philosophy

1) In chapter 7, you have read that because Descartes began his argument by doubting everything that we think we know he wanted to ground is idea of certainty in the indisputable certainty of our own thinking ego. From this point forward Descartes is able to reconstruct the entirety of reality based on the thinking subject. He claims to show that God is not, nor could He be, a deceiver (based on Descartes’ ontological argument), and that as long as we reduce all complex thoughts and perceptions to their most simple and individual parts we are guaranteed certainty of knowledge of external reality (he refers to this as clarity and distinctness). On the other hand, the empiricists argue against Cartesian rationalism by showing that reason alone can tell us nothing about reality and that knowledge does not depend upon a thinking subject. In fact the empiricists call into question the whole idea that for knowledge to be true it must be certain. They question whether true knowledge (that is deductively certain knowledge), can tell us anything about the world. If Descartes is correct, according to the empiricists, true knowledge must be guaranteed by some internal and self-certain process, however, this would limit all true knowledge to that which is a priori (known without the need of experience). On the other hand since all knowledge that purports to tell us something about the world is, at best, only probably true (it is true until and unless proven otherwise), the problem we face is that knowledge is either certainly true but empty of content, or it is only probably true but meaningful.  Take a position concerning whether you think knowledge can be derived from reason alone or is it the result of direct experience. Please take any of the arguments we covered in the chapter and be sure to make clear, (1) Its main points and, (2) tell me what its strong points are, and (3) subject it to a thought experiment of your own design (that means, don't copy from the book), to show whether the argument is reasonable or not according to what you learned in module one. Finally, if it is reasonable, talk a little about why it convinces you, and if you believe it does not, say why not (use just a few sentences here or at most a short summary type paragraph).

2)  In chapter two we covered several arguments that deal with whether or not there is mind or only a physical brain that directs thinking. Take a position whether you think there is a mind separate from the body (brain)and explain how, given your choice you think the two interact. Alternatively you may take the position that there is only a physical brain that directs thinking and explain how one would account for the operations usually ascribed to mind. You should begin by stating the position you want to defend and say whether or not you agree with this argument. If you disagree with this argument take any of the counter arguments for the opposing position and be sure to: (1) give a brief outline of this argument, (2) tell me what its strong points are, and (3) subject it to a thought experiment of your own design (that means, don't copy from the book), to show why mind separate from the physical body is not a viable position.  Finally, discuss how this issue affects you at a personal level.

3) In this section you have studied several ethical arguments the purpose of which is to both say what is right or good and to justify the reward and punishment for human actions. Below is a case history that I would like for you to consider: Jane is a 17-year-old woman who, about a year ago, presented to the ER of a major New York hospital with symptoms consistent with a neurological problem. She was referred to the neurology department and upon testing was shown to have a condition called neurofibromatosis. Because this is a genetic condition for which there is no cure all that could be done was to operate to remove the benign tumor from here auditory pathways. This meant, however, that she lost all hearing.  The operation was successful and she was discharged for OP follow-up but within about one year she was discovered to have a new tumor growth along her visual pathway. The surgeon recommended a second operation to remove the tumor (without surgical intervention the tumor will grow to the point where brain tissue is destroyed), but Jane was reluctant to have this done. She argued that since the disease is progressive and terminal in any event that she would like to live for the rest of her life with vision. Because the doctor believed that while she might experience some reduction in quality of life she should have to operation because it would prolong her life by several years, maybe even a decade. Take a position about what should be done and present an argument using one or more of the ethical arguments we covered so far. Offer a defense of your position use reasons and give a personal observation as to why you think your action will be productive of the best outcome.