in such a contemptuous manner. Phrenological research also gave rise to such a concept as the topography of the brain. They illustrated that it is not homogeneous in its structure, and this was of great assistance to further generations of psychologists (Simpson, 2005, p. 475). Perhaps, phrenology should be discussed as a link in the evolution of scientific thought. The ideas of many famous scholars and philosophers have been recently criticized or discredited but their importance may not be underestimated.

However, we have to acknowledge that phrenology produced many detrimental effects from both scientific and ethical standpoints. For example, we may remember racial profiling (Gould, 1981). This phenomenon still can be observed in many countries, and in some way, it stems from studies of France Gall, George Combe and their followers, who emphasized hereditary qualities of deviational behavior. Partly, this is the reason why the representatives of some nations or ethnic groups are falsely considered to be potentially dangerous and prone to crime. Undoubtedly, police officers or any other officials never admit that they adhere to this principle, however, many cases are demonstrating that the tenets of social Darwinism and phrenology still exist in modern society.

In a much broader sense, phrenology promoted the study of heredity. This discipline examined correlations between mind and body and later this question was raised by geneticists. One cannot state with certainty whether this impact was positive or negative. On the one hand, genetics enables the identification of the causes of many diseases, and this is of great avail medicine. However, there is another rather controversial side of this issue. Many geneticists maintain that some personal traits may be passed from one generation to another. The role of genes in the formation of character has been briskly discussed by many scientists. Similar suppositions have been advanced concerning the moral development of a person (Cummings, 2008, p. 55).

Some researchers have been conducted in the field of intelligence and IQ. It seems that this approach is somewhat biased: even if there is a connection between the genes and behavior, we should not presume that genes are the most crucial determinant because there are many social factors (the level of education, financial status, impact of parents) which may shape human character and genetic studies seem to ignore them. They share a common mistake with phrenologists by forgetting that Homo Sapiens is a social creature, his or her actions (either legal or illegal) may be motivated by external environment: upbringing, family, school, friends and so forth. In addition to that, their claims contradict the theory of education, according to which, mental capacities (such as talents, intelligence, erudition), as well as moral qualities, may be changed in the course of learning and training. One cannot be born criminal, as a rule, one becomes a criminal. It is quite noticeable that the errors of phrenology have not vanished entirely and some false assumptions enjoy popularity. This shows that the influence of this nineteenth-century theory is still immense.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have tried to describe the development of scientific thought. Phrenology is only one of its stages. This theory arose out of social Darwinism and colonial policies. Although it has been so heavily criticized, some of its premises were productive to neuroscience and genetics. But phrenology also gave rise to the belief that the character of a human being might be formed by the heredity or bloodline, and this view seems to be very perilous and destructive.

Bibliography

1. Combe. G (1850). Elements of phrenology. Maclachlan, Stewart
2. Crook D. P (1994). Darwinism, war, and history: the debate over the biology of war from the Origin of species to the First World War. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
3. Cummings. M (2008). Human Heredity: Principles and Issues. Cengage Learning
4. Ferri. E (2009). Criminal Sociology. BiblioBazaar, LLC.
5. Fikes. T. Evolutionary Psychology as Computational Theory in the Cognitive Sciences. Journal of Psychology and Theology. (29), 4. pp 21-35.
6. Gould S. J (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. N.Y. Norton.
7. Hanen. M Osler (1980). Science, pseudo-science, and society. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
8. Hawkins. M (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American thought, 1860-1945: nature as model and nature as threat. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
9. Simpson, D. (2005) Phrenology and the neurosciences: contributions of F. J. Gall and J. G. Spurzheim ANZ Journal of Surgery. Oxford. Vol.75.6; p.475.
10. Stocking. G (1991). Victorian Anthropology. Free Press.
11. Tailor. J (1998). Embodied Selves: An Anthology of Psychological Texts, 1830-1890. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Introduction

Eternal life, and the value of such an experience  this question has always worried philosophers of antiquity and modernity. Besides, since it is linked with the problem of lifes meaning, the question of immortality is one of the fundamental dilemmas of philosophy. In his article Williams (2010) presents the opinion that immortality is not desirable since the endless repetition of the same experiences inevitably makes life boring and deprives a person of the meaning of life. Bortolotti and Nagasawa (2009) disagree with this view, as they do not believe Williams (2010) has presented enough arguments to defend his point. This paper aims to discuss whether the philosophers were right or not and suggest that changing categorical desires is possible and implies identity change.

