In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.
Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
The human mind is unmaterialistic in contrast to the human brain. We can’t sense the mind, i.e., can’t touch it and see it while we can most certainly touch and see the brain. The general crowd would agree that the senses are used to perceive matter. Matter is the atom of the physical existence claimed to be more or less constant. The general boils down to the specific immaterialist and the idealist, George Berkeley who presented a Metaphysical idealism under the famous claim esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").Berkeley’s claim meant that an idea or an object that is not perceived by the mind does not exist since in order for anything to exist it has to be perceived by the mind and that nothing outside the mind exists.
Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.
In order to prove where evil comes from Socrates wanted to make himself more knowledgeable. Good and evil are balanced, without good you wouldn’t be able to recognize evil. What Socrates was doing was not human evil that came from human ignorance, what he was attempting to do was to understand the meaning of the unexamined life. There was a big problem of evil and that was it was apart of the unexamined life and that no one really understands where it comes from. The big question to ask yourself people of the jury is, “If God is all good and powerful, then where does evil come from.
On the other hand, if God come from a less perfect being, it would mean that the idea of perfection precedes imperfection does not follow through. Either possibilities defeats Descartes’s God’s argument because it contradicts with the two ideas thereby undermining Descartes’s use of reason. This is because Descartes heavily emphasizes on reasoning and evidently use reasoning to formulate his two ideas of “something must come from something” (Bennet 2004, 12) and perfection precedes imperfection. Ultimately, if Descartes way of reasoning is unable to reconcile the two ideas that he has formulated, then it would be difficult for him to prove God’s
He used sensible experiences to falsify Parmenides views which isn’t a fair objection. Sensible evidence is just the evidence that is impossible if Parmenides theory is correct. Although Parmenides makes good points, his argument for motion not existing is based solely on his extreme viewpoint of non-being equating to absolutely nothing. Referencing absolutely nothing on many occasions to push his argument. He also uses absolutes in comprehending.
In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,
Second, when Kant’s theory is interpreted as two object interpretation it seemed that the theory implies a radical form of skepticism that traps each of us within the contents of our own mind and cuts us off from reality. According to Kant’s, things in themselves are real while appearances are not, and hence we cannot have experience or knowledge of reality. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical
Immaterial beings on the other hand, includes the things which we cannot sense yet we believe that they are real because we are making use of them in our everyday lives such as our knowledge, emotions, our spirit and our soul. So if we are to say that existing=being sensed, then how come we believe that immaterial beings are existing? At some point, immaterial beings might not be totally immaterial because if we’re going to analyze it, material and immaterial should be opposite in a way that if material exists, then immaterial shouldn’t. They might just be material things which cannot be felt, heard, seen, smelled nor tasted. Maybe philosophers only used the word immaterial to be able to differentiate something with physical attributes to those who does not.