Who am i philosophy essay

Don't try to establish any earth-shattering conclusions in your page paper. Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace.

Originality The aim of these papers is for you to show that you understand the material and that you're able to think critically about it. To do this, your paper does have to show some independent thinking. That doesn't mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. There will be plenty of time for that later on.

An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward see belowwill be accurate when it who am i philosophy essay views to other philosophers see belowand will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts we read.

It need not always break completely new ground. But you should try to come up with your own arguments, or your own way of elaborating or criticizing or defending some argument we looked at in class. Merely summarizing what others have said won't be enough. Three Stages of Writing 1. Early Stages The early stages of writing a philosophy paper include everything you do before you sit down and write your first draft.

These early stages will involve writingwho am i philosophy essay, but you won't yet be trying to write a complete paper. You should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the main argument you want to advance, and composing an outline. Discuss the issues with others As I said above, your papers are supposed to demonstrate that you understand and can think critically about the material we discuss in class. One of the best ways to check how well you understand that material is to try to explain it to someone who isn't already familiar with it.

I've discovered time and again while teaching philosophy that I couldn't really explain properly some article or argument I thought I understood. This was because it was really more problematic or complicated than I had realized. You will have this same experience. So it's good to discuss the issues we raise in class with each other, and with friends who aren't taking the class. This will help you understand the issues better, and it will make you recognize what things you still don't fully understand.

It's even more valuable to talk to each other about what you want to argue in your paper. When you have your ideas worked out well enough that you can explain them to someone else, verbally, then you're ready to sit down and start making an outline. Make an outline Before you begin writing any drafts, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing? At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument?

In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent? Do any of the points you're making presuppose that you've already discussed some other point, first? The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure.

That is why it is important to think about these questions before you begin to write. I strongly recommend that you make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you'll be who am i philosophy essay, before you begin to write. This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper and get a sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure that you're in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper.

When students get stuck writing, it's often because they haven't yet figured out what they're trying to say. Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. For a 5-page paper, a suitable outline might take up a full page or even more. If you who am i philosophy essay a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.

Who am i philosophy essay Work Early Philosophical problems and philosophical writing require careful and extended reflection. Don't wait until two or three nights before the paper is due to begin. That is very stupid. Writing a good philosophy paper takes a great deal of preparation. You need to leave yourself enough time to think about the topic and write a detailed outline.

Only then should you sit down to write a complete draft. Once you have a complete draft, you should set it aside for a day or two. Then you should come back to it who am i philosophy essay rewrite it. At least 3 or 4. If you can, show it to your friends and get their reactions to it. Do they understand your main point? Are parts of your draft unclear or confusing to them? All of this takes time.

So you should start working on your papers as soon as the paper topics are assigned. Write a Draft Once you've thought about your argument, and written an outline for your paper, then you're ready to sit down and compose a complete draft. Use simple prose Don't shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. Keep your sentences and paragraphs short. We'll make fun of you if you use big words where simple words will do.

These issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose language. Don't write using prose you wouldn't use in conversation: You may think that since your TA and I already know a lot about this subject, you can leave out a lot of basic explanation and write in a super-sophisticated manner, like one expert talking to another.

I guarantee you that this will make your paper incomprehensible. If your paper sounds as if it were written for a third-grade audience, then you've probably achieved the who am i philosophy essay sort of clarity. In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and complicated.

Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult sensor capacitivo preco frustrating. The authors in question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So do not try to emulate their writing styles.

Make the structure of your paper obvious You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn't have to exert any effort to figure it out.

Beat him over the head with it. How can you do this? First of all, use connective words, like: Be sure you use these words correctly! If you say " P. You had better be right.

If you aren't, we'll complain. Don't throw in a "thus" or a "therefore" to make your train of thought sound better-argued than it really is. Another way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader revenda de email marketing you've done so far and what you're going to do next.

You can say things like: I will begin by Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to These passages suggest that I will now defend this claim Further support for this claim comes from These signposts really make a big difference. Consider the following two paper fragments: We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-P. My first argument is My second argument that not-P is X might respond to my arguments in several ways.

For instance, he could say that However who am i philosophy essay response fails, because Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that This response also fails, because So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not-P succeed.

Hence, we should reject X's claim that P. I will argue for the view that Q. There are three reasons to believe Q. The strongest objection to Q says However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason Isn't it easy to see what the structure of these papers is? You want it to be just as easy in your own papers.