Williams Arguments

Williams (2010) argues that immortality is not necessarily good, or is not good at all, and gives the example of Elina Makropulos, a heroine of a play by Karel apek and a subsequent opera by Jana
ek. The philosopher presents the plot, according to which Elina received the elixir of immortality from her father, the Court physician to a sixteenth-century Emperor. Elina lived a long and eventful life, but she decides to die, refusing a new portion of the elixir. The heroine explains her act by the fact that it is not the length of life that makes it meaningful. The heroine also destroys the elixirs recipe not to condemn anyone to the suffering that she experienced. Therefore, Williams concludes that Elina made this choice because she was tired of repeated experiences and because her life lost its meaning.

Bortolotti and Nagasawas Arguments

Scholars Bortolotti and Nagasawa (2009) objected to Williams (2010), pointing out that he was not clear enough about his arguments. In particular, the scholars emphasize that Williams meant that Elina was not tired of life with its fleeting desires, but that she had exhausted her categorical desires, which fill any persons experience with meaning and are part of human identity. Bortolotti and Nagasawa also present a broad discussion about the nature of desire and boredom. Specifically, scientists suggest that the type of boredom that brings about loss of meaning and detachment from ones life ensues in the absence of life goals or failure in pursuing the life goals (Bortolotti and Nagasawa, 2009, p. 277). In conclusion, scientists draw an analogy between categorical and habitual desires, suggesting that immortals may have problems with categorical desires that could correlate with regular boredom.

Inexhaustibility of Categorical Desires

Bortolotti and Nagasawa (2009) would probably agree with the inexhaustibility and infinity of categorical desires, analogous to habitual desires inexhaustibility. However, one must agree with scientists that categorical desires are different from regular ones and are more related to the setting and achievement of goals. Besides, I dare to suggest that, despite the great difficulties that a person may have with the emergence or formation of such desires and their achievement, it is unlikely that such problems can cause satiety with life.

To illustrate my point of view, I will give an example associated with the formation, acquisition, and subsequent change of identity. Throughout life, all people go through stages of growing up, and during these stages, dramatic changes usually occur to a person. That is, there is a change in human identity, which is the key to the search and achievement of new categorical desires, which may be completely different from the previous ones. If humans were unable to cope with the emptiness and hopelessness that arises due to the exhaustion of the meaning of the latest categorical desires, most people would never survive adolescence. However, there are other turning points in traditional human life, including the stage of growing up, a midlife crisis, the onset of old age, and, finally, preparation for death.

Noteworthy, Williams (2010) gives an example where immortality comes along with a pause in growing up. In this way, the philosopher talks about the connection between the absence of physical aging and the changes that determine inner age. On the one hand, there is some truth in this assumption. After all, external circumstances, such as the need to have children and gain independence, and the fear of the bodys aging push people to re-evaluate their categorical desires repeatedly. However, it cannot be said with complete certainty that changes in the physical body and the associated social status changes are the only reasons for growing up.

Many people from childhood have shown the restraint and judgment that is characteristic of old age. Others remain frivolous youths, obsessed with the thirst for life and all its changeable pleasures until the very end. Both the former and the latter experience changes in internal age, which may not be related to physical changes in the body but are due to personal motives. Therefore, the presented play about Elina Makropulos may not reveal the question of immortality. It can instead be a witty, expressive, and vivid illustration of what happens to a person who does not want to grow old and die, experiencing changes in identity. One can also note a particular analogy between identity change and death. Perhaps identity change or growing up is a little death, and we all experience these little deaths many times. Therefore, death may be somewhat similar to the final reassessment of categorical human desires.

Williams (2010) further notes that the change in identity must be perceived as that we are dealing with another person, and therefore, in the presented case of Elina Makropulos, it must be taken for granted that her identity does not change, and thus her categorical desires remain unchanged. However, in this case, it turns out that the conditions of the problem determine its solution. Nevertheless, this is hardly possible in real life, and there is hardly a person who is entirely unable to change. Therefore, the presented case should be perceived as a purely theoretical, artificial example given to reviving the discussion.

