However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
In order for something to be logically valid, its negation must be contradictory. As a consequence, to doubt that one is doubting would be like to think that one is not thinking, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since the action of thinking requires a thinker, Descartes was able to deduce that he must exist. Therefore, this proves the validity of Descartes’ reasoning and makes us come to the part where Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” is brought into being. After applying the aforementioned method, Descartes relies on reasonable doubt as a foundation for true knowledge, keeping in mind that there is one thing that reason forbids him to doubt and that is his own activity, the activity of thinking.
His works reflect reality and romance, actuality and illusion, the real and fanciful, the natural and supernatural, the literal and the imagined. He was a natural moralist and a philosopher. Hawthorne usually treats Puritanism, not as central theme but as a dark background for the ideas and for experiences, which deeply concerns him. He is not a mystic. He cannot be considered as a transcendentalist, but he was attracted by its free inquiry, its radicalism and its contact with radical life.
While the former highlights such elements as argument analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, the latter refute ego-centrism in favor of fair-mindedness. In other words, the weak-sense critical thinker is a pseudo-intellectual in that although he is highly skilled, yet egoistically motivated to achieve his selfish goals without taking into account the moral consequences. On the other hand, strong-sense critical thinker employs logic to solve the problems. He does not include his selfish intentions in the way he sees problems. In fact, he fair-mindedly unravels the stumbling blocks in a reflective and systematic
He defined intelligence: "It seems to us that in intelligence there is a fundamental faculty, the alteration or the lack of which, is of the utmost importance for practical life. This faculty is judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances. A person may be a moron or an imbecile if he is lacking in judgment; but with good judgment he can never be either. Indeed the rest of the
He also uses absolutes in comprehending. In his mind if he can’t absolutely comprehend it, then it must not be real. This mindset of absolutes works in making his ideology sound correct but wrong in reality, since we don’t live in absolutes, we live in a world full of gray areas. Parmenides is a monist. He believes everything is apart of a whole.
And also whether the true knowledge is possible to acquire. According to J.P Moreland, knowledge represents reality in thought and experience and it is the foundation for successful dealings and confidence. And also how can we acquire that in our life. I believe that knowledge about something is very important but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be wrong and different from others. Beliefs and knowledge could be true or false but that doesn’t mean a person is incapable or should be considered less in any way.
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.
For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4
Rationalism is beliefs in the external world that give somethings like a power or transcendent being. Empiricism is belief in sensation experience that looks like a science. I think both concepts are conflict in some situation and compatible in some situation. For example, you can’t test or examination about the God’s existence but you can’t say it is true or false or meaningless because may be verified in the future. The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism.