The order in nature could equally well result from the intrinsic properties of matter itself. Since the creation of the universe was a unique event, we cannot say anything about it. The existence of pain cast serious doubt on the existence of a benevolent Intelligence. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion the three main characters Philo a skeptic who sees inconsistencies in every line of argument, Demea pose arguments for the two others to discuss and Cleanthes skeptic who is aware of the limitations of logic but do not believe in the mental picture; argue about the Argument from Design. Philo win the discussion arguing that the appearance of order in nature could simply derive from the nature of matter itself (Hume).
The first problem, is that his theory does not answer the question of where or how these souls came about. Another question that is left unanswered is where or how the souls obtained the knowledge if inquiry is not a factor. We also do not have proof that the souls actually exist- and we are basing that off of the assumption that Socrates’ is correct. His response loops us back around to the initial issue, and in term it may even create it’s own paradox. He believes that the soul is immortal, and has lived many lives and learned things and has true beliefs, but does not answer the question of how we know if those beliefs are absolutely true or not.
Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true. Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect.
In his writings, Kant discusses the limits of one’s limits on acquiring knowledge and self-reason. He distinguished between the themes of appearance and reality, which during the Enlightenment period, were very common, yet controversial. One specific idea Kant had was that time and space are just merely appearances- they are independent of any object that any person can relate to. This concept of intangible theories, is referred to as “transcendental idealism.” In the Fourth Paralogism, Kant refutes idealism in his statement: “I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances [Erscheinungen] the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not as things in themselves… and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition…” (qtd from the Guyer & Wood translation, Kant
For example, John Locke is a main antagonist to innatism. According to Yacouba (2016), Locke criticized that Plato’s view of innate knowledge is more religious than rational because Plato asserted that knowledge is a process of remembrance which is already engraved in one’s soul; therefore, Plato’s doctrine of innatism can only be true to those who believe in reincarnation (Yacouba, 2016). This polemic does not seem convincing due to the lack of scientific evidence. On the other hand, the research of neuron system described earlier in the paper support Plato’s view of innatism with scientific evidence. Consequently, Plato’s doctrine that certain knowledge pre-exists in one’s mind at birth seems more reliable.
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote Self-Reliance during the time period when transcendentalism emerged, thus based his essay off of this ideology. Transcendentalism is known as the philosophy that divine truth is present in all created things and that truth is known through intuition, not through the rational mind. This principle seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout many of Emerson’s essays. In fact, he is known as a transcendentalist philosopher. In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self-Reliance, Emerson is convincing his readers that self-reliance is more important than being dependent on others by using metaphors and pathos.
Likewise, the mind is an invisible, and immaterial, the basic core of human existence. The famous statement Descartes presented “I think, therefore I am”, and took a stand on dualism. Fast forward, more modern day approach on holism is from Nicholasarroyo article where the author’s perceptive is that the mind and the body is one, therefore
1. Explain Aristotle’s defense of real change and real difference against Parmenides. The Argument of Parmenides originated as a Pre Socratic Philosopher on the question of the day. “What is the nature of reality? (This is the first metaphysical question that all Pre Socratics were responding too) Parmenides answer to the metaphysical question was Permanence (change is an illusion) *Discuss Parmenides’ arguments for the conclusion that reality is only one sort of thing which never changes.
Causation is the relationship between cause and effect, during the 18th century many philosophers discusses what causes events and how do we perceive this cause and effect relationship. The first philosopher discussed is David Hume who view of causation is “every event is distinct from its own cause” with no logical connection, and the second is Immanuel Kant who likewise views all events as discrete events, yet we are able to have knowledge of a causal relationship. These differences between the two accounts for causation are highly important in philosophy, however Immanuel Kant’s response to Davide Hume was able to expand on the human element in which we interrupt causation and add evidence practical that Hume was unable to do. In the Enquiry
First, he examines the objective nature of science by drawing upon Nagel’s view that “the tradition of science as a practice produces knowledge out of a ‘view from nowhere’” (Mitchell, 3). This view would suggest that science comes from within the individual, in which their subjective ideas alone would formulate an objective truth that is accepted. Yet, from the time we are children, we are being fed information that is continuously processed and interpreted, which comes together in order to create a coherent, subjective formation of reality and influence how and what we think. Thus, the validity of Nagel’s claim is undermined because our interpretations are based on the ideas that are passed down to us, which work together to create knowledge. It follows that the objectivity of knowledge should be reinterpreted as “a collective property of discursive interchange” (Mitchell, 4).
Another argument is the cosmological arguments. It begins by examining some empirical or metaphysical fact of the universe, from which it then follows that something outside the universe must have caused it to exist. According to Craig, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is constructed as follows Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.