In Wiggins’ case of fission he undermines the belief that all questions of personal identity must have answers. The belief when asked in response to brain division is found implausible. According to Parfit, ‘If all the possible answers are implausible, it is hard to decide which of them is true, and hard even to keep the belief that one of them must be true’. (1971, p.8) He also undermines the second belief that personal identity plays a part in survival.
In order to gain a full understanding of the teleological argument, it is also important to examine the viewpoints of those who question the validity of the teleological argument. Critics discount the argument in a number of ways. They say the premise that “the universe has a design” is groundless because there is also apparent disorder and absence of design that cannot be disregarded. Critics argue that the belief that there can be no design without a grand designer is also not true. For example, “Ink drops folded in a paper sometimes appear strikingly symmetrical.
If the soul cannot possibly begin when a person does, when and where else could the event take place? However, Darrow 's argument is impaired by his incongruous application of the term soul. He mentions that the soul is popularly equated with identity, consciousness and memory, but fails to specify whether it is this notion or another that he uses. (42) Presuming, for the sake of moving forward, that it is this definition he himself adopts, it seems directly in conflict with his belief that the soul would exist outside of the physical body. (43) Darrow 's argument lacks a clear explication of his concept of the soul and, furthermore, it presents a confusing, contradictory account of the soul 's nature and
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.
The second reason for that is that the idea Peacemaking is a philosophy and it is not a viable criminological theory because it cannot be analyze and empirically tested. Martin (2001) opposes that the word ‘theory’ in peacemaking did not do this philosophy any justice in regard to descriptive and applied purposes. The issue with peacemaking as a theory is that the ideas of the peacemaking philosophy has it fundamental background to spiritual revolutions, connectedness, service and empathy for others, awareness, and peace are defined narrowly by academicians. Criminology has been publicized as an unbiased science, a means of accurately measuring crime and ways to deal with crime. Additionally, criminologists find it tremendously repulsive to hypothesize such philosophies as connectedness and spirituality.
The dispute over the degree to which we depend on sensory experiences on gaining knowledge had been continued between few philosophers. René Descartes, John Locke, and David Hume each had difference stances on this issue. Descartes, who asserts for human’s innate reasons, does not believe the accuracy of sensory perception. Contrary to Descartes, Locke and Hume are more likely to explain the phenomena through sensory perception than Descartes as they emphasize the ‘real experience.’ However, Hume does not completely agree with Locke as Locke admits the innate capacity to some extent, whereas Hume totally denies the existence of any innate capacity and at last denies the experience itself.
Looking at the major weaknesses of existentialism, it can be pointed out that it is based on philosophical concepts that are not practical and are somehow vague. Because of this, it is not empirical in nature, and it is non scientific and hard to confirm with science. Therefore it is problematic to many people as they believe that it is impossible to know how true or how well its works if it is not scientifically proven. I found it appealing when Sartre mentioned that there is “no proof of souls or spirits or ghosts or deities and thus their existence is nothing other than what people make a decision to believe”Pecorino (2000). This is such appealing because I keep wondering why such things keep coming up without any backing to convince one to
Wolff claims that Spinoza confuses attributes with essential determinations, modes with attributes and being from another, and finally confuses substance with being from itself.19Wolff argues that the Spinozistic concept of "mode" is vague precisely because he does not explicitly define what it meant to be conceived through another. This is especially true since beyond modes and attributes it is impossible to conceive of substance, additionally problematizing his notion of substance.20 Since Spinoza's terminology is so vague his concluding substance monism does not necessarily follow. Since substance monism does not legitimately follow, Wolff does not have to be subject to the view that human beings are subject to the same necessary causal relationship to this substance. By problematizing Spinoza's substance monism, Wolff is not subject to Lange's third criterion for
This being said, it must be taken into consideration that The Return of Martin Guerre uses little concrete factual evidence to support all of Davis’ claims. She may incorporated bias into her explanations for the actions of Bertrande, and she has no way of knowing for certain the thought processes and ideas of de Rols. Davis often makes statements that seem as if she is certain of the notions of Bertrande, using words such as “must have”, and statements such as these should be taken extremely lightly. If she wishes to psychologically analyze Bertrande she should ensure that she uses language that makes it apparent that there is no record of what Bertrande de Rols knew or desired. Davis sheds a new light upon the events of the Martin Guerre mystery and how du Tilh possibly got away with his charade, but her claims should not be considered historical fact.
stevenson argues that if the evidence in walter 's conviction was faulty, it is the state 's duty to search for the truth, but chapman evades stevenson 's arguments. Stevenson finds it difficult to stay calm as he accuses the state of trying to intimidate people to suppress evidence, since there is no proof to support a perjury charge against