And why or how we are (or are not) justified believing that it is? A normal human being who does not understand philosophy would find the arguments from the above readings overwhelming as they wouldn’t see the need to over analyse life, they would want to accept what they already know rather than creating arguments over things they cannot even see nor understand. Philosophers cause us to doubt our beliefs as they provide arguments that leave one wondering whether their beliefs are false or not, just as the arguments provided below. According to Descartes (mediation 1, 1641) we are not justified in believing that the world is as it appears, in his first mediation he begins by noting that there are things he once believed in but later learned they were not true. He worries that some of his existing beliefs may be false; therefore set to “tear down” his existing beliefs and rebuild them from scratch.
Haskell believes that has a society, if we don’t believe there is a truth then we will constantly have conflicts. In order to be objective, Haskell believes you have to be able to be ascetic and detachment from your own personal bias and deny yourself. In the conclusion Haskell discusses historians that aren’t objective,
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
Malone’s main argument, materialistic values are vividly apparent in the New Age, failed to convince readers his opinion should be taken seriously. After a deep consideration of the article and every argument is has to offer, there is still no real solution to the materialistic affliction our society collectively
There's certain benefits to thinking this way though. It's very important to keep one's own happiness and well being at the forefront of their mind. People should not be expected to constantly cater to others. Selflessness is completely overrated. Equality is not wrong to want something for himself, especially after servicing others his whole life.
Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled" (Huxley 231). Mond explains, in this quote, how science cannot remain the sole factor in achieving happiness. Throughout the story, the Controllers condition the people to view science as the greatest good, but new discoveries often lack what makes an individual happy. Process often infringes on what people as a whole consider as happy. They feel contentment but individuality and passion push brilliant individuals to discover more scientifically.
Just like Konner said we do not follow the advice that we get from others or even each other because I know I don’t. Furthermore, I feel like we as individuals do overestimate some risks more than others because we do not look at the realities of the risks being taken. For instance, I know the consequences of my actions, and more importantly I know what I want, but no such knowledge exists because knowledge is imperfect. Moreover, the connections that I made with the material from “In Wildness is the Preservation of the World” is that I am always in account with good and evil but having high standards will always allow me to be victorious. I feel like just as long as people share common goals and have feelings of excitement it will allow people to look up to and learn form them.
Milgram concludes that, no is confronted with the consequences of their decision to carry out an evil act. (pg56) Whereas Todorov concludes that staying human is more important than staying alive. After reading both articles from the authors I find myself struggling with whether I agree or disagree. I almost agree with both of them to an extent. I truly believe that it is important to stay human and not become so selfish in the things you are faced with.
Nozick’s principal motivation in posing this question was to disprove the ideals of hedonism (cite). Hedonism is a philosophical term to describe that pleasure is the most important component of human life and should be sought after above all else. Nozick’s results found that most people would not hook up to the machine which acts as an agent in disproving the theories of hedonism. When you break it down, true value appears to be more highly coveted than attaining pleasure. If you spent the majority of your life being deceived by a machine it becomes apparent that your life is devoid of any value in regards to joining fellow humans in the fight to become successful and by doing so improving the lives of all.
― Lao Tzu Life is never complex; it is as simple as it should be nonetheless it is always us who made unnecessary changes to it for our so-called greater benefits, but generally which grow to be our greatest regrets later. Holding to waves of anger, showing impatience and running out of the compassion become a part of our life now. Simplicity is way behind us, we never dream of it. A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. ― Lao Tzu Will it be possible to make a plan for life?