Chapter 5 Responses
1. Rationalism is the view that at least some undeniable truths can be derived simply from reason without the aid of any sensory input.
I disagree. I think that reason does help in deriving truths, but always with the assistance of sensory input. Humans are born with the ability to reason, but not with any true knowledge of the world. Upon birth, our minds are merely blank slates. We start putting information onto that slate the second we become aware and continue to do so until death. The sensory input we receive is not enough to create a truth in our minds but, combined with our reason, can usually be enough to convince us of a truth. Therefore, both reason and senses are needed in order to create an undeniable truth in a person?s mind. Since rationalism believes that only reason is needed to create truths, it cannot be true.
Note: I actually believe that you can't trust your senses or reason to tell you what is true. I'm under the belief that no real knowledge is possible but, to save you the trouble of going over ten responses that all say, "No knowledge is possible so, therefore, the statement is false." I will take a little less extreme route.
2.  Descartes believes that God must exist because an imperfect creature such as man cannot create such a perfect creature unless one truly did exist.
II.�I don't know whether or not God exists and I don't pretend to, but this argument strikes me as incredibly ridiculous. To say that, since man is imperfect, he cannot imagine a perfect creature makes no sense to me. It is in man's imperfections that the ability to imagine a perfect creature resides. We see our own imperfections and can easily imagine some creature (God) that doesn't have such problems while still retaining our good aspects. This can be done easily and proves nothing about the existence of God. One question that this statement leaves unanswered is "Didn't God create man in the image of Him?" If this is so than man is perfect. (Of course, I disagree with that statement too, but one would think Descartes would try to be consistent with biblical mythology)
3. The concept of innate ideas; ideas that are present from birth.
Before I respond to this idea, I have to pose a question. Is instinct considered an innate idea because, if it is, then I agree with innate ideas. If it isn't, however, I disagree with them. Instinct is something that is present in the mind from birth, but I don't know whether or not it would qualify as an innate idea. Other than the possibility of instinct, there is no such thing as an innate idea. Like I mentioned in my first response, the mind starts off as a blank slate and is later filled with ideas and knowledge derived from perception and reason. Therefore, with the possible exception of instinct, innate ideas are nonexistent.
4.  Empiricism is the belief that the human mind starts off blank and is filled by experience. It also claims that true knowledge can only be obtained through the senses.
II.  I agree with part of the beliefs of empiricism and I disagree with others. I do think that the mind starts off blank and is filled by experience, but I don't think that the senses alone can distinguish the truth. As said earlier, the senses and reason together form our opinions about truth, not one or the other. Both are needed, so empiricism is wrong in that sense.
5. Locke states that physical object exist outside of our perception of them and are independent of our senses.
II. I claim pragmatism as far as this view goes. There is absolutely no possible way to show that things do or do not exist independent of our perceptions. In order to prove such a thing, one would have to stop perceiving something and then see if it's still there. But in doing such a thing, you perceive (or don't perceive) the object again, eliminating the experiment. It is like the scientific theory stated earlier. It is impossible to perform a true experiment because the act of observing something changes it to something else. There is just no way to ever be able to show whether or not things exist independent of our perceptions, so it seems pointless to argue over them. Go with what works.
6. According to Locke, our experiences of things are different that the actual things but are similar enough for us to make accurate assumptions about them.
No knowledge is possible. We have absolutely no way of ever knowing if the way we experience things is in any way near the way those things actually are. I think that it is definitely possible (I'll even dare to say probable) that the way we see things is close to the way things really are, but there's just no way to ever find out.
7.  Solipsism is the idea that only I exist and everything I sense is in my mind.
Well, It could happen. There is, of course, no conceivable way of ever knowing this, though. One question arises: If all I touch and all I see is just a figment of my imagination and I am the only thing that is real, where am I? Is it possible that I really am a brain in a jar? Is this some sort of Matrix thing? The lack of probability around these possibilities is enough for me to believe that, though possible, solipsism is probably not true.
8.  Extreme skepticism claims that no knowledge is possible.
I  agree completely with this statement. There is absolutely no possible way to know something is completely true due to uncertainties of perception, reason and reality in itself. If a person cannot trust their perceptions or their ability to reason out the perceptions, then he/she will be unable to form any truths at all. How does a colorblind person know a tree is green? How does a colorblind person know what green is in the first place? It is like this in every person to an extent. Everyone sees things differently from one another and so, nobody is justified in saying that the way he/she sees something is the way it really is. If there is no justification in statements such as "that tree is green" then how is anyone to know any truths about the world, since no truths would be justified.
9. Transcendental Idealism claims that the form of our knowledge comes from reason while the content of our knowledge is from the senses.
I agree with the idea of transcendental idealism (well, actually I disagree, but I'll pretend I agree since it'd be boring for me to say "this statement is false because no knowledge is possible" again. I do, however, think that this is the best idea about where knowledge comes from in the book.) If such a thing as knowledge can be achieved, then it comes from both reason and senses. Reason processes what the senses input and together they determine truth.
10. The idea that science is the only reliable source of knowledge in the world.
Okay, time to let loose. First of all, there is no real knowledge available; it isn't possible. Secondly, science is frequently wrong. A scientist is given an experiment and told what the results will be. Therefore, the scientist will be watching for those results and only those results. Also, science focuses on things that cannot be sensed by humans, such as molecules, electrons, quarks, etc. How is a person to trust information provided by such near-imaginary objects? Another reason that science isn't a reliable source for knowledge is that scientists are only human, and humans make mistakes. A scientist may perceive something to be one way when, in reality, it's something completely different. Or, a scientist may perceive something correctly but reason it out differently. Scientists are commonly wrong and, therefore, science is not a reliable source of knowledge.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1