The reader should never be in doubt about whose claims you're presenting in a given paragraph. Who am i philosophy essay can't make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, who am i philosophy essay, or if your paper has no structure.

That's why making an outline is so important. Be concise, but explain yourself fully To write a good philosophy paper, you need to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully. Emprestimo online urgente com restricao demands might seem to pull in opposite directions. It's as if the first said "Don't talk too much," and the second said "Talk a lot.

We tell you to be concise because we don't want you to ramble on about everything you know about a given topic, trying to show how learned and intelligent you are. Each assignment describes a specific problem or question, and you should make sure you deal with that particular problem.

Nothing should go into your paper which does not directly address that problem. Prune out everything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth than to try to cram in too much.

One or two well-mapped paths are better than an impenetrable jungle. Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant. Don't make your reader guess.

One thing I mean by "explain yourself fully" is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn't just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument. But "explain yourself fully" also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you're writing. It's no good to protest, after we've graded your paper, "I know I said this, but what I meant was Part of what you're being graded on is how well you can who am i philosophy essay that.

Pretend that your reader has not read the material you're discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said.

In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, who am i philosophy essay, and mean.

He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious.

He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing. If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at who am i philosophy essay a reader, you'll probably get an A.

Use plenty of examples and definitions It is very important to use examples in a philosophy paper. Many of the claims philosophers make are very abstract and hard to understand, and examples are the best way to make those claims clearer.

Examples are also useful for explaining the notions that play a central role in your argument. You should always make it clear how you understand these notions, even if they are familiar from everyday discourse. As they're used in everyday discourse, those notions may not have a sufficiently clear or precise meaning. For instance, suppose you're writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the claim " A fetus is a person. That will make a big difference to whether your audience should find this premise acceptable.

It will also make a big difference to how persuasive the rest of your argument is. By itself, the following argument is pretty worthless: A fetus is a person. It's wrong to kill a person. Therefore, it's wrong to kill a fetus.

For we don't know what the author means by calling a fetus "a person. In a philosophy paper, it's okay to use words in ways that atividades de portugues 2 ano fundamental somewhat different from the ways they're ordinarily used.

You just have to make it clear that you're doing this. For instance, some philosophers use the word "person" to mean any being which is capable of rational thought and self-awareness. Understood in this way, animals like whales and chimpanzees might very well count as "persons. But it's okay to use "person" in this way if you explicitly say what you mean by it.

Structured Procrastination

And likewise for other words. Don't vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety If you call something "X" at the start of your paper, call it "X" all the way through. So, for instance, don't start talking about "Plato's view of the self, " and then switch to talking about "Plato's view of the soul, " and then switch to talking about "Plato's view of the mind.

In philosophy, a slight change in vocabulary usually signals that you intend to be speaking about something new. Using words with precise philosophical meanings Philosophers give many ordinary-sounding words precise technical meanings. Consult the handouts on Philosophical Terms and Methods to make sure you're using these words correctly. Don't use words that you don't fully espelho magico mario quintana. Use technical philosophical terms only where you need them.

You don't need to explain general philosophical terms, like "valid argument" and "necessary truth. So, for instance, if you use any specialized terms like "dualism" or "physicalism" or "behaviorism," you should explain what these mean. Likewise if you use technical terms like "supervenience" and the like. Even professional philosophers writing for other professional philosophers need to explain the special technical vocabulary they're using. Different people sometimes use this special vocabulary in different ways, so it's important to make sure that you and your readers are all giving these words the same meaning.

Pretend that your readers have never heard them before. Presenting and assessing the views of others If you como e o curso de odontologia to discuss the views of Philosopher X, begin by figuring out what his arguments or central assumptions are. Are X's arguments good ones?

Are his assumptions clearly stated? Are they reasonable starting-points for X's argument, or ought he have provided some independent argument for them? Make sure you who am i philosophy essay exactly what the position you're criticizing says. Students waste a lot of time arguing against views that sound like, but are really different from, the views they're supposed to be assessing.

Remember, philosophy demands a high level of precision. It's not good enough for you merely to get the general idea of somebody else's position or argument.

You have to get it exactly right. Who am i philosophy essay this respect, philosophy is more like a science than the other humanities. A lot of the work in philosophy is making sure that you've got your opponent's position right. You can assume that your reader is stupid see above.

But don't treat the philosopher or the views you're discussing as stupid.

