Kant Dotto

Aside from Kant's ability to word a sentence more complexly than a theoretical physicist ever could, I would consider Kant one of the world best salesman. I don't really buy into some of his logic such as his "breakthrough" of synthetic a priori knowledge (math). I feel as though he was able to convince people of his ideas and sell them. My theory of sales is if the products were any good, they would sell themselves so salesmen actually aren't convincing you to buy a product, but rather a product that you don't need or want. I understand the necessity to write down his ideas and logic, but in this particular case I think he jumped to a conclusion much too quickly. I dont think that there can be synthetic a priori knowledge because to me it sounds like an oxymoron.

Kant- autonomy Dotto

Kant thinks that being immoral goes against the rationality of human beings and lessens them to instinctual animals. He argues that by ignoring reason and logic, and tending to primal instincts, people lose their autonomy. Humans are the only creatures on earth that can willingly control passions and appetites and to ignore that capability is to animalistic

Kant- space and time Dotto

If people were to be unable to grasp the concept of space and time our world would be in chaos. Driving would be impossible because people would be unsure if their gas and brake pedals were in the same spot that they were a second ago. These imbasiles would jam on their brakes because they wouldnt know if they could drive past the path of someone that just walked across the street. The concept of space and time is as important and essential to our success as anything else.

Kant- synthetic a priori Dotto

For something to be analytic instead of synthetic is must be a priori knowledge, a general truth prior to an observation of it. I don't buy into Kant's "breakthrough" of synthetic a priori knowledge. Surely his logic is close but in order for someone to understand math, they must first grasp the concepts. Numbers are taught and learned so to overlook that we do not grasp numbers independent of observation is ridiculous.

Kant- synthetic knowledge Dotto

How much do we depend on synthetic knowledge? How much can we really rely on and trust our knowledge? If knowledge changes with new observations, does that mean the knowledge we take for granted could be wrong? If all of our knowledge is based on observation done by humans, who are largely imperfect themselves, that leads me to believe we could be living our lives with incorrect facts and misleading truths because the people who found them could have been wrong.

Kant- illusions Dotto

What I found very interesting about Kant's theory of illusions is that it is impossible for someone to know what anyone else is thinking or seeing in their mind. The general rule of greatness is to see if there is a superhero that has a certain ability. X-ray vision & flight- superman/ super strength- hulk/ etc... So if you look for a superhero with mind reading ability you'll find Prof. Xavier from Xmen. The thing that makes him so unique from regular humans is his supernatural ability to tap into the impossible and read the minds of others. Thus, proving that reading other people's minds is impossible in today's world.

call this shallow reasoning, but i'm willing to put this up for debate against the best of em :D

hume - section X

Miracles are a huge disbelief to this day. It does have a tie with religion in my opinion. Miracles are definately bending the laws of nature and seeming almost impossible at times. But there have been many past experiences of people surviving cancer or waking up from a coma. Events that have no explanation. Some people may call it luck but I believe in miracles. Hume argues that there is no reason to believe in such a thing. That most events that have taken place are in the testiment and are all told by word of mouth to this day. "Religion is based on faith, not reason." This statement is true in my eyes and I still see many people to believe in miracles even if most of them are in second hand experience.

Hume- natural law Dotto

The Empiricist view of natural law claims that patterns are based on observable events and findings. Such reasoning can only result in truth because such a method limits the holes of accountability in human understanding. Hume seems to doubt the existence of a god and thinks that miracles are merely violations of nature. However, Hume reasons that since natural law is based on observations, it is possible for there to be an unexperienced event appearing to be a miracle which could actually just be another outcome of an event, not necessarily the intervention of a supreme being.

hume - section IV

In this section, Hume talks about cause and effect but more detailed he talks about the relation of ideas and matter of fact. Matter of fact has to do with experience. Things that already happened or even happening as we speak. As for relation of ideas there is much more to it. It has a connection between cause and effect as well. Or better yet, more then one thought running through your brain at the same time. One idea probably relates to the other. In the end, we all use our past experiences to judge or predict the future. But how much can you rely on that?

hume - section V

Hume says that cause and effect had a big part to do with chained events, or events that are someone connected. Another example being that the movement of a pool ball encounters the other ball and the movement is predictable once understood and/or studied. He states that if a person was just placed into this world cause and effect would not be understood by that person. Therefore, many events that take place would not have any connection.

