write a response to the following question.

1 LECTURE NOTES/Explanation of the Reading: HUME (pages 43 -53) Hume rejects the idea that we have our idea of power or energy based on what we know about how the mind causes the body or body parts to move. He provided the following criticisms against such a view or an idea: (a) Hume argues that the connection between the mind ( one ’s will) and body is mysterious. We do not know how a spiritual entity (mind) is able to bring about an effect or motion in a physical object (the body). We have no power to do things based on our wish or will to move certain parts of our body. For instance, we cannot use our will to move mountains. If we had such power, then the ability of the mind to bring about movement in the body would be easier to understand and explain. (b) Although we are able to move some parts or organs of the body, we are not able to move all of them. Why does the will have influence on the tongue but not the liver? We do not know why this is the case because we do not know the nature of the power and boundaries or scope of such power. Why can the will work on moving the fingers but not the heart? Someone with cerebral palsy is not able to control his limbs in spite of his conscious effort and will to move them. We are not deceived about our own consciousness of the will, but we learn the influence of our will based on experience. The person with cerebral palsy finds out from experience that he is not able to move his limbs. Moreover, he does not know why his will can no longer cause his limbs to move. (c) Hume argues that anatomy teaches us that the immediate power that causes us to move voluntarily is in the muscles and nerves. When the mind wills the fingers to move, it is not the will that directly makes the fingers move. The fingers move based on the action of some relevant muscles and nerves, but we are not conscious of the actions of the muscles and nerves. As such, we are really not sure and do no t know how such movement occurs and the nature of the process of such movement. From the above three points, Hume concludes that the idea of power that we get from our internal sense of the will is not the result or copy of what we are conscious of in our will. All we know is what commonsense tells us, which is that when one thing happens another happens, but we really don ’t know the process and the power of how one causes the other. (2) Hume also suggests that some may argue that our idea of power in obj ects may derive from our consciousness or awareness of how we are able to use our mind to raise an issue or generate an idea . We also learn how we are able to manipulate it, contemplate it, examine it from all sides and angles, and how we dismiss it if it is not worth accepting after we have convinced ourselves that we have examined it sufficiently and accurately. Hume argues that this idea of using the will to generate or create ideas and contemplate them does not give us any knowledge about the idea and nature of force, power, or energy of one thing to bring about another for the following reasons. He reject s this idea and provide s the following criticisms: (a) He argues that if we know the nature of power, then we must also know all the situations in which t hat power is used, which will then explain its ability to produce an effect. In other words, we will know the nature of the cause, effect, and the connection between them. Hume argues that we really do not know the nature of the mind/soul and the nature of an idea, in order to understand truly , how the mind creates and manipulates ideas. The mind has the tendency to create ideas out of nothing and this we can never understand. (b) The ability of the mind to control itself and its ability to control the body is limited. We also don ’t know the extent of these limits and why there are limits on such ability . All we know is what we experience when something happens, but we do not know the process of how it happens. 2 (c) The ability of the mind to create or examine ideas is different at different times. A sick person has limited power or ability to create ideas than a healthy person. Some people have sharper minds in the morning than in the evening. We are sharper after meals than when we are hungry.

Hume argues that we don ’t know the reasons for these differences, which indicate that we don ’t have much knowledge of the power involved . Hume argues that volition, i.e., the ability of the mind to think, is an act of the mind that we are conscious of and familiar with. We are able to reflect on it and examine its dimensions. But we do not find anything in it that we can call a creative power by which it is able to create new ideas by itself alone. We are not conscious of any energy or power the mind has, but we only have the idea of some extraordinary power that the mind may have based on experience. He argues that we do not find difficulty explaining many of the natural things that happen in this world. We usually try to explain how food nourishes the body, how plants grow, and the f alling of heavy objects. If we can see the power, energy or force that causes these things to happen, then we will know for certain how they actually happen. By the habit of the mind, people are assured of the effect they expect when immediately they see t he occurrence of a cause. They would not be able to imagine that any other effect besides the one they are expecting will actually occur. Usually , people are at a loss regarding the nature of the caus ation, and how to explain the cause of extraordinary events , such as, earthquak es, prodigies, and some epidemic s. When extraordinary things like these happen, people are usually surprised; they cannot find commonsense power in nature as the cause, and they result to finding causes in some invisible entity. Hume argues that philosophers who are skeptical about the nature of causes in general find that the causes of these extraordinary things, as well as the common things, are all equally beyond their understanding. They realize that they can only get from experience the CONSTANT CONJUNCT ION of objects (between cause and effect) and they do not see any NECESSARY CONNECTION between them. Some philosophers feel that reason require them to find a common principle of explanation or cause for things that appear miraculous and supernatural, even though ordinary people usually do not appeal to such a principle. These philosophers think that the mind or some intelligence is the ultimate cause of things in reality and nature. The things, which are called CAUSES, are instances where the Suprem e Being wills something to actually happen, and for some effects to be the consequences of a cause. Instead of saying that a billiard ball causes another ball to move, they argue that God wills one billiard ball to move only with the help of another ball. Hume indicates that the philosophers who hold this view say that we do not know any other kind of power (perhaps, besides God) that allows objects to bring about effects in other objects.