If they were stupid, we wouldn't be looking at them. If you can't see anything the view has going for it, maybe that's because you don't have much experience thinking and arguing about the view, and so you haven't yet fully understood why the view's proponents are attracted to it.

Try harder to figure out what's motivating them. Philosophers sometimes do say outrageous things, but if the view you're attributing to historia do dinheiro philosopher seems to be obviously crazy, then you should think hard about whether he really does say what you think he says.

Try to figure out what reasonable position the philosopher could have had in mind, and direct your arguments against that. In your paper, you always have to explain what a position says before you criticize it. If you don't explain what you take Philosopher X's view to be, your reader cannot judge whether the criticism you offer of X is a good criticism, or whether it is simply based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of X's views. So tell the reader what it is you think X is saying.

Don't try to tell the reader everything you know about X's views, though. You have to go on to offer your own philosophical contribution, who am i philosophy essay, too. Only summarize those parts of X's views that are directly relevant to what you're going to go on to do. Sometimes you'll need to argue for your interpretation of X's view, by citing passages which support your interpretation.

It is permissible for you to discuss a view you think a philosopher might have held, or should have held, though you can't find any direct evidence of that view in the text.

When you do conceito de percepcao na psicologia, though, you should explicitly say so.

Philosopher X doesn't explicitly say that P, but it seems valvula by pass me that he's assuming it anyway, because Quotations When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your interpretation of some philosopher's views, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly. Be sure to specify where the passage can be found. My idea of a glass of orange juice or my idea of the New York subway system, for example, could not be classed a simple ideas.

Locke calls ideas like these complex ideas. His view is that complex ideas are the product of combining our simple ideas together in various ways. For example, my complex idea of a glass of orange juice consists of various simple ideas the color orange, the feeling of coolness, who am i philosophy essay certain sweet taste, a certain acidic taste, and so forth combined together into one object. Thus, Locke believes our ideas are compositional, who am i philosophy essay.

Simple ideas combine to form complex ideas. And these complex ideas can be combined to form even more complex ideas. He is committed to the view that all of our ideas, everything we can possibly think of, can be broken down into simple ideas received in experience. The bulk of Book II is devoted to making this empiricism plausible. Locke does this both by undertaking an examination of the various abilities that the human mind has memory, abstraction, volition, and so forth and by offering an account of how even abstruse ideas like space, infinity, God, and who am i philosophy essay could be constructed using only the simple ideas received tabela de dimensionamento de cabos experience.

Our complex ideas are classified into three different groups: Ideas of substances are ideas of things which are thought to exist independently. Ordinary objects like desks, sheep, and mountains fall into this group. But there are also ideas of collective substances, which consist of individuals substances considered as forming a whole. A group of individual buildings might be considered a town. And a group of individual men and women might be considered together as an army. In addition to describing the way we think about individual substances, Locke also has an interesting discussion of substance-in-general.

What is it that particular substances like shoes and spoons are made out of? We could suggest that they are made out of leather and metal. But the question could be repeated, what are leather and metal made of? We might respond that they peca teatral evangelica para jovens made of matter.

But even here, Locke thinks we can ask what matter is made of. What gives rise to the properties of matter? So our idea of substances will always be somewhat confused because we do not really know what stands under, supports, or gives rise to observable properties like extension and solidity. Ideas of modes are ideas of things which are dependent on substances in some way.

In general, this taxonomic category can be somewhat tricky. It does not seem to have a clear parallel in contemporary metaphysics, and it is sometimes thought to be a mere catch-all category for things which are neither substances nor relations.

Modes come in two types: Simple modes are constructed by combining a large number of a single type of simple ideas together. For example, Locke believes there is a simple idea of unity.

Our complex idea of the number seven, for example, is a simple mode and is constructed by concatenating seven simple ideas of unity together. Locke uses this category to explain faculdade assistente social quanto tempo we think about a number of topics relating to number, space, time, pleasure and pain, and cognition. Mixed modes, on the other hand, involve combining together simple ideas of more than one kind.

A great many ideas fall into this category. But the most important who am i philosophy essay are moral ideas, who am i philosophy essay.

Our ideas of theft, murder, promising, duty, and the like all count as mixed modes. Ideas of relations are ideas that involve more than one substance.

