Three Arguments For Deciding The Ultimate Source Of Knowledge

The three arguments for deciding the ultimate source of knowledge are skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. The theory that knowledge comes from sense experience is called empiricism. It is my belief that empiricism is the strongest argument of the three. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes from sense experience. My main reasoning for believing this is because of John Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory. Tabula Rasa is translated a “blank slate”, which Locke says is like our mind at birth. Overtime as we age our experiences provide us with knowledge that we would not have had otherwise. For example, I didn't know when I was little that touching a hot stove would burn me until I actually experienced touching a hot stove. Empiricism can make
very broad differences in a person’s life, its like the saying “You don't know until you try”. I never thought I would enjoy playing basketball until I actually tried it. Eventually I fell in love with it and in doing so I made many friends I probably wouldn't have unless I tried it. There are many examples of people experiencing something new that leads to new friends, a new hobby or even a new career. The arguments for the second question “Does God exist” includes the Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, and Atheistic arguments.
The Cosmological argument made famous by St. Thomas Aquinas makes the most sense to me. The third part of his argument focuses on contingency. Contingent things are things that can exist or not exist (ex: trees, dogs, people). Thomas argues that if everything is contingent, then the universe is contingent. He also says that there must have been a point where there was no universe since the universe is contingent and that nothing would exist now. His final point is that it is false everything is contingent and that there must be something necessary which we call god. I think this is the strongest argument because, I don't think something could bring itself into existence. Essentially the argument is that nothing can come from nothing and if the universe was contingent, there must be something necessary to bring the universe into existence. This viewpoint that there is a god a can really change someones life. Believing in a god can lead people to a religion and other spiritual practices. It can also change and decide how one person behaves and how they live their life because of their religion. In my opinion physicalism is a stronger argument than substance dualism for the question “Do we have souls”. Physicalism is the thought that the mind and body are the same thing. Carruthers argument is the reason why say physicalism is a stronger argument.
Since our mind causes events in our bodies and those events are physical, then our mind and bodies must be one thing. There are a few different arguments out there trying to decide what makes us, us. In class we discussed sameness of soul, sameness of body, and the memory sequence. I don't really feel that any of the arguments are great explanations for where are identity lies. However if I had to chose which argument I feel is the strongest it would have to be that our identity lies in the continuity of memory. Like I said in an earlier section, our experiences give us knowledge of things and also shape who we are. If our bodies changed we would still have the same identity and memories. Also, if our souls were transferred and are memories and personality traits were lost then we would not be the same person. It seems based off of those two scenarios that if we keep our memories then we are still the same and if we don’t than we are not the same person. Believing that our identity lies in our memories can affect a person significantly. If people believe that then maybe they would be more inclined to make more memories. In doing so people might experience things they thought they never would. In terms of free will, I do believe we have free will.
The libertarianism view on free will is the best argument on this question. It is the view that we have free will and therefore we are not determined. The reason why I feel it is the strongest is because it is the only one that says we are not determined. The other two arguments say we are determined. The problem I have with that is how could we ever know that we are determined. If we go through life making our decisions on our own, then how could we ever be determined. Suppose that I’m giving two choices neither of which I like, it may seem that my free will is limited, but since there is two choices I have the free will to chose which one I like better. If people thought like this then they may feel more free to choose what they want to do with their lives and not feel pressured by outside factors. For example being able to chose where they want to work, how many kids they would like to have, who they marry, and many other decisions they can make because they know they have free will to do
whatever.