| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "HUME EMPIRICISM": |
|
|
Hume and Empiricism, 2006.
A discussion of David Hume's arguments regarding rationalism and empiricism in terms of the nature of causation.
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses David Hume's attack on rationalism in discussing the nature of causation and his promotion of the idea of empiricism. It discusses how Hume showed that expecting an effect to occur as a result of a cause was based solely on experience - the basis of empiricism and not on logic - the basis of rationalism. The paper also shows how Hume proved that rationalism alone could not discover cause and effect, but neither could it rationally exist.
From the Paper
"Hume argues that there is no proof of the necessary connection between cause and effect, as these are, as he concluded, empirical notions. Because empiricism does not rationally prove anything, but only suggest a strong likelihood of truth, cause cannot be rationally connected to effect, but only be conjoined to each other. However, due to the nature of empiricism, Hume argues that the connection can still exist, as it is perceived by the mind to exist. Therefore, we can only imagine cause and effect, but only in the mind. This means that cause and effect can only exist in the mind of the empiricist, who takes knowledge from experience without rational or scientific proof; yet ironically, it is scientific proofs which depend on observations from experience. Once more, the empiricist draws attention to the follies of pure rationalism."
| |
|
John Locke's Proposal of Empiricism, 2003.
Examines the relevancy of John Locke's proposal of empiricism in today's society.
773 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay deals with John Locke's views and promotion of empiricism. The essay proves that Locke's theory of empiricism is still relevant in today's society. The main points of the essay deal with Locke's rejection of innate ideas, the fact that all ideas are a result of reflection or sensation, and that observations are either simple or complex.
From the Paper
"The idea that humans are born with prior knowledge is known as innate ideas. Innatists such as Plato believe that mental contents exist in the mind prior to any past experience. Locke highly disagrees with this concept and rejects every aspect of an idea being innate. Locke believes that since children and mentally disabled people cannot rationalize or think abstract thoughts like a mature person, ideas cannot be innate. Locke states ???tis evident that all children and idiots, have not the least apprehension or thought of them: and the want of that is enough to destroy that universal assent, which must needs be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths?? (Locke, 60). Locke believes that since children and those who are mentally disabled cannot think as complexly as grown adults, it is because they have to gain knowledge through life experiences, therefore, ideas cannot be innate. Locke also suggests that ideas cannot be innate because he strongly believes in, and promotes the theory of empiricism. Locke believes ?the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas? (Locke, 109). Locke holds that we come into the world with a clear mind ready to learn. If innate ideas were true then children would have the same knowledge as an adult has, though it is clear that children do not. Today, Locke?s rejection of innate ideas and promotion of empiricism is an acceptable explanation for the way humans think. Humanity accepts Locke?s explanation because it is very relevant and cannot be disproved."
| |
|
Empiricism, 2003.
A discussion of whether John Locke's theory of empiricism is still relevant in today's society.
773 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the philosopher John Locke's Locke?s theory of empiricism, that everything learned through previous experience, is accurate and relevant in today?s society. In particular it shows how although Locke?s proposal of empiricism is over 300 years old, all aspects are still applicable and how Locke?s rejection of innate ideas, his suggestion that all ideas are a result of reflection and sensation and that observations are either simple or complex, are precise and cannot be disproved in today?s society.
From the Paper
"Individuals often wonder why humans are able to think abstract thoughts and why animals are incapable of this. Locke proposed that in order for a thought to occur, the two foundations of knowledge must be present. These foundations are: observations of sensation and observations of reflection. External observation such as loud, red and cold are observations of sensation; they come to us through our senses. Internal observations such as thinking, remembering, and perceiving are observations of reflection. Locke states ?the senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet: and the mind by degrees growing familiar with some of them, they are logged in the memory, and names go to them? (Locke, 65). "
| |
|
Descartes' Nativism vs. Locke's Empiricism, 2002.
Defines and contrasts the philosophical doctrines of Descartes' Nativism and Locke's Empiricism.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Nativist thought, that which focuses on the idea that there are some "innate ideas existing prior to concrete experience (Fancher, 26), allows for the existence of archetypal knowledge and a communal unconscious. Empiricism is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that all knowledge is derived from experience. According to the empiricist, all ideas are derived from experience. Nativism, as espoused by Descartes, requires that the soul be embodied with knowledge and experience prior to association with the body.
| |
|
Rationalism versus Empiricism, 2005.
A discussion of Descartes's philosophy of rationalism versus the philosophy of empiricism.
1,458 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, APA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains Descartes's philosophy of the human mind and how his philosophy, which contends that the real self is based not in the nature of the material body but rather in the essence of thought, differs from empiricism, which contends that the mind is informed by experience in a learning process that is based on sensation and cognition. The paper concludes with the author offering his personal perspective of Descartes's rationalism and whether it is applicable to his life and experiences.
