PHILOSPHY 101/8ZF

WORLDVIEW REPORT
By: Tyler Sloan

Sloan 1

Tyler Sloan
Jonathan Daniel Murrell
Phil 101 Section 8ZF
13 July 2016
Worldview Report
Throughout the 12 sessions I have attended in Philosophy 101 I have learned an amazing
amount of information about the basics of philosophy and I have learned about the topics of
epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion. I have studied my in class content for
hours upon hours and I have done external studies even longer. I have learned to question reality,
truth, absolute knowledge, and the existence of God. I have studied many points of view that
differ from mine that if I had not been in this class I would have never become educated on. Also
I have learned to question what I originally believed and that critical thinking can be used in
almost every matter of life. I have come to notice that I put my faith into ideas that I now know
that I knew nothing about and was being quite careless with my power of opinion. I have always
trusted others when it came to topics that I was not educated on and to just stay out of a situation
if I was not directly impacted by the results. I have now learned that it is my duty to myself and
to society to be informed, individual, and use the free thought that I believe I have. I have
learned about many philosophers from different eras, cultures, and beliefs, I noticed that I agree
with many of the philosophers on some topics that I would not agree with on many others. I have
not found a philosopher that holds most or all of the same beliefs that I hold.
The first topic we covered was Metaphysics. I strongly misinterpreted this subject when it
was first introduced to me due to the fact that I assumed that it covered the idea of individual
reality; when it was actually about overall reality itself, such as the laws of physics and historical

Sloan 2

evidence that supported philosophical points of view. I completed my whole first assignment for
the class under the first assumption and did all of it incorrectly, this class was what taught me my
first step in the fact that I need to pay extremely close attention when doing my assignments in a
college class. After recompleting my assignment, I learned the basics that we cannot change the
external world to conform to what we wish and believe no matter our level or power or
motivation. Also I learned about how there is no way to prove our mind or soul is any different
from our physical brain therefore it is debatable that we have no spiritual or mental reality; the
only reality that there would have to be is the physical and the mind is simply a function of the
brain.
I personally do not believe that statement due to the fact that you can have conscious
thoughts and dreams when you are not physically active. I believe there is a mental reality that
gives us the input to function in the physical world. For example, if we have the mental thought
I want to get my friend a Christmas present that is not a physical message from our nervous
system. Although we still have the emotional or spiritual message coming to us that makes us
urge to do that duty without any physical result necessarily. This issue is quite easily known as
the mind-body Problem.
Another topic we covered that was within the subject of metaphysics was Artificial
intelligence. Artificial Intelligence has the issue that questions if it is possible that A. Is might
one day become self-aware and become independent. That would bring on the issue of whether
or not artificial intelligence would then deserve rights and their own privacies due to the fact that
they are intelligent and self-sustained just as humans are. I learned the ways that the intelligence
or lack thereof can be tested on different types of Artificial intelligence through the Turing test,
or the Chinese room test. I found these test types were strongly efficient in setting the level of

Sloan 3

operation these synthetic minds function at. I do not believe that Artificial intelligence will ever
become self-sufficient and that it will ever become its own intelligent being. Another issue with
Artificial intelligence is the question of whether or not it is possible for computers to feel and
become sentient beings. To be sentient that implies that A. Is must be intelligent and I have
already stated my opinion on that and with that being said I do not believe that it is possible
either.
The final topic of Metaphysics that we covered was free will vs. determinism. We studied
a large spectrum of philosophers and their varying views on the debate as to whether we have the
free will to do what we wish and have the responsibility for our own actions, if we are
determined which assumes we are controlled by an outside force either naturally(genetics) or
supernatural(Godly) and that means that we wouldnt be deserving of punishment because we
cannot control what actions we do. Most of the philosophers on the free will side of the argument
were religious and they came from areas with relatively free environments. I strongly agree with
the side of free will because the strongest argument against determinism is why do we feel
regret if the decision wasnt ours to make.
I have pondered on this statement for quite a while and I still do not know of any logical
argument that could disprove that statement. I strongly agree with the side of free will because I
believe in freedom, am faithful in God who allows us to affirm or deny him with the resulting
treatments in respect to our actions, and finally I simply cannot prove to myself any way that
determinism has a solid standing other than some minor affects from hormones. Overall I have
felt the most personally educated through Metaphysics rather than the other subjects we have
covered throughout the philosophy class. I could see myself enjoying study in this area with
friends and family long after I have finished my secondary education.

Sloan 4

The second major subject that we covered in our philosophy class was Epistemology.
When we observed that subject I found it simple in some phases and majorly difficult in others.
The first subtopic we covered was veridicality. Veridicality is basically placing a level of trueness
of a statement. This has been questioned many ways by many people. Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes
and Socrates all questioned it in their own ways. I agreed mostly with Diogenes view point
because he was a simple man and viewed things much like I do. He believed that if you can
justify something and it is in a literal standpoint then there is no reason to doubt the statement.
For instance, the comment there was a beautiful sunrise this morning. Is false, While the
typical person would simply agree and not question the veridicality of the comment; I find it
backwards to assume what someone says as always agreeable. The sun did not rise and it is quite
foolish that we as a society always make that comment so fluidly because it is simply untrue.
The next topic we learned about under the subject of epistemology was logic. Logic is
closely tied with knowledge. Knowledge is justified, true, belief, and there are a few
circumstantial defeaters. I find that a simple definition of knowledge and I can agree with it to
me a universal rule to mark what is and isnt knowledge. We can classify logic in many different
ways and there are 4 main sectors that we classify as ways of acquiring knowledge. There is
revealed, mystical, rational, and empirical knowledge. Rational reasoning is based on logic and
common sense. While rational logic seems quite simple it is used to solve many issues that are
easy to comprehend and explain. Rational knowledge is very effective in most cases. Empirical
reasoning leans towards science and physical evidence for its proof when confirming knowledge.
Empirical reasoning is more common in todays society but it is not strongly understood because
the field of science is always changing and is constantly in question itself. Revealed and mystical
reasoning are based on personal experience the only difference in the two that I could find was