Moreover, we do not know any more about the power by which the min d acts on the body to bring about effects, and also the power by which the body can act on the mind. Based on our senses and consciousness, we cannot come up with the ultimate principle of how these different things operate. As such, they come up with a co mmon principle, which is that a Deity is the immediate cause of the interaction between the body and soul. They also argue that the ideas we have in mind are not caused by what we get from the senses, but that these ideas are caused by the will of our omnip otent Maker. Thus, there is no power or energy in the will that makes things move. Rather, God is the power that makes things move, but usually we mistakenly attribute such power to ourselves. These philosophers also argue that the ability of the mind to g enerate ideas actually involves God revealing those ideas to the mind. So, whatever we have in mind is caused by God.

Thus, all causes are traceable back to God. 3 According to these philosophers, everything consists of and is full of God; everything exists based on the will of God and every power is granted by God. They remove power from everything else in order to place every power in God ’s hands. By giving every power to God, they seek to magnify the greatness of God. However, God also has the power to give powe r to smaller creatures to do things. God also has the wisdom to organize the structure of the world and nature such that it is able to make things and nature work in a way that will fulfil the purpose or design that God has specified. This idea of des ign or pre -arrangement by God means that God is not always busy making sure to control every little thing in nature to make it work properly. However, Hume rejects this idea of God as the cause of everything. Hume ’s Criticism of the idea that God is the C ause of everything 1. He argues that the idea of God as the universal energy or power that causes everything is too bold. It appears to be so overstated and too sophisticated. It is beyond the rational comprehension of humans. As such, it is difficult for every person to understand it, based on the limitation of human reason. The process of reasoning involved is so complicated, the conclusion is so outlan dish, and extraordinary that it raises the suspicion that the idea of God is beyond what we can unders tand based on reason and commonsense experience. We just cannot imagine such a fantasy because it is not applicable to our experience. 2. Hume argues that he does not see the strength of the principle on which this argument is based. We do not know the way ob jects operate and we have no knowledge of their power or energy with which they are able to cause things or bring things about. We also do not know the extent of the power of the mind , even the supreme mind of God, and how these causes bring about effects in the body or objects. Fro m where do we get the idea of the power of God? We do not have the idea of God and the power of God from our consciousness. The only ideas of God that we have, Hume argues, are what we get from our own reflections on our faculties. Based on our ignorance, we ought to reject any idea of power or energy in a Supreme Being and His ability to cause things, as well as the idea of power in any object --even the greatest object. We cannot understand how they operate, and we cannot know how motion may arise from hum an impulse or the willing of the mind. PART II (This part is mostly a summary and some repetition of the points made earlier .) Hume says he has sought in every place to find the idea of power or a necessary connection. We cannot view a single instance of the operation of an object and see in it or have the idea of force or power. What we see is that one event follows from another. When we examine how the mind and body interact and see a motion in the body, we also do not observe anything that ties them together or connects them. We do not understand how the human will is able to affect other parts of the body. Based on all these, Hume concludes that events are loose, separate, and unconnected . One event follows from anoth er and they seem conjoined, but they are not in any way connected. The conclusion is that we have no idea of power or necessary connection. As such, these words, ‘power ’ and ‘necessary connection ’ have no meaning when we use them in philosophical reasoning or our everyday life. Hume indicates that there may be one way to avoid the conclusion that words like ‘power ’ and ‘necessary connection ’ do not have any meaning. This way, he thinks, has not been examined yet. So it may be possible to know and speculate bey ond what we sense or recall from memory or predict without having prior experience regarding which event (effect) will result or follow from another event (cause). After only one experience or a single instance, we cannot legitimately form a general rule o r principle regarding what will