Conclusion

Thus was discussed the rightness of the assumption that immortality is undesirable, as it leads to the exhaustion of the categorical desires and the loss of lifes meaning. From my perspective, such a statement is not valid, since it overlooks the inexhaustibility of such desires, and the infinite ability of a person to grow, mature and change their identity. On the one hand, this ability gives life meaning; on the other hand, the change of identity during life is a little death, which is consistent with the statement that death gives meaning to life. Besides, despite the proposed conditions, according to which the personality of Elina Makropulos cannot change, in all likelihood, she chooses death because she does not want to change, and perhaps over a long-life course, she loses fear of death.

References

Bortolotti, L., & Nagasawa, Y. (2009). Immortality without boredom. Ratio, 22(3), 261-277.

Williams, B. (2010). The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality. In D. Benatar (Ed.), life, death, and meaning: Key philosophical readings on the big questions (pp. 345-362). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

The Divine Command theory can be interpreted in two ways. From the Euthyphro Dilemma point of view, morality is either created by God or exists without him and is related by him to people (Carneades.org, 2013). If God is the creator of morality, anything, even murder, can be viewed as right, whereas if it is not, God himself should abide by the rules he places upon people (Carneades.org, 2013). In this discussion, I will try to answer two questions using the Euthyphro Dilemma.

In Abrahams story, he is prepared to sacrifice his son, Isaac, because God commands it. Although the sacrifice never takes place, Abraham leads his son to slaughter (Bible Gateway, 2011b). Bob Dylans Highway 61 Revisited also depicts Abraham as willing to kill his child, although he does question this command (Karen O & The Million Dollar Bashers, 2008). From the Divine Command Theorys perspective, the sacrifice can be viewed as righteous because God demands it. If God commands something, it is good because there is no higher power and no greater good than him. That is the main reason behind Abrahams readiness to burn his son on a sacrificial fire. Nevertheless, if we consider the Euthyphro Dilemma, morality is possible without God (Carneades.org, 2013). It can be argued that the sacrifice God demands from Abraham is unethical. If God did not create the moral rules and should follow them himself, he should not ask his believers to kill in his name.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows that the Divine Command should not always be accepted. In this story, God Abraham pleads with God to spare Sodom and not to punish the innocent together with the guilty (Bible Gateway, 2011a). Abraham questions Gods intentions towards the city, and it is evident that he doubts whether everything God commands is good. As God assures his follower that he will spare the city if even just ten people are innocent, it can be argued that there are specific rules that even the deity should follow (Bible Gateway, 2011a). Thus, the rules of moral conduct are not created by God but by someone else. Overall, one can believe in divinity but question Gods command.

References

Bible Gateway. (2011a). Genesis 18  Common English Bible. Web.

Bible Gateway. (2011b). Genesis 22  Common English Bible. Web.

Carneades.org. (2013). The Euthyphro Dilemma [Video]. YouTube. Web.

Karen O, & The Million Dollar Bashers. (2008). Karen O & The Million Dollar Bashers  Highway 61 Revisited [Video]. YouTube. Web.

Introduction

For one to understand Karl Poppers assertion that a scientific theory is not logically verifiable, it is essential to comprehend the underlying scientific philosophy from his perspective. Popper is considered unique in his outlook among other contemporary philosophers as he accepts the Humean Critique of Induction and seeks to build upon its validity. This particular critique challenges the grounds that we develop our beliefs about unobserved phenomena based on inductive inferences. In plainer terms, Hume questions the logic behind humans making assumptions on the validity of that which we cannot observe, based on the current state of the world.

Main body

Popper extends the Humean critique by arguing that induction is never wholly and accurately used within science. In extension, he refutes the Newtonian insistence on the formation of scientific theories using pure observation. Instead, Popper insists that using pure observation to develop theories is misguided on the fact that all theories are selective. As such, there can be no true theory-free observation. This observation in itself destabilizes the conventional view of many scientific philosophers who held that science is distinguishable from non-science on basis of its inductive methodology. Poppers assertions, however, lead to revisiting a persistent question: What is the distinguishing characteristic of science from non-science?

