I remember when I first decided to take this course. I hoped it would allow me to see the world in a different light, a fresh perspective on old situations. I had a solid belief system in place, and admittedly was quite stubborn with it, although not above changing it if sufficient evidence presented itself. When first asked whether I would classify my beliefs as idealism, dualism, or materialism, I chose materialism. That has not changed. I have been unable to find a philosopher that we studied during the semester that supports my view however. This course has provided me with terminology to apply to my belief system. My opinions now have names.
When I first took the belief survey, (and the second time as well) I could not answer all the questions. Some of them were too broad in scope and I could not answer them with a black and white, yes or no response.
Portrait of John Locke, by Sir Godfrey Kneller. Oi...
Law was an ardent disciple of John Locke.
Bertrand RussellAlso I interpreted some of the questions differently when I took the survey the second time. Some of them I answered just for the sake of answering them, and feeling corralled by the yes or no options, I thought I should at least put something down. The two surveys did have different answers for some of the questions, but inside my head there was no real contradiction in thought, but on paper the answers varied based on my interpretation at the time. I did not understand all the questions either, number 26 asks: "Everything in the world is in the world" and to this day I have no idea what that question is asking.
In reading the assigned text in the course I have agreed and disagreed with many of the opinions presented by the assigned philosophers. This and the next paragraph will detail...