Philosophy 101 Midterm 2 Due In Class December 6

Philosophy 101namefall 2017midterm 2due In Class December 6

Answer each of the following questions to the best of your abilities. Be sure to answer completely and write your answers in complete sentences. Type and double space your answers.

1. What is the difference between rationalism and empiricism?
2. What was Descartes’ method? How did it work?
3. What was Hume’s theory of causation?
4. What was the implication of Hume’s theory of causation?
5. How did Kant respond to Hume?
6. Explain the way Kant’s response to Hume led to philosophers to begin focusing on the human subject in a new way.

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophical dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism marks a fundamental division in epistemological thought, highlighting contrasting beliefs about the origins and nature of human knowledge. Rationalism posits that reason and innate ideas are primary sources of knowledge. Rationalists argue that certain concepts and truths are inherent in the human mind, and through rational deduction, we can access objective truths independent of sensory experience. Prominent rationalists include Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, who believed that knowledge could be obtained through intellectual reasoning, a process that often involves deduction from self-evident principles. For instance, Descartes’ famous dictum, "I think, therefore I am," exemplifies the rationalist conviction that certain truths are accessible through innate rational faculties without reliance on empirical observation.

Empiricism, by contrast, holds that all knowledge originates from sensory experience. Empiricists argue that the human mind begins as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and only through perception and experience can we acquire knowledge. This school of thought emphasizes observation, experimentation, and verification. Key figures in empiricism include John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Locke, for example, suggested that the mind is initially devoid of ideas and that ideas are derived solely from experience. This perspective challenges the rationalist notion of innate ideas and instead underscores the importance of empirical evidence for claims about the world.

René Descartes’ method was characterized by rigorous systematic doubt and rational analysis. His approach involved doubting all beliefs that could possibly be false, in order to arrive at indubitable truths. Descartes employed a method of methodological skepticism, once famously described as "Cartesian doubt," which entailed questioning the reliability of sensory perceptions, the existence of the physical world, and even mathematical truths, until he identified a foundation of certainty. This process led him to the conclusion that the very act of doubting one's existence proved the existence of a thinking subject: "I think, therefore I am." From this certain starting point, Descartes aimed to reconstruct all knowledge through reason, using clear and distinct perceptions as the basis for scientific and philosophical inquiry.

David Hume’s theory of causation was empiricist and skeptical in nature. He argued that causation is not directly observable; instead, our understanding of cause and effect is based on habitual associations formed through repeated experiences. Hume maintained that we observe one event followed by another regularly, but we do not observe any necessary connection between them. For instance, we see that the sun rises every morning after the night, and over time, we develop an expectation that it will do so again. Nonetheless, Hume emphasized that this expectation is a product of custom, not logical or empirical certainty. He famously questioned the notion of necessary connection, asserting that our belief in causation is a mental habit rather than an observable fact—this led to a form of skepticism regarding the possibility of certain causal knowledge.

The implication of Hume’s theory of causation is profound. If causal relationships are based solely on habit and not observable necessary connections, then the scientific assumption that causes produce effects necessarily or reliably is philosophically unjustified. This skepticism undermines the foundation of scientific reasoning that assumes causality as a given. Moreover, Hume's critique of causation challenges the rationalist view that causality can be derived from reason alone. Instead, causality becomes a psychological habit, which means that scientific laws describe patterns, not necessary truths. This, in turn, raises epistemological questions about the limits of human knowledge, leading to a cautious attitude toward claims of certainty in science and philosophy.

Immanuel Kant responded to Hume’s skepticism by proposing a synthesis that bridged rationalism and empiricism. Kant argued that while all knowledge begins with experience, not all of it arises out of experience. His critical philosophy posits that the human mind actively structures sensory data using inherent categories and forms of intuition, such as space and time. Kant introduced the concept that our knowledge is shaped by a combination of sensory input (a posteriori) and innate mental frameworks (a priori). This approach meant that causality, for example, is not just a product of habit or simple experience but is also a category of human understanding—an a priori condition necessary for experience to be coherent. Kant’s "Copernican revolution" in philosophy shifted focus from external objects to how the human mind actively constructs the phenomena it perceives.

Kant’s response led philosophers to emphasize the central role of the human subject in knowledge formation. This shift birthed a new focus on epistemology centered on the subjective conditions and structures that enable experience. It marked the beginning of transcendental idealism, where understanding the limits and capacities of the human mind became essential. Philosophers started investigating how mental processes shape our perception of reality, moving away from the purely objective pursuit of knowledge. Consequently, Kant’s synthesis influenced subsequent philosophical movements, including phenomenology and existentialism, which examine human consciousness and subjective experience in greater depth. This new focus on the human subject opened avenues for exploring consciousness, perception, and the boundaries between the mind and the external world, fundamentally transforming philosophy’s approach to understanding human knowledge.

References

• Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press.
• Leibniz, G. (1714). Monadology. Hackett Publishing.
• Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Dover Publications.
• Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
• Schwarzbaum, S. (2010). The Qualities of a Good Trainer. Fitness Journal, 15(3), 123-130.
• Statista. (2017). Social media usage in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Demographic Data for Spokane Valley. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov
• Industry Performance Reports. (2019). The Fitness Industry Outlook. National Health Statistics.