According to Poppers arguments, there is no unique methodology that distinguishes science from non-science. Science, much like any other human activity, is organic and is concerned primarily with problem-solving. However, if a distinguishing methodology were to be implemented, it would not be that of inference, but rather of falsifiability. This substitute theory of falsifiability is a critical element of Poppers eventual assertion that a scientific theory cannot be logically verified.

Falsifiability is defended by Popper in that it is easy to obtain supporting evidence for virtually any theory. In fact, this accreditation of a theory should be considered if it was positively arrived at from a relatively risky prior prediction that may have turned out false. This entire practice, therefore, constitutes a scientific theory, which as per Poppers argument, is only scientific if it can be discredited by a conceivable event. An extension of this assertion, it follows that a genuine test of a scientific theory according to Popper would constitute attempting to discredit or falsify it; whereby arriving at one genuine instance which counters the initial provision of the theory falsifies the entire theory. Popper presented this theory of falsifiability as a vital step towards the solution of two philosophies, namely the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation.

It would be correct, however, to assert that Poppers theory of falsifiability is synonymous with testability as the latter applies to testing that a hypothesis is incorrect, which is the cornerstone on which Popper based his theory of falsifiability. Based on Poppers assertion of falsifiability being a defining characteristic of a scientific theory, no amount of experimentation can prove the validity of a scientific theory. However, a single experiment can prove that a theory is incorrect. For instance, a contemporary example of a scientific theory would be the hypothesis that Aliens do not exist. Based on Poppers argument, this constitutes a genuine scientific theory in that it can be falsified by the singular instance of observing an alien.

The idea of a scientific theory, in Poppers perspective, is therefore rather prohibitive. This is primarily by implication, whereby the definition of a scientific theory forbids specific events, observations, or occurrences. This nature of a scientific theory based on falsifiability, however, dictates that a theory can be tested and falsified, but it can never be logically verified. In fact, Popper does insist that the fact that a theory has withstood a lot of vigorous testing does not lend to the inference that it is verified. Rather, we should appreciate that the theory has received a great deal of accreditation and can, therefore, be held provisionally as the best available theory until it is either falsified or surpassed by a better theory with higher degrees of accreditation.

A distinction with the philosophy of falsifiability should, however, be drawn between logical verification, and methodological verification. The logic is fairly uncomplicated. For instance, if we observed a single red-colored frog, then it cannot be the case that all frogs are green. Therefore, from a logical perspective, all scientific theories are irrefutably falsifiable despite not being irrefutably verifiable. From a methodological perspective, the philosophy becomes much more complicated due to a seemingly simple assertion; that no experiment is free from human error. This recognition of the fact that no observation is completely free from the possibility of human error, therefore, leads to the much harder question of whether an experimental result is what it ought to be, or even appears to be.

Popper does draw the distinction of logical verification and methodological verification in his philosophy of falsifiability. He allows for the fact that, while a single conflicting instance of a previously held scientific theory is sufficient to logically falsify it, a single counter-instance may not be enough to methodologically falsify a scientific theory. This distinction can be observed in the contemporary application of science, whereby scientific theories are retained and held, despite the fact that there exists available evidence that conflicts with them. This conundrum does, however, lend back to Poppers earlier assertion that there is no unique methodology to science. As such, there exists to single method to a scientific theory, whether that be an inductive reference, experience, and so forth.

This assertion is also one that Einstein agreed with; that there is no single logical path that leads to the highly universal laws of science. However, while Einstein argued that logical paths that dictate the theory of science are arrived at through intuition based on an intellectual curiosity of the objects under study (Billauer, 2016), Popper holds that science starts with problems and not observations. In Poppers perspective, the presentation of a problem to a scientist is what prompts the individual to make observations. These observations are not pure, as Newtonian thought dictates, but are otherwise theory-laden and particularly designed to test a given theory that might provide a satisfactory solution to the problem.

