David Hume: Atheist Philosopher

Aesthetics: The study of art, beauty, and taste. Growing up it never occurred to me to question, what is art? I thought one could just look at anything and point out if it was art or not but there is actually more than that. According to two philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer, it is a talent that separates a person from artworks and connecting them directly to the universe using the art of genius. In Kant’s Critique of Judgement and Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, there are similarities and differences in their point of view of the role of a genius and their interpretation of what it takes to be a genius.

As Pecorino (2000) defined it, “existentialism is a philosophical movement or tendency, emphasizing individual existence, freedom, and choice that influenced many diverse writers in the 19th and 20th centuries”. From the definition, it can be said that it is a view that all humans should determine their own meaning in life, and therefore try to make rational decisions in spite of existing in an irrational universe. The central point of the idea is the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the innermost of existence. It further holds that there is no God or any other superior force, and that the only means to opposed this nonexistence is by willingly accepting existence. The following paragraphs

The purpose of this paper is to show that there is no inconsistency between Apology and Crito as A.D. Woozley and many others suggest. Woozley and Kraut both agree that the works aren’t consistent and present many solutions to resolve it, however they overlooked a simpler solution: to argue that the works are consistent. Woozley provides the persuade-or-obey to explain Socrates’ stance in Crito when the argument could also have been used to make the works consistent. As Kraut’s article was a review, none of his proposed solutions are fully developed. If my claim is accurate then there is no longer a blemish on Plato’s record, with regards to consistency.

Morality, sentimentality, and rational evaluation are some of the thrusts of enlightenment philosophy of sympathy. The first notable philosopher is David Hume who places the spotlight on moral appraisal. 2.3.1 David Hume Appraisal turns out to be the keyword in David Hume’s concept of sympathy. In An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, he places emphasis on appraisal which, according to him, is a passion of settled principle of action where motive is the reason and the action is result. But an action can never be the object of moral approval or disapproval; it is only the agent’s motive or character that can be the object of moral evaluation.

Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being. And so the mediators claim that “ I exist as a thinking thing,” is correct as it can be supported with evidence throughout our

Determinism is the belief that each occasion has a specific cause that gets it going precisely as it does. As indicated by Sartre, there is no human nature which furnishes us with an outside wellspring of determination and quality. In the event that existence truly goes before pith, there are no clarifying things away by reference to a settled and given human nature. As it were, there is no determinism, man is free, and man is freedom. Nothing outside of us can determine what we are and what we are useful for; we must do it without anyone else 's help, from within.

Now could Ockham’s Razor be placed against the arguments of those who believe or don’t believe in a higher being? The existence of God is something that philosophers and regular people question all the time. Two philosophers questioned the existence of God; Anslem and Aquinas. The Ontological Argument, or the argument of existence, was put out by Anslem. Anslem believed in the existence of a supreme being and proved that it was possible to believe in someone like that.

The dispute over the degree to which we depend on sensory experiences on gaining knowledge had been continued between few philosophers. René Descartes, John Locke, and David Hume each had difference stances on this issue. Descartes, who asserts for human’s innate reasons, does not believe the accuracy of sensory perception. Contrary to Descartes, Locke and Hume are more likely to explain the phenomena through sensory perception than Descartes as they emphasize the ‘real experience.’ However, Hume does not completely agree with Locke as Locke admits the innate capacity to some extent, whereas Hume totally denies the existence of any innate capacity and at last denies the experience itself. Before moving on to Locke and Hume’s perspectives, Descartes’s stance toward sensory experiences should be discussed.

He can do things beyond our thinking. If He has the power to do things beyond our imagination, how come there are still imperfections in our world? How come there are people who oppose Him? Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings . They still follow moral codes like us; nevertheless they can create decisions without the help from God.

Albeit one man may be physically more grounded than another and one quicker witted than another, these distinctions don't create any kind of natural chain of command. At long last, Hobbes gives a rundown of laws of nature. These laws basically come down to the fact that it is normal for us to look for peace in the state of nature, which would evidently struggle with the whole situation

For example, Feste says to Olivia, “I wear not motley in my brain.” (i.v.54-55). So although he may dress like a fool he does not have the intelligence of a fool and therefore should not be seen as someone who is dull. Feste is cautioning against making connections between what can be seen and what cannot, the actions and appearance of Feste do not shed light on his sanity as they are mutually exclusive. He later addresses this point again when interrogating Malvolio, “Nay, I’ll ne’er believe a madman till I see his brains.” (iv.ii.122-123). The impossibility of this request not only drives the point that Feste is incapable of determining sanity because he cannot ever see Malvolio’s brain, but that there is inherent danger in letting him analyze Malvolio’s sanity.

Heartbreak, loss of a loved one, loneliness, etc. are all “harms” that we can admit to feeling. Socrates disregards this with his assumption of only physical harm being possible; therefore a complete end of existence would be harmless. He also states that nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death, and his fortunes are not a matter of indifference to the gods. However, in this world harms happen to good and bad alike.

Epictetus’s way of philosophy is one that is purely Stoic, imploring that the solution to human finitude is one where humans can live life without showing feeling or complaining about pain and hardships towards unsavory situations. Each of his rules in his handbook offers advice in which the subject simply “deals” with disappointment, or rather, doesn’t expect something out of the scopes of reason and logic, so that, figuratively, when occurrences don’t go their way, they aren’t disappointed. This is because to Epictetus, all external events in life are pre-determined by fate, so it’s already out of our hands from the beginning. With a calm dispassion, or indifference, we approach our fate and accept it. This is shown in his rules in The Handbook,