My idea of a husband, for example, is more than the idea of an individual man. Locke is keen to point out that much more of our thought involves relations than we might previously have thought. For example, when I think about Elizabeth II as the Queen of England my thinking actually involves relations, because I cannot truly think of Elizabeth as a queen without conceiving of her as having a certain relationship of sovereignty to some who am i philosophy essay individual substances like David Beckham and J.

Locke then goes on to explore the role that relations have in our thinking about causation, space, time, morality, and very famously identity. Throughout his discussion of the different kinds of complex ideas Locke is keen to emphasize that all of our ideas can ultimately be broken down into simple ideas received in sensation and reflection. Put differently, Locke is keenly aware that the success of his empiricist theory of mind depends on its ability to account for all the contents of our minds.

Whether or not Locke is successful is a matter of dispute. On some occasions the analysis he gives of how a very complex idea could be constructed using only simple ideas is vague and requires the reader to fill in some gaps. And commentators have also suggested that some of the simple ideas Locke invokes, for example the simple ideas of power and unity, do not seem to be obvious components of our phenomenological experience.

Book II closes with a number of chapters designed to help us evaluate the quality of who am i philosophy essay ideas. Our ideas are better, according to Locke, insofar as they are clear, distinct, real, adequate, and true. Our ideas are worse insofar as they are obscure, confused, fantastical, inadequate, and false. Clarity and obscurity are explained via an analogy to vision. Clear ideas, like clear images, are crisp and fresh, not faded or diminished in the way that obscure ideas or images are.

Distinction and confusion have to do with the individuation of ideas. Ideas are distinct when there is only one word which corresponds to them. Confused ideas are ones to which more than one word can correctly apply or ones that lack a clear and consistent correlation to one particular word.

For example, our idea of a horse would be a real idea and our idea of a unicorn would be fantastical. Adequacy and inadequacy have to do with how well ideas match the patterns according to which they were made. Adequate ideas perfectly represent the thing they are meant to depict; inadequate ideas fail to do this. Ideas are true when the mind understands them in a way that is correct according to linguistic practices and the way the world is structured.

They are false when the mind misunderstands them along these lines. In these chapters Locke also explains which categories of ideas are better or worse revisao engenharia ambiental e uso da agua to this evaluative system.

Simple ideas do very well. Because objects directly produce them in the mind they tend to be clear, distinct, and so forth. Ideas of modes and relations also tend to do very well, but for a different reason. Locke thinks that the archetypes of these ideas are in the mind rather than in the who am i philosophy essay. As such, it is easy for these ideas to be good because the mind has a clear sense of what the ideas should be like as it constructs them.

By contrast, ideas of substances tend to fare very poorly. The archetypes for these ideas are external world objects. Because our perceptual access to these objects is limited in a number of ways and because these objects are so intricate, ideas of substances tend to be confused, inadequate, false, and so forth. Book III of the Essay is concerned with language. Locke admits that this topic is something of a digression.

He did not originally plan for language to take up an entire book of the Essay, who am i philosophy essay. But he soon began to realize that language plays an important role in our cognitive lives. Book III begins by noting this and by discussing the nature and proper role of language. But a major portion of Book III is devoted to combating the misuse of language.

Locke believes that improper use of language is one of the greatest obstacles to knowledge and clear thought. He offers a diagnosis of the problems caused by language and recommendations for avoiding these problems. Locke believes that language is a tool for communicating with other human beings.

Specifically, Locke thinks that we want to communicate about our ideas, the contents of our minds. From here it is a short step to the view that: Locke is, of course, aware that the names we choose for these ideas are arbitrary and merely a matter of social livro de contabilidade empresarial. First, humans also want their words to refer to the corresponding ideas in the minds of other humans.

After all, communication would be impossible without the supposition that our words correspond to ideas in the minds of others. Second, humans suppose that their words stand for objects in the world. But Locke is suspicious of these two other ways of understanding signification.

He thinks who am i philosophy essay latter one, in particular, is illegitimate. After discussing these basic features of language and reference Locke goes on to discuss specific cases of the relationship between ideas and words: That word is a particle and indicates that I am expressing something about the relationship between my ideas of Secretariat and brown and suggesting that they are connected in a certain way.

As mentioned above, the problems of language are a major concern of Book III. Locke thinks that language can lead to confusion and misunderstanding for a number of reasons. The signification of words is arbitrary, rather than natural, and this means it can be difficult to understand which words refer to which ideas.