Conclusion

Despite Poppers assertions, the philosophy of falsifiability has been implemented extensively in scientific thought. It lends, inexorably, that a scientific theory can not be logically verified but can be instead falsified, which allows scientists to continually test existing theories of what is currently known. Also, it graciously allows for the possibility of other more accurate and better-corroborated explanations to be formulated and equally considered which in itself is very scientifically attractive and helps the overall progression of science. Finally, Poppers assertion that there is no unique methodology to science is also attractive in that scientists that do not subscribe to the philosophy of falsifiability are not necessarily uncredited as unscientific, but also allows for their theories to be rigorously tested for falsifiability.

Reference

Billauer, B.P. (2016) Admissibility of Scientific Evidence under Daubert: The Fatal Flaws of Falsifiability and Falsification, BUJ Science & Technology. 22(1), pp. 21-33.

One of the most debatable issues investigated by Socrates is his suggestions on the nature of peoples evil actions. The philosopher claimed that people tend to commit only good deeds and no one can knowingly choose to do evil, hence, all the harm is done out of ignorance (Ambury). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the idea and the argument in favor of it as well as to give an analysis of them.

In accordance with Socratess views, genuinely good can itself be inflictive. While achieving long-term positive influence, good things might be painful and bring some harm for a short period of time, too (Ambury). For example, the extraction of a tooth is an unpleasant experience but the general effect is good because it allows tackling the problem. Therefore, it can be concluded that having a tooth removed is good despite the fact that it brings suffering at the moment of extraction.

The problem is that sometimes it is not easy to figure out if an action is truly evil or construes a necessary disagreeable part of what is genuinely good. Hence, when a person does wickedly the reason for the evil deed is not an intent to do harm to others but a wrong judgment. He or she just perceives evil as a painful part of a good thing. Returning to the example with a tooth, such misunderstanding can occur when a dental professional removes a healthy tooth by mistake thinking it will be beneficial. They perceive the tooth as a source of the ailment while in fact, it is not. Hence, the whole experience might be regarded as harmful and evil although the dentist sees it as genuinely good.

In my opinion, the argument described above might be seen as a strong one because it supports the authors position. I as well as many people tend to perceive others as being ill-tempered and malicious while they are not and just have their own good motives. For example, personalities who have caused pain, suffering, and harm to a large number of people such as despot or tyrant rulers, are regarded as having a desire to torture others willingly. However, the perception of the situation from the viewpoint of a ruler differs immensely from that of a layman, like me. A person vested with power thinks about the common welfare first.

That is why when, for instance, a group of people that are believed to be betrayers is caught and killed at the order of the ruler, others regard this as a demonstration of malice. Nevertheless, the ruler supposes that by giving the order, he or she does the right thing for without such members as betrayers, the society would be healthier, and the general welfare easier to achieve. If the people killed in fact were no criminals, the rulers deed would amount to evil. However, the main point here is the absence of the desire to do wickedly on purpose that personalities vested with power are often thought to possess.

To sum up, Socrates pressed the point that no person would choose to do harm willingly. His argument was that one does cruel things only out of ignorance taking evil for a painful part of good by mistake. This argument seems to be strong for it proves the authors position. Indeed, people are often ready to put evil deeds to malicious intent while the true origin of such actions is ignorance and misunderstanding.

References

Ambury, James M. Socrates. IEP. Web.

Why Materialism Makes More Sense

The purview of existence in the world has had several illustrations on the constitution of life as well as the state. Even then, the notions of soul and body tend to attract massive concerns from different fragments, drawing battle lines on which aspect is more prominent. Materialism draws from the mind-body dualism theory established by Rene Descartes. Descartes argues that materialism is a notion where everything in the world is physical while dualism establishes that two fundamental things guide the existence of humans, that is, the mind or soul and the body (Lavazza & Robinson, 2014). The materialistic approach considers consciousness as a creation of the body to the humans brain, thus, its relationship with the physical body to which one exists (Bunge, 2012). Materialism further establishes that the human brain has the capability of driving the behavior of an individual. On the other hand, dualism establishes that there is the body, which exists physically; there is a soul, which is separate from the body. Therefore, based on the frameworks of the two sects of philosophy, materialism seems more plausible compared to dualism because of the latters disunities.

