Introduction
The primary purpose of philosophy is to clarify and refine the human thought processes so that the state of affairs and hence the reality of the world are clear. As such, philosophical problems are a failure to come up with the explanations of things that happen in the environment and by extension in the world. Philosophy is critical in refining the human's basic concepts that are applied to understand the reality. Just like in other sciences that are driven by the experimentations in the search for the truth, philosophy is informed by the questions that cannot be easily answered or that cannot be answered at all. The question that cannot be answered continues to compel the philosophers to construct theories to seek solutions to the philosophical problems. Philosophy as a discipline has a system building function in that it operates with the explanations and understanding as well as between the meanings and the cause. Among the major philosophical problems that continue to be explored in the search for the truth include the relationship between the thinking and the reality.
The problem interrogates the facts that surround how the thought processes affect the idea of reality.it is pointed to some fundamental questions of human illusions that continue to be considered an event by quite a big number of people. The mind-body issue is a major concern in search of the relationship between the conscienceless and the reality. The other main philosophical problems include the nature of mathematical objects such as the numbers, geometrical objects, and the sets. Another issue has been the demarcation between the empirical sciences and other forms of sciences such as mathematics, metaphysics, and logic. Another major philosophical problem is the issue of change that answers questions such as potential, possibility, an impossibility or even a necessity. This critical paper explains the contrast between MacDowell's and Rorty's approaches to ridding us the philosophical problems. The paper also evaluates the approaches of Kant and Sellars as a deliberate measure to broaden the scope of the understanding of the topic.
MacDowell's approach
The MacDowell's approach centers on the relationship between the mind and the world. According to the approach, a correct description of the human experiences should allow us to differentiate between the questions that should be taken seriously and the issues that should be done away with, rather than making any efforts to answer them (McDowell, 1996). According to the author, the human mind should, therefore, be guided by the daily experiences so that the human mind prioritizes the philosophical questions and not waste time on what the author considers irrelevant (McDowell, 1996). The author provides a description of our capacity to experience the world and engage in search of the solutions to the philosophical problems. MacDowell's approach emphasizes the critical function of the mind where the author discusses an exploratory mind that tackles philosophical problems without hindrances. According to the approach, the essential functionality of the human can liberate us from the oscillations that characterize the analytic philosophy of the mind so that we analyze issues without any forms of inhibitions (McDowell, 1996).
The approach encourages us not to be blinded by one line of thinking as the practices clouds our minds so that we tend to avoid different approaches in the explanations of the philosophical problems. The method observes that the rational obligations of the human spirit cannot replace science which employs empiricism .the approach advocates the philosophical endeavors should guide us in masking the illusions that clog our approach in search of the rational explanations to the world problems (Sachs, 2014). The author argues that the fantasies that form about world concepts could compel us to neglect out intellectual tasks now hence the need for objectivity in our exploration of the philosophical endeavors. The approach also observes a significant and substantial discontinuity between the rational beings which consists the healthy and mature humans and the rest of the animals. The author notes that the human mind is superior to that of the other animals and therefore capable of making rational conclusions in the understanding of the world.
However, the author is keen to distinguish between the minors and the mature adult humans in the level of rationality which influences the ability to achieve philosophical solutions to the philosophical problems in the world. The author observes that we cannot do without minimal empiricism (Sachs, 2014). Therefore the philosophical problems cannot be tackled through the application of logic alone. Also rough in the approach is the idea of given which observes that the space of rationalizations and justifications extend more widely than the conceptual sphere. The implication is that the notion considers reasons and arguments as being much more comprehensive than the mere existence of the ideas that could be applied to search for answers to the philosophical problems. According to the author the myth of the given is not a myth (Sachs, 2014). The rejecting of the idea of the given by the human beings themselves is a threat that the concept is a mere response.
Rorty's approach
According to the approach, the critic from the left and right share the belief that philosophy is superior to politics (Gascoigne and Rorty, 2008). From the rightist point of view, opinion is allowed to validate the norms that shape the political reasoning. The implication is that the rightist positions its standards that define political rationalizations. On the other hand, the leftist is mandated to discover and hence reveal the very same norms. The question is, therefore, the definition of the standards that sets the pace in the political spheres (Gascoigne and Rorty, 2008). Therefore the critical responses but the leftists and the rightists are informed by the presupposition regarding related to the kind of relationship between philosophy and politics. Consequently, a healthy relationship between the two provides a favorable background in the search for solutions to philosophical problems. According to the rightist critics, the philosophy and the political relationship is demonstrated in the belief that the people's devotion to democracy and free values only holds if the liberal values seem to be unbiased positive. In that regard the expression of the logical order the well-meaning individuals will recognize the moment biases is eradicated.