happen if a similar situation should occur. It is 4 difficult to make judgments about how nature works from only one experiment or experience, no matter how accurate that experience or experiment is. However, when we have know ledge about a particular type or kind of event s or objects, then we are able to notice in all our observations that one event or object usually follows from , or is conjoined to another . In which case, we have no problems whatsoever predicting the occurrence of another eve nt or object when we see one event or object with which the other event or object is usually associated. In this case, we call one event or object which occurs first, the CAUSE, and the event or object that comes after, the EFFECT. We also assume that ther e is a power in one object to produce the other or a necessary connection between them by virtue of which one event follows from another. We are able to make such connections only after we have experienced many instances, in spite of the fact that there is nothing inhere nt in or unique about the many instances that make s them different from a single instance. The only difference Hume can think of is the fact that the experience of many instances creates a HABIT of the mind to associate things, and to expect one thing immed iately we see a noth er thing. Hume argues that this connection that we feel in the mind that allows us in our custom to move from one object or event to another is the result of IMAGINATION. ( Pay attention to the important role that imagination plays in our ide as of cause and effect .) It is our imagination that creates the idea of power or necessary connection. He argues that this appears to be the way this idea comes to us. If we reflect on all other possible ways, we will find out that it does not come fro m any other way except through IMAGINATION. To illustrate this, he says when one sees one billiard ball hit another, one cannot see any connection, except that we see one follow the other. After many experiences of this occurrence, one begins to create the idea of a connection or the power of one to cause the other. What happened to this person is that there is a difference or change from the first experience, which shows a feeling of connection that is created by imagination. This imagination allows one to predict, or to expect one event from or after seeing another event. This connection as a production of our imagination is only in our mind or thought. Our thought gives rise to the inference we draw and it becomes the basis and proof of the fact that one e vent causes another or that there is a necessary connection between them. Hume confesses that our lack of knowledge of cause and effect indicates strongly the limitations and weaknesses in our ability to understand things. Yet, the knowledge of cause an d effect is very important for us to understand properly and adequately , the relations that exist amo ng objects. This idea of cause and effect is the basis for all our reasoning about matters of fact and knowledge of what exist in reality. It is the on ly way we can be assured or certain about the existence of objects that we do not see immediately or recall from memory. The importance of the sciences and knowledge in general is to teach us how to predict, control, and regulate future events based on our knowledge of their causes so that we can use such knowledge to guide our conduct, in order to lead a meaningful life. We usually dedicate our thinking and inquiries to having such knowledge and using it to predict events in our lives. Unfortunately, we hav e little or an imperfect knowledge of this important idea of cause and effect. For instance, we cannot define adequately or indicate precisely what a cause is , except what we know about its effect , which is outside of and foreign to the cause itself. This i s the only thing we have experience of: that one object is conjoined to another and that we have seen this similarity in conjunction over time . Based on experience, Hume argues that we may define CAUSE as an object or event following another, such that i n all situations where the first object or event occurs, it is followed similarly by the second object or event . This idea of cause can also be expressed by saying 5 that : if the first object or event did not occur or exist, then the second object or event would n ot have occurred or existed . This idea or definition of cause is based on the fact that the appearance of a cause brings to the mind by custom, and it allows the mind to move to the idea of an effect. Based on this idea of the custom of the mind, we define CAUSE as one object or event following another such that the appearance of one object or event brings to the mind and our thought the appearance of the other object or event . These definitions of cause involve defining it in terms of an effect, which is to tally different from, outside of and foreign to the cause. These definitions have the problem