How do we as humans receive knowledge? This question is one of the most thought out and discussed questions throughout the ages.  Almost all philosophers have tried to obtain their own answer to this question.  Philosophy is the study of one’s own ideas and answering universal questions.  Four philosophers that will be written about are Plato, Rene Descartes, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell.  The best and worst part about philosophy is there isn’t a right or wrong answer because it’s about the philosopher’s beliefs.

            The first philosopher is Plato.  Plato’s main belief of knowledge is that knowledge comes from recollection, and that our soul has learned everything before now.  He also believes in reincarnation so our soul is reborn multiple times until we become a true “Lover of Wisdom” (Phadeo).  After each life our soul learns new things and adds to its knowledge after each life time.  Referring to that idea Plato said, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often, and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned; so it is in no way surprising that it can recollect the things it knew before, both about virtue and other things” (Meno 81d).  Our soul already knows all knowledge and it is up to ourselves to bring it out of us; Plato also said, “And he will know it without having been taught but only questioned, and find the knowledge within himself” (Meno 85d).  Plato gives an example of “the square” where he asks this young man if he knows this certain mathematical problem, and the young man assured him that he doesn’t know anything about the problem.  So he starts with questioning him about the square and about adding size to the square.  As time goes on he asks series of questions that adds more knowledge to how to solve this problem.  In the end the young man solves and understands the square, Plato says, “I shall do nothing more than ask questions and not teach him” (Meno 84d).  Another example Plato gives to disprove senses is not the way to discover knowledge and that recollection is the way to knowledge, is the two equal sticks.  Two sticks may appear to be the same because they look the same width and length, but one stick really has knots and curves out.  You use your knowledge from within yourself to know the two sticks aren’t the same or equal.  Adding, Plato can’t believe in physical objects.  “The body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it,” believed Plato.

            Another great philosopher is Rene Descartes.  When it comes to knowledge Descartes believes that knowledge and ideas are forced into us by god or external bodies, and he can’t trust in physical objects.  He also believes in the Evil Demon Thought Experiment, which is assuming there is an evil spirit who tries to deceive us about everything.  So we can’t be positive about our sense perception, “senses are sometimes deceptive” (Descartes 14), because it might be a trick by the evil spirit.  That leads us to the question, are we alive?  We know we are alive because in order to be deceived by the evil spirit we must be alive.  Another idea Descartes believes in is the Wax Thought Experiment.  When wax melts and turns from a solid to a liquid and changes appearance we know it’s the same thing just in a different state, and we know this not because of perception or imaginary but because of pure reason.  Therefore knowledge comes to us by intellect, and our mind is better to us than our body.  “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason—words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant.  Yet I am a true thing and am truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thinking thing” (Descartes 19), reflected Descartes. 

            The third philosopher is David Hume.  He believes that all knowledge comes through our senses, and that our impressions turn into our ideas.  Hume wrote, “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones” (Hume 11).  He also believes “there to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause or effect” (Hume 14).  When it comes to matters of fact and relations of ideas we use reason.  David Hume also is a believer in cause and effect, “what is the nature of all our reasoning concerning matter of fact? . . . they are founded on the relation of cause and effect,” (Hume 21).  Through cause and effect we learn that A is followed by b, i.e. lightning is followed by thunder.  Although, Hume doesn’t know what makes cause and effect possible. 

            Lastly¸ Bertand Russell believes in external objects and we rely on sensory perception.  He gives an example of the table to help the argument between appearances vs. reality.  When we look at a table we can see the color, texture, shape, and size.  But as we get closer or the table moves, everything changes from what we previously saw, and also if many people look at the same table there will not be any two same appearances.  “Because experiences has taught us to construct the ‘real’ shape from the apparent shape, and the ‘real’ shape is what interests us as practical men.  But the ‘real’ shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see.  And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room,” (Hume 11) said Hume.  From all our senses we gain sense data about an object for example the table earlier talked about.  All we experience are ideas, but we never experience physical objects.  Even though we can’t experience physical objects the ‘Cat Argument’ proves external objects are real.  A cat is in one part of the room and we can see it, but when we leave the room does the cat still exist or is it just sense data?  We leave the cat, and when we return the cat will be hungry, tired, and in a different location, which shows that the cat exists independently of our minds and really exists. 

            Among all the philosophers Plato and Descartes are similar to each other; also Hume and Russell are similar to each other.  Empiricism means the doctrine that all knowledge ultimately consists of what is acquired by sensory perception and Plato along with Descartes fall into that group.  In contrast Hume and Russell are rationalists where they believe the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the contents and operations of the mind alone from pure reason.  Another belief is Hume and Russell believes in physical objects and external objects; whereas Plato and Descartes cannot trust in physical objects.

            I believe in a mixture of all these philosophies.  First off I believe in recollection from the knowledge of our soul, but I also think our soul doesn’t know everything.  We have to learn things on our own through experiences.  Another idea I believe in is sensory perception.  Our senses give us ideas and knowledge, but we also use reason corresponded with our sense data.  These four philosophers’ beliefs are on the extreme of both scales, but I would put my trust in the middle of both.  Things from both sides working together help us reach the fullest of knowledge.  God gives us our mind and body to work together to achieve greatness in this life, but we will never fully understand or have all knowledge while being alive.  I do believe with Plato where we will have all knowledge when we die and how we shouldn’t be scared of death, but rather accept it when the time is right.  Although, I do not think our souls will go through the cycle of reincarnation.  We will only live one life and we better not ruin the chances we receive during this one lifetime.  If we give our all and try our hardest in this life, our father in heaven will help make up the rest for us once we pass away.

Regardless of what people choose to become, one thing is certain: they haven’t fully understood the purpose of life. The purpose of life cannot be defined by reading a philosophy essay alone.

Purpose is defined as the meaning or reason for which a person, event or thing exists. There are many goals that a person could choose to achieve in life; but there could only be one purpose. Human pursuits may bring a sense of fulfilment, but only temporarily. They do not define the purpose of life.

Many people aspire to become a big celebrity. Some of them think that their purpose in life is to become famous in front of others. Becoming famous does not only involve becoming an award-winning singer, artist, or sports player; it also could also include conducting oneself in a manner that is detrimental to others. There are people who killed because they want attention, and also there are persons who took the lives of their former Facebook friends just because they “defriended“ a relative.

Many people also try to amass the wealth of the world. They work their way into large companies, or established profit-making firms with the aim of being collecting large amount of money. Some of them become very wealthy – even richer than a third-world country. As they get richer, however, other people of world become poorer.

Many people thought that helping the poor would give them a sense of purpose, so as perfecting their science as a doctor, or their art as a dancer. Even a writer of a philosophy essay cannot say that writing is his purpose in life.

Sadly, none of the above gave them a sense of true fulfilment. All four examples are not and do not define the purpose of life; they are either desires or wants. Purpose is something one needs to achieve. The true purpose of life will always be a vague topic for a philosophy essay writer.

Aristotle is referred to as “The Philosopher” by Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. See Sum ma Theological, Part I, Question 3, etc. These thinkers blended Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, bringing the thought of Ancient Greece into the Middle Ages. It required a repudiation of some Aristotelian principles for the sciences and the arts to free themselves for the discovery of modern scientific laws and empirical methods. The medieval English poet Chaucer describes his student as being happy by having

                      at his bedder’s heed

Twenty book es, clad in balk or reed,

Of Aristotle and his philosopher,

The Italian poet Dante says of Aristotle in the first circles of hell,

I saw the Master there of those who know,

Amid the philosophic family,

By all admired, and by all reverenced;

There Plato too I saw, and Socrates,

Who stood beside him closer than the rest.

Aristotle is referred to as “The Philosopher” by Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. See Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, etc. These thinkers blended Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, bringing the thought of Ancient Greece into the Middle Ages. It required a repudiation of some Aristotelian principles for the sciences and the arts to free themselves for the discovery of modern scientific laws and empirical methods. The medieval English poet Chaucer describes his student as being happy by having

                      at his beddes heed

Twenty bookes, clad in blak or reed,

Of aristotle and his philosophie,

The Italian poet Dante says of Aristotle in the first circles of hell,

I saw the Master there of those who know,

Amid the philosophic family,

By all admired, and by all reverenced;

There Plato too I saw, and Socrates,

Who stood beside him closer than the rest.

So here is one of my thoughts……….

Do you ever wonder what the meaning of life is??? Were we put here to roam around the earth in search of it?? How do we find something that we can’t see or touch??

Days go by with these thoughts in my head.. I fumble through images, words, memories, and feelings looking for the annswers, and have yet to find one..

But I’ve come to realize that everyday life throws us something new and we arent meant to know what that is. It’s more powerful then us and out of our control. If everyone knew, then there would be no meaning. There would be no love, hate, joy, or fear… Everyone’s hopes and dreams would become an illusion…

People are captivated by the thought of having a specific meaning of life, so they keep searching.. But maybe if they’d stop searching, they’d find the meaning of life is just to live it. And those who never stop the search, maybe it’s not the meaning of life they are supposed to find at all. Who’s to say?? Maybe it’s a place….

