Answer questions with one paragraph each: Chapter 4 1. Compare, contrast, and evaluate the views of John Searle and Rene Descartes on dualism. 2. Compare, contrast, and evaluate the views of George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes on the mind. 3. Explain and evaluate what David Hume means by saying that we have no evidence of the self. 4. How is Hume’s view of the mind related to that of the Tibetan Master Milarepa’s on this subject? Chapter 5 5. Explain, compare, and contrast the views of Anselm and Gaunilo regarding the Ontological argument. 6. Explain, contrast, and evaluate the views of Freud and Nietzsche, on the rationality of religious belief. 7. Explain, compare, and evaluate the views of Tolstoy and Kierkegaard, on the rationality of religious belief. 8. Explain and evaluate Pascal’s Wager. Would belief based on such an argument get you into heaven? 9. Explain and evaluate William Paley’s version of the design argument. Does the argument provide a rational basis for belief in some sort of creative intelligence behind the universe and life? 10. Explain and evaluate the problem of evil. Chapter 6 11. Compare and contrast the main tenets of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. 12. Explain in detail the connection between the Tao, Ying, and Yang. 13. Articulate how principles of Taoism serve as the foundation of the art of Feng Shui. 14. Explain and evaluate the views of Sogyal Rinpoche regarding death and human activity in the modern world ( from the readings at the end of chapter 6). 15. Consider and explain the evidence for reincarnation and the experience of other levels of reality presented in the chapter.
John Searle and Rene Descartes hold different views on dualism, which is the concept that the mind and body are two separate entities. Descartes believed in substance dualism, the idea that the mind is a non-physical substance while the body is a physical substance. Searle, on the other hand, argues for a form of biological naturalism, which holds that mental states are caused by the biological workings of the brain. Searle rejects the idea that the mind is a separate entity from the body, instead seeing the mind as an emergent property of the brain. In evaluating their views, some philosophers criticize Descartes for the lack of empirical evidence supporting his claims while others argue that Searle’s biological naturalism oversimplifies the complex nature of consciousness.
George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes held different views on the nature of the mind. Berkeley argued for idealism, the belief that the only reality is mental or spiritual, and that physical objects only exist insofar as they are perceived. Hobbes, on the other hand, was a materialist who believed that everything, including the mind, can be explained in terms of matter and motion. In evaluating their views, some philosophers criticize Berkeley for his denial of the existence of a physical world independent of perception, while others criticize Hobbes for reducing the mind to mere matter.
David Hume’s claim that we have no evidence of the self can be understood in different ways. One interpretation is that Hume is denying the existence of a self as a substantial entity. Another interpretation is that Hume is merely pointing out that our ideas of self are based on impressions and that we cannot perceive a self as a distinct entity. Some philosophers criticize Hume’s skepticism, arguing that it undermines the possibility of knowledge and self-understanding, while others praise his emphasis on empirical evidence and the importance of experience in shaping our beliefs.
Hume’s view of the mind is similar to that of the Tibetan Master Milarepa in that both reject the idea of a permanent, substantial self. Milarepa also emphasizes the impermanence of mental states and the importance of mindfulness in cultivating wisdom. However, Milarepa’s perspective is rooted in Buddhist philosophy, while Hume’s is based on empirical investigation and skepticism.
Anselm and Gaunilo had different views regarding the Ontological argument, which seeks to prove the existence of God based solely on the concept of God. Anselm’s version of the argument maintains that God is a necessary being and therefore must exist, while Gaunilo argues that the same logic could be applied to any concept, such as a perfect island, leading to absurd conclusions. Philosophers have criticized Anselm’s argument for its circularity and ambiguity, while others have defended it as a valuable contribution to the philosophy of religion.
Freud and Nietzsche had different views on the rationality of religious belief. Freud argued that religious belief is a product of wish fulfillment and that it should be abandoned in favor of a scientific understanding of the world. Nietzsche, on the other hand, saw religious belief as an affirmation of life and a means of transcending the limitations of the human condition. Some philosophers criticize Freud for reducing religious belief to psychological pathology, while others criticize Nietzsche for failing to provide a coherent justification for religious belief.
Tolstoy and Kierkegaard had different views on the rationality of religious belief. Tolstoy argued that religious belief is rational because it provides a basis for moral values and a sense of purpose, while Kierkegaard emphasized the importance of faith and the subjective nature of religious belief. Some philosophers criticize Tolstoy for his simplistic understanding of religion, while others praise Kierkegaard for his emphasis on personal experience and subjective