Again, this continues with the theme of naturally occurring events that cannot be explicitly explained, but must be taken at face value because of their frequency.

This is true for natural phenomena, such as the earth revolving around the sun, as we physically cannot see the revolutions occurring, but we can assume it is based on scientific research.

It really is a rare occasion for an individual to be cognizant of their emotional bias.

confirmation bias is similar to emotional bias, as both result in an individual ignoring information.

Strong emotion interferes with logical thinking, until further analysis reveals the truth

How can intentionality be a capacity of the mind if certain experiences are caused unintentionally?

This is an interesting point, as sometimes emotions feel very palpable, such as anxiety being a sinking feeling or fear being goosebumps.

Emotions seem to be a sort of blinders to our truer perception of the world, as strong emotion clouds or judgement and our senses.

This is startlingly similar to the point Descartes makes in his "Second Meditation"

Our perception of "sense" is completely relative, as the way we perceive reality is competently different from other organisms, simply because we have the ability to "perceive perception" per say.

This is an interesting thought, as an individual who was blind from birth has no concept of light and dark, but rather they would experience the world in a way wholly inconceivable by a sighted individual.

Natural instinct drives us to survive, but in the modern world. this is not the case. We must now always strive to build upon our experiences and better society as a whole

Reason and Intellect is what drives man to question the natural world, such as Descartes questioning whether he truly is in existence.

This is very reminiscent of the evil demon theory, as both argue that our realities are not what we perceive them to be.

What could the process be to eliminate this predisposed view of the world? If it is learned from birth then reinforced through every experience, then it must be difficult to change that viewpoint

Here I believe Popper is saying that every individual has a predisposition towards the world. Be as that may, that does not define how a person sees the world, but rather their general inclination think.

This is an interesting point, as everything we come in contact with on a daily basis is put into a different light based off of our needs at that point in time.

Einstein's theory of relativity was partially proven recently when gravitational waves were detected in deep space, validating a facet of his theory

This is where a son develops an intense resentment towards his father, as a result of irrational attraction to his mother. This usually stems from lack of attention as a child

This is an interesting point, as sometimes the best way find a problem's solution is to think abstractly, a la outside the box

adjective: relating to teaching.

This is quite similar to John Stuart Mill's: "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion." Both readings speak of how ideas must be free.

Mill argues here that great minds are open to new ideas, and constantly question that which is around them.

This connects to the very core value of philosophy, as we must always question what we take for truth, just as Descartes and Plato did.

It seems here that Mill means that a government will attempt to control the public's opinion, lest they become the subject of the public's opinion

This is a strangely accurate description of our consumer culture, as everything can be replaced, or bought at whim.

Considering the subject matter of the previous paragraphs, this somehow seems slightly less incredulous. It really illuminates the broad spectrum of topics covered by philosophy

This rhetorical question makes me think of Descartes' claim, in that we honestly cannot be sure of reality

For me personally, I have a difficult time understanding the idea of attachment because of my desire to see an idea to its end

This rings very true to what Plato set out to do, as he constantly attempted to find the meaning of things.

This is interesting, as almost all of philosophy revolves around choosing a viewpoint and arguing/ discussing it

Maybe at one point, the study of philosophy will follow suit and branch off into a completely different field, just as psychology has done.

This is an interesting thought, as philosophy cannot be judged upon its means, but rather it must be judged by its effects upon society as a whole

It certainly seems that the age old adage; "What comes around, goes around" rings true here

The author mentions a very effective technique for understanding an argument here

This is quite similar to the scientific method of forming a hypothesis

This is an ingenious way to find the argument, as it doesn't require you to scan the whole piece for one info nugget, but many parts which lead to one another

I feel that Plato's hypothetical here challenges the old adage; "Ignorance is bliss," as he questions whether or not an individual can truly comprehend the world around them

I felt as if Plato here is compelling the governing bodies to derive their power from able-minded individuals who will in turn, continue the cycle of empowerment

This draws a nice parallel between the claim made by Descartes in "First Meditation," as both raise the question of whether or not we can truly believe what we perceive.

Will schedule adjustments be sent to us over our outlook emails?

The fundamental problems in philosophy, "why are we here?/ what is reality?/ where did we come from?," have been questioned by many of history's greatest minds, such as Buddha, Confucius, Nietzsche, etc. for millennia