Stettsen Olsen Final Paper Extremes, when contrasted, give us the most interesting results, therefore, I have chosen

to contrast two philosophers who, I feel, couldn't be less alike !homas "#uinas was the $atholic $hurch's front runner for appl%ing &od and religion to reason and logic 'avid (ume was known as )!he Skeptic* and believed not onl% &od, but ever%thing to be a figment of imagination !hough their methods of finding knowledge, or in (ume's case, den%ing knowledge, are different, the% both arrive at conclusions that can not coexist 'avid (ume was a Scotsmen in the mid +,--'s 'avid (ume was greatl% influenced b% .ohn /ocke who claim was that all men were born a tabula rasa, blank slate /ocke refused to believe that an% man was born with innate ideas !hat is to sa% that all data is sense data 0hen a person is born the% immediatel% start experiencing things and gathering information that make up the fundamentals of thought !here is no knowledge prior to observation !his means that we are )the author of our own character * !his is called Empiricism
+

Following .ohn /ocke came &eorge 1erkele% who founded the idea of immaterialism 1erkele% states that ob2ects witnessed are onl% ideas (e also said )to be is to be perceived* or )Esse est percipi *3 (e believed that it is our perception that causes us to believe that a thing that is moving is in motion It is our imagination that tells us that the thing has continuousl% existed In actuall% it is &od who has perceived it in a different space, )to be is to be perceived*, and the ob2ect is recreated ever% instant we can examine it If this applies to us then we to, as ob2ects, are being perceived &od is the one who perceives us and ever%thing around us at all times !he )never resting*4 mind of &od is our &uarantee

Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 389:3;-7 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic 3 Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 3;37 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic 4 Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 3;37 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic

"fter introducing these concepts we come to 'avid (ume 'avid (ume took these concepts and ran with them !o $ritici@e (ume is also to critici@e /ocke and 1erkele% as well 'avid (ume became the ultimate Skeptic b% sa%ing that we and the world don't exist at all 'avid (ume took /ocke's concept of Empiricism and 1erekele%'s concept of perception and combined them In retaliation to 'escartes' $ogito, (ume said that all one's self is, is )a bundle of perceptions *9 0e, as a perception in an instance, perceive things to be as the% are in an instance and in the next instance we are another bundle of perceptions with a new perception It is our imagination that makes us think that we exist continuousl% from one instance to another !hrough (ume's skepticism nothing could be one: hundred percent proven and would be merel% a perception !his derailed 'escartes concept of the innate idea of &od 0ith that concept gone, nothing could be proven to exist !he concept of innate ideas can be determined b% how one defines it Imagine that there is a person in a tank without an% sensor% data whatsoever !his person must have a brain or the% would not be sentient If time were allowed to pass that person would have an idea of being Even if the% were not able to touch, see, hear, taste, smell, this person would have a sense of self to whatever degree "gain, if time were allowed to pass, in whatever terms, that sentient being would wonder how the% came to be and what else is out there (ere are three innate ideasA self, because the brain still works without sensor% data, the idea of a creation, creator, or genesis, because one would wonder how the% came to be, despite lack of sensor% data, and matter, because one is and if this sentient being exists there could be more of what that being is composed of outside of that mind's self 1ecause of this example I feel that innate ideas do exist !here are perhaps more From this example I go to another If we are 2ust a bundle of perceptions in a instance, that would mean that we are Even for a second we are something that is matter and sentient 1ecause we are, whatever we are, we must have come from somewhere and we must be matter 1ecause we are matter, there must be more matter elsewhere, therfore other )bundles of perceptions* 5or people and
9 Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 3;;7 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic

ob2ects7 must exist Batter could also be termed as essence If we are then recreated in the next instant, there must be something that has recreated us If it is our imagination that has told us that we continuousl% existed, given the old sensor% data compared to the new, something has given us the old sensor% data in the recreation and an imagination to draw the comparison !here must then be a great design, designer, or law of universe that controls this If there is some higher law, there must then be logic or reasoning, which can onl% come from the true form of things and not 2ust the perceptions of a )bundle of perceptions * !herefore things must exist If the things that exist around us are in the same universal law that we are, the% must then be real, as are we If I were to write this as the basis of m% own philosoph% I would also sa% that, that great planner or creator is &od 1undle theor% has man% holes in it and if given to another skeptic, that skeptic might sa%, '%ou can't prove to me that I'm 2ust a bundle of perceptions and that m% imagination fills in the gaps ' "t the end of the da%, we can all be skeptics, but that gets us nowhere !homas "#uinas would sa% that there are a few things wrong with the 1undle !heor% First he might use the argument for motion "ssuming that we are a bundle of perceptions that is re:imagined ever% instance, there must be something that started the process of the re:imaging !hat thing is &od Second he might use the argument of necessit% (e might sa% that for there to be a bundle of perceptions, there is something, and if there is something, there must be a beginning to that thing !hat thing is &od !hird, there must be purpose to that bundle of perceptions however brief it exists It exists none the less so it must have been created for some reason !he creator of that purpose is &od !homas "#uinas might then sa%, because there is a &od there is also his reason, logic, and creations, therefore ever%thing is real 'avid (ume also came up with inductive reasoning or )problem of induction * C 6 In this concept (ume sa%s that we perceive something the same wa% time after time in the same form its
C The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 5n d 7 >etrieved from http=DDplato stanford eduDentriesDinduction:problemD 6 Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 4-47 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic

alwa%s been to us !his does not mean that we have a guarantee that it will happen again !here is no universal rule that states that this will happen again So, for example, we witness a @ebra with black and white stripes time and time again 0e assume that the% are all like that and alwa%s will be Its a law of nature "ccording to (ume, we could see a pink and green @ebra .ust because it's alwa%s been, doesn't mean it will alwa%s be I have to commend (ume for this argument It is a good one !here are no guarantees in an%thing I will again argue against this however I will use the example made earlier "ssuming there is now a higher law, there must be order and reason For there to be order, there must be ph%sics, science, wa%s to test things, and patterns in the wa% things are If one plus one is two, the onl% wa% that would not be two is if one of the ones or both changed or something was added or subtracted If nothing changes, the answer will alwa%s be two So, I agree with (ume, if the formula is allowed to change leading up to the result >egarding the problem of induction, !homas "#uinas might sa% that because we know there is a &od from the C Profs of &od &od has order and would not change that order without purpose "lso because there is order, there must be a source of order which is consistent !hat thing is &od !he onl% hole in this argument is that &od might not be the &od of the bible and might therefore not be loving 1ecause this omnipotent being might not be loving we might actuall% see that technicolored @ebra or worse For the purpose of the structure of this paper I have used rebuttals from a philosopher that I will now introduce !homas "#uinas lived in the mid +3--'s Societ% had moved toward $hristianit%, but there were still a great amount of people who did not believe in &od !he% would argue in a logical manner that there was no &od !he $atholic $hurch had no ground to battle this except to sa% that the% must have faith $hristian philosopher's to pave the wa% for "#uinas were "urelius "ugustine and "lbert Bagnus "ugustine believed primaril% in faith (e believed that all one needed was faith and reason

"lbert Bagnus also believed faith but he believed in science too Bagnus believed that science and religion should be taught together Bagnus undertook the pro2ect of combining the two, but it was !homas "#uinas who finished it !hese men did not consider themselves philosophers, rather theologians )" philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a back cat that isn't there " theologian is the man who finds it * : ( / Bencken , !homas "#uinas greatl% admire "ristotle and aspired to prove there was a good using the same reasoning that "ristotle did From this we have the Euin#uae Fiae !he first prof is the "rgument from Botion !his states that things move because something caused them to move !hings that move are moved b% something else !he unmoved thing at the beginning is &od !he second prof is the $osmological "rgument !his states, that people, plants, and animals, all reproduce !hese organisms can onl% exist if something reproduces them !he thing that produced the first thing that was not reproduced was &od !he third prof is the "rgument from <ecessit% !his states that all exists because it is necessar% If nothing were necessar% there wouldn't be a &od, but because there is necessit% there must be a &od form which things came !he fourth prof is the "rgument from &radation !his states that there is a hierarch% of things that that range from worst to best and from a rock to &od For example the hierarch% of nature might be a rock, a bug, a dog, a bab%, a person, and the next step would be &od !his prof also states that for us to compare good to bad or good to better, there must be a best to compare all things to and that thing is &od !he fifth prof is the !eleological "rgument !his states that ever%thing has a purpose or end goal For this to be true there must be an omnipotent force directing ever%thing !his is &od
8

I agree with the profs I believe them to be solid in proving that there is a great unknown I'm a &od fearing man m%self, but I don't believe that this argument #uite does it I don't believe that there is an argument that will convince an%one of &od !o !homas "#uinas' credit he did believe in both faith
, Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 33,7 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic 8 Soccio, ' . 53--67 !he Skeptic 'avid (ume In Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy 5pp 34-:3467 Princeton, < .= >ecording for the 1lind ? '%slexic

and logic !his argument merel% disproves atheism the wa% atheist tr% to disprove &od !he reason I don't full% believe that this does the trick is because this suggests an omnipotent power, law, force, or essence It doesn't necessar% mean that the the begging result is &od It could be that the thing that he calls &od and thinks of from the 1ible is completel% different from what the end result of all his profs is Some of the profs b% themselves could be considered weak Some could be disproven with the theor% of evolution or other theories, but together the% stand strong in the argument that there is something greater 'avid (ume might argue that ever% one of his truths is based upon sensor% data (e might argue that it is his imagination tr%ing to piece together his existence (e might also sa% that true knowledge is unattainable because our senses can not be trusted (ume might also argue that the profs are also based on inductive reasoning and that it doesn't mean that those things will continue in the order that the% function, nor does it mean that the% have continuousl% done so in the past It's a bundle of perceptions that tells %ou that's how its been and how it will be I believe these would be the arguments that (ume would use, but I negate them and his philosoph% based on the examples I have given and because the philosoph% that (ume might use to negate "#uinas was alread% negated b% what I imagine "#uinas would counter (ume with (ad I written about "#uinas first, the negations (ume might use would still be based on his own philosoph% and not based on fact, even if it were sense data !herefor the negations would have been invalid after I had rebutted (ume's Philosoph% with "#uinas' !hus resolving the paradox of who would have won the philosophical argument between the two, despite who went first !here is a matter of the ethical views that "#uinas had (ume didn't believe in &od and was not bound b% a code of ethics If the% were to battle ethics it would start with metaph%sics and epistemolog% I agree however with "#uinas' view on ethics For all of them to appl% to ever%one, one must prove there is a &od, which "#uinas sort of did Of the two philosophers I believe that !homas "#uinas had the most sound philosoph% In the task to prove there was an omnipotent being, I believe he was successful If one followed !homas

"#uinas's ethical view, I believe one would be happ% In $losing I believe "#uinas's philosoph% negates (ume's in a wa% that (ume could not negate "#uinas'