Hood Paper 3

"An empiricist always must divert to a nihilist-esque view of proof, perhaps even precluding a definitional ideology of proof - while a rationalist relies on experience to garner a sort of proof that can explicate one’s sensory experience and thus gain knowledge. Epistemologically, an empiricist ultimately must recant any notion of proof due to the fact that all notions of knowledge and understanding rely on some sort of belief based on experience (86) – repeated experience having the most credence per the scientific method. The consistent empiricist must, then, reject proof as being empirical and take on some form of skepticism in order to demonstrate that anything with the slightest chance, given an infinite amount of time, is entirely possible. A rationalist similarly relies on experience – both a priori and a posteriori – in order to come to conclusions, yet given similar situations, the rationalist and empiricist can come up with the same conclusion, yet with semantically and philosophically different views of that conclusion. If one were to go to an orchard, and see that an apple is about to break off from a branch, an empiricist and rationalist would both (hopefully) conclude that the apple will fall. A rationalist, however, can say that the fruit absolutely will fall (90) while the consistent empiricist cannot preclude the possibility that it will not fall. The rationalist relies on experience to judge what will happen, while the empiricist relies on experience to judge what is likely to happen, and this makes all the difference."

Hood Paper 2

"Plato and Aristotle came to a similar conclusions concerning universal. If I am eating Wheaties, then Plato would argue that there is a perfect type of Wheaties out in the universe somewhere, and the bowl I am enjoying is just a model of the Wheaties archetype. Everything in our sensory world is modeled after some archetype that exists in the heavens as a Form (56) which is perfect compared to everything we understand. Aristotle also believed in an archetypal Wheaties. Conversely, he accepted the idea of the universal being practically theoretical. The perfect bowl of Wheaties exists in the mind of the individual imagining it, but the sensory world is all that we have to work with. Though he believed that, Aristotle also assumed everything was working towards this universal perfection (72) –Wheaties have an organic purpose of being digested, so they are edible. The difference between Plato and Aristotle’s views affects how either one will perceive teleology. Plato thought it important to understand Forms as it would change the way we lived in light of understanding the universal (56). Aristotle’s teleology was something more akin to Fate or determinism in that he suggested that as everything had a specific goal (universal) to work towards, then its purpose was simply to become like the universal. These differences can affect the thinking of the believer to an extreme – perhaps an Aristotelian becomes a hedonist because he sees it as his inescapable purpose, while a Platonist becomes a free will Baptist?"

Introduct/Hood Paper 1

Having had an interesting conversation with someone recently about the nature of putting a price on knowledge, I thought I would continue to publish that which I've been writing for my classes in order to weakly protest the hindrance in the free flow of information caused by textbook manufacturers and billion dollar conglomerates and corporations. Here's my first paper written for my Systems of Psychology course which I will follow with the second and third I've already written and then continue to publish the others weekly:

“…we know, as did Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and many others, that we are always biased,” (Malone 6). This line sets the tone for Malone’s differentiation between what is important – ideas rather than people. These ideas are a line to be drawn through the middle of modern history which are constantly emphasized and thus have merit over that which singular people have to say. One doesn’t look for people not to have an end game. In looking holistically at what is important to people, one decides what appears to be true for the majority. The questions that are asked are just as important as the answers received because how questions are framed changes what answers are acceptable and possible. When talking of someone’s new car, the questions, “How nice is it?” and “How terrible is it?” have entirely different connotations. Malone recognizes the paradox of what he is trying to do and characterizes the series of questions as his biases: they are what he has deemed important for the purpose of this text and his evaluation of ideological history. He sees that, as someone who is biased, his exact words in questioning existing ideologies are just as much a part of the answer as the response that he receives because his words can be exclusive. It follows that he determines that refutability, and not verifiability, is the “criterion for objectivity,” (8). Verifiability indicates whether something can happen and refutability whether it is the only thing which can happen."