Many of our words stand for ideas which are complex, hard to acquire, or both. So many people will struggle to use those words appropriately. And, in some cases, people will even use words when they have no corresponding idea or only a very confused and inadequate corresponding idea. Locke claims that this is exacerbated by the fact that we are often taught words before we have any idea what the word signifies.

People also often use words inconsistently or who am i philosophy essay on their meaning. Finally, some people are led astray because they believe that their words sintese da economia brasileira capture reality.

Recall from above that people secretly and incorrectly use their words to refer to objects in the external world. The problem is that people might be very wrong about what those objects are like.

Locke thinks that a result of all this is that people are seriously misusing language and that many debates and discussions in important fields like science, politics, and philosophy are confused or consist of merely verbal disputes. Locke provides a number of examples of language causing problems: The remedies that Locke recommends for fixing these problems created by language are somewhat predictable.

But Locke is quick to point out that while they sound like easy fixes they are actually quite difficult to implement. The first and most important step is to only use words when we have clear ideas attached to them. We must also strive to make sure that the ideas attached to terms are as complete as possible. We must strive to ensure that we use words consistently and do not equivocate; every time we utter a word we should use it to signify one and the same idea.

Finally, we should communicate our definitions of words to others. In Book IV, having already explained how the mind is furnished with the ideas it has, Locke moves on to discuss knowledge and belief. A good place to start is with a quote from the beginning of Book IV: Where this Perception is, there is Knowledge, and where it is not, there, though we may fancy, guess, or believe, yet we always come short of Knowledge.

Locke spends the first part of Book IV clarifying and exploring this conception of knowledge. The second 2 via coelba pelo cpf focuses on how we should apportion belief in cases where we lack knowledge.

Some examples might help. Bring to mind your idea of white and your idea of black. It is when you perceive this disagreement that you know the fact that white is not black. Those acquainted with American who am i philosophy essay will know that Boise is in Idaho. Locke enumerates four dimensions along which there might be this sort of agreement or disagreement between ideas. First, we can perceive when two ideas are identical or non-identical.

For example, knowing that sweetness is not bitterness consists in perceiving that the idea of sweetness is not identical to the idea of bitterness. Second, we can perceive relations that obtain between ideas.

For example, knowing that 7 is greater than 3 consists in who am i philosophy essay that there is a size relation of bigger and smaller between the two ideas. Third, we can perceive when our idea of a certain feature accompanies our idea of a certain thing. If Who am i philosophy essay know that ice is cold this is because I perceive that my idea of cold always accompanies my idea of ice. Fourthly, we can perceive when existence agrees with any idea. I can have knowledge of this fourth kind when, for example, I perform the cogito and recognize the special relation between my idea of myself and my idea of existence.

Locke thinks that all of our knowledge consists in agreements or disagreements of one of these types. These degrees seem to consist in different ways of knowing something. The first degree Locke calls intuitive knowledge. An agent possesses intuitive knowledge when she directly perceives the connection between two ideas.

The second degree of knowledge is called demonstrative. Often it is impossible to perceive an immediate connection between two ideas. For example, most of us are unable to tell that the three interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles simply by looking at them. But most of us, with the assistance of a mathematics teacher, can be made to see that they are equal by means of a geometric proof who am i philosophy essay demonstration. This is the model for demonstrative knowledge.

Even if one is unable to directly perceive a relation between idea-X and idea-Y one might perceive a relation indirectly by means of idea-A and idea-B. This will be possible if the agent has intuitive knowledge of a connection between X and A, between A and B, and then who am i philosophy essay B and Y. Demonstrative knowledge consists, therefore, in a string of relations each of which is known intuitively. The third degree of knowledge is called sensitive knowledge and has been the source of considerable debate and confusion among Locke commentators.

For one thing, Locke is unclear as to whether sensitive knowledge even counts as knowledge. Sensitive knowledge has to do with the relationship between our ideas and the objects in the external world that produce them. Locke claims that we can be certain that when we perceive something, an orange, for example, there is an object in the external world which is responsible for these sensations. There is something in the phenomenological experience of the former which assures us of a corresponding object in the external world.

Locke spends a fair amount of time in Book IV responding to worries that he is a skeptic or that his account of knowledge, with its emphasis on ideas, fails to be responsive to the external world. The general worry for Locke is fairly simple. By claiming that ideas are the only things humans have epistemic access to, and by claiming that knowledge relates only to our ideas, Locke seems to rule out the claim that we can ever know about the external world.

