The theory that you learn from your own practical experiences. It is basically one of 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 evidence, and this philosophy clearly puts more influence on the experimental results. It is the philosophy that lies in the sensory experiences of an individual.
Moving on to the definition of relativism in empiricism, the most common thing that both philosophies use is the word “Truth.” Relativism believes in truth, which basically comes from one and only experience. Relativism and Empiricism directly reveal that both knowledge and truth are objective. For an empiricist, there are only two possibilities: one is that he will consider evidence to be the truth, or the other will be biased toward him. This clearly shows the relation between both 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 to one point: what is good should be followed. As the evidence is the base of empiricism, it directly shows that both philosophies are interlinked and relate to one point and that every perspective can be good or bad evidence.
B:
Hedonists are the people who believe in absolute happiness and its utter desire as 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 is the meaningful life. Protagoras even believes that what one may find meaningful should be done. Relating it to happiness, we can clearly observe that it is human nature to go for the thing he finds meaningful. Human Nature is briefly prescribed by both philosophies. Both share some factual differences, but they represent happiness as a meaningful thing.
C:
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 Locke’s point of view says that a body and a mind are not two different entities but interlinked. Substance dualism is likewise regularly named ‘Cartesian dualism,’ yet some substance dualists quickly 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 and unexamined aphorism. While utilizing realities about bodily behavior as proof for decisions about perspectives, Locke never inquires as to why they are evidence, 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 believes that the greater part of our reasoning, personality, and truth are induction and presumption. This resembles the Indian hypothesis of skandas, ‘piles’ of sand, talking about the mind and how all recognitions are simply packages of stuff that collects and afterward disperse. Strikingly, like Indian ideas, especially Buddism, Hume contended that human ideas, 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 what we encounter 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.