I think I would have to disagree with Hume here. If a person was just placed into the world today, and events that delt with cause and effect occured it would not be completely out of the ordinary. Maybe at first but eventually it becomes almost a second nature or common sense. For example, when you feel that you are hungry you will eat. When you feel tired you will rest.

Hume- miracles Dotto

Hume stated that the significance of miracles is the fact that the events are a direct violation of nature. Evident in biblical tales such as Jesus walking on water and turning water in wine, these largely unproven stories form the basis of faith and religion for millions around the world. Hume questioned if there could ever be a violation of a natural law/nature. Since we base our reality on observations, it is possible that there could be a violation of a natural law because natural laws are based on observed patterns. Since we only know what we have observed, it is possible that there could be a variation somewhere along the line that defies its general principle. although miracles imply a more supernatural occurance, Hume seems to ponder the physical occurance that a violation of natural law could produce.

Hume- pool ball Dotto

Hume says before you have an observation you can't rule out any conceivable outcomes. While that is reasonable I began to wonder the opposite and how people begin to venture into the unknown. I still do not understand how NASA knew that they could launch a rocketship not only off the ground, but also miles into the sky, through the atmosphere, through space, land on the moon, launch from the moon, fly though space again, fly back through the atmosphere, glide down to earth, and finally land. There were so many variables and one single miscalculation, or wrong estimate could have resulted in failure. How could NASA know that space wasn't so highly pressurized that it would crush the ship like a tin can? How did they know that their suits would hold up to the direct sunlight, temperature, and pressure? and most astoundingly, how did they know that their ship could not only land on the moon, but take off back to earth as well, especially when you consider the lack of oxygen in space which is needed for the combustion of an engine? Somehow NASA scientists were able to rule out these factors before they ever had any real-world data and experiments under their belts.

If Hume was correct, in that our knowledge is a posteriori, then how could astronauts know any of the necessary data for space travel, when there was no prior explorations in the 1960s for them to refer to? Perhaps this is a cingular example, but it may hold some deeper meaning.

Hume- cause and effect Dotto

Hume's proposal of cause and effect seems to be the most evident out of the methods of knowledge (induction, deduction, cause & effect) in our world today. By taking the three philosophers' methods of knowledge that we previously studied and applying it today's world, you can see where there the faults and strengths of the three lie.

in today's oil crisis, Descartes would use his method of deduction and deduce that we have to rely on bio-fuels, solar, wind, and nuclear power because that is all that is available today.

Locke's induction method, would employ logical reasoning and suggest that we immediately cut back on fuel consumption and increase production of ethanol. He may even suggest funding research for alternative energy.

However, with Hume's cause and effect method we have seen that cutting back on fuel consumption and increasing the production of ethanol has had practically no effect on gas prices due to speculators and maxed out refineries. There was no way to see that this particular case would go against the golden rule of business (supply and demand), until it had already happened. Also, no one forsaw the global food crisis arising due to the increase of biofuels and decrease of food production, yet again something only apparent in a cause and effect relationship.

Out of the three i think Hume had the most proven method (induction and cause & effect) although the others have their points as well.

Hume- problem of induction Dotto

The problem with induction is that is leaves room for error, as with most forms of knowledge. Although induction is exponentially better than Descartes' method of deduction, it is imperfect. The problem with deduction is that it leaves too much room for error to be a consistently conclusive method. Where in a game like Clue deducing may lead to the culprit, real world answers are rarely limited to four characters, four rooms, and four objects.

Hume and Locke's rebuttal to Descartes, induction, is based on logical reasoning and cause and effect. Through induction, logical reasoning after lots of particular cases and relevant feautres lead to a general principle. Although it still leaves room for error because there are always exceptions to the rule (referred to as cingular cases), it is much better than Descartes's deduction because deduction takes general principles and infers particular cases.

Hume- ideas & impressions Dotto

I found Hume's theory of ideas vs. impressions to be pretty interesting, yet somewhat obvious. Hume defines ideas as the least vivid copies of impressions. They are merely figments of our imagination and are sketches of reality at best. He then defines impressions as the most vivd experiences that include emotion and result from sensation and stimuli.

a simpler way of putting his theories is by defining it as thoughts vs. experiences. The thoughts (ideas) that we have are only known to us and are usually much more difficult to remember because they are much less formed to begin with and don't include physical sensation, thus making it even more difficult to remember. The experiences (impressions) we have were retained from real world experiences and sensations providing much more vivid images and information, which results in an easier mode of remembrance.