The theory which narrated that you gain knowledge from your own practical experiences. It is basically one the many studies done on human knowledge. Empiricism basically relies on the evidence or the ideas. According to empiricists the customs are formed due to previous experiences. Empiricism relies all on evidences and this philosophy clearly puts more influence on the experimental results. It is the philosophy that is lying on the sensory experiences of an individual.
Moving on the definition of relativism in the empiricism, the most common thing that both the philosophies is the word “Truth”. Relativism believes in truth and truth basically comes from one and only experience. Relativism and Empiricism directly reveal that knowledge and truth both are objective. For an empiricist there are only two possibilities one is that he will consider an evidence as a truth or that will be biased to him. This clearly shows the relation between both the philosophies.
Furthermore looking at the relation between empiricism and hedonism we can observe many things. Hedonism is directly related to the pleasure of human beings. Both philosophies come on one point that what is good should be followed. As the evidence is the base of the empiricism, it directly shows that both philosophies are interlinked and are relating on one point that every perspective can be evidence either a good or a bad.
Hedonists are the people who believe in absolute happiness and its utter desire as the life. Hedonism is a philosophy that directly states that if you find something the pursuit of your happiness just do that. This theory furthermore explains three kinds of lives.
- The Pleasant life
- The Good life
- The meaningful life
Protagoras and hedonists have one thing very similar in their philosophy and that the meaningful life. Protagoras even believes that what one may find meaningful should be done. Relating it to the happiness we can clearly observe that its human nature that he goes for the thing he finds meaningful. Human Nature is briefly prescribed by both philosophies. Both share some factual differences else they represent happiness as a meaningful thing.
Cartesian Dualism is basically the concept that human body and human soul are entirely two different things. They are completely separate by means of division. For example human body can be divided by cutting legs or arms etc. but human soul or mind cannot be divided and is indivisible.
It merely differs from Locke’s dualism where the Locke’s point of view says that a body and a mind are not two different entities but they are interlinked. Substance dualism is likewise regularly named ‘Cartesian dualism’, yet some substance dualists are quick to recognize their hypotheses from Descartes’. According to him we call someone a man when he has both body and mind. He majorly differentiates the concept of dualism in many ways.
Lockean does not declare Dualism as a postulation, any more than Descartes does, evidently accepting it as an unchallenged as well as unexamined aphorism. While utilizing realities about bodily behavior as proof for decisions about perspectives, Locke never inquires as to why they are evidences, nor does he ever propose that any intellectual idea may be analyzable regarding behavioral auras, sensations, emotions or ‘thoughts’ may be physiological states.
Locke additionally acknowledges Descartes’ view that brains must be “transparent to themselves”, for instance in his questioning against inherently had thoughts and learning, where he says that “we aren’t mindful of any such belonging and couldn’t have them without monitoring them: ‘To engrave anything on the brain without the mind’s seeing it appears to me barely clear”. In any case not at all like Descartes he doesn’t utilize this to characterize the realm of mind, and it isn’t evident that he characterizes it by any means. On the off chance that he does, it is by saying that ‘soul’— which is one of his words for ‘thing that have mentalistic properties’— is ‘the thought of reasoning, and moving a body’
Hume’s position is that the greater part of our reasoning, our personality and truth is induction and presumption. This resembles the Indian hypothesis of skandas, ‘piles’ of sand, talking about the mind and how all recognitions in it are simply packages of stuff that collects and afterward disperse. Strikingly, like Indian idea, especially Buddism, Hume contended that human idea, character and conduct are managed by the interests, not reason which fills in as an apparatus for wants.
According to Hume’s theory self is not same overtime so the dualism differs on this point as dualism’s approach to self is not the way of Hume’s. Hume suggests that we look at ourselves as “stable entities existing in a time span’ regardless of how closely we look at our own particular encounters, we never watch anything past a progression of transient sentiments, sensations, and impressions. There is no idea of “self” that ties our specific impressions together. As such, we can never be specifically aware of ourselves, just of what we are encountering at any given minute. This contention likewise applies to the idea of the spirit. Hume proposes that the self is only a heap of observations, similar to a chain. To search for a unifying self past those recognitions is similar to searching for a chain separated from the connections that constitute it.