Descartes reflects in the passage that he has often found himself to be mistaken about matters that he formerly thought were certain and indisputable. He then resolves to dismiss all of his preconceived conceptions, reconstructing his knowledge from its foundations, and accepting only those claims, which to him are certainly clear and distinct, as true. All he had previously thought he had known came to him through the senses. Through a process of methodological doubt, he detaches and removes himself completely from the senses. Subsequently, he makes clear his intent to “undermine” the “foundations” of his beliefs.
‘’Empiristic knowledge’’ is sooth only in measures of past experience, and there are no guarantees that future experience will not refute it. Any cognition, by Hume, can be just probabilistic but not reliable, and visibility of its objectivity and necessity is investigation of habit and faith in immutability of experience. “Must confess, -Hume wrote, -that nature holds us on respectful distance from our secrets and gives us just cognition of a couple of surface’s qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles, from which actions of these objects entirely depend.’’ Hume is considered an empiricist because he thought that there is no link between cause and effect, except of causal. Causal link can be detected only in experience. Most important thing is experience.
He also uses absolutes in comprehending. In his mind if he can’t absolutely comprehend it, then it must not be real. This mindset of absolutes works in making his ideology sound correct but wrong in reality, since we don’t live in absolutes, we live in a world full of gray areas. Parmenides is a monist. He believes everything is apart of a whole.
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.
His search for knowledge began with a claim of doubt. He doubts his senses, his body, everything he has experienced. In claiming doubt as his first step to knowledge, Descartes did not want to become a sceptic and doubt for the sake of doubting. His main intension in starting with doubt was to allow scientific inquiry to begin” (Reynolds). Once Descartes could doubt everything he “knew”, he was able to start over and really evaluate how he came to “know” these things and store them in his memories.
He referred the Unmoved Mover as the “reason for” or the “principle of” motion. For the reason that the Unmoved Mover was able to withheld the actual and eternal principle of motion. He argued also that aside from this Unmoved Mover there is no cause of everything. He believed that there is an eternal cosmos with no beginning or no end. Having Parmenides’ philosophical works as his basis, at some, he basically followed Parmenides’ famous statement, “nothing comes from nothing”.
Intrinsic factors critically considered when people think about the main components of success. However, Malcolm Gladwell, a famous writer, contradicts this tendency through the book, Outliers. The book, Outliers insists that extrinsic factors define success rather than the intrinsic ones. Nonetheless, Gladwell himself goes against the topic of Outliers in his assertion: “if you work hard enough and assert yourself, and use your mind and imagination, you can shape the world to your desires (Gladwell, 2008).” The assertion implies that individuals could achieve success only with those intrinsic factors. Gladwell’s assertion is wrong because people can’t achieve success without an opportunity of relative age, an opportunity to have practical
Niccolò Machiavelli, Baldassare Castiglione and George Washington all had small factors of similarity within their interpretation of an ideal person, some more than others. Machiavelli valued the unpleasant truth, so that people would view the world with a notion of realism. He also always wanted to be in control and make his own decisions without anyone else's opinion to mar his idea of keeping authority with others. And he furthermore pushed the trait of fake sincerity. Instead of truthfully being honest, religious and merciful, he told one that you should fake it, so that when the time arrives, you can switch your personality.
Knowledge is never free from the influence of upbringing and experiences. Descartes’s knowledge was not truly neutral, even though he states that he frees his mind from all previous influence. Knowledge cannot be found based on what has yet to be proven. But it is possible to find knowledge on presumptions. Presumptions come first.
Bentham already faced this no easy task, as holding that pleasure motivates every action could explain how a moral principle that is characterized by selflessness and attention, however, to the generality of men? His response (broadcast until today all hedonism) is that there is also a pleasure, which also tend, coupled with altruism involves promoting the happiness of others. Thus, the principle of hedonistic utilitarianism is possible, but why is a moral duty? Bentham simply responds that this principle is unprovable, because it is a simple and first principle. Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom.