James Believes example essay topic

Question 1 Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter?

Russell says, "For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people's bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies" (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn't have an idea that the cow was there. Farmer Brown wants more than just an idea in order to feel safe that his prize cow is still there. Another problem Russell would have with the cow in the field is the nature of the matter.

Russell says we have knowledge of truth and knowledge of things. Knowledge of truth is propositional knowledge or what we " re most certain in through direct experience. Russell says, "But we cannot hope to be acquainted directly with the quality in the physical objects which makes it blue or red. Science tells us this quality is a certain sort of wave motion, and this sounds familiar, because we think of wave motions in the space we see" (Russell, 52).

What he is saying that the dairy man has had direct experience with the cow, he knows its color, its texture, but how did he know it was a cow to begin with? All of his life the dairyman could have thought that a dog was actually a cow. This brings us to knowledge of things. Russell believed that "all of our knowledge, both knowledge of things and knowledge of truths, rest upon acquaintance as its foundation. It is therefore important to consider what kinds of things there are which we have acquaintance" (Russell, 57).

You know stuff through acquaintance by directly experiencing it and you know stuff through description from hearing what other have told you from there direct experiences. William James on the other hand would have had different views than Russell in some aspects. James believed that you needed more than just an idea to make something true, it needed power. James believes that truth is dynamic rather than static. James feels truth 'happens' when everything holds together, when what you believe actually fits in with other things you also believe. While at the same time, James believed something is false when it doesn't fit in with the systems of your beliefs.

James said, "The most violent revolutions in an individual's beliefs leave most of his old order standing. Time and space, cause and effect, nature and history, and one's biography remain untouched. New truth is always a go-between, a smoother-over of transitions. It marries old opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum of jolt, a maximum of continuity" (James, 124).

Truth is a web where each belief contributes to support our other beliefs. James would have reacted somewhat similar to Farmer Brown in this case. The dairyman told him the cow was safe, so he had the idea that it was safe, but he needed to see if the cow was actually there. When the farmer actually goes to see his cow in the field and its there, then what he believes and what he sees tie together and are true.

Both Russell and James would agree on the fact that it is better to see things for yourself so you can rely on your own personal sense data. If what you believe and what you actually see come together than it's more likely to be true. What they would probably disagree about is that Russell would ask, "how do you know something is really real". The idea in your head could be false and if it was false, how would you know if what you " re seeing is true. James believes you have to have an idea in your head and then you have to experience it and if those two come together than it is true. I feel that Russell would pick James apart because how does he know for sure what he is really thinking about if he has never experience it.

I feel an advantage to Russell's theory is that you have to experience it to know that it exists. That way you can be 100 per cent sure that something is real. In the story about the cow, the farmer couldn't just rely on the fact that the dairyman saw what appeared to be a cow, when in fact it could have been something that looked like a cow. When the farmer went and looked for himself, he new that his cow was safe because he new the shape, color, and features that the cow had. There is no possibility of error because our sensations can never be false, they are what they are. A disadvantage to Russell's theory is that it is very static.

Even if you sense something how do you know that what you " re sensing is true; it presumes that you can only know reality as it is. An advantage with James's theory of truth is that you have to convince yourself whether something is true or not. If you have an idea in your head then you need evidence that can tie the idea in your head to what is actually true. I think this is less static than because you " re tying in what you feel to what actually exist. A disadvantage is that there is bad coherence and no external standards. There are no guarantees that your beliefs will match up with reality.

I would say that I agree more with James because I believe in my senses. If I can touch, smell, or hear something and incorporate those thought to my ideas of what actually is true than I feel confident that it is true. Question 2 Capital punishment is a very touchy subject for most. Do you believe someone should have their life taken from them for doing a wrong act?

Is it moral or not? I'm going to explain to you how I feel the three philosophers, James, Ayer, and Strawson, would view capital punishment. For James, emotions play an important role in decision making. James believes your emotions are what set you apart from other people.

No one is going to have the exact same views as you, which makes you unique. "Moral questions immediately present themselves as questions whose solution cannot wait for a sensible proof" (James, 117). What this quote basically means is when you faced with a hard decision that needs an immediate answer, your emotions will guide you to the decision you make. Because of this I feel if James was faced with weather capital punishment is right or wrong he would agree with it.

If someone kills another person, James would say you would immediately feel that that person should die himself based on your emotions. Seeing James relies on emotions, people's decision regarding capital punishment could be different which can make his ideas not as clear. Where as Ayer believes there it a right and a wrong to everything and people decision wont vary As mention earlier, Ayer believes that there is a right and a wrong. I think that he would not be in favor for capital punishment because he would think that killing someone is wrong there for putting someone to death for killing someone else would be wrong no matter what the emotion involved were. Ayer was an analytic philosopher so he would be more concerned to what you meant by capital punishment than what your emotions about the issue were. Ayer would be more concerned with what is right and wrong, opposed to what you feel is right and wrong.

There are no grey areas with Ayer. Killing someone and stealing someone's lunch money would all be the same in Ayers eyes because it is wrong. Strawson, of all the philosophers we " ve discussed, has the most in depth ideas about how feelings relate to morality. One of Strawson's big ideas is that resentment is natural and this would help you make the decision if capital punishment is right and wrong. These ethics help you weed out the finer details of weather capital punishment is right or wrong.

What if the person wasn't of right mind when killing someone, or they weren't old enough to realize what they were doing was wrong. These details would make your emotions not as strong, or in some cases even stronger. In Strawson article talks about if someone meant to do something to you or was it a mistake. If it was a mistake then they shouldn't be held accountable for it (Strawson, 318). Strawson also talks about whether people were in the right mind or not when the committed the act which would help you sway your decision if capital punishment is wrong or right. And, what about people that are considered crazy; should they be held accountable for the actions they have done even though they probably didn't understand the repercussions of their act (Strawson, 324).

Strawson feels that these people that are not of clear mind shouldn't be held as accountable as a person who is completely sane. With all this said, I believe that Strawson wouldn't believe in capital punishment because there are to many factors that could influence someone into doing something so bad. All the philosophers that were mentions in the question do believe that emotions do play some part in weather you think something is right or wrong. Just some of the philosophers, such as James, hold emotions a lot higher than did the others and other, such as Ayer, only believe in right or wrong. I personally agree the most with Strawson because he takes in more factors when he is deciding whether something is right or wrong. Emotions still play a crucial part in his decision making, but I think he tries to get across that something just have to slide under certain circumstances.