Unique masterminds can look for, find and spread word about the facts that generally wouldn't be found. Genius people are generally one of a kind individual from society whose insight and considerations don't fit into the standard shape that society has framed. Mill trusts that capriciousness is connected intently to genius, morality, character, and fears that there it is progressively ailing in the public arena, referring to that "immediacy shapes no piece of the perfect of the greater part of good and social reformers." According to Mill, individuals are inalienably unique and ought to be permitted to investigate these distinctions. Individuals flourish under similar conditions which makes all individuals uniform as a disadvantage to their remarkable qualities.
Frankl argued that one would not be willing to live or die for the sake of one’s defence mechanisms, but countless people have done so for the sake of meaning, thus meaning can’t simply be a defence mechanism. (Man’s search for meaning- Frankl). Another critic is that, whilst logotherapy can be effective in enhancing the well-being of individuals from different cultures, its underlying focus is on the meaning, purpose and psychological well-being of the individual. This is an individualistic outlook, with emphasis on the individual, as opposed to collectivistic cultures emphasis on community and the person’s role in it (Cherry, 2017). In my opinion, this can be addressed by adapting logotherapy for collectivistic cultures.
The method he invented — the radical and methodical doubt —is a reproducible model for demarcation between subjective opinions and objective truths. However, not only is the application of his method of radical doubt unfeasible, but his insistence on the “purity” of knowledge as sciences that are certain, indubitable and, independent of the existence of corporeal things is also questionable. First, Descartes assumes that he is capable of detaching himself from all of his opinions. However, his theory is both practically unfeasible and theoretically inapplicable, for as long as one is situated in the world, what he thinks cannot
Many theories have been produced that try to explain human behavior. Those theories can be categorized under two main ideologies: determinism, and existentialism. Determinism is the idea that humans do not have free-well, and that all their decisions are determined either by the nature of human species or by the nurturing humans receive from the environment. The first type of deterministic theories argue in favor of human nature; namely, humans are predetermined by their genetics and natural evolution to act in a certain way. These theories tend to
Plato, however, disagrees. He states that not only is priori knowledge the true type of knowledge, but that posteriori knowledge is just a false opinion. This is because our senses are what are unreliable as knowledge can only be obtain through the
Many theories have been produced that try to explain the human behavior. Those theories can be categorized under two main ideologies: determinism, and existentialism. Determinism is the idea that humans do not have free-well, and that all their decisions are determined either by the nature of human species or by the nurturing humans receive from the environment. The first type of deterministic theories argue in favor of human nature; namely, humans are predetermined by their genetics and natural evolution to act in a certain way. These theories
Few stop to make up their mind on their own behalf. Enlightenment, which supports free thought and challenging existing systems, seems to be the opposite of what is occurring. In Immanuel Kant’s What is Enlightenment? he proposes that enlightenment is necessary to benefit humanity. Candide, by Voltaire, another proponent of enlightenment, presents a chronicle of dismaying events that occur to a man because of his lack of
The human mind being a constant wanderer towards reality failed to accept ‘utopia’ as a mere fiction. Instead they questioned its mere existence. This questioning paved way to another realistic vision which without questioning utopianism was able to walk along side it. This vision was more realistic than utopia itself, an idea where the world struggles to survive after its own devastation. Readers were more comfortable in acknowledging this idea than ‘utopia’.
In my opinion, happiness is such a natural feeling that it cannot be exactly defined, but only experienced, and therefore is different and personal for everyone. There are multiple definitions that vary from person to person. I disagreed with more than just the main points presented, but with the some of the evidence and how it was conveyed. The section about genetics while interesting, seemed too long and off topic from the main point of the excerpt which was to define happiness. Genetics do not define happiness, but explains the limits to a person’s happiness.
Out of these three great philosophers, they had varying different viewpoints on life. Thomas Hobbes however, he was rather pessimistic on his views of life. According to a McKay, Crowston, Wiesner-Hanks, and Perry (2013), “Hobbes held a pessimistic view of human nature and believed that, left to their own devices humans would compete violently for power and wealth” (p 492). Hobbes made it clear that he did not trust humans would make the best decisions for
However, this judgement seems to be more of the commonly biased assumption than something that can be proven. Do we have the same intuition in the reverse scenario? Would we say that someone who has known nothing but abuse since birth wouldn 't be worth rescuing since, because of their lack of positive experiences, didn 't experience any negative experiences either? Is there any reason to believe that this alleged relationship between positive and negative experiences isn 't
What makes the book worth reading, however, is not to revel in the action, nor to mock the seemingly haughty narrator, but to analyze the author’s portrayals of human nature. Wells riddled the plot with examples of the moralistic slump that may occur in the worst of circumstances. To think that “life is an incessant struggle for existence,” is void of all morals and emotion, a raw notion that reveals our most basic purpose in life, simply existing, rather than feeling (Wells 208). His startling displays lead me to wonder whether he is pessimistic or realistic about the human race. This aspect of the text is the only reason the book managed to keep my