Well, we're skirting around the beginning of Hume's 1st enquiry right now, but we've also had a look at a fair few more generalised topics beforehand. :P
Hmm. In that case, let's start with some epistemology. Which school or schools would you say you subscribe to? For myself I guess I fall into the Empirical, the Rational and the Dualist camps (with some minor caveats).
Ah! We did an entire module on the idea of Knowledge and Understanding last year. It was the worst philosophy paper I’ve seen. :/
I’d probably lean closer to property dualism, and when it draws to empiricist and rational arguments, I prefer the idea of Kant’s Conceptual scheme (possibly the only idea Kant ever proposed that I agree with!).
Kant, eh? I confess I haven't looked at his stuff for several years now and can't actually remember what his take on the empirical vs. rationalism debate. Tell me, where does Kant stand and what do you find attractive about his schema?
Basically, Kant believes, like an empiricist, that all knowledge comes from experience.
However, Kant hears you ask, how would we possibly understand all this random experience that makes up everything?! Of course, we must have some kind of conceptual scheme, a sort of 'filter' that allows us to categorise knowledge that sorts all this fancy confusingness into a sensible and relevant mess, that we can understand!
All this can be challenged though, and there are slightly varied versions from different viewpoints. A more empirical view might suggest that the scheme is also experiential, considering some cultures appear to have a 'different' scheme of understanding.
And that's the gist of what I can remember off the top of my head. :P
Hmm, interesting. Just going off of what you've said I have to say that Kant's approach seems to hold some value (although I suspect that some digging around would probably highlight some areas for serious disagreement). Thanks for the brief run-down. :)
Tell me, why do you lean towards the 'property' side of Dualism?
Since it refers to the basic idea of 'the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts', and a mind is created only in the right conditions. This sort of explains, to me, some kind of reason for souls, and why only humans might have them, i.e., other creatures simply aren't quite the same.
Ultimately, it is a matter of the fact that it seems more feasible than people simply being a metaphysical soul and a physical body just because that's how it is, instead giving some kind of reasoning behind it.
Heh, an explanation that amounts to "because that's how it is" isn't really an explanation at all. :P
I agree that property dualism appears to offer the hope of a viable explanation for the soulish qualities inherent in humans, but you've seriously never heard another plausible reason offered for the phenomenon? :raised:
Hmm. Well, if I may, might I suggest a dualistic rendering of humanity in which:
a) the duality is comprised of the physical & spiritual (rather than the physical & mental), and
b) the soul (which is spiritual in essence) is molded after (and thus takes its form/nature/shape/likeness/etc. from) a God who is *also* spiritual in essence.
Of course, such a conceptualisation raises further interesting questions like:
"But why would a God of *one* essence (spirit) come up with *another* essence (physicality) and then make humans composed of a mix of the two--why not simply make us fully spiritual like him (so as to relate more easily to him), or fully physical (so that things were simpler/more straight-forward)?"
but it *does* offer a handy explanation as to the origins of humanity's unique soulish capacity; it posits that the only creditable source for the divine spark is, in fact, a Divinity.
Additionally, a great benefit of such a schema is that it highlights further avenues of inquiry. It provides a veritable key for understanding ourselves and answering questions like "Who am I?", "Why am I here?", "What does it mean to be human?" in this form: if we are made in God's image, then by seeking and understanding God we will discover and understand ourselves also.
This brings up thoughts concerning the idea of a creator, for that insinuates directly that we are 'made' in God's image (bring on the arguments for creation.... :|).
Continuing along that final statement, it brings us to the idea of seeking and understanding God; if there is a being that we can never find during our lifetime, can we truly be able to "seek and understand" it, and so understand ourselves?
If I remember rightly, Descartes' most popularised argument for the existence of a soul is the 'Cogito', 'I think, therefore I exist'. You can doubt pysical existence, but you cannot doubt mental existence, which points towards at least the posession of a mind, disembodied into the form of a soul or not.
Meh, arguments for/against 'creation' (wicked nebulous word, too many possible meanings) are mostly irrelevant to our discussion. Either an all-powerful creator God exists (in which case he created us) or he doesn't (in which case he didn't).
If the former then we would be better concerned with *why* he created us (rather than 'how'), and if the latter then we can rightly ignore everything that doesn't directly tie back to our material existence (because if we can't interact with it then what's the point?).
Hmm. What makes you say we can 'never find' God? Granted, if an omnipotent being wishes to hide from us then it's unlikely we'll be able to smoke him out of his hole against his will; but if he *wants* to be found--that's another matter altogether.
If there is a God who deserves the title 'God' (and not simply "some random entity more highly developed than ourselves") and he wishes (for his own purposes) to be found then I think you can be pretty damn sure that A) it's possible to find him, and B) finding him will tell us more about ourselves than we could ever hope to discover any other way. ;)
Yeah, I'm familiar with Descartes' thought experiments, but his 'cogito ergo sum' (which was based on an attempt to assume nothing) has two irreproachable flaws:
1) He assumes that he is rational (and, for that matter, that rationality *is*), and
2) Even ignoring flaw 1) his decision to 'assume nothing' makes it impossible to hold any certainty that anything outside of one's self *is actually outside of one's self*!
Thus someone starting without axioms is left completely at sea--either mad (i.e. non-rational), or tortured and desperately, desperately alone (i.e. trapped only in their mind, not knowing if the outside is really real). :(
Honestly, when it comes to physicality, I prefer to take the approach that says "Look, I'm going to assume I exist, I'm not mad, the physical sensations I'm getting correlate to a real physical world outside of myself, all the stuff I've just said is rational and rationality really is a thing."
Of course, those assumptions might turn out to be contradictory (and therefore flawed), but until they do I can't think of another sane way to approach the world in a thinking fashion...
I also tend to take the assumption of physical-ness, simply because I simply couldn't believe that there is nothing else. I mean, either I'm in one huge construct created by some greater being or my own imagination, or it's all really real, and the second being the simpler and more intuitive option causes me to choose that over the earlier. (Ockham's Razor at work here!)
On a tangent, concerning the origin of ideas, and thinking shizzle, Hume has many ideas upon it, in particular the section that we've been studying on his 1st enquiry, which is (I think) chapter 2..
Impressions are our more vivid perceptions, and occur through senses or emotions, whereas ideas are less lively, as they do not stem directly from experience (note that Hume directly makes an exception here; those either insane or hallucinating may experience ideas that are as vivid as impressions).
Visit the Beginner's Box
Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.
Comments on Profile Post by FuzzyBlueBaron