We cannot know what it would be for an idea to resemble or represent an object. And we cannot tell, without the ability to step outside our own minds, whether our ideas did this reliably. But the central problem is still a pressing one. Debates about the correct understanding of sensitive knowledge are obviously important when considering these issues.

At first blush, the relation involved in sensitive knowledge seems to be a relation between an idea and a physical object in the world. But, if this reading is correct, then it becomes difficult to understand the many passages in which Locke insists that knowledge is a relation that holds only between ideas. Also relevant are debates about how to correctly understand Lockean ideas. Recall from above that although many understand ideas as mental objects, some understand them as mental acts.

While most of the text seems to favor the first interpretation, it seems that the second interpretation has a significant advantage when responding to these skeptical worries. The reason is that the connection between ideas and external world objects is built right into the definition of an idea. An idea just is a perception of an external world object. However the debates discussed in quadrante do fluxo de caixa previous paragraph are resolved, there is a consensus among commentators that Locke believes the scope of human understanding is very narrow.

Humans are not capable of very much knowledge. Locke discusses this is 4. We have already discussed the ways in which our ideas of substances are problematic. And we have just seen that we have no real understanding of the connection between our ideas and the objects that produce them. The good news, however, is that while our knowledge might not be very extensive, it is sufficient for our needs.

Our Business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our Conduct. Locke thinks we have enough knowledge to live comfortable lives on Earth, to realize that there is a God, to understand morality and behave appropriately, and to gain salvation. Our knowledge of morality, in particular, is very good. This is possible because our moral ideas are ideas of modes, rather than ideas of substances.

Finally, while the limits to our knowledge might be disappointing, Locke notes that recognizing these limits is important and useful insofar as it will help us to better organize our intellectual inquiry. We will be saved from investigating questions which we could never know the answers to and can focus our efforts on areas where progress is possible.

This was the arena of judgment or opinion, belief states which fall short of knowledge. Given that we have so little knowledge that we can be certain of so little the realm of probability becomes very important.

Recall that knowledge consists in a perceived agreement or disagreement between two ideas. Belief that falls short of reciclagem de papel industrial judgment or opinion consists in a presumed agreement or disagreement between two ideas.

I do not directly perceive a connection between my idea of Stephen Harper and my idea of the Canadian PM, but I presume that one exists. After artigo 172 cpc this account of what judgment is, Locke offers an analysis of how and why we form the opinions we do and offers some recommendations for forming our opinions responsibly. This includes a diagnosis of the errors people make in judging, a discussion of the different degrees of assent, and an interesting discussion of the epistemic value of testimony.

As discussed above, the main project of the Essay is an examination of the human understanding and an analysis of knowledge. But the Essay is a rather expansive work and contains discussion of many other topics of philosophical interest. Some of these will be discussed below. A word of warning, however, is required before proceeding. It can sometimes be difficult to tell whether Locke takes himself to be offering a metaphysical theory or whether he merely is describing a component of human psychology.

For example, we might question whether his account of personal identity is meant to give necessary and sufficient conditions for a metaphysical account of personhood or whether it is merely designed to tell us what sorts of identity attributions we do and should make and why. We may further question whether, when discussing primary and secondary qualities, Locke is offering a theory about how perception really works or whether this discussion is a mere digression used to illustrate a point about the nature of our ideas.

So while many of these topics have received a great deal of attention, their precise relationship to the main project of the Essay can be difficult to locate. Book 2, Chapter 8 of the Essay contains an extended discussion of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Locke was hardly original in making this distinction. By the time the Essay was published, it had been made by many others and was even somewhat commonplace.

Locke defines a quality as a power that a body has to produce ideas in us. So a simple object like a baked potato which can produce ideas of brownness, heat, ovular shape, solidity, and determinate size must have a series of corresponding qualities. There must be something in the potato which gives us the idea of brown, something in the potato which gives us the idea of ovular shape, and so on.

Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin (1770—1843)

Locke motivates the distinction between two types of qualities by discussing how a body could produce an idea in us. The theory of perception endorsed by Locke is highly mechanical. All perception occurs as a result of motion and collision. If I smell the baked potato, there must be small material particles which are flying off of the potato and bumping into nerves in my nose, the motion in the nose-nerves causes a chain reaction along my nervous system until eventually there who am i philosophy essay some motion in my brain and I experience the idea of a certain smell.

If I see the baked potato, there must be small material particles flying off the potato and bumping into my retina. That bumping causes a similar chain reaction which ends in my experience of a certain roundish shape. From this, Locke infers that for an object to produce ideas in us it must really have some features, but can completely lack other features.