Ancient Philosophy

In Greek and Roman philosophy, common sense is that which is common to all the senses, or the ideas common to all humans. According to Aristotle’s psychology, the common sense is a general centralizing faculty by means of which one apprehends the “common sensibles”—motion, rest, figure, magnitude, number, and unity. These qualities are not known through any one of the five special senses. Also, since the “togetherness” of the special sense qualities in an object is not discerned by the special senses singly, it is necessary to postulate a common sense that enables one to perceive that a certain color, taste, and sound are all present in the same object at once.

In Stoic philosophy, the view that all rational minds (pneumata) are emanations of an identical rational world-stuff (pneuma) entailed the further view that all rational minds have innately certain notions in common with each other; therefore, what is common sense to all men may be presumed to be true.

Early Modern Philosophy

Image via Wikipedia

These notions, or “innate ideas,” came under attack in the 17th century by John Locke, who maintained that humans are not born with any ideas at all, that the mind at birth is a “blank tablet,” and that our ideas result from sensory experiences and combinations of these. Locke’s insight led to the empirical movement, which sought to base all knowledge on experience and which in the 18th century culminated in George Berkeley’s denial of material substance and in David Hume’s thoroughgoing skepticism regarding the certainty of empirical knowledge.

These consequences, distasteful to some, stimulated a countermovement, the so-called Scottish school of common sense philosophy, led by Thomas Reid, Dugald Stewart, and James Beattie. Reid urged against Locke that the mind is congenitally furnished with some ideas, the presence of which may be certified by introspection. These are the same for the deepest thinker and the simplest human, and they are not the product, but the prior condition, of experience. Sensations are not the objects of knowledge but are “signs” that unmistakably point to the existence of a real self and of real objects to which our thoughts correspond, in a real world, the existence of which cannot be doubted. The final outcome of this movement was a rejection of philosophy as such, or a reduction of philosophical problems to psychological ones.

Contemporary Philosophy

In 19th- and 20th-century thought, common sense sometimes denotes a naïve view of reality as contrasted with a scientific view. The term also may denote a set of attitudes and assumptions presumed to be held by those who are untutored in a conscious philosophy. As such, common sense has been defended by such thinkers as John Dewey; George Santayana, who claimed that “common sense, in a rough and dogged way, is technically sounder than the schools of philosophy”; and, particularly, by George Edward Moore. Moore argued that certain statements about the existence and behavior of one’s body and of things and other minds in one’s environment are everywhere and always understood. The fact that we know these things is proof that they are true; indeed, no other proof of that fact can be given that does not beg the question. The skeptic can have no reason for doubting them, and what is not doubted in common life ought not to be doubted by philosophers.

Image via Wikipedia

A “moment,” that precious noun that many take for granted, once it debuts it vanishes like the wind, forever. We hear too much negative, instead of positive. Today, it seems some individuals are preoccupied and fascinated by the ugly and sour remarks of others.

When someone says, ” Good Morning,”  ” Have a nice day,” ” Thank You,” “Happy Birthday” “So happy to meet you,” “I love you,”…  do we realize that a person took a moment of their time to think of us and say something kind?

Many will notice when a person ridicules, complains about them, and criticizes everything they do. Only a selected few will be keen to that lovely individual that said something beautiful to them… that made their day beam with sunshine.

Moreover, kind words are therapeutic in so many ways. When someone is generous and speaks golden words of sincerity to us, we feel better inside and our day appears brighter. We also have a sense of self-worth, and this positively energizes our self-esteem. In essence we feel that someone cares and that we’re loved.

Let’s spend our time wisely, sweetly speaking honey to others with sincerity… and leave behind the vicious- verbal comments that our non-productive, and a waste of moments in our time. 

Kind Words of Sincerity by Lisa Marie Mottert~2012

Good-Natured is a very good thing to be. It’s definitely a
plus for personality and character. Literally having an easygoing and cheerful
disposition draws people as friends. When you run into criticism, it’s just
falls off you like water. Good-Natured also widens your spectrum to the
agreeable, open mindedness  and basically
an all around free-spirit.

This all sounds like not only people you would like to meet
and develop relationships with but also aspire to be that someone yourself.  Kind is the all important attribute of the
Good-Natured person. Being considerate, showing tenderness and being helpful. I
think if everyone in the world was like this, what a great place our little
planet would be.

So how is it when all these things go bad?

