1. Are you convinced with Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum? Why and why not?

2. What is the role of logic in establishing Philosophy as the mother of all sciences?
3. What is knowledge according to Kant?
4. If you are to decide the case of Regina vs. Dudley and Stephens, would you have them
acquitted or convicted for the murder of Richard Parker? Defend your answer.

An essay that answers the questions of the Topic

The topic of the lesson was about the perspective of Descartes on explaining What is
knowledge?, and also discussed the branches of Philosophy which include Aesthetics,
Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of mind, African philosophy, Ethics, and Logic.

Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum that means "I think, therefore I am" is a very confusing
concept for the question What is knowledge?. For me also it is very hard to understand that
knowledge is an innate cause even him from the start he is questioning and wondering why it is
this and that. For me, I am not convinced of his concept. As of now, in our time we are really
into the saying that “to see is to believe” except for the thought about God because I believe in
God. Descartes idea which said that “even our senses delude us” is that for me in this case in my
own experience we can judge our senses with our trust and trust for me is a powerful thing that a
human has so I concluded that knowledge is not innate because even the “trust” is not an innate it
is learned for some reason. It is learned through the process and that process in an experience
that is not innate.

The role of logic in establishing Philosophy as the mother of all sciences is that the logic
itself is the knowledge of all sciences that has been built upon a quest for the truth. With this
logic’s ideas and knowledge, sciences begin to formulate it into reality. Philosophy is the starting
point where your ideas are formed and use it as your guide in doing it in actuality like for
example your curiosity that leads to ideas that serve as the Philosophy and the action of it will be
the work of sciences. Without philosophy’s logic, there will be no sciences that will rise. Without
the beginning, there will be no process to start with and no result to have. In other words with
Philosophy and its branch logic is the source and basis of all sciences.

As discussed, for Immanuel Kant knowledge that is defined by the rationalists and
empiricists is wrong because to him knowledge is Priori a knowledge that requires no evidence
which is gained independently of any particular experience, as opposed to a
posteriori knowledge, which is derived from experience. According to him, real knowledge is
Synthetic a Priori Knowledge means a proposition the predicate of which is not logically or
analytically contained in the subject. Immanuel Kant also answered the question “is knowledge
possible?”, he answered yes in a reason that knowledge is not about knowing the thing of what it
is but it was something that happens to you and it is an effect of the Priori and Posteriori coming
together within you.

In the judgment of the case of Regina vs. Dudley and Stephens, I would convict the
murderer of Richard Parker even if they reason out that “if they didn’t do it they all die and there
is no purpose of doing it at all” but the fact that they commit the crime is considered as murder.
My reason is that they are in the world of reality which they came back in the land or place
which is in England with a law that says killing is a crime when you commit a crime then you
should pay for it.