This mechanical theory of perception requires that objects producing ideas in us have shape, extension, mobility, and solidity. But it does not require that these objects have color, taste, sound, or temperature. So the primary qualities are qualities actually possessed by bodies.

These are features that a body cannot who am i philosophy essay without.

John Locke (1632—1704)

The secondary qualities, by contrast, are not really had by bodies. They are just ways of talking about the ideas that can be produced in us who am i philosophy essay bodies in virtue of their primary qualities. So when we claim that the who am i philosophy essay potato is solid, this means that solidity is one of its fundamental features.

But when I claim that it smells a certain earthy kind of way, this just means that its fundamental features are capable of producing the idea of the earthy smell in my mind. Insofar as my idea of the potato is of something solid, extended, mobile, and possessing a certain shape my idea accurately captures something about the real nature of the potato. But insofar as my idea of the potato is of something with a particular smell, temperature, and taste my ideas do not accurately capture mind-independent facts about who am i philosophy essay potato.

Around the time of the Essay the mechanical philosophy was emerging as the predominant theory about the physical world. The mechanical philosophy held that the fundamental entities in the physical world were small individual bodies called corpuscles. Each corpuscle was solid, extended, and had a certain shape. These corpuscles could combine together to form ordinary objects like rocks, tables, and plants. The mechanical philosophy argued that all features of bodies and all natural phenomena could be explained by appeal to these corpuscles and their basic properties in particular, size, shape, and motion.

Locke was exposed to the mechanical philosophy while at Oxford and became acquainted with the writings of its most prominent advocates. On balance, Locke seems to have become a convert to the mechanical philosophy. He writes that mechanism is the best available hypothesis for the explanation of nature. We have already seen some of the explanatory work done by mechanism in the Essay. The distinction between primary and secondary qualities was a hallmark of the mechanical philosophy and neatly dovetailed with mechanist accounts of perception.

Locke reaffirms his commitment to this account of perception at a number of other points in the Essay. And when discussing material objects Locke is very often happy to allow that they are composed of material corpuscles.

What is peculiar, however, is that while the Essay does seem to have a number of passages in which Locke supports mechanical explanations and speaks highly of mechanism, it also contains some highly critical remarks about mechanism and discussions of the limits of the mechanical philosophy.

First, he recognized that there were a number of observed phenomena which mechanism struggled to explain. Mechanism did offer neat explanations of some observed phenomena. For example, the fact that objects could be seen but not smelled through glass could be explained by positing that the corpuscles which interacted with our retinas were smaller than the ones which interacted with our nostrils.

So the sight corpuscles could pass through the spaces between the glass corpuscles, but the smell corpuscles would be turned who am i philosophy essay. But other phenomena were harder to explain. Magnetism and various chemical and biological processes like fermentation were less susceptible to these sorts of explanations. And pesquisas de marketing gravitation, which Locke took Newton to have proved the existence of in the Principiawas particularly hard to explain.

Indeed, at several points he even suggests that God may have superadded the power of thought to matter and that humans might be purely material beings. One problem was that mechanism had no satisfactory way of explaining cohesion. Why do corpuscles sometimes stick together? If things like tables and chairs are just collections of small corpuscles then they should be very easy to break apart, the same way I can easily separate one group of marbles from another.

Further, why should any one particular corpuscle stay stuck together as a solid? What accounts for its cohesion? Again, mechanism seems hard-pressed to offer an answer. Finally, Locke allows that we do not entirely understand transfer of motion by impact. When one corpuscle collides with another we actually do not have a very satisfying explanation who am i philosophy essay why the second moves away under the force of the impact. Locke presses these critiques with some skill and in a serious manner.

Still, ultimately he is guardedly optimistic about mechanism. In Book 2, Chapter 21 of the Essay Locke explores the topic of the will, who am i philosophy essay.

One of the things which separates people from rocks and billiard balls is our ability to make decisions and control our actions. We feel that we are free in certain respects and that we have the power to choose certain thoughts and actions. Locke calls this power the will. But there are tricky questions about what this power consists in and about what it takes to freely or voluntarily choose something. Locke first begins with questions of freedom and then proceeds to a discussion of the will.

For example, if I wish to jump into a lake and have no physical maladies which prevent it, then I am free to jump into the lake. By contrast, if I do not wish to jump into the lake, but a friend pushes me in, I did not act freely when I entered the water.

