Further, when speaking about substance, we are talking as a substance that can exist independently of all other. "Ta substance is something which properties ‘inhere '; that is, it is what has, or instantiates, properties." (pg33) Since there tend to be two entirely different substance by use of time and space, we come down to Descartes’s view of dualism, and we the two not identical to one another. On the other hand, Descartes goes on the say the person is unable to access another perspective, and no one can 't access your mind or perspective, which mean that the mind is subjectivity. This is where many dualist retrieve their view and with the help of Scriptural text of the
Its all about beliefs if you ask me I would say that we do live in a matrix and are hook up into an experience machine, for me this would be God’s creation. We can not prove this is true but we also can not prove it is not. We think that what we perceive is real, because we touch, see, smell, hear or and taste it. But this are only signs that our brain gives us. What if nothing is real and it is all an illusion?
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
To give up omnipotence is to give up this picture of God. b. good and evil are illusions Another move is to deny P4 and say that there is no evil in the world. One can do this by saying that morality is an illusion -- by being a sort of nihilist. Rejoinder: This, too, is a solution most theists are unwilling to make. It is part of many religious traditions that bad things do happen in the world.
He says that the body can be divided into pieces but the mind/soul are indivisible. Elizabeth of Bohemia argues against Cartesian dualism by saying that humans have physical and nonphysical elements and we’re not a cogito. She says that physical things cause physical things to move, and if the mind doesn’t have a physical component then there's
My perception of my body and matter in general is that it is in its essence divisible (Descartes,1641) This essay here will insert a reference to ‘Leibnitz’s Law’ or otherwise the relatively intuitive principle that for two things to be the same thing, they must share all the qualities of each other. Descartes does not specifically do so, but it is heavily inferred from his argument. Descartes now concludes that since minds are indivisible and bodies are, that according to the Leibnitz’s law they cannot be the same thing and hence: Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
When Berkeley makes his argument to deny the existence of matter, he uses Locke’s idea of second properties to argue that there is no such thing as first properties, because anything that we know of, or have contact with comes from our senses. Berkeley argues that most of the ideas that we have associated with objects that we perceive as real, such as mountains or tables, are based of our secondary qualities, and therefor are based off of our perceptions of these objects we perceive as “matter.” Meaning that our first qualities are mainly just our perceptions of the objects themselves, so wouldn’t that mean that they are, in a sense, perceived also? We must first look at the differences between first and secondary properties. The idea of first and second properties have been regurgitated throughout philosophers such as Galileo, Descartes, Boyle and Newton, just in different terms and little tweaks of ideas. When Berkeley is making his argument that matter doesn’t exist, he is mainly referring to Locke’s argument of first and secondary properties.
He states, “Everything in nature, as well in the inanimate as in the animated world, happens or is done according to rules, though we do not always know them....” (CITE) In stating this h does not say that every event causes an event but every event has a connection we just might know it. The major strengths of Hume’s argument are that he is able to tell how we create causation through constant occurrences in our lives or by our mind creating an its own links between events. He accomplished establishing the basis of causation that each event that occurs is independent of all other since we cannot establish the that every event has a cause. Kant’s strengths are in his challenge that people are more than this mindless connection by justifying their experiences and judgments as knowledge to create causal connections between event. By looking at what the human experience could provide in regard to knowledge is where Kant is able to give more of an explanation as to why we find causes between occurrences in our world.
In his fourth point, Dawkins explains that religion teaches us to not question our faith and this prevents us from justifying our actions as long as it is in the name of God. He argues that having a faith justifies terrible acts because it allows us to avoid reasoning. Thus this explains the irrational act that was done in the history of mankind. He also promote skepticism because it encourage us do not believe in anything without looking for evidence. His fifth point states that religion is not the source of our morality.
Goldman especially defines justified belief through historical realism which combine Cartesian and Platonic version of realism in order to defend justification processes coming from outer senses are reliable. However Bonjour is against to his historical realism and externalism because our senses are not reliable. Given example of Norman the clairvoyant suggests that even if Norman’s clairvoyance is reliable and correct, it doesn’t mean he can justify himself just based on what he