of not being able to indicate to us anything that is unique or inherent in the cause in terms of power that makes it able to connect to or give rise to the effec t. Obviously, we have no knowledge of the nature of the connection between cause and effect and we have no knowledge of what precisely it could be or what it is that we even want to know whenever we try to think about it, conceptualize it, or capture it in our thought. Hume argues that we will usually say that the vibration of a string causes a particular sound to emerge. However, it is not clear what precisely we are saying when say so. This could mean either (1) that the vibration is followed by the sound, in th at we see the vibration, and then we hear the sound. Moreover, the idea is that similar vibrations in the past have been followed by similar sounds. Alternatively, we could mean (2) that this vibration is followed by this sound, such that when such vibration appears, the mind anticipates hea ring a sound , and then the mind immediately forms the idea of a sound. These are two plausible ways to understand the idea of cause and effect. Besides these two ways, we have no idea of what it is, and we do not understand it. Usually, every idea is a copy or a representation of a prior impression from our senses. If there are no impressions, we cannot generate any ideas. We do not get any impression of power or necessary connection whenever we see objects. We get this idea only after seeing many instances and d evelop a custom or habit of the mind. This idea is caused by the ability of the mind, based on custom and habit, to imagine things. The ability of the mind to imagine this power or connection after seeing many instances is the only difference between a sin gle instance and many instances, in that such imagination does not and cannot occur from a single instance. LECTURE NOTES/Explanation of the Reading : Allison Jagger The next two articles by Jagger and Gyekye provide elements of cultural diversity f or this course, in that these two authors represent views that do not reflect the mainstream of Western philosophy. The mainstream of Western philosophy is represented mostly by the ideas of dead white (mostly European) men. The article by Jagger represents t he feminist view or view of women, which has been mostly ignored in mainstream Western philosophy. The view of Gyekye represents an African perspective. Western philosophical tradition has had a tinge of racism and sexism. Regarding racism, s ome philosophers hold the view that Africans and people of African descent lack rationality, they are savages, they have no thought system, and they have nothing to contribute to civilization and human knowledge. With respect to sexism, women have been considered to be too emotional and lacking in (reason) rationality, such that they lack the ability to do and engage in rational philosophical thinking. One of the mainstream view in epistemology (theory of kno wledge), which involves questions of how we know, and the basis for knowledge or truth, is the idea that knowledge is based on reason/rationality. In other words, knowledge involves the ability to give evidence or reasons or provide proof for one ’s beliefs . According to this tradition, one ’s reasons or evidence for knowledge can come from either (a) empirical evidence from the senses or (b) evidence that we can use our minds to figure out. The first view is called empiricism , which is represented in the 6 idea s of Hume that we have studied. The second is called rationalism , which is represented by the ideas of Descartes. These views in mainstream Western tradition in epistemology have (over)emphasized the role of reason in knowledge and truth, and they have also de -emphas ized the role of emotions. Jagger goes through the history of Western philosophy from the ancient Greek period to modern times in order to indicate how the role of reason has be emphasized, but the role of emotion has been de -emphasized. She indicates th e special influence of science in the modern period , as well as the efforts by science to achieve objective knowledge or truth , have contributed to the emphasis on reason over emotions. The emphasis by science on objective knowledge or truth that is uninfluence d by individuality or subjective judgments indicates that any true statement can always be replicated because it does not depend on individuals. Jagger wants to challenge this mainstream view and wants to argue that emotions, which invol ve individual idiosyncrasies and subjectivity, have a very important role to play in how we acquire knowledge. The notion of Reason or Rationality is usually contrasted with Emotion . While reason/rationality is considered to be an important aspect or part of how we (shoul d) acquire knowledge, emotion is not considered to be a part of knowledge. According to Jagger, emotions have actually been seen in Western philosophy as subversive of and deleterious to knowledge.

