Elkin for example indicates the distinction by declaring that causation as a topic is discussed only implicitly in the Enquiry where as it is discussed explicitly in the Treatise (5). The job of the critic had been made more strenuous due to the marginally varied standpoints of the two works. The Treatise is strengthened through an intricate psychological theory of knowledge: Hume does not concern himself with causality but instead the evidence for causal beliefs (6) The key question in Book 1, part 3 of the Treatise is the source of the notion of causality. At the beginning at least, Hume is willing to declare the sole relationship at the basis of science may be that it may follow beyond our perceptions. It notifies us that there are objects we usually do not perceive as causation (7).
He also agreed with the two characteristics of Vienna Circle; first, the empiricist and positivist, where knowledge can only be obtained from experience and secondly that scientific conception can be obtained by logical analysis. Thus, Popper believed that scientist should be critical and they should be able to test their views with empirical evidence and rational discussion. However, he rejected positivism especially logical positivism and questioned the principles of ‘inductivism’ and ‘verificationism’. Popper rejected classical inductivist views on the scientific method and was in favor of empirical falsification which he is well known for. Furthermore, as David Hume had already showed that experience cannot be verified, Popper believes that only falsification can be used for empirical process of
Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not need a philosopher to show us which action is right, we already know that based on what he calls it the common human reason. This paper will tackle a theoretical framework based on the Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations as a representative for the Deontology theory. Thus, aiming to rationalise a critique for the decision that were taken in a personal ethical dilemma, spotting the light on alternative choices and finally reaching a conclusion. THEORY Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations will be adopted as the theoretical framework; in Thorpe (2007), he demonstrates Kant’s perspective for the moral behaviour, Kant considers moral as a priori, further he
This chapter explains how and why different research methods are selected by the author. The author has made logical justification of different research methodology techniques in accordance with the aim and objectives of the research. Research methodology helps the researcher to get a systematic solution of the research problems. Kumar (2008) mentioned research methodology as the science of conducting research. Cottrell and McKenzie (2011) argued good research should be followed by the well-established previous theories.
Descartes philosophy on Methodic Doubt and his theory on beings stands as the foundations to Husserl and Heidegger 's phenomenology 's, they are taken by Descartes philosophy in a positive but yet critical way, we find Descartes to have a standing position in each of these philosophers ' phenomenology 's. In this essay, I will discuss Descartes standing in the phenomenological works Husserl and Heidegger by examining where within their work did they get influenced by Descartes as well as examining the role Descartes played in their work. Rene Descartes was a Rationalist believing that all knowledge is based on reason. He came to the acknowledgement that all the beliefs he thought to be true, were true on the basis that their truth came from the senses, and one could not truly trust his/her senses. One 's senses could create illusions at times, like possibly mistaking a dream to be a reality, so through the process of Methodical Doubt (a method to reach the truth) he suspended all his beliefs about the world and instead became doubtful; he took on the quest of doubting all things and assuming all beliefs of the world are false until he could prove it to be true, proving an ‘indubitable truth ' a truth that is impossible to doubt (absolute certainty).
Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, is arguably one of the most important philosophers in terms of the development of twentieth-century continental philosophy. Husserl develops phenomenology as a new rigorous eidetic science of consciousness (the study of essence) which subsequently inspires a generation of philosophers and social scientists in Germany, France, and Great Britain. First this paper will look at the background from which Husserl’s philosophy emerged. Secondly, Husserl’s main philosophical periods will be discussed. Thirdly, the essay will examine the phenomenological reduction in detail and explore subsequent criticism.
The Modern Dialectic Modern dialectic can be seen as a response to the contradictions in these methods and in society form which these arose. The first champion of modern dialectic is the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel, as the others of his times was deeply influenced by the values of Enlightenment but at the same time, before Marx, its greatest critic. Early in his life, Hegel saw himself working, albeit critically, within the Kantian philosophical tradition.
This Habermasian turn was later criticized by the famous political philosopher Chantal Mouffe who claimed that for a working model of democracy we should abandon the framework Habermas propagates and return to Wittgenstein's pragmatics. This sketchy overview of the debates I am going to address below proves that late Wittgenstein's works have very much resonated with a political thought of the second half of the twentieth
Hence, it is necessary to critically scrutinize the political implications of the affect theory by using an approach that does not overshadow the cognitive dimension and is more truthful to Spinoza's radical rejection of the Cartesian mind/body dualism. This approach is also informed by some significant research trends in cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Damasio 2003). Thus, the Spinozist approach will allow a broader and more comprehensive picture of populism in the technological age to emerge. While Massumi opts for a politics of affect as an aesthetic politics (Massumi 2015), and while Laclau speaks of an all-encompassing discursive field in which the emancipatory figure of "the people" can be constituted (Laclau 2014), the Spinozist perspective that this project aims to employ makes it possible to establish the link between politico-technological ontology and ethics, which can inform the actual political practices and new modes of political decision-making. It is a holistic approach which emerges out of the necessity to bridge a theoretical gap between the political and the technological, and to reunite the politico-technological framework with what, following Hans Jonas and Hannah Arendt (Jonas 1973, 1984; Arendt 1998), might be called an ethics of responsibility.
This is based upon Thomas Kuhn’s belief that scientists are deep-rooted in working within a given paradigm – a framework that upholds the theories of the discipline (Kuhn, 1962). Scientific information is entrenched in empiricism, regardless of the nature of the science. Scientific information is not solely liable to the fallibility of sensory perception – information discerned through our senses can be markedly distinct from reality (Finley, 1983) – but also to paradigm bias. This paradigm bias which stems from our explanation of empirical evidence could result in the occurrence of disagreement – disagreements over the paradigms that direct experts in their respective fields. This is apparent in different schools of thought in macroeconomics – for example, classical economists believed that the economy could achieve equilibrium under the capability of a free market.