Study Questions 5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
123
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by DrKangaroo4226
Study Questions 1. Why does Descartes believe that the senses are untrustworthy, but the mind is reliable? Descartes thinks that because the senses are susceptible to deception, they cannot be relied upon. An optical illusion, for instance, can give the impression that something is larger or smaller than it actually is. On the other hand, the intellect is trustworthy because, unlike the senses, it cannot be tricked. Descartes might think this for a few different reasons. First, as was already established, optical illusions have the ability to deceive the senses. This is true since physical stimuli, which the senses are dependent on, are manipulable. To make an object appear larger or smaller than it is, for instance, one could use a mirror. Second, substances like alcohol and narcotics have the ability to deceive the senses. For instance, an inebriated person may perceive objects that are not there or misjudge distances. This is due to the fact that drugs and alcohol have the potential to disrupt the brain's ability to process sensory data. Third, psychological influences can influence the senses. For instance, an anxious individual may misunderstand distances or perceive objects that are not truly there. This is due to the fact that worry may disrupt the brain's ability to process sensory data. Fourth, physical elements might have an impact on the senses. For instance, a weary individual may underestimate distances or perceive objects that are not truly there. This is due to the fact that weariness may affect how the brain interprets sensory data. In general, there are several techniques to fool the senses. Nevertheless, unlike the senses, the intellect is not susceptible to trickery. This is due to the mind's independence from physical stimuli, as well as its resistance to the effects of drugs, alcohol, and other psychological and physical variables. 2. In what sense does Locke hold that the contents of the mind are representative of the world? According to John Locke, the contents of the mind are indicative of the outside world because they are made up of ideas, which are thought to be mental images of real-world objects and happenings. According to John Locke, the mind's perception of the world is accurate. He maintained that knowledge is gained by experience and the senses, and that the mind is like a blank slate at birth. People create mental images of the outside world through this process, which they then utilize to shape their beliefs. Locke argues that since these concepts or mental images faithfully capture the outside world, the contents of the mind are indicative of it.
3. Why does Berkeley argue that, since the mind knows only ideas, the existence of matter cannot be proven? Berkeley argues that matter cannot exist without a mind since the mind is limited to knowing concepts, and ideas cannot exist without a mind. Thus, the existence of matter cannot be established. Berkeley bases his case on the premise that everything that the mind is able to see must be an idea. Consequently, matter cannot be a thought and cannot exist since it is not anything that the mind can perceive. Berkeley's argument has been criticized since it is predicated on the erroneous assumption that everything that the mind is capable of perceiving must be an idea.
4. what similarities, if any, do you notice between professional epistemology ( such as that of Descartes, Locke , Berkeley, and Hume) and that of Lipman’s fourth graders? What differences, if any, do you notice? Regarding their ideas about knowledge, the fourth-graders in
Lipman's class and the distinguished thinkers Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume share certain similarities. Both approaches include assessing the validity of information sources and
making decisions based on logic and supporting data. But there are some differences between the
two. One similarity between Lipman's fourth graders and professional philosophers is that both groups derive their opinions through observation and reasoning. Descartes, for example, used his
well-known method of systematic doubt to reach conclusions about the nature of reality. Similar to this, the fourth graders examined their surroundings and made conclusions about the world around them based on their understanding of cause and effect. Another similarity between both systems is the use of logical reasoning to arrive at their conclusions. One attempt at using logic to prove the existence of God was made by Descartes. In a manner similar to this, Lipman's fourth-graders used logic to make conclusions about their environment and the larger universe.
There are several disagreements between the fourth-graders in Lipman's class and well-known philosophers' epistemologies, including Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, and Locke. The two approaches differ greatly from one another even if they are similar. Fourth graders utilize an approach more based in concrete thinking than professional philosophers, who use abstract and sophisticated reasoning. Descartes, for example, used his well-known method of systematic doubt to reach conclusions about the nature of reality. This method requires sophisticated, abstract reasoning. In contrast, the fourth graders used more direct and concrete reasoning to make conclusions about their environment. The fourth graders' approach is more concrete and hands-on, whereas the professional philosophers' is more theoretical and abstract. This is another
difference. Descartes, for instance, questioned his own beliefs and assumptions in order to arrive at his conclusions. This tactic is more ethereal and speculative. The fourth graders, on the other hand, used a more direct and practical approach, making inferences about their environment through observation and reasoning.
5.After completing his work with the fourth graders Lipman was struck “more powerfully and affectingly then ever, how little we know of children’s intellectual capabilities and how sure we are of their limitations.” What ecatly do you think Lipman is getting at here? What
implications, if any, does what Lipman is saying have for elementary school education? Lipman highlights how adults frequently don't know enough about the cognitive capacities of children. He argues that adults are sometimes hasty to conclude that children have little ability for cognition or learning and that children are frequently far more capable than we give them credit for. The way we approach education generally, but especially primary school education, is affected by Lipman's theory. If we believe that children's capacity for thought and learning is restricted, we run the risk of undermining their potential by depriving them of the stimulating intellectual experiences necessary for growth. Conversely, when we acknowledge children's capacity for thought and learning, we increase the likelihood of giving them the tools they require to realize their full potential. Lipman is attempting to convey the idea that adults frequently underestimate the intellectual capacity of children. He argues that children are frequently far more capable than we give them credit for being, and that society as a whole mistakenly believes that children have a limited capacity for thought and learning. Lipman is attempting to convey that we should reconsider our assumptions regarding children's intellectual potential and give them more credit for their ability to think and learn.
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