Evaluating Philosophical Arguments

Evaluating Philosophical Arguments

The Problem of Knowledge

People argue because they disagree with each other’s views or opinions. One of the main types of arguments is known as syllogism, this is a common-sense argument which reaches a rational conclusion that is constructed by a series of predicates which are presumably correct. Syllogism consists of two premises followed by a conclusion, e.g. Premise one: Wings let you fly. Premise two: All birds have wings. Therefore the conclusion being all birds can fly. Another type of argument is an ‘Ad hominem’; this type of argument is when a person argues against another person/group just because they dislike them, in other words arguing not because you are against what the person/group stands

In his book ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’ he talks about three waves of doubt. His first wave being the senses, he says whatever we see, smell, touch and hear we accept it as true because we experience it first hand, however the senses are not reliable as modern science has proven. For example it seems as if the Sun is orbiting the Earth however due to advances in scientific technology science have proven that in reality the Earth is orbiting the Sun. His second wave is sleep; he asks how do we know in reality we aren’t just asleep? He goes on to say this could all be one dream with the reality being the afterlife, how do we know we are really awake? His third wave of doubt is a demon; he says that this world could be an illusion. The demons give us illusions of our senses, such as colours, trees and the sky all of which are not actually ‘real’, and are put into place by the devil who deceives us to ensnare our judgement. All that he believed he knew was actually a result from the senses. Through this process of methodological doubt, Descartes withdraws completely from the senses. This is because in his opinion God/the devil could be deceiving us so therefore Descartes says the senses are unreliable. Descartes famously said ‘Cogito ergo sum’ which means ‘I think therefore I am’. In order to think there must be someone doing the thinking. What he meant by this is that if we can think then it must

God. He says the true origins of knowledge are all based on a posteriori, in other words knowledge is based on experience. He argues that when a person feels the pain of excessive heat and when he later recalls to his memory this sensation these faculties mimic perceptions of the senses but can never reach the vivacity of the original sentiment, hence the reason he says priori knowledge is non-existent. He says "The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation". Meaning having a vivid dream/thought can never even be equivalent to even the smallest feelings from our senses, i.e. touching a plank of wood. Hume also said that impressions are undoubtedly products of immediate experience, and the ideas/thoughts we have are in fact just copies of these impressions. For example the colour of my jeans I am currently wearing is an impression whereas my memory of my granddads hair colour is just an idea. Experience gives us both the ideas in our minds and our awareness of their association. He concludes that all of our beliefs (i.e. of God) are an outcome of repeated applications of these simple associations. Hume also distinguishes between two different types of beliefs; Relation of Ideas which are beliefs that are created in our minds through these associations, and Matters of Fact which are the beliefs that are dependable and claim to report the nature of existing things i.e. the evolution of