The difference portrayed between concepts achieved through reflection and concepts obtained by inference seems to be misleading whereas the groupings of understanding state experience and so facilitates the unity of consciousness which is necessary to all reflection. The purpose of the Ideas is to systematise experience in its entirety and the function of the classes is to provide possible the sense-perceptions essential aspect of its content. The former is unconditioned and it characterises a type of knowledge to which is not adequate to any actual experience. So the transcendental ideas are the concepts of pure reason which correspond to concepts of understanding categories. In a general sense, Kant uses the word 'Idea ' in Platonic usage.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
The fundamental difference between the two is that Plato approaches reality through rational inquiry and regards love as mediator between the two worlds. Its goal is to find truth, which is objective, impersonal and outside the human soul, only to be looked and admired like a perfect piece of “art”. While as Rumi’s idea of love is irrational. In Rumi love and reason are contradictory. Reason for Rumi is light and a guide, but love is the goal.
From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise.
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
This supposed incorrigible idea is dependent on the occurrent existence of thoughts. There is then an inquiry into the nature of the mind to find essential, innate qualities. The nature of the mind is that the mind is the substance and thought is the essence of it; ‘I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason’ (Descartes, 2006, 27). From this he makes the wax argument to say that the mind - now it’s existence has been established - is better known than the
134776 PH134 – Philosophy of Language Cratylus Plato’s Cratylus is a dialogue about the ‘correctness of names’, or the method of assigning or appropriating names to things. In the exchange, three interlocutors participate and contribute to the discussion at hand. Hermogenes defends the idea that the correctness of names is establishing linguistic conventions. He points out the randomness with which names are imposed and facile way of changing them as evidence that there is nothing more than simply ‘convention and agreement’; the name is only justified by agreement. On the other hand, Cratylus argues that names cannot be arbitrarily chosen in the way that conventionalism asserts or advocates because specific names belong naturally to specific
With the pure practical faculty of reason, the reality of transcendental freedom is also confirmed. For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV 3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom.
That might be one way to modify Plato’s theory of Forms so that the reality of the Forms depends on the existence of human minds, even though that would be the only place they are contained. As his theory stands, however, the reality in which the Forms reside is both extra-mental and non-natural. Aristotle’s dialectical solution to the problems involved here was to acknowledge the reality of form, as part of the natural world, in unity with matter and governed by laws of causation subsuming form, matter, efficient cause (the force bringing about a change from one state to another), and final cause or telos. The problem Aristotle faced was one whereby he had to reconcile the kind of objective reality that would be provided by the existence of form – which he accepted – with the fact of impermanence, change, ephemeral fleetingness, and so on that characterizes the natural world, something that Plato downgraded to the status of something like mere appearance subordinate to the ultimate reality of the Forms. The latter he found as unsatisfactorily one-sided as the extreme opposite, namely that the fleetingness of appearances can’t provide us with enduring knowledge that is contained in the knowledge of Forms.