The standard stereotype is that women are emotional and ir rational, while men (white men?) are rational. While Jagger does not accept this stereotype, she wants to argue that even if we accept for the sake of argument that emotions are a feature of women, it is not true that it cannot be part of knowledge. Jagg er argues that one of the reasons that the role of emotions has been de -emphasized in knowledge is because of a lack of proper understanding of emotions and an inaccurate view of what emotions are . This lack of understanding has led to what she calls the “dumb view ” of emotio n. According to this ‘dumb view ’, emotions involve an instantaneous knee -jerk response and an uncontrollable sentiment or feeling. As such, emotions need to be controlled or guided by reason. She argues that in order to understand the role of emotions in t he acquisition of knowledge, it is important to understand what it is. She does not provide a definition; rather, she describes what it is by indicating its characteristic features. Jagger argues that there are three essential elements or features of Emo tion: 1. Emotions as intentional : Emotion is intentional, in that it is always aimed or directed at something. The thing to which it is directed is its content . For instance, if you have the emotion of anger or love, then you are angry at or in love with some thing . Therefore , love and anger have contents, which indicate what (the thing) you love , or what (the thing) you are angry at . Moreover, emotion also involves a judgment . If you are angry at something, you have made the judgment that it is worth being angry at, or that the thing you love is wort h loving. Emotion involves a judgment that is reflected in a feeling that is directed at something. 2. Emotion as a social construct : Emotions are feelings that are sanctioned and taught by society regarding what is an acceptable response to a situation. If someone loses a loved one, it is taught and expected by society that the person should feel sad or feel a sense of loss. We are raised to feel this way and when we feel the appropriate emotions, it is considered acceptable by the norms of society. Inap propriate emotions in certain situations are socially criticized. For instance, I cannot be expected to be happy when someone kills my son. The emotion of happiness is socially unacceptable in this situation. 7 3. Emotions as active engagement : Emotion involves a process of being connected to or with something. Such a connection involves a conscious effort to engage. You choose to be angry at something. Anger is a way to engage that thing or to indicate a response to it. Emotions are not entire ly involuntary as the stereotypical view may suggest. It is not something that we have no control over. We usually choose or learn to be sensitized or desensitized to something. Doctors learn to be desensitized to the sight of blood while normal people may not be that desensitized. So , a doctor may not show emotion at the sight of blood but an ordinary person may do — freak out . Jagger argues that emotions have a role to play in how we evaluate things. We appraise things based on emotional language. She argues that eva luative language (for appraisal) such as ‘despicable ’, ‘admirable ’, or ‘desirable ’ are emotional concepts. Every evaluation carries with it some emotions. A use of evaluative language indicates the emotions we have regarding what we are evaluating. What we observe or perceive usually give s rise to or direct our emotions. As such, Jagger argues that the idea of objective research, objective knowledge, or dispassionate inquiry is a myth. We always see things from our own perspectives, and people have differe nt perspectives. The choice s we make regarding what to investigate usually depends on our emotions or what we have an interest in or a passion for. The need to acquire knowledge or inquire must involve some passion or emotion. We usually bring that passion to bear on the content or subject matter of our inquiry and investigation. This means that the inquiry cannot be totally dispassionate or objective. It is colored somehow by our emotional perspective, response, or judgment. The idea of philosophy or philosoph ical inquiry as the ‘love of wisdom ’ involves emotion: the love an d p assion (that motiv ates one) to critically reflect, seek evidence, and inquire . LECTURE NOTES/Summary of the Reading: Kwame Gyekye There are three important aspects of this article that I want you to focus on: 1. The anthropological tripartite view of the idea of a person among the Akan people , and Gyekye ’s rejection and criticism of this anthropological view ; 2. Gyekye ’s dualistic view of the idea of a person, and the nature of the relationship between spirit (sunsum ) and soul (okra ); and 3. Gyekye ’s account of the relationship between the soul a nd body, which involves a two -way interactionism : the idea that the body affects the mind and the mind affects the body. According to Gyekye, the anthropological view indicates that a person consists of three parts --is tripartite. These THREE parts are: (i) Soul , which in Akan translates into okra ; (ii) Spirit , which in Akan translates into sunsum ; and (iii) Body, which in Akan translates into Honam . Gyekye rejects this three -part view by the anthropologists. According to this anthropological Akan view, the soul (okra ) is the inner self, it is divine, and it is the source of life, the life for ce, or the vital force