Self-study
P1
Some philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual. ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ████████
Some philosophers' perspective ·
Subjective approach to studying the mind doesn't work
We should try to study the mind based on hard data that's observable rather than purely subjective descriptions of feelings.
P2
███ ████████████
Other philosophers' perspective ·
Knowledge includes subjective experience, so no reason to look only to objective data
P3
██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ █ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████████ █████████████ █████████████ ███ ████████████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████████
Difficult to reconcile ·
Each side starts from different assumptions
Thus, genuine communication between the two sides is almost impossible.
P4
███ █████████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████████
Analogy ·
The two sides are like adherents to different religions
Each side believes its own religious texts; we can't resolve a debate by just looking at the texts themselves. To resolve the debate, we need to investigate the authority of the texts.
P5
████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ █████████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████████████ █████ ██ ███████████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████
How to reconcile ·
Investigate the authority of the subjective and objective perspectives
We should engage in epistomelogy (the study of knowledge) to better understand how to approach knowledge about the mind.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
22.
Which one of the following ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ █████████████ ███ █████████████
a
It cannot be ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██████
Anti-supported, because the author proposes a potential solution for overcoming the impasse between the two sides in the last paragraph.
b
It is resolvable ████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █████ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████████
c
It is unavoidable ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █████████
Not supported, because the author never suggests that understanding the mind requires both types of evidence. The author’s opinion extends only to what is required to resolve the debate. This doesn’t mean that each side of the debate is correct or partially correct; it may turn out that one of the sides is wrong after we investigate the authority of each side.
d
It is based ██ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████
Unsupported, because the author never suggests the impasse between the two sides is “easily correctable.” The author also does not suggest that the conflict is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence.
e
It will prevent ███████ ████████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ███████████
Not supported, because the author does not suggest that we need new ways of gaining knowledge to make further progress. The author does assert that we should ask whether there are alternative ways of gaining knowledge of the mind, and that investigation may reveal new forms of knowledge, but this doesn’t imply the author thinks we need new ways of gaining knowledge.