Rene Descartes’ argument for knowledge including the role of skepticism, the evil demon, and god in resolving his doubts
Rene Descartes explains that Creator rules over all the animals in the world, despite the fact that people doubts His existence. From his assertions, it is clear that Descartes believes that a doubt is a sign of something, which is true or certain (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Descartes says that God is a good leader of individuals and holds that the demon is responsible for the confusion that make people perceives wrong as right and right as wrong.
Thomas Hobbes’ view that all objects are material, including thoughts, feelings and ideas
The fact that all things move continuously and change to different states over time is a fact pioneered by Hobbes. According to Hobbes, thoughts and feelings are factors linked to a state of the mind and influences functioning of the mind. According to Moore and Bruder (2011), Hobbes classifies feelings into objects, which are either good or bad. Hobbes explains that hatred and strife are some of the feelings regarded as bad objects, whereas feelings associated with desire fall in the category of good objects.
John Locke’s Theory of Representative Realism and of primary and secondary qualities
John Locke highlights that the correctness of the characteristics of a body or an object is clear from its external properties that comprise of size and shape. According to Representative Realism theory, physical features like shape and size are the major determinants of the likeness that a person develops in perceiving an object (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Therefore, Locke explains that the visible and physical features of an object dictate the mind of a person concerning the perception of the object. Complementary qualities according to Locke are the secondary qualities of an object, which are only effective in the presence of primary qualities like size and shape.
Benedictus de Spinoza’s view the “God is all”
Benedictus de Spinoza argues that everything in the world comprises of one substance that is equivalent to god, and thus, he advocates for concept that god is everything and everything is god. In his assertion, Spinoza believes that the extension and the thought are part of the same substance. According to Moore and Bruder (2011), Spinoza argues that a substance constitutes immeasurable attributes, which include the thought and extension. Moreover, he states that the body is one such substance that contains several attributes.
Benedictus de Spinoza’s view that we are determined to be free in the context of the notion of free will
Spinoza points out that free will is an illusion and that the order of events is predetermined and dictated by past events. Therefore, events occur in life because certain situations in nature influence substance (Moore & Bruder, 2011). To substantiate his argument, Spinoza stresses that past occurrences have a link with the present because they are under the control and direction of physical laws. In Spinoza’s view, anything that affects the mental or the material attribute harms both the thought and the material attributes, as they are part of one substance.
Anne Conway’s monism in light of the fact that she argues for 2 distinct substances
Anne Conway explains that substances are creatures, which differ from one another in a manner that portray individualism. In the perception of Anne, the creatures have mental and physical levels (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Remarkably, Anne states that all creatures are under the control of God, who is supreme and makes decisions over the creation. The argument that all creatures rely on a supreme being, who creates them stresses the monism, a concept that Anne promotes in her argument.
The two versions of epiphenomenalism: occasionalism and parallelism
Parallelism is one of the versions of epiphenomenalism, which states that the material body and the mind act in parallel, but they act coincidental in some ways. Moore and Bruder (2011) explain that the version of parallelism highlights that an action originates from the mind and is a product of coincidental execution and the material body. Occasionalism version differs from parallelism in that it points out that it is God, who causes the material body to act in line with the mind.
Olivia Sabuco de Nantes’s view on the connection between mind and body
Olivia Sabuco advanced the concept that the connection between the soul and the body occurs in the brain. According to Olivia, the connection takes place in the brain, which houses the soul. The soul governs the activities that the body undertakes and controls the operation of a person (Moore & Bruder, 2011). The fact that the soul acts as the ruler of the body and is in the brain creates a close link between physiological pain and the physical health of a person.
George Berkeley’s view that “to be, is to be perceived”
According to George Berkeley, anything that the mind can perceive must be present in the world. Therefore, Berkeley argues that if the mind can perceive an object, it means that the object must be in existence (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Some of the major assertions that Berkeley presents include the fact that absence of perception in the mind of an individual or God implies that the element in question does not exist
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s view of monads
Gottfried explains that the components of an activity, which people cannot see lead to the emergence of monads, the eventual elements of reality. According to Moore and Bruder (2011), the elements of reality that an individual cannot divide fall in the category of atoms that Gottfried refers to as the monads. Gottfried asserts that the atoms are invisible and indivisible, since they represent what he calls souls, which stand for units of energy.
Hume’s arguments against induction and against cause and effect
Hume explains that an object requires visible components for people to perceive it. The importance of observable inferences in the context of Hume is in the development of individual impression of the object. Notably, Hume’s view concerning cause and effect relied on the concept that one act led to another act (Moore & Bruder, 2011). In his assertion, Hume explains that since the events have a close relationship, several individuals thought that one event causes another, instead of conceptualizing that the initial event initiated a second event in a close or conjoined manner.
Immauel Kant’s notion of the noumenal and the phenomenal
Immanuel Kant’s opinion concerning noumenal things relates to those things, found in locations outside experience. Kant explains that noumenals are major dictators of knowledge that people have and apply in their contemporary activities. Moore and Bruder (2011) explain that noumenals, in Kant’s assertion, are components that are useful in learning. Noumenals can augment learning in humans since they have the capacity to categorize and unify operations of the mind.
Hegel’s arguments against the noumenal
The difference that Hegel highlights as a distinguishing factor from noumenals is on the fact that people are cognizant. The cognizant or conscious nature of human beings renders the significance of noumenals as objects of learning irrelevant. From the aspect of consciousness, Hegel creates a clarity that people do not need noumenals to learn and gain knowledge (Moore & Bruder, 2011). Therefore, the use of noumenals to gain knowledge does not materialize as people have a conscious mind.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism
The idea of pessimism advocated by Schopenhauer originated from his values about life. In the assertions of Schopenhauer, pessimism occurs when people do things blindly and fail in their quest to satisfy their unending desires and creed (Moore & Bruder, 2011). According to Schopenhauer, culture is attainable only after individuals learn to manage their unending desire and creed. It is evident that Schopenhauer champions for a culture that controls the excessive desire of human beings.
Which of the philosophers has a reasonable view of epistemology or metaphysics and why?
The philosophers have presented a diversity of knowledge in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology. Fundamentally, contributions from the philosophers are significant since their research and ideas are useful in handling matters that concern philosophy and metaphysics. As a result, bringing the ideas together and using them collectively facilitates management of challenges that affect the fields of philosophy.
Reference
Moore, B. & Bruder, K. (2011). Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. California: McGraw Hill.