The people also express the logical order once discrimination and selfishness are overcome in the management of the political affairs (Richard, 1979). Rorty assumes both the negative and the positive approach in which the negative approach provides a critical interrogation of what the author considers the defining projects of contemporary philosophy. The author also offers a positive approach which is an endeavor to demonstrate what an intellectual culture should appear if the people overcome their personal prejudices through objective interrogation of the philosophical problems that confronts them (Rorty, Williams and Bromwich, 1980). The approach assumes that the inquiry through unbiased analysis of the situation could offer the breakthrough that we yearn for in the search for solutions to the philosophical problems.
According to the approach, contemporary study of knowledge is both an attempt to validate our claim to awareness of the reality and an attempt to prove the philosophical reflection (Rorty, Williams and Bromwich, 1980). Due to the increase interrogation, theoretical, empirical experiences are beneficial to the human's search for solutions to philosophical problems. The theoretical, practical knowledge also provides clear standards of the continuation which the people can confront the future philosophical problems. The increased understanding by human beings has been identified by philosophers as the beginning of human ability to solve their problems. The approach criticizes the idea that presents the natural science as the primary reference point. According to the author such a presentation of physical science discourages other divergent views on the effort to answer philosophical questions. Despite the fact that the author recognizes the relevance of the empiricism the author alludes to the fact that different points of views should be encouraged as a way to interrogate the opportunities provided by intellectualism. The integration of different bodies of knowledge has been found to play an important role in enhancing the human beings ability to develop sufficient solutions to various issues affecting them.
A key claim of the Rorty's approach is that the picture of concepts and intuitions combining to achieve knowledge is relevant to the theory of knowledge as a distinct philosophical area which is quite different from psychology. The implication of the claim is that if we cannot distinguish between what is added and what is given by the mind, then it would be impossible to tell what constitute the rational reconstruction the knowledge that we possess (Sachs, 2014). The implication is that we cannot discern the goal of epistemology or the strategy employed. According to the Rorty's approach, epistemology consists of a picture of the mind structure functioning on the empirical material to give out thoughts and images that reflect the reality if things go as intended (Rorty, Williams and Bromwich, 1980). As a way to decode the picture about our thinking, we challenge the notion that epistemology is the basis of philosophy and therefore forms the foundation to create solutions for the philosophical problems.
Contradiction
One of the major disagreements between the two philosophers is that MacDowell criticizes Rorty as he denies an opportunity for external rational constraint on the mind. MacDowell also insinuates that the experience is a product of the combined action of the fields of the senses and understanding as a way to provide an avenue for Rorty's two-fold explanations. On the approach, the theorist insinuates that the intuitions are captured from the given as the department for sensibility responds to the intellectual mobility of the empirical spheres. The idealizations of the area of understanding contemplate how the world can be the same. On the other hand, Richard Rorty discovers a philosophical explanation which depends on the given issues with most of his work dwelling on the criticism of the said reason.
In the field of philosophy and the reflection of nature, his approach centers on a criticism of us. Rorty distinguishes the concept of given as the idea that offers rationalizations as the avenue in which our abstract thoughts are destroyed by the global materialism which aids in discerning what we consider most convenient (Dolmans, Wolfhagen, Van Der Vleuten and Wijnen, 2001). Rorty observes that it is philosophically untenable to support a division of labor in the creation lessons in areas where there is a sensory absorption of the materials on one side and the current understanding of the subject on the other. Rorty's approach is keen to give way to the causal accounts of the relationship between the mind and the world without interfering with the faculties of reasons. His plan also defines scientism as the imagination that each aspect of science that relates to the field of philosophy must as well redefine its relationship with the entire universe. The approach makes deliberate endeavors to undo the notion that each science discovery casts doubt on the existence of the reality. From the research on the two philosophers, Rorty's argument is more comprehensive and therefore is a better approach than that of MacDowell.
Views of Other Philosophers
According to Kant, the search for a solution to the philosophical problems can be achieved through the application of the human reason (Kant and Gregor, 1999). Kant's approach recommends a high level of objective interrogation of the experiences and the situations as the human mind interacts with the world experiences. The human reason has both the practical and theoretical applications. The author argues that the theoretical aspects of motivation are related to the way the things appear while the practicalities put into account how the things should be. Kant's believes that the traditional metaphysics aims to define items that are beyond the depth of the senses, dividing the world into a sensible and intelligible world.
