Fate is a theory.Why? Because we cannot prove that it really exists, but we still believe that it does by faith. Fate can be a controversial subject to talk about at times. Some people will state various opinions on fate based on their morals or their critical way of thinking and as a result, throughout this essay I will explain how the theory of fate works using outside sources and by exemplifying two particular short stories which have helped me with my research. "The Garden of Forking Paths" written by Jorge Luis Borges: an asian man by the name Yu Tsun is a british agent who has blown his cover; is running for his life as he is being chased down by his former leader and has a mysterious encounter with a stranger and fate.
Copleston in one of his books, A History of Philosophy opines that, it is really difficult for one to totally reject all the old values or binding force of what is customarily called morality. This is because, one who attempts this, may degenerate himself as to destroy himself morally, since the traditional morality has put into cognizance, the values that enhance the dignity of the human person, morally and likewise. Then it becomes questionable, as to why Nietzsche calls the old morality the slave morality, even when he retains some of the values in his master morality. Nietzsche’s outright condemnation and rejection of conventional morality in favour of subjective morality, is for me not a true response to the reality of the human society. Owing to the fact that man lives in the society presupposes or demands that there be a certain objective standard of morality by which actions are assessed.
It further demonstrates Dinesh’s claim intentionally dishonest at worst or intellectually lazy at best. This is because Dinesh quotes from “The Doctrine of Fascism” in his video. Either he read the essay and intentionally ignored the quotes I have given because they don’t fit his narrative or he didn’t read the essay. To add insult to injury, Giovanni further states in this essay that “Political doctrines pass; people remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.” You read that correctly.
This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth. However, he too believes that not everyone is equal, but he doesn’t think that philosophers are an exemption. In fact, he believes that philosophers are among the worst at claiming that their biases/prejudices are the truth. As such, I argue that Nietzsche’s conclusion prevails because Plato fails to recognize that he has a bias in favor of the philosopher’s ability to discover truth and remove their own prejudices. However, let’s begin by constructing their arguments and seeing where their opinions come from.
The Skeptic must engage in a life out of the sphere of discourse only to let the philosophers guide discussion that may influence the State whether they or by proxy of other members of the political class. To put it differently, Skepticism tumbles into a scenario comparable to the liar’s paradox. Skepticism cannot stop itself from being self-defeating. Secondly, it is often contended that Skepticism is absolutely incompatible with living. It is completely impossible to live without depending on some sort of faith .
Doubt and Skepticism are essential components that set up their methods of reasoning, and without their doubt and skepticism I probably wouldn't be discussing them right now. Through reflection and meditation Descartes and Augustine refine doubts, through their to-be-explained methods. By reflecting they come to a better understanding of the self, which causes them to definitively question the existence of God. Through which they come to reasoned knowledge of God which brings them to a culminating understanding of themselves, and their
When studying philosophy, a student becomes very aware of the contradiction and different opinions of highly remarked philosophers. Many students become frustrated with the opposition and question the importance of the study all together. Others choose to indulge in these differences to further their understanding beyond what he/she thought capable of beforehand. The obvious contradictions between Kant’s deontology, and Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism is a perfect example of such occasion in philosophy. However, even though these are two opposing philosophies, with very different ideas governing their conclusions, we should look to learn from both and apply the knowledge we identify with, thus creating our own philosophies.
However, as a counterargument, his intent could be considered to not be neutral, as he clearly makes a statement on how knowledge should be perceived; based on sense perception and reasoning as ways of knowing only, and his way of leading a discussion, with language as a way of knowing might influence the public. Language as a way of knowing can consist many flaws, as the speaker can produce an idea using certain words, influencing the listeners, and thus, neutrality is hard to find in speeches and discussions, as there will always be preconceived ideas. We can look at another example: the Socratic method. Socrates designed a method of finding knowledge through discussion, and through accepting that he had no knowledge of anything whatsoever. By acknowledging this, it
It is extremely ironic that in his writings, Zhuangzi often employs language and logical argument to undermine the usefulness of language and logical argument. Setting aside the problem of this possible inconsistency, here I will explain Zhuangzi’s argument regarding truth and human capacity–or lack thereof–to understand it. Zhuangzi begins by describing a familiar situation: You and I have opposing views on a topic and argue to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Suppose one of us “wins” the debate–that is to say, one of us makes an argument to which the other can give no satisfactory response. Now, Zhuangzi poses the rhetorical question: Is the winner necessarily right and the loser necessarily wrong?
In this paper, I am going to explore the concept of truth in the light of the Correspondence Theory by identifying its major strengths and weaknesses. The correspondence theory is the one that most people would more likely rely on or agree about, but it contains plenty of problems or non-answered questions. According to Pecorino (2000) “The theory is based on the belief that a proposition is true when it conforms to some fact or state of affairs. While this theory properly emphasizes the notion that propositions are true when they correspond to reality, its proponents often have difficulty explaining what facts are and how propositions are related to them.” What do you find appealing or discouraging about Coherence Theory? One of the main features of this theory is that "truth” consists