Arguments Revolving Around This Theory 1. An interesting conversation between Gassendi and Descartes Gassendi: “There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.” Descartes: “Suppose a person had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading.
If your step was forward, it does not mean that your next step will also be forward. He argues that Kant’s claim that faith can go beyond understanding and reason leave us with scepticism. Hegel never agrees anything irrational would govern you blindly. He also said, it makes no sense to talk about something
He blatantly opposed war and argued that if a dispute should occur, war is not an option for a solution. King believed that war accomplishes nothing, that it is not as useful as many presume it to be (Lucks, 91). As can be seen throughout history, even to this day war does not solve problems, it only creates them. There have been wars in the past that were believed to end all wars, but as history shows, that belief was truly unsubstantiated. King thought that nonviolence is the answer to conflict.
Indeterminism which is the philosophical view opposing determinism. Many versions of indeterminism views were proposed by various philosophers, but those versions, which intended to save “Free will”, did not actually succeed for reasons that are to be presented. The first version of indeterminism is the “non-causal indeterminism” which simply states that choice is not determined by prior reason-states, as reason-states are themselves “non-causal” (Ginet 1990). This argument raises a lot of problems, as it directly opposes the principle that any event has a prior cause.
This allures that the actor is not the cause of an action. Secondly, causality is misused to organize the chaos of life in something comprehendible to human subjectivity. Cause and effect is not objective ordering of events. Cause and effect is used out of fear of the foreign. We connect a sudden action to a memory in our past, which is familiar to us.
Philosophers are on a constant struggle to determine if free-will is real or an illusion. Joshua Knobe believes we will do a better job addressing philosophical questions if we “can arrive at a better understanding of the way our own minds work” and free-will is a very important part of our brain, if it were to exist (Experiments in Philosophy, Pg.3). Some philosophers may argue that if free will is an illusion “you couldn’t come up with a philosophical stance on […] new information and act on it, because that implies choice and choice is a product of free will” (If scientists unequivocally proved free will was an illusion, how would society change, if at all?, Pg. 1). So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will?
Assumptions are impossible to predict because they happen in the blink of an eye, and guide our thinking. We have no control over our assumptions since they are a natural reaction as we encounter new situations, or people. Both “Young Goodman Brown” and “Bartleby and The Scrivener” recognized that everyone makes assumptions, but they show the danger of jumping to conclusions, and how justifying actions is not helpful in the long run. Our history is the filter that we look at the world through, creating different viewpoints. Our assumptions are controlled by an unconscious bias and can be used to justify actions and make false conclusions.
We should be careful what we desire for, he identify market as “free” merely by the absence of restraint on the naked power. As human being, we are always in need of material possessions. We have been given the power but we do not know how to use it in a good way to achieve God’s plan.
In the beginning, God created man in His image and likeness appointing him with certain attributes that define him as distinctively good. However, the Creator also gave man the ability to choose freely. In granting the human race free will, law then has the capacity to be abused or broken. After the Fall of mankind, the human person is no longer disposed to happiness by the law. In contrast laws inhibit the ability to choose freely.
Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist
It seems like a reasonable claim not to accept anything without sufficient evidence but according to Inwagen, doing so can lead to a problem in which no one will have enough evidence to justify anything that they believe in. Sufficient evidence can either be objective evidence that will convince any rational person to take a certain side or position, or it can be evidence that is intuitive and incommunicable. How could it be that, for example, two intelligent and well informed philosophers are able to disagree with each other on the same subject while being aware of and understanding his or her opponent 's argument but yet failing to agree with it? Both are provided with the same amount of objective evidence for each position but each philosopher
In any event, we do not have the power to whatever it is not our own doings. The limits of human freedom rely in our mind, that is, everything that we think, our intentions, and our values. Consequently, we have the power to determine authority over ourselves-what actions to take in any given situation, our capacity to adapt, what values/judgments we form, and act accordingly to what we might think it is right from wrong. For instance, by controlling our emotions no matter what the aggravation might be, we are being stoical.