Unfortunately the world is full of psychopaths. These types
of people aspire to great heights in structured environments like the world of
business, the military and the workplace. These types of people know who you
are. They actually look for you. They try to manipulate and use you.  Above all they hate you and everything you
are.

Why?

These soulless creatures can never develop the special
feelings and intuition you naturally possess. They work hard to acquire power
to make up for what they lack.

They use this power to destroy all that’s good and at a more
far reaching sense to also destroy nature itself.

This can be taken on many levels from the personal to the
big picture of human society worldwide.

The only advice I can give is never give in to any type of
power that would compromise your beliefs and just let the power run wild until
eventually it turns on itself in total destruction.

We the Good-Natured of the world will inherit the earth
because what the psychopaths do not realize is that when it comes time to
fight, we the Good-Natured will win every time. We are the light and they are
the darkness.

One option for a philosophy essay topic is the writer’s own evaluation and analysis of a particular philosophical school. You might want to describe what it is, its origins, its main tenets or principles and why it appears right or wrong to you. You can also write about the history of the philosophical movement, how it influenced public conscience, and what influential people had to say about it.

Another group of potential topics for Philosophy essay is a specific person, how he or she was able to influence the subject of philosophy in general and its individual movements in particular. This approach of writing is probably one of the easiest, because you only need to research on a specific person connected to philosophy that you like or dislike most.

Another approach to writing Philosophy essays is to discuss a specific period of time that happened to a particular country or region of the world. You will discuss the philosophic movements that originated or became popular at this place in this specific time period, the persons who were their major representatives, how these movements influenced social life, and other areas of life where their influence on people can be seen.

Philosophy is a discipline closely related to history, itself being one of the oldest subjects of study in the world. History is a study of events that have happened in the past and how these have shaped the present and will continue to shape the future. There was a certain time when Philosophy held great influence on the populace, as in the case of ancient Greece, Rome and Renaissance Europe. Though philosophy as a field of study may no longer enjoy the same popularity that it once held and philosophers not held in high esteem as they were in the past, many philosophical teachings are still evident in the subjects we study today such as Psychology, Politics and Economics, to name just a few.

I don’t have my father anymore; he passed away in 1984, of cancer. It attacked him quickly, turning him from a vigorous 70 year-old to a pale shadow of himself in less than two years, and perhaps in the end that was merciful. He spent the last few months of his life in pain, but never allowed that pain to affect his demeanor, never letting himself become bitter or discouraged. When the doctor’s told him that he could be treated for a time, but was ultimately terminal regardless, he decided to save the family from financial ruin by accepting his mortality, and deciding to die with dignity, and honor intact.

My father taught me well how to be a man; both by his life and his death he showed me the way to walk through life with honor. The example he set for me sustains me even today; when making a tough decision, I still imagine him looking over my shoulder & telling me to make the decision that allows everyone involved to keep their self-respect and meet their own needs, by telling the truth tempered with compassion, and having the couraqe to take the responsibility for my actions.

In today’s world, surviving with one’s sanity intact is a perpetual challenge. Human society has, for some time now, begun to suffer the effects of overpopulation. Everyone alive today knows what happens when overcrowded living conditions reach a critical point; we all performed, or at least read or heard about, the experiment with a rodent population allowed to reach that point. Increasing violence and abberrant behavior, breakdown of societal norms, food, water, & shelter become items of primary import. Ultimately, the colony dies, and being human does not shelter us as a species from the simple, deadly fact of this aspect of living in an increasingly unbalanced ecosphere.

One of the symptoms of impending disaster, the “breakdown of societal norms”, is the unfortunate evolution of the norm for a “family” in today’s world. The two-parent household is no longer the majority in today’s society; one parent households are just a common. And this simple fact means that, of the children growing up today, less than half will have an effective male, or female, role model in the home. Many children will not have either a mother or father figure available, or will have that role filled by grandparents or extended family, or by people outside the home such as teachers.

This phenomenon is not necessarily all bad; in my experience, even folks who aren’t terribly good at parenting are at least doing their best. But it does mean that society in the future will be different, very different, and can only contribute to the general overall confusion in society. Humanity has a very challenging era rushing upon it, and significant changes will need to be made, and survived.

My father, whom I honor every day, was part of what may be the last generation ever to have the majority of families with a traditional make-up. I hope the model that society evolves in coming years will create in children the same feelings of self-worth, confidence, and compassion for others that my father, and mother, were able to teach to me. If it is, then I believe there is hope for humanity. If not, then the time of critical danger is apporoaching all too fast……