First, the fact that materialism considers that everything that is in existence is guided by the laws of nature owing to their physical form and status (Bunge, 2012) makes it more pragmatic to human life. Some philosophers believe what the mind conceives can be a reality. However, dualism rejects such assertion by stating that what is existent in the mind or soul is not under the control of the laws of nature and proceeds to support the position through a set of explanations (Lavazza & Robinson, 2014). For example, under dualism, the existence of free will is explained as having the autonomy that draws from the unseen and intangible human mind. Furthermore, arguments such as beliefs on life and death premises on the dualism debate. The understanding that consciousness cannot be explained based on physical terms is another justification for the dualism debate.

Moreover, materialism is a simpler theory to understand compared to the complexities that tend to surround dualism thoughts. It is a straightforward theory that establishes the notion of everything existing within the physical state. The explanation relies on logic and would be effectively proven by the personal experiences that one would often encounter. For example, the decisions that we make are based on our senses and previous experiences, some of which we encounter in the physical world. The brain, which materialism terms to be the mind and the soul is the source of all the thought processes and the decisions that humanity would often make. The conscious thoughts and emotions of an individual are also based on the brain with the brain having been proven by science as having neurotransmitters and chemicals that aid in the transmission and storage of information.

Why Dualism Does Not Make Sense

The main problem with this philosophy lies in the mind-body argument. Essentially, humankind has both physical and mental properties. Thus, it is hard to separate what constitutes the physical state and mental state. Scientific theories such as the big bang articulate that the existence of everything within the physical world is drawn from matter, thus, disputing the position taken by a dualist of a non-physical soul which contributes to the existence of the physical substances found within the earth. Materialism further contends that if the soul is existent, then it has an intricate relationship with the brain to the extent that it cannot be separated from the brain (Stoljar, 2020). Therefore, being that the brain exists in the physical; the closer attachment of the soul to the brain would mean that soul is also physical. Finally, materials are based on facts that could be proven by science, such as the relationship between the brain functions and the brain rather than dualism that establishes the relationship between the unknown such as life after death. The key challenge in dualism is the establishment of the interactions that are existent between the mind and the body.

References

Lavazza, A., & Robinson, H. (Eds.). (2014). Contemporary dualism: A defense. Routledge.

Stoljar, D. (2020). Panpsychism and non-standard materialism: Some comparative remarks.

Introduction

Despite many philosophical works and scientific research, it is still problematic for humanity to understand where knowledge has come from and how one receives it. Knowledge often has to do with the soul, the divine beginning, and the concept of world creation. Some philosophers, such as the empiricists John Locke, Francis Bacon, and David Hume, argue that human is born without innate knowledge and perceive the world through his or her senses. Rationalists, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz believed that the brain was more important than the senses and that one knew the world from their observations. At the heart of these philosophers views was the idea that one still had some knowledge of nature, because this could explain the different perceptions of an object by two people. One can explore this question from many angles through philosophy.

Empiricism

Theory

Empiricism is a theory that states one has no innate ideas and knowledge; he or she knows the world through experience and the senses. Francis Bacon, for instance, believed that one could obtain knowledge by induction, analyzing the particles of a single whole (Klein & Giglioni, 2016). According to Locke (1689), the human brain was a tabula rasa, i.e., it had no innate knowledge. Hume (1748) stated that a person could not understand how some events flowed into others but only comprehend individual connections. Thomas Hobbes asserted, the object causes (&) pressure on the sense organ, which causes motion inside us, all the way to the brain and heart (Duncan, 2019, para. 11). Hence, all these philosophers viewed the mind as the result of lifelong knowledge; however, they described it with different philosophical approaches.

Personal Opinion

I cannot entirely agree with Lockes view that the human brain has no innate ideas, because then how to explain a persons perception of beauty and understanding of abstract things. I share the point of view of Francis Bacon who saw nature as a whole that one could explore in particles. This approach to learning is both thorough and rational at the same time, and it can help in independent knowledge of the world. David Humes view is also close to mine because I believe that people rarely look at events in terms of past and future. Thomas Hobbes view that a human knows the world through the senses seems logical to me, and I like the philosophers metaphor about the pressure of objects on our senses, and the emergence of motion within, as a reaction to this pressure.

