PHIL VID MOD5

.docx

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
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