Upon reading Pascal and Descartes, I found their stance on the existence of God very interesting, and different. Whereas Descartes follows on his notion of, “I exist, therefore I am”, and by reason he is able to understand that God exists, Pascal takes different approach, claiming that we cannot know such a finite thing. In Pascal’s Wager, he claims that we must choose to believe whether or not there is a God. In this essay, I will discuss how Descartes’s influenced Pascal’s thinking. I will first outline Descartes’s argument for the existence of God.
With Aquinas argument for number one, The Argument of the Unmoved Mover brings up, then what created this (first) God. Then we have to ask are there different versions of this God? What God is he talking about, is it one God, a different religion’s version of Gods, are there six Gods, a committee of Gods? His arguments leave more things open for more questions. With this movement of God, we then have to think what first created God, how did he even get here?
The importance of this kind of forgiveness is that the victim can live happily ever after, not being disturbed by feelings of vengeance. Another, psychologically more complex kind of forgiveness is the situation in which one suffers from his own deeds, which means the victim is the same person as the culprit. Similar to the other type of forgiveness, this forgiveness is true if the victim does not somehow act on the basis of vengeance or grudge towards the culprit. This grudge is likely to be associated with feelings of guilt in this situation, as the victim and the culprit are the same person. The importance of this kind of forgiveness is, like the kind of forgiveness already mentioned, that the person in question can live happily ever after.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that “the excellent person is related to [their] friend in the same way as he is related to [themselves], since a friend is another [themselves]” (1170b). It must initially be established that Aristotle thinks only virtuous people can have true friendship because “bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit” (1157a). A truly excellent friendship between excellent people is “immune to slander” because both friends know each other deeply and fully trust one another. Healthy friendships among virtuous people are also balanced: both individuals understand each other’s needs. The relationship is harmonious because the happiness of one is inextricably linked to the other.
The author also discusses some of the mistakes that one might make in pursuit of their happiness. The author also discusses some of the mistakes that one might make in their pursuit of happiness (Haybron, 2011). For instance, one out not to consistently seek to be happy but rather focus on making others happy through their deeds. In this manner, a person is in a better position, realizing a full and satisfactory
Based on this, it seems that Thrasymachus believes in no moral accountability for wrongdoing, and that because wrongdoing results in greater gain for the unjust person, the unjust person should get away with whatever he can. This goes hand-in-hand with Thrasymachus’ implicit definition of happiness: He seems to believe that the unjust man will be happy because he gets whatever he wants, such as more power, riches, or reputation. Therefore, it is better to be unjust, because it will make you be
Selfish people might make life harder for others but it surely is for one’s personal benefit, while selfless people make life more gratifying for those around them. This is how many of us have distinguished between selfishness and selflessness. But what if we combine selflessness and selfishness with love? Generally speaking, selfless love gets a warmer welcome and is more widely accepted as good in comparison to selfish love. But do these two different
When we enjoy something we put more effort, time, and heart to it. He also guides us, “In thinking, keep to the simple” (937). Sometimes we have a hard time deciding for ourselves because we think too much about the outcome of the choices we make. We have to trust our decisions and what leads us to happiness because that is how we live a life we are grateful
Since it is impossible to know everything, maybe it is better to be a fool satisfied so that its possible to experience the “good
It is critical to recognize Mill’s argument that a degree of contentment can exist in periods of less happiness. However, Aristotle’s view of perceiving wellbeing or goodness as ultimate is more pronounced. Worth emphasizing, Aristotle deeply explores his arguments basing them on functions of a rational man and virtues out of habits. Today, a virtuous citizen is one whose actions are inward, in response to conscience and moral obligations as a member of society. Such a person, not waivered with intensities of pleasures, honor, and wealth but seeks to have a satisfactory level of happiness with friends, co-workers, and family among other
A thing that evokes one emotion, it has the opportunity to also evoke another: “sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy”. When seeking happiness one cannot achieve it. Being oblivious to the fate we follow is only made tragic once we are made aware, because or consciousness of what we will do isn’t going to change our path. Only acceptance of what is/will happen is a victory but an “absurd victory” at that. 8.
The point is that one should constantly be proud of who he/she is and not try to hide it. One should be proud of being a good friend, be proud of who he/she is, be proud of oneself every time he/she makes a good decision, be proud of all the small things one has accomplished, be proud of one’s unique strengths, and do not leave it to another person to make one feel like ‘he/his is enough’; leave it to oneself. Also, there are advantages to this. By being proud of who one is, one’s confidence skyrockets, one becomes honest and likeable. Life becomes worth living, and nearly stress-free.
What you do to others will always come back to you. If a person does morally upright behavior, he will positively affect the people around him, making them happy and they will therefore also treat that person in a morally upright manner. Happiness causes people to do good acts in the same way that doing good acts causes happiness. Wicked acts harm others and cause them to suffer because they become unacceptable from the point of view of their society. For example, working for the community after a calamity makes a person happy because he was able to make others happy by helping them in their sufferings.
He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).
In both modern society and the world set forth in the beginning Ayn Rand 's The Fountainhead, altruism and selflessness are praised as accepted ideals while independence and selfishness are abhorred. This twisted idea of morality is challenged by the protagonist of The Fountainhead, Howard Roark. Though selfishness can be broadly defined and can be harmful at times, Howard Roark exhibits a specific type of selfishness that does not seek to harm others, but to simply preserve the person 's ego and personal pursuit of success. The best way to define the nature and effectiveness of Howard Roark 's selfishness is through examining his interactions with other major characters and comparing their egos, integrity, and approaches to achievement. Peter Keating is an interesting character in that he tries to be selfish, but he has no actual sense of self.