Kant's approach also observes that the human reason can discern comprehensible items. On the other hand the ethics aspects of the human cater for the practical application of reason as if only dealing with the possible issues with a great focus on the pain and pleasure. According to Kant metaphysics should only be applied in the discovery of the regulations that determine the rational universe (Kant and Gregor, 1999). On the other hand, the ethics do not observe any element of sensibility. Kant introduced a sense of criticism in philosophy and alluded to the fact that criticism is an essential tool for the search for solutions to philosophical problematical (Kant and Gregor, 1999). In criticism, there is the discovery of the inherent shortcomings limitations of the human reasoning in the general application (Kant and Gregor, 1999). Criticism also divulges that the human reason is in charge of the determination of the creation and the application of the moral laws.
Sellars believes that the concept of the given is a myth and that most of the philosophers have advocated some form of the same or another as a way to validate their claims and those of the other philosophers. The philosopher argues that without the confrontation without reason the people can reject the whole idea of the Giveness. The philosophers of the concept of the given direct him to the notion that the concept of a thought process gets into our idealized arrangement in the form of the theoretical ideas. The idea of the view concept was initiated for the academic reasons according to the philosopher's understanding of the issue of applying and conceding to the notion would be severely negligible.
Therefore the idea of a thought process which we utilize cannot be substantially based on the theoretical approaches (Pelletier, 2007). Sellars observes that the fundamental logical confusion that informs the myth of the given is that we do not have something just because we have noticed the item or the object but rather because individuals have the capacity to appreciate things even when we cannot wait for them. Sellars observes that there is a relationship between his decline of the given and the concept of the mind. Sellars position on the empirical quality explicitly involves that one fact is discernable if such an effect is available for the public consumption (Sachs, 2014). The philosopher asserts that the thoughts must have a specific aspect so that they have the capability to seek foot the solutions (Tenenbaum, 2007). The philosopher observes that although the thoughts are private, they should not be logically private to the extent that they demand discriminate access.
Sellars continues that the knowledge of the existence of the process of reflection does not undermine the concept of the Giveness (Sachs, 2014). The philosopher argues that the thought process enters the conceptual scheme as abstract ideas. As a demonstration of the concept, the philosopher creates his myth referred to as the myth our Ryleian ancestors in a story of the anthropological science creation (Kant and Guyer, 1998). The story has characters that cannot be publicly observed, which implies that the thinking of the community is considered as deep thinking as demonstrated through the actions of the community members. As such, reflection is identified as an essential aspect of human though process because of the role it plays in ensuring the refinement of ideas brought about by individuals.
Conclusion
The humans can get rid of the philosophical problems through the application of the reason faculties and the use of the various philosophical theories. Philosophy as a discipline has a system building function in that it operates with the explanations and understanding as well as between the meanings and the causes. Among the major philosophical problems that continue to be explored in the search for the truth include the relationship between the thinking and the reality. The problem interrogates the facts that surround how the thought processes affect the idea of reality. Several philosophers share their views of the endeavors to rid us of the philosophical problems although it is evident they employ different approaches which are a demonstration of their objectivity.
References
Dolmans, D.H., Wolfhagen, I.H., Van Der Vleuten, C.P. and Wijnen, W.H., 2001. Solving problems with group work in problem‐based learning: hold on to the philosophy. Medical education, 35(9), pp.884-889.
Gascoigne, N. and Rorty, R., 2008. Liberalism. Irony and the Ends of Philosophy (Cambridge: Polity, 2008).
Ho, J.C., 2004. A Neo-Pragmatist Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Univ Polit Philos, 12, pp.27-69.
Kant, I. and Gregor, M.J., 1999. Practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. and Guyer, P., 1998. Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press.
McDowell, J., 1996. Mind and world. Harvard University Press.
Pelletier, F.J. ed., 2007. Mass terms: Some philosophical problems (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media.
Richard, R., 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NewJersey: Princeton University Press,-1979.
Rorty, R., Williams, M. and Bromwich, D., 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Vol. 401). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sachs, C., 2014. Is the Given really a Myth: Transcendental Pragmatism in CI Lewis and Wilfrid Sellars.
Sachs, C.B., 2014. Discursive and Somatic Intentionality: Merleau-Ponty Contra ‘McDowell or Sellars’. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22(2), pp.199-227.
Tenenbaum, S., 2007. Appearances of the good: An essay on the nature of practical reason. Cambridge University Press.