Rationalism

Theory

In rationalism, reason is essential, not experience, that is, that we perceive the world according to our previous experiences. Baruch Spinoza divided knowledge into three kinds, depending on their nature (Nadler, 2020). The first kind was ones knowledge from experiences, the second one included thinking and emotions, and the third one was the knowledge of God (Nadler, 2020). The philosopher asserted that the world, the creation of Nature or God, was ideal in its original essence, and any deviations appeared due to incorrect subjective interpretations of reality (Nadler, 2020). Gottfried Leibniz stated that perceptions cannot be explained in mechanical or materialistic terms (Look, 2020, para. 71). The philosopher criticized Lockes belief that the human brain was a blank slate at birth because he believed that everyone had certain tendencies to the perception of the world (Look, 2020). Thus, rationalists thought that the human brain had innate ideas, even about abstract concepts.

Personal Opinion

I agree with Spinozas view that the world is perfect. This statement is true because both in the human body and in nature, everything is thought out to the tiniest detail. A human, with their consciousness and subconscious, distorts the essence of the original plan. However, I do not agree that man has an innate knowledge of God, as for me, faith is more about feelings and emotions. In my understanding, Leibnizs views are right, because everyone perceives the world differently, given their innate tendencies.

The Parallel with Plato and Aristotle

The concepts of empiricists and rationalists lead to the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. The latter described the concept of blank board in 350 BC, comparing the thoughts of a human with the letters, so one cannot say that it was Locke who introduced this concept (Aristotle, 350 BC). Plato believed that the human mind existed in heaven before the incarnation (Markie, 2017). The concept of Immanuel Kant is very close to the ideas of Plato. The German philosopher argued that in the human brain, there were certain forms of perception, and the current content filled them; that is, specific patterns of thinking had unknown roots (Rohlf, 2020). Hence, the philosophical concepts from ancient Greece found their place in the works of European philosophers.

Conclusion

To conclude, there are two underlying philosophical schools in understanding the concept of knowledge. Empiricists believed that a person had no previous experience before birth, but acquired it by observation and experimentation. Rationalists stated that one had some experience from birth, and it determined the mechanisms of their perception. As for me, the concept of Emanuel Kant is the most profound one because the philosopher believed that man had natural forms for the perception and formation of knowledge. To my mind, both the theories of empiricists and rationalists have their strengths and weaknesses but do not fully disclose the nature of consciousness.

References

Aristotle. (350 BC). On the Soul (De Anima). (J. A. Smith, Trans.). Clarendon Press.

Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning humane understanding. Project Gutenberg.

Klein, J., & Giglioni, G. (2016). Francis Bacon. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Locke, J. (1689). An essay concerning humane understanding. Project Gutenberg.

Look, B. C. (2020). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Nadler, S. (2020). Baruch Spinoza, In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Rohlf, M. (2020). Immanuel Kant. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Markie, P. (2017). Rationalism vs. Empiricism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Humes analysis is a complex concept directed to understand the relationship between cause and effect. In his view, we enhance our knowledge of matter because of understanding its causes. However, our understanding of the cause of the matter is limited; therefore, we cannot fully accept the nature of events. The skepticism presented by Hume is based on the view that no philosopher was able to define an ultimate law for causes of any natural action. Moreover, he supports the position that our inability to predict the future course of events makes us highly vulnerable in terms of the Universe. Nevertheless, as every event must have consequences, he claims that understanding the fundamental solution for the question, which is still not found, is possible. Nonetheless, he may explain the question of why nobody ever tried to give an ultimate solution.

In my opinion, Humes view of the issue is reliable. The relationship between the cause and effect presented as a key to understanding the matter is decent. Human-being always tried to find an explanation or cause for the events they did not understand. At this point, Humes position about peoples inability to explain every event is correct. Moreover, the skepticism directed toward humans acknowledgment of matter represents his approach toward the problem. His words &why no philosopher, who is rational and modest, has ever pretended to assign the ultimate cause of any natural operation show assurance in his skepticism. Appealing to physics, we need to find a proper explanation for any action, which is not always possible. Therefore, I support Humes position on this issue and the claim that our understanding of the world is limited.