Did The Fallen Tree Make A Sound It is the time and time again old saying does the tree falling in the woods make any sound if no one is around to hear it hit the ground. This question has plagued mankind for an undetermined amount of years many even centuries. No one is for sure of the questions origin however the question itself is the important factor not the origin. There has been many debates over the issue. I choose to use simple logic and reasoning close to the same as John Locke would of thought and try to make a reasonable agreement. John Locke was known as an empiricists epistemologists whose essay has puzzled many minds and made many observations into the human knowledge. Even though many consider John Locke a failure …show more content…
According to Lockes page (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4l.htm), John Locke “proposed the fundamental principle of empiricism: all of our knowledge and ideas arise from experience”. Which only goes to strengthen the statement that our senses tell us that the tree will repeatedly make a sound as it falls in the woods whether or not anyone is around to hear it. Locke used to approaches to prove his argument by stating that “sensation, we obtain ideas of things we suppose to exist outside us in the physical world (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4l.htm¬). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( i Ideas in General) “All the parts of out knowledge, he (locke) insists, have the same rank and the same history regarding their origin in experience.” Here we see the word experience again combined with our ideas. To me this means that if I simply see or hear the same the reaction repeatedly over and over when the same process is taken it will ultimately produced the same reaction whether or not anyone is around. Thus the tree makes a sound. My senses tell me it will and following Locke’s reasoning for logic the tree will make the sound in the end. The tree does make the same sound falling through the woods no matter there is a person there to hear it or not.
References
1. Encyclopedia or similar comprehensive works:
Kemerling, Garth, “John Locke: The Origin of Ideas.” Philosophy Pages.
John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,
Locke’s view one must make an inference to substance; it is not a part of sense-experience. And, he thinks it is a justified inference. General idea of substance is an unknown something that supports accidents. Particular substance is nothing but several combinations
His aim was to use this method of doubting everything you know to discover what we actually do know for certain. So we can prove them.
Locke’s states that “All knowledge comes from the senses through experience” interpreted when Locke’s “blank slate” idea to when we are kids we know nothing. Our brains have to make connections to things and these connections are gained through experience and continues
Philosophy is defined by Webster as "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" or "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." This essay is a general look at those who pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes.
Locke (1632-1704) further discounted the work of Descartes, as well as that of Plato. He maintained that all ideas originate in ones experiences. A newborn is devoid of ideas until experience begins to form these ideas.
Locke also believes that people have innate ideas through experiences. He has three explanations for this idea. Firstly, if we had innate ideas, we would know that we have them, which means that if you have ideas they are conscience and everything you think, you think you think. Secondly, if there were innate truths of reason we would all agree on them. Lastly, our memory cannot recall these innate ideas.
Furthermore, Locke’s profound analysis on sources of knowledge contributed to today’s psychological analysis of the unsolved dilemma of nature versus nurture while significantly shaping the foundation of modern psychology. As Locke introduced empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he was an important figure of Enlightenment to foster and alternate the schools of thinking in many spheres including here philosophy and psychology among many others.
Like Descartes, Locke also believed in an external world. As an empiricist, Locke relied heavily on the senses to provide true knowledge (Moore 2002). He shared Aristotle’s belief that the mind is a blank slate, also known as tabula rasa, at birth (Paquette 211). Our sense experiences thereafter provide us with knowledge to fill in those slates (Paquette 211). In Locke’s “Representative Theory of Perception,” also known as Epistemological Dualism, he stated that material objects exist and are separate entities from human beings (Paquette 227). However, he also believed that objects exist in the mind as psychological entities (Paquette 227). Locke concluded that people can taste, smell, touch, and see the external world which, in turn, becomes impressions in our minds (Paquette 227). Descartes and Locke are thus seen to be similar in the sense that they both believed in an external world.
Locke feels that we do not have any innate ideas. Then the question arises of
John Locke starts off his treatise with the thesis that ideas spring from two fountainheads--sensation and reflection. The former, man acquires from external sensible objects that affect man's five senses--those same senses endowed upon all men by the Creator. Material things outside man's being are the objects of sensation. Through experiencing sensation, man's thinking process gives rise to ideas thereby gaining for the thinking being a certain amount of
Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate ideas then they would be universal ideas present
Locke instead is an empiricist, and therefore he directly critiques Descartes epistemic system and tries to establish his own foundation of knowledge. Locke believes that our knowledge of the world comes from what our senses tell us. Locke’s theory state that we are all born with a blank slate, tabula rasa, before we
The problem he has with us thinking like this is that all sorts of things would end up being defined as innate. Locke thought that we had the capacity to recognise “self evident” truths and that we do have an innate capacity allowing us to recognise things, however they are not actually innate ideas within us, but ideas we gain from experience which our innate capacity allows us to understand. He was of the opinion that ideas are material of thinking and that there was no thinking before perception. While the mind has the capacity to think, it is not actually constantly thinking. For example, if you are asleep but not dreaming, then according to Locke, your mind isn’t actually thinking.
“All things in life are philosophical.” This is a well-known quote by the renowned Greek scientist/philosopher Aristotle. When one is to imagine life without thought, free will or knowledge, they are left to only imagine the oblivion they would be left to reside in. To me, philosophy is more than ethics, esthetics, and epistemology... it is the ability to stand ones ground with certain viewpoints, attitudes and beliefs.