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. How would he proceed?
Hegel has also criticized analytic thinkers for being guided by empirical sciences alone. 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 idea of that some events are non-causal seems to be vain, because it does not work in a universe that is governed by deterministic physical laws, at least at the macro-scale
Nietzsche maintains that: Firstly, free will and unfree will does not exist and an actor does not act out of free will. 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.
Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1). In summation, if you’re responsible for what you do then you’re responsible for the way you are. But since you aren’t responsible for the way you are, then you aren’t responsible for what you do.
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.
He also talks about, how we as human not all our desires are always made to reality. There are false and true desire. 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