Sloan 5

that revealed reasoning and knowledge had historical evidence along with multiple witnesses
rather than a single testimony with no other information. I tend to agree with rational reasoning
when it comes to natural knowledge and the revealed quadrant when it comes to supernatural
reasoning. I have chosen to side with those ideas because I have been using them for all of my
life without having known so and I find them the easiest to prove and have faith in when it
comes to unproven subjects.
The next subject I studied was the philosophy of religion. I learned about how all the
main religions dealt with different issues and what their primary focus was about when it came
down to their biggest issues. I learned about evidential and nonevidential philosophers and
theistic and atheistic philosophers as well. I found myself to be almost exactly in agreement with
William James when it came to the views he held he was an evidential theist. I find it relatively
simple that God gives is tests to see how faithful we are and the strongest arguments against
theism is about evolution and natural selection. I believe that god allowed those things to happen
along with his doings so that we would have this issue and we would have to find our own
personal answer and to answer with our faith or lack thereof.
I find nonevidential atheism probably the most foolish standpoint someone could take on
religion because it basically means they dont believe and god and they dont care to prove it or
have evidence. I found Pascals Wager extremely relatable because I have actually thought of
the same basic principal myself before having heard his assortment of it. Pascals Wager
basically states that if you live a religious life you will have better morals, and you have the
chance of having eternal life in heaven. The worst possible scenario is that there is no heaven and
you are simply dead anyway. The other scenario is you live in an immoral life with no God and
risk the chance of heaven and hell being real and then you are definitely banished to hell for your

Sloan 6

careless lifestyle. I find it useful to have that logical argument for religion rather than it all being
faith based.
The biggest issue that I have thought about that is on the topic of the philosophy
of religion is The Problem of Evil. While The Problem of Evil only applies to monotheistic
religions that have an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing God. Basically the argument that
you shouldnt follow God if he allows pain and suffering to an innocent person when he has the
power to change that. I have learned about a few counter arguments that are strong in their
efficiency to dissolve The Problem of Evil. My favorite argument follows the idea that God
allows evil to exist to test us and our faith, as well as the fact that some things we consider evil
are just natural occurrences or happen due people who are immoral and are using their free will
in abusive ways. I believe there is no true Problem of Evil because God has a meaning that is
not yet completely clear, whether it be to test us or another unknown cause.
Another topic that I have studied slightly is how philosophy applies to ethics. Ethics can
be used to determine if a concept is right or wrong. In other words, we use ethics to tell if
something is moral or immoral. While ethics is pretty simple and it does not have many
questions about itself. It does strike controversy when it comes to what answer we can come to
with ethics. There is not always a clear answer as to what we should do or consider acceptable
because there is always an exception or a defeater. For instance, the huge debate about abortion
and how it should be dealt with. Pro-life or pro-choice. While many people back one side or
another almost everyone has one exception that they would lean to the opposite side for. A prolife follower might have an exception for abortion if it risks the mothers life to give labor. And a
pro-choice follower might consider it to be inhumane to go through an abortion if it is solely the

Sloan 7

fault of the pregnant woman for her conception. This is just one current issue that could cause a
major question in ethics.
The next subject that we will study according to the syllabus is the philosophy of politics.
While we have not learned about it yet I have some understandings about the topic. I know about
capitalism, socialism, and communism in political and economic standpoints. I learned more
about the evolution of communism and the original ideas that it was formed on. Also I learned
about the pros and cons about capitalism. I agree with capitalism on most points but my ideal
political situation would have to be economically capitalist and politically socialist My economic
beliefs support a capitalist environment because I believe that the hardworking should get what
they deserve and not to be forced to support the lazy or to have to support their country
financially more than they can support themselves. However, I do not believe in a fixed tax rate
or a flat tax, due to the fact that those who are in the highest current tax bracket do not
necessarily need all the billions of dollars they have. They simply cannot ever recycle that money
into the economy on their own. I am a republican because I believe that we need to keep our
countrys views conservative and as close to the constitutions meanings as possible. Part of my
political view is from my upbringing and my geographical location. I accept that as part of what
makes me, but I also believe that I owe it to myself to observe and do some critical thinking
about the options to follow when it comes to my political beliefs.
All of the information I have gained and the success I have achieved in this Philosophy
101 class will be strongly impactful on me for the rest of my secondary learning career. Also it
taught me to always question my own beliefs and to not become close minded. I have gained
more critical thinking skills, and I have learned to form a strong formal philosophical argument. I

Sloan 8

am grateful for the opportunities that I have been given throughout the semester and I cannot
wait to take advantage of each and every one I am presented in my future.

Works Cited

Sloan 9

Lawhead, William F. The Philosophical Journey an Interactive Approach. New York, New York,
2013.Print.