empiricism

What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses? What areas of knowledge do you think support this theory? Are there any types of knowledge (mathematical knowledge, for example?) that you think are a problem for this theory? empiricists thought that genuine knowledge comes from experience which means It only can be explained by the latter experience. And our minds are blank at birth therefore, we do not certain about anything until we are filled up with sensory experience. And Logical or rational experience such as law or mathematics can reduce the sensory experience.  well, I think empiricism has affected on our society now. For example, we only choose whether we will continue to study about math and science when we reach at some point of our education. that could mean it is not essential to achieve in some areas of study that's our educational system now in general. However, Empiricism, it was found when there was many observation and scientifical experiments. In addition, Kant also agrees to the empiricists at some point that an intuition is anything present to the senses. so I think there must be some parts that can be shared between the experiences both from sense and logic just like empiricists and kant. so I don't think there won't be any types of knowledge that can be a 'problem' to fulfill those which empiricists claimed. In other words, what I think is they can coexist and reflect each other.

week2 Descartes

According to Descartes, we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses 'methodological skepticism' to reach this conclusion. What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible  to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy? Methodological Skepticism is a Descartes's method just to doubt every single belief that he has to find out whether they are absolutely certain or not by using very rigorous standards of his. I think most of people believe things until It becomes impossible to believe them rather than doubting. sometimes people are in denial when they are exposed to something that shows what they've believed is wrong cause they are afraid to lose their belief. well, I think belief or faith in one's heart could be the strongest thing that could be impetus and the purpose for someone's life. I believe it could drive people's lives and also control majority of people's minds such as religions, more specifically speaking, catholic for Descartes. He was a catholic and He even described himself as a devoted catholic believer (?).   However, It is certainly different from Thomas Aquinas'. Because I believe he just couldn't give up on both his religious belief and also his knowledge and profound thoughts from his high-valued education, philosophy that dominated at that time. He was privileged person who was born in a wealthy family and provided high-valued education but at that time for him because of his educations he had to suffer If what he believe is true or not and fell into an agony, the Dogma for other philosophers as well at that time... because Roman catholic its reputation was degraded by Martin Luther. and it led many people to be put in greatest doubt. It was the greatest crisis for the whole world and I think what Descartes did was basically trying to prove the existence of almighty, omnipotent God.. for people and for himself not by something emotional experiences but by something can't be false, more like the one and only answer so that everyone can believe.   Therefore, It made me to guess he had a weak mind cause he found a method such as 'methodological skepticism' and most of the things couldn't survive in that but he still believe there is a devil who control it so that might be wrong again. I think he never believed in anything though he said "cogito ergo sum" but he also thinks we don't know If it's reality or dream because when we dream, we think it as a reality but perhaps he at least believed in his existence.  well, lastly.. I know it takes so much courage to believe in something and life gives you nothing If we only doubt. Therefore, I suggest we should believe in something meaningful but doubt sometimes so that we're not be blinded to the truth.

week1 Socrates

In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?

about the first question.. I think Socrates, He somehow was being narrowminded and stubborn when he suggested that without philosophical education, we are all like prisoners because I believe there are so many aspects to achieve in life and we learn and realize and know myself and world better and through those things we continually grow up physically and mentally change. Not only Philosophy can give us a certain life change experience or give us a significant idea, but also other sources in life can give us a meaningful lesson. And by acknowledging this fact, his idea would've been more effective to people at that time because He, himself mentioned that 'we know nothing' is the key to wisdom and If he acknowledged that, the truth that other factors also can affect in peoples lives and change their mindset and give them a certain wisdom(?), through Dialectic, which means conversation between people, then His idea and philosophy itself would've been more liberating between people.

about last question ... I think He had a right to be pessimistic about life without philosophy. However, He was not right to be pessimistic about it because that means He denied too many things and too many people's lives who just lived and thought differently. We all have our own thoughts and we value things differently that's why so many philosophers existed and have been saying all different things throughout the history. I think he, Socrates valued philosophy way too higher than other things and other people's thoughts and I think in that, he also valued himself better than others as a philosopher who leads people to the wisdom so he basically killed other peoples thoughts in conversations that he made with others.

Intro

this is my first blogging experience ... and also first time to take an online course..... ever :P

By the way my name is Jin-kyung Kim. I'm an international student from Korea. My major is Liberal arts and It's my second semester! taking an online class has been a huge challenge for me..  I hope I could do everything right. Furthermore, I wish I could learn how to reason and express my thoughts engaging with the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers though we don't go deep into it in this course... and I hope this course would be useful for life and Anyway, I like.... reading something that's worthy of my time :P and I also like singing with playing guitar together... well, this is it! :)