There are certain things that we just know without ever having to be told or exposed to. I guess these are like our instincts in a way. I've heard cases where people who have never swam before fall into a body of water and they end up being able to swim to save themselves. Without ever being exposed to water, or the feeling of swimming, they were still able to figure it out when they really needed to. Now the act of swimming is a pretty simple idea - one that even if a person had never actually done before, they have probably still been exposed to in some way. But what they really did - the more complex idea, for which I believe the use of senses does not really apply - was survive. They knew that they had to survive and they did what needed to be done. Even though they didn't know how to swim and were terrified of water, something within them knew that was what needed to be done and just did it - without any outside source or past experience to rely on. There are also instances where babies falls into water and they are able to flip over on their back and float, sort of treading their arms, to keep their heads above water. I've seen videos of babies as young as 4 weeks doing this - it was crazy!! This is another good example because a baby that young would never have experienced this before, or experienced anyone else doing it, and even if they did they wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand and remember it to act it out themselves later. It's something they just somehow know to do because they have to - again for survival. The fact that if your head goes underwater and you can't get it back up you will get very injured or die seems to be a universal truth that we are able to know outside of any sense experiences we may have had. So while parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to completely rely on what we are able to see, hear, smell, touch, and taste.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Does Knowledge Come Only From Our Sense Experiences?
Personally I don't agree with empiricism's view that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses. I agree that a lot of what we know comes from what we've experienced before, but not everything. I think in terms of what we see and experience in everyday life - things like our environment, the weather, the date, the seasons, etc, our knowledge does come from what we've seen before; but for more complex ideas this doesn't really apply.
There are certain things that we just know without ever having to be told or exposed to. I guess these are like our instincts in a way. I've heard cases where people who have never swam before fall into a body of water and they end up being able to swim to save themselves. Without ever being exposed to water, or the feeling of swimming, they were still able to figure it out when they really needed to. Now the act of swimming is a pretty simple idea - one that even if a person had never actually done before, they have probably still been exposed to in some way. But what they really did - the more complex idea, for which I believe the use of senses does not really apply - was survive. They knew that they had to survive and they did what needed to be done. Even though they didn't know how to swim and were terrified of water, something within them knew that was what needed to be done and just did it - without any outside source or past experience to rely on. There are also instances where babies falls into water and they are able to flip over on their back and float, sort of treading their arms, to keep their heads above water. I've seen videos of babies as young as 4 weeks doing this - it was crazy!! This is another good example because a baby that young would never have experienced this before, or experienced anyone else doing it, and even if they did they wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand and remember it to act it out themselves later. It's something they just somehow know to do because they have to - again for survival. The fact that if your head goes underwater and you can't get it back up you will get very injured or die seems to be a universal truth that we are able to know outside of any sense experiences we may have had. So while parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to completely rely on what we are able to see, hear, smell, touch, and taste.
There are certain things that we just know without ever having to be told or exposed to. I guess these are like our instincts in a way. I've heard cases where people who have never swam before fall into a body of water and they end up being able to swim to save themselves. Without ever being exposed to water, or the feeling of swimming, they were still able to figure it out when they really needed to. Now the act of swimming is a pretty simple idea - one that even if a person had never actually done before, they have probably still been exposed to in some way. But what they really did - the more complex idea, for which I believe the use of senses does not really apply - was survive. They knew that they had to survive and they did what needed to be done. Even though they didn't know how to swim and were terrified of water, something within them knew that was what needed to be done and just did it - without any outside source or past experience to rely on. There are also instances where babies falls into water and they are able to flip over on their back and float, sort of treading their arms, to keep their heads above water. I've seen videos of babies as young as 4 weeks doing this - it was crazy!! This is another good example because a baby that young would never have experienced this before, or experienced anyone else doing it, and even if they did they wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand and remember it to act it out themselves later. It's something they just somehow know to do because they have to - again for survival. The fact that if your head goes underwater and you can't get it back up you will get very injured or die seems to be a universal truth that we are able to know outside of any sense experiences we may have had. So while parts of empiricism apply to most of what we encounter in our everyday lives, I do not believe the idea that ALL of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses because there are some things that are just too complex to completely rely on what we are able to see, hear, smell, touch, and taste.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Methodological Skepticism
I agree with Descartes' idea that we are more certain of our own thoughts and what we think we know about the World around us, than we are of the ACTUAL World around us. People often hold sets of beliefs that have been passed down, or that they were raised with, without ever questioning where this information came from and if there's a chance that some of it could be wrong. For most people there are things we believe and do because to us that's just the way things are and the way it's supposed to be. When in reality, we should be questioning the things we know, and only accepting those things that we can prove without any doubt to be true.
While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those thing untrue. A good example of this is love. When someone tells you they love you, you can chose to believe them or not based on the way you perceive their feelings for you. The person saying it may know without absolutely no doubt that they love the person they are saying this to - which when applied to methodological skepticism makes it true. However the one being told may, and most likely will, have doubts about the validity and truth of this statement because there's no way to logically prove it. Following methodological skepticism, the person's doubt about the statement would require holding off on judgment of it's validity until it can be proven with absolutely no doubt - which for something like love is never. But just because it cannot be proven with total bedrock certainty, doesn't mean it isn't true.
