René Descartes acknowledged the doubt that many others experience throughout their educational history. Descartes was excited to attend courses at a prestigious European university, where he initially believed that upon completion of his studies he would have learned everything necessary to be truly intellectual. However, after completing the studies available, and doing further readings, Descartes was faced with many embarrassing falsehoods. How much of the knowledge that he learned was considered the material to know without basis in actual comment fact or evidence.
For example, a history textbook in Japan may account the events of WWII different differently than a textbook in America.
So which version is correct? In response to this sudden perception, Descartes embarked on an expedition of first-hand experience. For years he traveled the world and interacted with all kinds of cultures and peoples. He learned to not buy into people’s opinions that were learned through only examinations and repeated facts.
David Hume was raised in a religious household. As he grew into adulthood and became a learned man, he moved away from religious teachings, skeptical of their truth. When Hume decided to write An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he had accepted skepticism as part of a philosopher’s toolset. A philosopher such as himself must strike a balance between simply adopting what we see and experience as fact and allowing skepticism to overrule that which we have witnessed through the senses.
For example, if we see a ghost, does that provide definitive proof that ghosts are real?
I believe that Hume embraces skepticism as an avenue through which he can explore the topics of the metaphysical. How can you study something that you cannot prove to exist through the senses? Hume does not doubt that the senses are providing evidence of reality. By allowing skepticism as part of the learned process, we can further test the conclusions that we arrive at.
Immanuel Kant’s insight into the categorical imperative states that if an imperative survives the self-destructive process of formulation, it must hold universally. First, you would identify what you are trying to determine is morally right or wrong. Next, imagine that everyone in the world also did that action. Within that idealized world, can you still complete the action? If you can, then it must be consistent with the moral law.
Consider if every student cheated on exams. When trying to determine if cheating is morally wrong, we must fiimaginemage a world in which all students cheated on exams. It would be impossible to cheat on exams in a classroom in which cheating was acceptable. Therefore, cheating contradicts itself. According to Kant, since the idea of cheating did not hold up throughout the process, it must be immoral.
Simone de Beauvoir explains that the overall concept of being a woman is created by society. We are defined by the role society, and men, perceive us. Thus, as we go throughout life and are observed and interacted with, the view we hold of ourselves is altered by our experience. For example, wearing shorts on a hot day is logical, so that the clothing is less stifling. However, the moment another person, usually a man, makes a comment comments on our clothing choice, it casts a negative light on the display of skin for the sole reason that the parts being shown are female. You are assigned with this judgment for even though you chose to wear the shorts for the weather, nsetot attention.
The second set is a term used to describe the ideology that there is a woman “man” and women are “other”. It means that women are treated as inferior to men in matters of influence. It is shown throughout history by the transformation of early statues of goddesses transforming into fair maidens, and the emergence of the idea that women were created for men.
W.E.B du Bois says that the Negro experience in the early 20th century resulted in double consciousness. Each black person lives half in, and half out of a “vast veil” (Du Bois, 4). One half is the self at its fullest, undiminished potential. This is the true self or one that could be, should it not be faced with any discrimination. The second consciousness is the altered self that is impacted by a racial divide in opportunities and respect. It is cautious of showing greatness.
The double consciousness is a result of American blacks who were born into a nation defined by opportunity and freedom, yet newly removed from the previous norm of slavery. I think that the author was addressing both black and white people. He is identifying with black readers, while also trying to explain to white readers the experience of being black in America. He allows other races to see being the veil, or the Negro experience.
Aldo Leopold critiques the way society places economic value over conservation actions. For example, in our area of Texas, many landowners struggle to clear their land of mesquite trees. The landowner may have no desire to farm that land but clears the trees anyway because they have thorns and are seen as useless. Why does the existence of a species have to be considered worthy, or beneficial to our existence in some way, to deserve a right on our planet? creature
He further goes on to shame the usage of the land, and what society typically thinks of as useable space. Each type of eco syecosystemstem ecosystem operates in a certain enviForcreature’snment. For example, a blind newt has evolved to live in dark caves. Just because the newt is not of economic value in mass markets, does that mean that the cave in which it dwells demands no conservation? Leopold believes that the ethical obligation of every person, not just the government, is to limit our impact on the natural world. A creature’ entitlement to life should not be based on its economic value.