Question One

Philosophy plays a huge role in the pursuit of wisdom. In this regards, it is important

first to define wisdom, which is the ability to know what is best at a particular time. Plato and

other great thinkers like Socrates insist that a philosopher must be one that is in love with

knowledge and wisdom. They have to have a strong passion for having insights about a

particular issue. Thus, the role of philosophy in the pursuit of wisdom can be inferred from

Plato’s definition of a philosopher. It is evident that the discipline creates a strong desire for

actively looking for wisdom. The motivational role of philosophy cannot be ignored.

Additionally, the discipline is explorative in nature. In that, it often seeks to uncover more

insights about a particular issue. In this regards, a philosopher is often asking questions and

finding answers. The foundation of wisdom is inquiry. It is not waiting to react to events that

are experienced in life. Rather it is often a proactive search. Additionally, philosophy is not

limited to a particular area. The same applies to wisdom. This is a sharp contrast to

knowledge which is often focused on a specific area of expertise. Thus philosophy has an

unlimited scope in regards to the extent to which it actively searches for wisdom. The

discipline of philosophy also involves criticism. In that, it challenges the status quo an instead

seeks to provide clear explanation to phenomenon. The criticism in this case should not be

taken just as a mere opposition. Rather it takes a positive approach towards advancing

existing knowledge. In this way, it helps to uncover more wisdom.

Question Two
The philosophical topic the author found most interesting is metaphysics. The

specialization deals with issues of existence and questions about God, human existence. In

other words, metaphysics is involved with the fundamental questions of life. Plato and

Socrates called it the foundation of philosophy. Thus, it is evident that it ranked high among

the great thinkers. Philosophy itself has many topics, including epistemology and ethics.
However, Plato argued that all these are secondary to metaphysics. Again, as implied above,

the aspect mainly focuses on fundamental questions of life .Everyone asks themselves who is

God, what is their purpose in life, does the world exist outside or inside the mind. These are

questions that come automatically for any conscious human being. There is a strong feeling

that getting answers to these questions will significantly contribute to having spiritual,

emotional, and mental freedom. Yet the questions are often ignored and rarely examined in

learning institutions. Additionally, metaphysics is characterized by a sense of wonder. Thus,

its study gives a thrilling experience to the learner. The philosophical topic I found least

interesting is epistemology. This is the study of how knowledge is created and distributed.

This area is complex as it examines the relationship of knowledge with many other concepts.

Again as mentioned earlier, I find it less superior. For instance, wisdom is far much better

than knowledge. It goes beyond mere accumulation of information to having the ability to

make the right decisions in a timely manner. Thus, there is no urgent need to learn about

epistemology without having a strong background in metaphysics. Again, epistemology is

commonly studied in classrooms. Thus, it is a subject that can be easily encountered when

pursuing education at institutions of higher learning.

Question Three

Morality and religion are co-existence. The two are inseparable with each other. There

is a complementary relationship between them. Religion and morality teach the same things.

These include justice, fairness, equality, respect, and similar attributes. Thus, their intention

on the society is similar. It is important that to note that there are multiple religions in the

world. These include Islam, Christianity, Hindu, and many others. However, all of them

preach moral virtues. To further demonstrate the co-existence, it is important to provide a

brief explanation of the two concepts. Religion is more about developing relationship with

God. On the other hand, morality is about doing the right or good thing. In this regards, it is
necessary to ask if God loves good. The answer to that question is obvious. This is thus a

point of convergence. A person cannot be religious and not being moral. It is practically not

possible because the two disciplines share the same virtues. Furthermore, the relationship can

also be evaluated by examining causation. Religion is the foundation of morality, not the

other way round. Morality does not teach religion. This idea can be further demonstrated by

examining the moral decay in the society. In the recent years, secularism, which is a shift

from being religious, has been on the rise. As a result, the level of moral decay has also risen

sharply. This explains that religion has an important role to play in reinforcing morality in the

society. Again, in strictly religious states like the case of Islamic countries, the society tends

to have high moral standards.

Question Four

The divine command theory insists that any command from God is the correct moral

action. In this regards, the instructions given in religious books like the Bible and Quran

should be followed to the latter. The theory has the assumption that the command of God

cannot be immoral, thus, it should be followed without question. The proponents argue that

since God s omniscient, omnipresent, in addition to several other qualities, He cannot give an

instruction that is moral. Accordingly, the theory expounds on the fact that there are several

other authorities in the world, including from governments, parents, society, and community

leaders. However, the power of God is divine and thus cannot be argued with.

Utilitarianism is another moral philosophy widely discussed in literature. It insists that

the moral action is one that brings the best benefit to the largest number of people. Thus, the

theory can also be defined as consequentialist in nature. In that, it focuses on the result to

determine whether an action is moral or not. The theory is however special with one feature.

In that, it does not look at the individual. Rather it focuses on the consequences of the society
as a whole. The theory is also based on rationalism. In that, human beings chose actions that

maximize pleasure and minimize pain for them.

Cultural relativism is another moral philosophy. As the name suggests, the theory is

based on culture, which the set of values, beliefs, norms, and practises that are shared among

a particular group of people or society. They are sometimes referred as the unwritten rules of

behaviour. According to the theory, what is moral or not depends on the surrounding culture.

In this regards, an action can be moral here but immoral in another context. The theory is

based on the assumption that there is no culture that is superior to the other and all are unique

and thus should be tolerated and appreciated.

Question Five

Rationalism and empiricism are all sources of epistemology. However, they are the

complete opposite of each other. First, they differ on their assumptions of the source of

knowledge. Rationalism, as the name suggests, insist that knowledge is obtained through

reason or logic. The opposite is true for empiricism. According to this school of thought,

knowledge is obtained from sensory experience. Empiricism insists that when one is born,

they have an empty mind. This state is called the tabula rasa. Thus, every knowledge that an

individual obtains overtime comes due to exposure and experience. In other words, the

proponents argue that human beings do not possess innate knowledge. However, rationalists

argue that the mind is not empty at birth. People possess some innate knowledge and

experience only works to advance them. The proponents also insist that it is impossible to

know everything through experience. Additionally, rationalist emphasize the use of deductive

reasoning. In that it forms theories by integrating many facts that are available. On the other

hand, empiricism is based on inductive reasoning. In that it makes inferences from the

prevailing observations. Rationalists are great believers in intuition. They accept that the
brain and the mind as a whole as a natural way through which it knows and communicate the

truth to an individual. This assumption is widely denied by empiricist. As evident in this

discussion, the two branches of epistemology take different stance on the ability of humans.

Empiricism downplays the innate intelligence or capability that people possess in regards to

thinking. Rationalism on the other hand takes a positive view of humans. In other words it

argues that they are naturally intelligent and can therefore generate knowledge on their own.