2. He asserts that personal identity is not what matters for the survival of the self. 3. He claims that it is Relation R or connectedness that matters for the survival of the self. (Johnson, 2007, p.2) Throughout his essay, Parfit relies on the results of certain thought experiments particularly ones put forward by fellow moral philosopher, metaphysician and philosophical logician David Wiggins.
The Second Way is similar to the First as Aquinas constantly reiterates the importance of ‘a first cause’ therefore he ultimately dispels the idea of infinite regress. He speaks of ‘efficient cause’ and how every event or thing needs an efficient cause and nothing can efficiently cause itself. A critical view of this could be to ask if nothing can efficiently cause itself how is there a first mover and how is it caused? For Aquinas, however, it is necessary to have a first mover or else cause and effect cannot exist. Some of the greatest opponents to the cosmological argument include Hume, Kant and Russell.
Socrates, A great philosopher of the ancient era, gave explanation to life through the use of questioning, some of which ironic, contradicting what he had previously learned so that he could further develop the truth. This function of irony to develop thought is not used solely in the philosophical world, but also in the world of literature. Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of these authors to do so. In his novel The Scarlet Letter Hawthorne utilizes irony to build up to and to explain the truths of the intertwining mysteries of his tale. The act of explaining truth in literature can be a challenging one, and there is many variations as to how to meet this confrontation, whence we see the use of irony in Hawthorne’s text.
In todays world there is a distinct gap which separates virtue (ethics) from politics. For instance, the two distinct areas are not usually studied together, but are mostly separated from one another. This is far different than Aristotle’s approach in which he grouped both areas together because he felt that they are both practical sciences concerned with good action. Nicomachean Ethics is where his beliefs come to the forefront, with his connection of politics and virtue. He argues that all of the sciences are put to use in political science, which make it the master of promoting human good.
Epictetus was a stoic philosopher who preached the value of free thought. I found his approach to life to be more laid back then the other two philosophers mentioned so far. Epictetus mentions very early on in his writing “Encheiridion”, that he doesn’t believe in material importance. To him the only thing we can control in life are our “...opinions...impulses, desires, [and] aversions” (Cahn, line 2). Basically, anything that was not of our own doing does not belong to us, nor is it apart of one’s true self.
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
René Descartes, considered to be the father of modern philosophy, was the first person to formulate a theory about mind-body dualism and to try to reject existence. By trying to prove that we do not exist, he found that there is no way that we do not exist. "Cogito Ergo Sum", which is a famous quote of Descartes, signifies that it is through thinking that we can affirm our existence. René Descartes reached this synthesis by several trial of doubting, but he could not doubt his existence because by ignoring his mind existence, he realised that it is a thinking process. Thus he confirmed that existence is true, and it is through thinking that it is acquired.
In addition to this, his influences on how he formulated his philosophy is important as well. Philosophers such as Heidedgger, Husserl, Descartes, and later on Marx, only to name a few, are those who greatly played a major role in the forming of his philosophy. Works such as Being and Nothingness most particularly the chapter on "Being-for-Others" will be used as one of the primary sources to further strengthen Sartre's pessimistic view on love, on how he came to the say that "love is conflict" and "love is struggle" . I will also read some of his plays such as No Exit which mentioned that, "Hell...is the other! ", alongside with more of his works as
At first glance, there is nothing precisely political in the late Wittgenstein's works like Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty. However, the famous 'linguistic turn' in philosophy which he initiated both by the ideas expressed in Tractatus and by abandoning them later on did not impact only a realm of linguistics itself (with such notable followers like John Austin and John Searle, to name a few), but also the broad range of the philosophical divisions, political philosophy included. Late Wittegenstein's texts are written in the very specific (one might even say poetic) language which affects further interpretations and provokes possible misunderstandings. He uses a variety of metaphors and remarkable examples to explain his position concerning a nature of language and human communication. Because of this peculiarity of style such concepts as the language-games and the forms of life that were introduced in Philosophical Investigations do not seem crystal
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the