It really depends on the individual but I think that overall most people don't use the strategy of methodological skepticism, probably because of the time and energy it takes to do so. It's much easier to believe what we want to believe or what we've always been told until someone can prove us wrong or it becomes impossible to accept it as the truth, than it is to constantly doubt everything that is presented to us and only really believe the ideas that we can find no doubt for. There will most likely always be someone who doubts any idea in question, but that doesn't make it untrue. People often choose to take the easy way out, and the effort and thought that goes along with the practice of methodological skepticism is too much for many individuals. Constantly having to play devil's advocate in this sort of game of "is it really true" would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves. Most people are simply not willing to take the time to do this when it is so much easier to just believe what they already think they know. Especially since these ideas are usually similar to, and repeatedly reinforced by, those closest to them.
While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those thing untrue. A good example of this is love. When someone tells you they love you, you can chose to believe them or not based on the way you perceive their feelings for you. The person saying it may know without absolutely no doubt that they love the person they are saying this to - which when applied to methodological skepticism makes it true. However the one being told may, and most likely will, have doubts about the validity and truth of this statement because there's no way to logically prove it. Following methodological skepticism, the person's doubt about the statement would require holding off on judgment of it's validity until it can be proven with absolutely no doubt - which for something like love is never. But just because it cannot be proven with total bedrock certainty, doesn't mean it isn't true.
It really depends on the individual but I think that overall most people don't use the strategy of methodological skepticism, probably because of the time and energy it takes to do so. It's much easier to believe what we want to believe or what we've always been told until someone can prove us wrong or it becomes impossible to accept it as the truth, than it is to constantly doubt everything that is presented to us and only really believe the ideas that we can find no doubt for. There will most likely always be someone who doubts any idea in question, but that doesn't make it untrue. People often choose to take the easy way out, and the effort and thought that goes along with the practice of methodological skepticism is too much for many individuals. Constantly having to play devil's advocate in this sort of game of "is it really true" would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves. Most people are simply not willing to take the time to do this when it is so much easier to just believe what they already think they know. Especially since these ideas are usually similar to, and repeatedly reinforced by, those closest to them.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Allegory of the Cave
After reading through Plato's Allegory of the Cave and taking some time to think about it, I can't help but agree with what Plato and Socrates are trying to teach us. The allegory is meant to show that those who never question, never learn anything outside the norm and look deeper at what they think they know, believe that what they see is right and real even though it isn't. In the allegory when someone finally goes out of the cave and sees the sun, whch is meant to represent true knowledge, they realize there is so much more to everything they had thought before. They then feel an obligation to go back into the cave and explain to the others, but are almost always rejected and ridiculed as those still trapped in the cave write these new ideas off as impossible and ludacris. This is showing how people become so set in their ways and comftorable with what they've known for so long, that they are unwilling to branch out and gain further understanding by looking at different ideas and questioning their own. If they are unable to break out of this, like the prisoners in the cave, they become just that - prisoners in the caves of their minds.
I believe philosophy to be liberating because like we see Socrates explain in The Apology, to truely be wise you must be able to realize and and accept that you don't know everything about everything, or anything about anything really. Everything is subject to change with further examination and there is always more to be taken out of every idea and situation. Being able to recognize and accept this would be extremely liberating because it would mean giving up all control of what you think you know about everything in your life.
Although he's implying that those without philosophy are like prisoners trapped in a cave, I don't think Socrates is neccesarilly being pessimistic. He's certainly showing how much better life is outside of that, but he explains that those in the cave are content and comfortable because they don't know any better. They think they're right and don't understand what they're missing so even though they are not truely enlightened, many of them believe themselves to be. Only after breaking through that and seeing the truth do they recognize that they had been stuck in that sort of mental prison.
I believe philosophy to be liberating because like we see Socrates explain in The Apology, to truely be wise you must be able to realize and and accept that you don't know everything about everything, or anything about anything really. Everything is subject to change with further examination and there is always more to be taken out of every idea and situation. Being able to recognize and accept this would be extremely liberating because it would mean giving up all control of what you think you know about everything in your life.
Although he's implying that those without philosophy are like prisoners trapped in a cave, I don't think Socrates is neccesarilly being pessimistic. He's certainly showing how much better life is outside of that, but he explains that those in the cave are content and comfortable because they don't know any better. They think they're right and don't understand what they're missing so even though they are not truely enlightened, many of them believe themselves to be. Only after breaking through that and seeing the truth do they recognize that they had been stuck in that sort of mental prison.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
First Blog Post
Hey everyone my name's Krista and I'll be using this blog as a philosophy journal for a class that I am taking at BMCC in Manhattan. I moved to Manhattan from California about a year ago but I grew up in Oregon. This is my third semester at BMCC and I've taken a few online courses before. I take some classes on campus as well but doing some online definitely helps me manage my busy schedule. I really enjoy discussing and learning about Philosophy and Krishnamurti's book, Think on These Things is one of my favorites. I'm excited to get going with this class and further develop my thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)