in a person. It is the basis for one ’s life and it is what animates the body and makes it active or lively. When it leaves the body, then the body is 8 dead –it has no life. The soul is spiritual or immaterial in nature. It does not perish at death. It is said to have gone to a different dimension, when it leaves the body and the body is dead. The spirit ( sunsum ) is the basis for one ’s character traits and personalit y. It represents the psychological features of a person. It is totally different from the soul. The soul, according to the anthropological view, (i) derives from or is inherited from the father. As such, it is similar to the idea of the gene, DNA or blood, which indicates a biological relationship with one ’s father. (ii) It is not considered to be divine, and (iii) it perishes at death. It dies when the body dies. (iv) Based on these three features, the spirit ( sunsum ) is said to be material in nature, hence it can perish at death, and it is inherited from one ’s father. It is physical hence, it indicates a physical biological connection with one ’s father. Gyekye rejects the above four features of the spirit. However, he does agree with the view that the spirit represents the character traits and th e psychological features of a person. According to Gyekye, this anthropological view of the spirit ( sunsum ) is totally wrong. The spirit is presented as physical and as something that perishes with the body. According to this view, a person in Akan cultur e is presented as having three parts, body , spirit , and soul . The spirit and soul are presented as two different and distinct types of entities: the spirit is material and the soul is spiritual. Thus, the body and spirit are presented as having a phys ical or material nature, while the soul is presented as having an immaterial or a spiritual nature. The idea that a spiritual thing, which is called ‘spirit ’ is presented as material or physical just does not make any sense. Gyekye argues that it is wrong that the spirit is something that one inherits from one ’s father. You usually do not inherit character traits or personality from your father. In addition, the idea that the soul and spirit are two different and distinct entities does not make sense. According to Gyekye, the correct view is that the spirit (sunsum ) is not physical at all; it is spiritual or immaterial in nature. It is manifested in or identified by psychological features, in that it is the basis for one ’s character traits and personality. Accordin g to Gyekye, the spirit ( sunsum ) is a dimension or an aspect of the soul (okra ). It is different from the soul but they are related. The difference is in how they are manifested. The soul is the source of life, while the spirit is the source of character t raits and personality. The relationship between them, i.e., spirit (sunsum ) and soul ( okra ) involves a unity in duality or a duality in unity. The two are simply two different dimensions or aspects of the same spiritual or immaterial entity . They are not t wo different entities as the anthropological view indicates. The two represent the psychological and metaphysical aspects of a person. Gyekye insists that the two are different aspects (that is, they are logically identifiable as two different, separate, a nd distinct aspects ) because what can be said of one cannot be said of the other, and vice versa. In other words, the spirit (sunsum ) and soul (okra ) cannot be 'logically identified ' as one and the same thing ; hence, what can be said of one cannot be said of the other. If they were one and the same things, then what can be said of one can be said of the other. For instance, w e can say that the spirit (sunsum ) makes one a kind or humble person. However, we cannot say that the spirit (sunsum ) animates the body. We can say that the soul (okra ) animates the body, but we cannot say that soul (okra ) makes one a kind or humble person. One way to understand this relation between the spirit ( sunsum ) and soul ( okra ) is to see them as two sides of the same coin. From one side, it is ‘heads ’ and from the other it is ‘tails ’. The features o r characteristics of the tail are different from those of the head. The two taken together makes a coin. Moreover, you may be a son and a father. You are the same person but when you are being 9 a father, you are different from being a son, and vice versa. Thus, according to Gyekye, there two parts to a person : the material (Body) part and the immaterial (Soul/Spirit) part. The immaterial part also has two aspect or elements : the soul (okra ) and the spirit ( sunsum ). The spirit and soul are just two different aspect s of one spiritual entity. They are not two different types of entities, as the anthropological view indicates. In other words, the immaterial part is one thing with two aspects or elements : Soul and Spirit. According Gyekye, the two parts of a person, the immaterial or spiritual part (Soul/Spirit), and the material part (Body) are related to one another causally. What happens to the Body affects the Soul/Spirit, and what happens to Soul/Spirit affects the Body. This is called a two -way CAUSAL interactionism . If one has pain in one ’s body, it affects one ’s mind and personality. For instance, one may not be friendly if one is in very serious pain. If one has a problem with one ’s mind, e.g., if one has Alzheimer, it will affect the body because one may forget to exercise an d lose muscle strength. Based on