Modernist worldview Modernity includes a search for absolute, unquestionable, rational certainty, based on logic and evidence alone. (Of course, many “modern philosophers” admitted such may be ultimately impossible for finite beings, but that didn’t stop them from holding it as an ideal and continuing the search.)  Post-modern worldview Postmodern is simply the rejection of certainty in the synthetic realm, even in science. Postmodern is also defined by the belief that all truth claims are infected by “belief”. That is, there is no such thing as “a view from nowhere.” Even what counts as “logic” and “evidence” is value-dependent, arising from within a story, a perspective.
Nozick claimed that people should not plug into the Experience Machine. Some of his reasons are, "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." (Nozick, 43), "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." (Nozick, 43), and "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated." (Nozick, 43).
According to Cavell on differentiating between the animate and inanimate: “…there are no marks or features or criteria or rhetoric by means of which to tell the difference between them. From which, let me simply claim, it does not follow that the difference is unknowable or undecidable. On the contrary, the difference is the basis of everything there is for human beings to know, or say decide (like deciding to live), and to decide on no basis beyond or beside or beneath ourselves.” The separation of animate and inanimate is impossible until one acknowledges the separateness of the other; another person is not just an extension of
Just what is the cause of my existence? I accept nothing on authority. A hypothesis must be backed by reason, or else it is worthless - and it goes against all the dictates of logic to suppose that you made me” (Asimov 36-67). This quote is important because Asimov shows us that Cutie has learned to think on his own and is questioning his very existence. He is showing the
There is no set instructions on how to live or set explanations on what to live for; we are constructed by chance and our functionality is simply to live within the body that randomly formed us. Essentially, modern science argues we cannot be created with a distinct purpose if we were created spontaneously. Specialization cannot be obtained through random chance, so there for there is no complex answer to the meaning of life. The meaning of life is to live, and allow for the natural scientific processes that
‘’Empiristic knowledge’’ is sooth only in measures of past experience, and there are no guarantees that future experience will not refute it. Any cognition, by Hume, can be just probabilistic but not reliable, and visibility of its objectivity and necessity is investigation of habit and faith in immutability of experience. “Must confess, -Hume wrote, -that nature holds us on respectful distance from our secrets and gives us just cognition of a couple of surface’s qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles, from which actions of these objects entirely depend.’’ Hume is considered an empiricist because he thought that there is no link between cause and effect, except of causal. Causal link can be detected only in experience. Most important thing is experience.
Fichte thought that the world of appearances in space and time is posited by the Absolute Spirit as the objectification of its will, as the raw material for its duty. It is objective to man because he is finite, and the mistaken notion that what is outside of the human mind must be material has given rise to the customary forms of dualistic and even to materialistic philosophies. Actually, Fichte wrote, what is beyond us is Absolute Mind, as Berkley had suggested. And as Spinoza had pointed out, Fichte continued, there is only one Substance in the universe, namely god, though Spinoza failed to see that even extension is a form of conscious experience. He insisted that Spinoza’s “Substance” must be interpreted wholly in terms of spirit.
Wilson is absolutely sure in his point of view; and according to that in “The Biological Basis of Morality” he says “I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists” (1998, p.112). In other words, it means that E.O. Wilson believes that moral values are independent from God or another perfect being; and come along with humans. It is not necessary to be a God to distinguish what is good and wrong. However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will.
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
Kant sets out to elucidate what the categorical imperative contains. We ought to bear in mind that the categorical imperative is not a concept that can be established by an appeal to experience, since experience cannot furnish us with what ought to be, but rather what is. The categorical imperative, Kant explains, is not analytic, but rather it is a practical synthetic principle a priori, and establishing how synthetic a priori propositions are possible is always a daunting undertaking. With this difficulty, Kant resolves to postpone the resolution of the unconditional imperative for the latter part of his work (420). Kant argues that hypothetical imperatives – imperatives based on desire or inclination – are conditional, since they are dependent