He believed humans should spend their lives seeking to become the perfect versions of themselves in every way possible. Along with that Gandhi focused on this idea of “sainthood’, meaning someone who lives their life under God’s will. Author George Orwell disagreed with Gandhi’s opinions going so far as to write an article explaining why he disagreed. In this article, Orwell proves his argument that imperfections make people human by using a respectful tone, addressing Gandhi’s own argument, and using an anaphora. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you have to be disrespectful.
All things considered, in A Masque of Reason (1945) and A Masque of Mercy (1947) Frost set out to investigate man 's relationship to God. In the previous, he made an ironical, witty rendition of the Book of Job, giving Job a role as the prototypical current realist blameworthy of pride in accepting human reason 's energy to enter puzzle and for blaming God for bad form toward him. Frost 's God reprimands Job with diversion to exhibit the critical part both abhorrence (i.e. Satan) and confidence play in taking man 's actual measure and characterizing the connection amongst God and man as far as perfect, not human, equity. As Stanlis appears, Frost 's contention is pointed essentially at the hubristic pragmatists, monists, and self-assured people of his own day.
The first step was to doubt everything that could be doubted: his senses, his prior knowledge (a priori), and his knowledge of the world (a posteriori). From this, he deduced that the only truth was that he existed, for no doubting can occur without a doubter. Thus arose the idea of mind, “a substance the whole essence or nature of which is to think”. Descartes then derived the existence of God from the idea of perfection; our idea of perfection must come from a perfect being (i.e. God), for imperfect beings such as ourselves cannot possibly conceive by ourselves the idea of perfection; that there is an idea God proves that God does indeed exist for God is the sum of all perfection.
Only in the warm glow of God’s compassion could we air our disappointed ambitions, our unfulfilled frustrations and our heaviest sorrows. Religion may well have been a deep illusion but it was an important one. In today’s world of belligerent capitalism we need a loving, unjudging institution which evokes our better nature – our humanity. To build kind, secular civilizations in our own time we must never forget the purposes of religion – to offer us answers not necessarily to the hard physical world around us but to our spiritual selves, to offer us comradeship in the face of a climate of competition and, most importantly, to offer us fulfilment of our own moral
Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth. For him, moralities evolved over time as natural phenomena in answer to a need to hold society together, to ensure their perpetuation and to help contain the drives and impulses which could without some check or sublimation, threaten or destroy the fabric of human relations.
It would be impossible to access Josef Pieper’s contribution to the anthropological and ontological foundations of human hope without basing the assessment on his book Hope . This essay will firstly address the influence of the theologian St Thomas and the philosopher Aristotle on Piepers thinking and writing. We will also see why Pieper was influenced by Thomas Aquinas. This essay will be based mainly on Pieper’s small book on Hope. In this book, Pieper establishes and explains clearly his thoughts on hope and despair.
James 1:17 says “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” This verse speaks of the Unchangeable Nature of God. Prior to this verse James describes Spiritual maturity, and part of this maturing process is the testing of faith, and subjection to temptation which is a constant inner struggle of a sinful human nature. Verse 17 is the encouragement that in the midst of testing and temptation we can be sure of God’s “invariable goodness.” He only gives good gifts and “His own perfection and invariability are seen by contrast with the heavenly light-giving bodies, the variation of lights and shadows.” God isn’t like the sun which shines for a time and then hides in the shadows of clouds or of night for a while before shining again. God is always good, and “God’s gifts are invariably good. In all the changes of a changing world they never vary.” A God who never differs from Himself means that “In coming to Him at any time we need not wonder whether we shall find Him in a receptive mood.” We can trust that “He is always consistent with his character of love and righteousness.
He concluded that “I think, therefore I am.” He believes that the foundation of knowledge is doubting. Considering all the things that could deceive him, he believed that since he could doubt these things he was a ‘thinking thing’ and exists. This deductive process was rational and allows us to assume the validity of his conclusion. However, upon closer evaluation, it seems that a limitation to Descartes’ rationalism arises from the solely individualistic nature of his proof. In realising he is a ‘thing that thinks’, he is discovering an ontological truth – his model of knowledge fails when applied to others.
However much absurd this argument may be, it truly was such a beautiful type of reasoning in the eyes of all philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument started off by stating that the most perfect “thing” that one could possible think of is God and that there is nothing higher. In the Prolsogium, Anselm talked about how his argument is a theoretical truth that God is a “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (page 19); in other words, God is the best thing imaginable. Anselm is basically stating that whatever you think is the best thing ever to exist, whether it be as an imagination or in reality, God would be at a much higher level. Another thing he states is that God exists as an idea in the mind, simply because He is not in reality, but in our imagination.
True religion, for Emerson, appears to be narcissistic and egotistical and can be defined as promoting and being consumed by the deity of one’s self, yet, contradictorily, Emerson claimed that as one trusts and worships in themselves, they gain a renewed confidence in other men. The opposite often occurs and the selfish nature Emerson so boldly praised manifests itself when one chooses to focus primarily on themselves rather than Christ. Throughout “The Divinity School Address,” Emerson attempted to justify why the human soul should regard itself as its own god by arguing the “indisputable” power of the soul and its ability to determine everything, such as where it will go after death as Emerson believed nothing about the soul was predetermined. Although Emerson was, to some extent, correct about free will, he misrepresented what little power the soul truly has by implying that, ultimately, the soul, not God, holds, in itself, the power to determine its place in the afterlife. Furthermore, Emerson misuses this as “proof” of why the soul is all-powerful and should be worshipped.