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.
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
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
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.”
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.
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.
He should now be arranged to accept, not simply what can 't be demonstrated, but rather what can be invalidated from different convictions that he additionally holds. The issue of
This disharmony between inward thought and outward action catalyzes Montag’s desire for change, leads him to deeper introspection, and contributes to the novel’s central message that if one remains
Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with reason.
Descartes’ first argument for the existence of God In meditations of the first philosophy, Descartes reflects that he is often deceived by his senses. He therefore decides to discard all his pre-conceived notions and start from scratch to find out things that he is absolutely certain about. Descartes begins by showing that he is certain about only one thing, which is that he exists as a thinking thing. The fact that he can doubt his own existence goes on to show that he exists and that he is a thinking thing capable of doubting, imagining, willing etc.
It seems like a reasonable claim not to accept anything without sufficient evidence but according to Inwagen, doing so can lead to a problem in which no one will have enough evidence to justify anything that they believe in. Sufficient evidence can either be objective evidence that will convince any rational person to take a certain side or position, or it can be evidence that is intuitive and incommunicable. How could it be that, for example, two intelligent and well informed philosophers are able to disagree with each other on the same subject while being aware of and understanding his or her opponent 's argument but yet failing to agree with it? Both are provided with the same amount of objective evidence for each position but each philosopher