A Treatise Concerning The Principles Of Human Knowledge

Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.

The critically acclaimed novel written by Mary Shelley and published in 1818, delves into a multitude of universal themes throughout the text. One value that drives the plot forward, and leads to character development is the theme, human fulfillment of the pursuit of knowledge. It is Dr. Frankenstein 's unquenchable thirst for knowledge that leads to the future predicaments that ensue after the Creature is conceived and future moral dilemma. An example of Dr. Frankenstein 's disposition that lends itself to the validity of the stated theme, is as follows; “It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things, or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied me, still my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or, in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world” (Shelley 30). The doctor 's preoccupation with his studies, that results in controversy over the suitable nature of such an unobtainable desire, is clearly exemplified in the quote, “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind” (45).

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

In the modern period of philosophy, around the 16th and 17th century, after the fall of Rome and the rise of the dark years, three major events had occurred. The first began with the scientific revolution, where many philosophers were becoming scientist, such as the philosopher of science Francis Bacon. The next event was the resurgence of skepticism, where one questions everything until they discover the truth. For instance, the philosopher famous for saying the phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” (translated as I think, therefore I am) was the skeptic Rene Descartes, who came up with this quote by doubting everything until there was nothing else to doubt except doubting. The final altering event in the

He says that some of our ideas are not real, such as ideas that come from our imagination or memory. The way we can distinguish real ideas from false ideas, is that real things are more clear and vivid. Berkeley says that real ideas come to us unmeditated and because they are involuntary, we can not control them as we please. From this idea, Berkeley suggests that there must be some higher being that controls the sensation and ideas we have. He concludes by saying that this higher being must be God.

“Cogito ergo sum;” I think therefore I am. This philosophical statement stimulated a renaissance in the field of philosophy, creating modern Western philosophy as is known today. This important notion was dictated by Rene Descartes in his 1641 metaphysics work, Mediations on First Philosophy, and influenced all modern philosophical works written after Descartes revolutionary achievement. This work was written at a time when modern physics was being developed as a mathematization of nature. The principles of metaphysics contain in Meditations were developed in order to serve as the basis for this new system of physics. In it, Descartes refutes many Aristotelian beliefs that were popular and accepted by the clergy for nearly the entirety of

Rene Descartes, a rationalist, said that each person contains the criteria for truth and knowledge in them. Finding truth and knowledge comes from the individual themselves, not necessarily from God. Descartes also believed that reason is the same for every single person. Descartes believed that nothing could be true unless we as humans could perceive it. He also believed that you could break down things into smaller simpler parts. Descartes also believed that there was a relationship between the mind and body. He also believed that the idea of being perfect originated from God since God himself was perfect. He also integrates his mathematical concepts into his methodology. Descartes also applied doubt to his ideas before he

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

Human Nature is defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans." Throughout the world, however, there are many different groups of people, all with varying personalities and characteristics. One recent article that brought up this issue was What's Really Human? The trouble with student guinea pigs. by Sharon Begley. Begley states that "given the difference in culture between the U.S. and East Asia, no one claims the American way is universal." This suggests that one's environment, not one's nature, shapes one's characteristics and features. This separation of cultures also leads to a different view of good and evil throughout the world; murder is generally bad and charity good, but not everyone may care about murder or think charity necessary. The only way to find human nature may be to look at the time before the first cultures developed. Thomas Hobbes referred to this time as the state of nature, where every man competes for resources, driven on by greed. This greed is considered to be a bad trait by today's society, making human nature apparently evil. I believe that humans are evil in nature and need parameters to be good because of the writings of twentieth century authors, Chinese philosophers between the Qin and Han dynasties, and pre-Enlightenment philosophers.

John Locke and Karl Marx have one thing in common, they both believe in human reasoning. Humans, they suppose, have the ability to be both rational and intellectual beings; they not only learn from those around them but also from their surroundings. Niccolo Machiavelli, however, disagrees with Locke and Marx. He argues that human beings are not reasonable and are chaotic without any such order. Although these three men differ drastically in their views on life and society, as a whole each became radicals that changed the world around them for centuries to come. Locke, Marx, and Machiavelli all based their beliefs on the views of the time period in which they lived and the influences that came with those eras.

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

     Hume is an empiricist and a skeptic. He develops a philosophy that is generally approached in a manner as that of a scientist and therefore he thinks that he can come up with a law for human understanding. Hume investigates the understanding as an empiricist to try and understand the origins of human ideas. Empiricism is the notion that all knowledge comes from experience. Skepticism is the practice of not believing things in nature a priori, but instead investigating things to discover what is really true. Hume does not believe that all a posteriori knowledge is useful, too. He believes “all experience is useless unless predictive knowledge is possible.” There are various types of skepticism that Hume

Knowledge can be defined as information gained through sense perception, emotion, language and reason, while it is defined by Plato as “justified true belief.” The claim that knowledge takes the form of a combination of stories and facts is however not accurate in history and biology. First, it brings up the questions of what are stories and what are facts. Stories are accounts of past events from somebody’s perspective, while a fact is the truth. When looking at the two areas of knowledge, they each favour one side of the combination over the other. For example, knowledge from history mostly takes the form of stories, while knowledge from biology mostly takes the form of facts. This distinction between the different types of knowledge leads to the knowledge questions of “How do we obtain knowledge in the different areas of knowing?” and “To what extend is knowledge in certain areas of knowledge subjective or objective?”