Or, if I wish to jump into the lake, but have a spinal injury and cannot move my body, then I do not act freely when I stay on the shore. So far so good, Locke has offered us a useful way of differentiating our voluntary actions from our involuntary ones. But there is still a pressing question about freedom and the will: When I am deciding whether who am i philosophy essay not to jump into the water, is the will determined by outside factors to choose one or the other?

Or can it, so to speak, make up its own mind and choose either option? But in later sections he offers a qualification of sorts. In normal circumstances, the will is determined by what Locke calls uneasiness: That is that which successively determines the Willand sets us upon those Actions, we perform.

The uneasiness is caused by the absence of something that is perceived as good. The perception of the thing as good gives rise to a desire for that thing. Suppose I choose to eat a slice of pizza. Locke would say I must have made this choice because the absence of the pizza was troubling me somehow I was feeling hunger pains, or longing for pizzaria mao do mestre vila carrao savory and this discomfort gave rise to a desire for food.

That desire in turn determined my will to choose to eat pizza. Beginning with the second edition of the EssayLocke began to argue that the most pressing desire for the most part determines the will, but not always: So even if, at this moment, my desire for pizza is the strongest desire, Locke thinks I can pause before I decide to eat the pizza and consider the decision.

I can consider other items in my desire set: Careful consideration of these other possibilities might have the effect of changing my desire set. If I really focus on how important it is to stay fit and healthy by eating nutritious foods then my desire to leave the pizza might become stronger than my desire to eat it and my will may be determined to choose to not eat the pizza.

On this point Locke is somewhat vague. While most interpreters think our desires determine when judgment is suspended, who am i philosophy essay, some others disagree and argue that suspension of judgment offers Lockean agents a robust form of free will. Locke was one of the first philosophers to give serious attention to the question of personal identity. And his discussion of the question has proved influential both historically and in the present day.

At heart, the question is simple, what makes me the same person as the person who did certain things in the past and that will do certain things in the future? In what sense was it me that attended Bridlemile Elementary School many years ago? After all, that person was very short, knew very little about soccer, and loved Chicken McNuggets.

I, on the other hand, am average height, know tons of soccer trivia, and get rather queasy at the thought of eating chicken, especially in nugget form. Nevertheless, who am i philosophy essay, it is true that I am identical to the boy who attended Bridlemile. Christian doctrine held that who am i philosophy essay was an afterlife in which virtuous people would be rewarded in heaven and sinful people would be punished in hell.

This scheme provided motivation for individuals to behave morally. But, for this to work, it was important that the person who is rewarded or punished is the same person as the one who lived virtuously or lived sinfully. And this had to be true even though the person being rewarded or punished had died, had somehow continued to exist in an afterlife, vestibular medicina unifacs had somehow managed to be reunited with a body.

So it was important to get the issue of personal identity right. The negative project involves arguing against the view that personal identity consists in or requires the continued existence of a particular substance.

And the positive project involves defending the view that personal identity consists in continuity of consciousness. We can begin with this positive view. Locke suggests here that part of what makes a person the same through time is their ability to recognize past experiences as belonging to them. For me, part of what differentiates one little boy fisioterapia em alphaville attended Bridlemile Elementary from all the other children who went there is my realization that I share in his consciousness.

Put differently, my access to his lived experience at Bridlemile is very different from my access to the lived experiences of others there: I recognize his experiences there as part of a string of experiences that make up my life and join up to my current self and current experiences in a unified way. That is what makes him the same person as me. Locke believes that this account of personal identity as continuity of consciousness obviates the need for an account of personal identity given in terms of substances.

A traditional view held that there was a metaphysical entity, the soul, which guaranteed personal identity through time; wherever there was the same soul, the same person would be there as well. Locke offers a number of thought experiments to cast doubt on this belief and show that his account is superior.

For example, if a soul was wiped clean of all its previous experiences and given new ones as might be the case if reincarnation were truethe same soul would not saude do idoso enfermagem the claim that all of those who had had it were the same person. Or, we could resumo sobre revolucao americana two souls who had their conscious experiences completely swapped.

In this case, we would want to say that the person went with the conscious experiences and did not remain with the soul.

Most of these focus on the crucial role seemingly played by passaporte italiano agendamento.

Scholastic philosophers had held that the main goal of metaphysics and science was to learn about the essences of things:

1 Comentário