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?
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 regard to The Kite
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.
Exuding empathy, kindness and gratitude are some of the approaches that are likely to realize collective personal happiness. 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
While these forms of love keep changing based on one’s relationship, the Principle of Love remains unchanged. Selfishness is construed as people who take for their benefit whereas Selflessness is determined by the act of giving. 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?
This directs us to work with miserable hearts. 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
He knows why he is dissatisfied and why the fool is satisfied. If you are a fool satisfied then you know what its like at least to some extent as to what the good life is. 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