From the Paper
"Empiricism focuses on the perceived fact that synthetic theories are only possible through experience and are therefore also subject to doubt, since experiences can be illusory or deceptive. This essential doubt is also something that is recognized by rationalists like Descartes, who then categorized the doubt as the mutability and fallibility of the senses. In terms of the absolutism of mind/body distinctions, empiricists are more hesitant to ascribe the realm of theory or logic to the formation of any truth that could be seen to be absolute and unquestioned such as reason or the power of deduction. Some criticize rationalism for assuming that only self-directed introspection can truly decipher reality in any productive or reasonable way. Descartes? rationalism led to further theories by Kant and others. Most social theories are given some context epistemologically, even those that seek to synthesize and combine different aspects of rationalism and empiricism. The two theories are often seen to be philosophical absolutes in and of themselves in their respective relations to the human mind as a separate and holistic entity in its relationship to the body."
| |
|
Galileo and Luther on Rationalism and Empiricism, 2008.
An analysis of the philosophies of Martin Luther and Galileo with regards to empiricism and rationalism.
2,032 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how, as the explanatory power of empiricism began to grow apparent, rationalistic modes of belief and dogmas began to conflict with the verifiable truths the empirical approach to knowledge was uncovering. The paper then discusses the different schools of thought from which these philosophies have emerged in the Western tradition. It particularly focuses on the philosophies of Martin Luther and Galileo.
From the Paper
"Evolution implied that humans possessed a common ancestry with all animals and even plants. It may have been a matter of interpretation as to whether the earth revolved around the sun or not, but the concept that man is an ape who has been gradually evolving for 3.5 billion years fits nowhere into traditional Christian beliefs. Consequently, the theory--although as close to scientific fact as any fact ever inferred from the natural world--has remained controversial and not widely accepted in the west. So, it has only truly been in the past century and a half that science and religion have come faced off in a battle of wills. Still, the argument should be moot: empirical evidence may indicate one thing, but if an individual is willing to believe in an all-powerful being, they must also acknowledge that such a being could configure the world in any way imaginable--just as Galileo's Dialogue concluded."
| |
|
Empiricism and Liberalism in Writings by Locke, 2004.
Examines philosophies of empiricism and liberalism in John Locke?s "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and "An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of the Civil Government".
1,922 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 2 sources, APA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
John Locke, one of the famous proponents of the Enlightenment period, was a political philosopher who contributed profound knowledge and insights about a new form of political movement in his period, that is, political liberalism. This paper shows that Locke's arguments for empiricism and liberalism as new philosophies, which illustrate relativism in the society, are discussed thoroughly in two of his most popular discourses on the social and political nature of human society: "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" and "An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of the Civil Government (Second Treatise of the Civil Government)". The particular text that is analyzed in this paper is Book IV ?Of Knowledge and Probability,? particularly the first chapter, aptly entitled ?Of Knowledge in General.?
From the Paper
"In this section, Locke illustrates in concrete terms the fundamental concepts and processes that lead to the obtainment and development of knowledge among humans. In establishing his stance that human knowledge is acquired through human experience, he discusses the nature of knowledge, its components, and processes. Introducing knowledge as a product of human sensory experience, Locke asserts, ?Knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connexion of and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our ideas. In this alone it consists.? This passage shows how knowledge is mainly a natural experience, where there is active human action (participation)."
| |
|
Philosophy: Empiricism, 2005.
An overview of empiricism and a discussion of whether it evolves into idealism.
1,641 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper considers the question of whether empiricism, if followed consistently, collapses into idealism and concludes that, with some reservations, it does indeed evolve into idealism.
From the Paper
"It is important at first to identify the fact that "empiricism" may refer to a method - for example, the "empirical method" of observing child behavior, or an "empirical study of cancer in rats" - and it also may refer to the philosophy (or the theory) that embraces empiricism. That philosophy of empiricism, by one definition, "has its roots in dualist theories of perception and communication" (Vesey, 1976). The "perception" part of the theory, Vesey explains (vii), is when a person's mind, "as well as his body, is acted on when he perceives something." That is to say, that "something" that his body is acted upon - let's say it is a large tree swaying in the wind - stimulates his sense organs and his nervous system; but beyond that stimulation, there is also a "sensation" or a "sense-impression" which happens when the mind is acted on, according to the theory. "
| |
|
Empiricism & Rationalism, 1987.
Compares & contrasts experiential & thought-based approaches to reality in philosophy, biology and psychology.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" An analysis of the reviewed literature suggests that the dichotomies of authenticity versus certainty (Gibbs, 1979), inductive versus deductive, and abstract versus concrete (Weimer, 1973), etc., are opposites which exist on a continuum. Because they exist on a continuum, they are different aspects of a single, continuous phenomenon. Therefore, dichotomies such as inductive versus deductive reflect, not different realities, but different perspectives of the same reality. The perspective of the theorist, whether empiricist or rationalist, is thus(...)"
| |
|
David Hume, 2002.
This paper discusses philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) and Empiricism, a philosophical school that states human beings acquire knowledge through sense-experience.
1,005 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that Hume is known for his philosophical skepticism about how we acquire knowledge, his rejection of the casual theories and the validity of certain religious beliefs. The paper describes Hume's belief that a person's experiences exist only in the person's mind. The paper compares Hume's philosophy with the philosophy of Descartes.
From the Paper
"Hume began his analysis of human knowledge with a distinction among our mental contents. He held that ''impression' is the direct, vivid and immediate products of experience, while 'Ideas' are merely feeble copies of this original impression. Thus, for example, the color of the monitor at which I am now looking is an impression, while my memory of the color of my fathers hair is merely an idea. Thus every idea is derived from an antecedent impression. Thus he went on to inquire the origins of our idea by asking from which impressions they are derived."
| |
|
David Hume, 2002.
An examination of "Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason", an excerpt from "A Treatise of Human Nature" by David Hume, and a comparison of moral theories between Hume and J.L. Mackie.
1,923 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 1 source, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
According to Hume, morality is not a judgement about matters of fact. This paper analyzes Hume's philosophy and explains his basic arguments against the idea that moral pronouncements are judgments of reason. In addition, this papers analyzes the differences between Hume's philosophy and that of J.L. Mackie, who argued that there are no moral truths. Lastly, the paper identifies the manner in which one can agree with Hume, while not being a moral skeptic.
From the Paper
"I do believe that it is entirely possible for an individual to subscribe to Hume?s beliefs, without being a moral skeptic. While Hume, like all moral skeptics, denies the existence of objective moral values, he does not dismiss the concept of universal human sentiment. Often the notion of skepticism is little more than an abusive label, and at other times it is taken to mean only that one denies knowledge of some fact which most people accept. To say that Hume is a moral skeptic in either of these senses would, of course, be unpersuasive because similar charges could be brought against almost any moral theory."
| |
|
David Hume's Philosophy, 2006.
This paper argues that David Hume's definitions of determinism and necessity are not compatible.
1,453 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that, within the confines of Hume's definition of liberty and necessity in his "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", Hume claims that free will and necessity are compatible; however, outside his definitions, the theory falls apart. The author points out that Hume's definition of necessity starts with his deterministic beliefs. The paper relates issues of the incompatibility of these two concepts and the definitions Hume uses to explain them: (1) Laws to human behavior always have exceptions; (2) Hume's analysis of what is required for responsibility helps to explain why it is useless to deny determinism by appealing to the existence of chance events in the world to disprove Hume's definition of liberty and, (3) if Hume's definition of liberty with the "could-have-done-otherwise" principle are replace, the compatibility of liberty and necessity disappears.
From the Paper
"If you combine Hume's determinism concerning human actions with his theory of causation, you basically have his working definition of necessity. Hume believes that there are observable, constant conjunctions between motives (including character traits) and actions in human behavior and goes so far as to claim if one were to look over human history, one discovers that the "same motives always produce the same actions." In Hume's conception of the world, it would be a violation of the law of nature for a prior event to occur and a subsequent event not to and this picture of the universe as law-governed applies just as much to human actions as it does to the behavior of the rest of the natural world."
| |
|
David Hume, 2007.
This paper looks at the beliefs and works of philosopher, historian and economist David Hume.
4,340 words (approx. 17.4 pages), 0 sources, MLA, £ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that David Hume was seen as a very prominent figure in history both in the Scottish enlightenment and in Western philosophy. The writer notes that interest in Hume's work in recent years has become more centered on the philosophical writing that he did, but it was for being a historian that he originally gained some notoriety. The writer points out that much of what Hume had to say became closely involved with others as they examined their own philosophies and ideas. This made Hume's work much more significant because so much of what he stated and believed in was studied by others and expanded on as time passed. The writer concludes that Hume meant a great deal to many philosophers, and this is part of the reason that his work is still so alive and important today while the work of others of his time have not been as closely studied.
From the Paper
"In David Hume's article on empiricism, he attempts to show how some things that people believe to be real are the product of false knowledge, and there is a difference between things that people perceive to be true and things that actually are true. Hume's theory is that only things that can be proven, such as mathematics, are absolutely true. Other things may seem to be true because something usually happens related to something else, but even though this seems to always be the case there is room for argument in that it does not have to be the case every time, simply because it has happened that way in the past. Hume believes that the only truth is mathematical truth, and that there are many other things in the world that people falsely perceive to be true because they have not subjected those things to an examination that is serious enough to show otherwise."
| |
|
David Hume, 1991.
The life and works of the 18th century Scottish philosopher of skepticism and empiricism.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"David Hume has been rightfully called one of the greatest of the British speculative thinkers, a merciless skeptic, and the purest of the radical empiricists (Royce, 1955; Stumpf, 1966).
He was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1711, "into a family of country gentlemen of ancient lineage and modest circumstances" (Jones, 1952, p. 297). At age 23, after attending but not graduating from the University of Edinburgh, he went off to France for three years: Here he wrote what is arguably his most influential work, A Treatise of Human Nature, which was published in 1739. Hume had hoped this book would make his fortune but, although it was mildly well-received on the Continent, it made almost no impression in England (Stumpf, 1966).
For the next ten years he acted variously as the paid companion of a mad marquis, as the private secretary to a general..."
|
|
|