this causal connection or interaction between the Body and Soul/Spirit, the Akan people believe in holistic healing or medicine. When one is sick, he is treated as a ‘whole person ’. The effort is to take care of both his b ody and mind/soul together as a whole, because of the belief that what affects one will affect the other. The Akan people do not believe in separating the body and mind/soul, or that each part should be treated separately. If there is a problem with the bo dy, it is not only the body that needs to be healed. There may still be a need to heal the soul because of the belief that if the mind/soul is not healed the body will not respond appropriately to the necessary treatment. Reading/Reflection/Review Questions: HUME (pages 43 -53) 35. What are his THREE criticisms against the idea or view that we got the idea of necessary connection from our internal sense of our will and volition, and how the will moves the body or bo dy parts? (See pp. 43 -44). 36. What does Hume say about our ability to use the mind or our will to create ideas? How is our knowledge of this ability related to the idea of cause and effect? (See bottom of page 44) 37. What are the THREE criticisms again st the idea that we got the idea of cause and effect from our knowledge of how the mind creates ideas? 38. What does Hume say about our ability to explain ordinary events, and extraordinary events like earthquakes, epidemics, prodigies and other supernatu ral and mysterious events? Why do these extraordinary events raise questions about the fact or our customary ideas that we need cause to explain events? (See p. 46). 39. What does Hume say about the mind, intelligence or God or some Supreme Being or Deity as the ultimate cause of things that happen in reality or nature? Does Hume agree or disagree? 40. What are the TWO criticisms that Hume offers against the idea that God or some Deity is the cause of everything in nature? (See pp. 47 -48). 41. From what process of reasoning or process of the mind or faculties did we get the idea of God as the ultimate cause? Is it based on REFLECTION or IMAGINATION ? (See page 48) 42. According to Hume, all events in nature are totally loose and separate. We observe one event 10 following from another. They seem conjoined , but they are never connected . (p. 49) . Explain what Hume means and why he says so. What role does imagination play in Hume ’s argument or view? 43. From which process of reasoning are we able to make the transition in our mind from what we see or experience about objects to the idea of power or a necessary connection between cause and effect? (See pages 50 & 52) Is it based on REFLECTION or IMAGINATION ? 44. What does it mean to say that Hume is an empir icist and that Descartes is a rationalist ? How do they disagree regarding the source or basis of our knowledge? Will Hume accept the view that we have of innate ideas? Why or why not? 45. What are the definitions of cause and effect provided by Hume? (See page 51) What is the basis for these definitions: experience, imagination, or reflection? 46. Why, according to Hume, is the idea of cause and effect important and relevant to commons ense, how we live our everyday life, and science? (See page 51) Reading/Reflection/Review Questions: Alison Jagger 1. What is the nature of the contrast between reason (rationality) and emotion ? What are the features that are usually associated with ea ch that indicate their differences or contrast? 2. What do you understand by Allison Jagger ’s idea of emotion as: (i) intentional, (ii) a social construct, (iii) active engagement? 3. In what way does emotion involve judgment and a content ? Is emotion something that we can choose? Is it something that can be taught? 4. What, according to Jagger, is the nature of the connection or relationship between emotion and evaluation ? 5. How does the relationship between emotion and evaluation sugge st the important role of emotion in knowledge acquisition or construction? 6. In what way does emotion guide and direct our inquiry and observation? 7. Why is the idea of dispassionate investigation or objective inquiry a myth, according to Jagger? Re ading/Reflection/Review Questions: Kwame Gyekye 1. What are the features/characteristics of the soul ( okra )? According to the anthropological view, is the soul a material or spiritual entity? 2. What are the features/characteristics of the spirit ( suns um )? According to the anthropological view, is the spirit a material or spiritual entity? 3. (a) Which entity is the basis for life and animation in a person? (b) Which entity is the basis for a person ’s character traits and personality ? 11 4. What is Gyekye problem with the anthropological tripartite view of a person among the Akan? 5. According to Gyekye ’s dualistic view, is the spirit a material or spiritual entity? 6. How is Gyekye ’s view of the spirit ( sunsum ) different from the anthr opological view? 7. Why does Gyekye think that the Akans have a dualistic and not a tripartite view of a person? 8. According to Gyekye, how is the soul ( okra ) different from the spirit ( sunsum )? 9. According to Gyekye, how is the soul ( okra ) similar to the spirit ( sunsum )? How are they related? 10. What, according to Gyekye, is the nature of the relationship between the soul/mind ( okra ) and the body ( honam )? 11. What is the Akan view of the nature of healing? How does the relationship between the mind/soul and body explain the Akan view of healing?