PHIL VID MOD5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Christian Brothers University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
324
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by avaavon
Ava Nguyen
Human nature and a blank slate
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
He starts off with the idea the human mind starts off as a blank slate. Then, how some claim that all of
its structure comes from socialization, culture, parenting, and experience. The blank slate was an
influential idea in the 20
th
century. He contradicts this idea by using children as instances. Some have
certain talents and temperaments. It does not all come from outside. Other reasons to doubt that the
human mind is a blank slate include common sense, human universals, and genetics and neuroscience.
He then lists the political appeals to the blank slate: “If we’re blank slates, we’re all equal. But if
something is written on the slate some people could have more of it than others. That would justify
discrimination and inequality.” and “If we were blank slates, we can perfect mankind through social
engineering. If we have instincts, some of them might condemn us to selfishness, prejudice, and
violence.” To refute these political fears, he responds with fairness is not equivalent to sameness and
ignoble motives do not guarantee ignoble behavior.
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists. Make sure to fully explain your answer,
showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that at birth the (human) mind is a "blank slate"
without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by
one's sensory experiences. This is what the speaker spoke about and opposed. He also seems to have a
rationalist mindset. In other words, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of
knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a
class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. Thinkers who argued for rationalism included
Socrates, Rene Descartes, and others. Their view, that reason alone could reveal the great truths of the
world, has largely fallen out of use in favor of a more diverse group of methods for finding truth.
However, the speaker does combine rational notions along with empirical data. He speaks on children for
instance and how their common sense stands against “blank slate” without external impact.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
Yes, I agree with the speaker’s reasoning. People remain much the same throughout their lives in terms
of personality. Some of us are extroverts. Others are introverts. Some of us are physically very active
whereas others are less energetic. Some of us are highly emotional in response to minor events in our
lives whereas others are unperturbed. These personality traits are predisposed by the biology of our
brains and firm evidence in favor of this view comes from the fact that these traits are strongly heritable
(with genetic ancestry accounting for around half of individual differences in major personality
dimensions. I think the brain is not entirely blank at birth, but it is not entirely programmed either. From
birth, I think humans already have in place the systems required for rapid learning. These systems
include those related to object recognition, language, numbers and intentions of others. They are then
fine-tuned as the infant interacts with the world.
How do you explain consciousness
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
The speaker claims consciousness is one of the fundamental facts of human existence. He compares it to
having an inner movie. It says consciousness makes life worth living. All at the same time, it is the most
mysterious thing. He then states that science is objective, while consciousness is subjective. Scientists
only studied objectively, until recently. He says since then the work has been the search for correlations
between certain areas of the brain and certain states of consciousness. Science is of correlations and not
explanations. He states that one of his two crazy ideas is that consciousness is fundamental. We need to
study the fundamental laws governing consciousness, the laws that connect consciousness to other
fundamentals: space, time, mass, physical processes. The second crazy idea is that consciousness might
be universal. This view is sometimes called panpsychism: pan for all, psych for mind, every system is
conscious, not just humans, dogs, mice, flies, but even Rob Knight's microbes, elementary particles. Even
a photon has some degree of consciousness, as in some primitive precursor to consciousness.
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists. Make sure to fully explain your answer,
showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
Chalmers seems to like the idea that consciousness can serve as the basis for morality and value. He
claimed that it was the key to our sense of meaning. Lebensphilosophie emphasized the meaning, value
and purpose of life as the foremost focus of philosophy. Meaning of human life is greatly discussed in
philosophy. All philosophies on the meaning of life seem to fall into one of the four groups: life has an
objective meaning, life has a subjective meaning, life has no meaning, or life has a
supernatural/unexplainable meaning. Philosophers since the time of Descartes and Locke have struggled
to comprehend the nature of consciousness and how it fits into a larger picture of the world. These
issues remain central to both continental and analytic philosophy, in phenomenology and the philosophy
of mind, respectively. He seems to believe mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible
to physical systems. This is known as “naturalistic dualism”.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
I do agree with him when it comes to the first idea that consciousness is fundamental. Consciousness
plays a big role in the meaning of human life. It is worth studying scientifically. It is fundamental because
without consciousness, it's easy to become subject to emotion. By raising consciousness and being more
aware of what's going on around us, and within us, we have a better chance of turning the emotion into
an object. A higher state of consciousness helps you to take stock of what is already there. It makes
apparent what your ‘defaults’ are. That might be a default in behavior, defaults in how you react to
situations, or simply the way in which you do things. His second idea, however, is difficult to agree on. It
is the idea that consciousness is universal. I do have trouble understanding how elements have
consciousness. To me, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence it
exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history.
My wish: The Charter for Compassion
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
She claims compassion is not just a warm feeling. She sees it as an urgent, global imperative. She wants
to inspire people around the world to restore compassion, empathy and kindness to the center of life.
She found that religion is about behaving differently and not believing in things. She defines compassion
as the ability to feel for others. It is the true test of any true religiosity, but also brings us into the
presence of what Jews, Christians, and Muslims call God or the Divine. By Buddha, compassion brings
you to nirvana. She says the reason for this is that, when we feel with the other, we dethrone ourselves
from the center of our world and we put another person there. She says that it seems to her that any
ideology that does not promote a sense of global understanding and global appreciation for each other
is failing at this time
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists. Make sure to fully explain your answer,
showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
The speaker seemed to agree with the Buddha philosophy on compassion. The Buddha taught that
showing compassion to others is something all people can do, even if they find other parts of his
teaching difficult to follow. Buddhists believe that they should show compassion to everyone. Another
philosophical idea the speaker spoke on was the presence of God or great Divine that people can only
feel, when they have practiced or committed to the religion. She also spoke on nirvana. Nirvana is a
place of perfect peace and happiness, like heaven. In Hinduism and Buddhism, nirvana is the highest
state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and
suffering go away. It refers to the profound peace of mind that is acquired with liberation or release from
a state of suffering, after respective spiritual practice. She brought up the idea that it is not the belief
that makes up the religion but compassion.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
I agree with some of the speaker’s points and others I am uncertain of. I agree that compassion is
important and holds great power and happiness when practiced. I do believe that it is capable of
nirvana-like state when practiced by these religions. Compassion helps us connect with others, mend
relationships, and move forward while fostering emotional intelligence and well-being. Compassion
takes empathy one step further because it harbors a desire for all people to be free from suffering, and
it's imbued with a desire to help. However, the speaker’s claim towards the belief of is by practice is not
convincing to me. Her argument was evidence-based and was incredibly vague. There was no true
explanation for this idea. I do not think religious experience can be experience of God for perceptual
experience is only sensory and if God is non-physical, God cannot be sensed. It is an idea beyond science
support.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help