So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will? Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1).
The issue of circularity with the syllogistic view no longer applies because it no longer makes sense: if a point is self-evident there is no room for circularity. If the Cogito is self-evident, then there cannot possibly be circularity. Likewise, if the Cogito is self-evident, then the objection I raised regarding the reliability of logic itself does not hold, as no logic is needed to arrive at something that is self-evident. Therefore the Cogito, if it is self-evident, is sound. As a result, the Cogito as a self-evident fact and intuition successfully defeats the strongest skeptical point that we cannot even know if we exist, and Descartes conclusion of the Cogito
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the
This is, as oneness in itself, which I say is indivisible wholeness, cannot be said of the one unless the one partakes of being, as is evident from the being argument at the end of Deduction 1 (142a). Thus, this oneness can still be a part of the one, and only possibly a part of the one when in connection with being. It may seem that oneness, which I claim can be indivisible wholeness, cannot itself have parts, since it is indivisible, and, therefore, not allow the one to be unlimited in multitude in Deduction 2. On the other hand, by allowing oneness to be indivisible and only allowing it to exist when it participates in being, I do not believe this infringes the one’s unlimitedness. Rather, this indivisible oneness will be unlimited in itself, since it has no beginning nor end (as stated in Deduction 1).
It’s directly stated that John Rawls and Robert Nozick both reject utilitarianism. Utilitarianism-the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority They seem to come to agreement on the aspect that certain individual rights are so fundamental that utilitarianism considerations should not override them. At the same time disagreements come into play when talking about what rights are actually fundamental Rawls disagrees with Nozick- he does not believe that the results of a free market are even necessarily fair (related to his two principles of justice) Think about this: (Reflect to this at the end of the chapter) Do people morally deserve the benefits that result from the exercise of their talents-such as: good grades; college administration; income and wealth; fulfilling work; etc.) A Theory of Justice-John Rawls The good things in life are generally distributed according to moral desert under the idea of using common sense (in the idea of health and wellness) Moral desert- related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also “moral desert” Society is blind-sided from the concept of “Justice is happiness” according to virtue. In other words, it’s recognized but never has been carried out.
Hegel has also criticized analytic thinkers for being guided by empirical sciences alone. If your step was forward, it does not mean that your next step will also be forward. He argues that Kant’s claim that faith can go beyond understanding and reason leave us with scepticism. Hegel never agrees anything irrational would govern you blindly. He also said, it makes no sense to talk about something
Plato, however, disagrees. He states that not only is priori knowledge the true type of knowledge, but that posteriori knowledge is just a false opinion. This is because our senses are what are unreliable as knowledge can only be obtain through the
Kant argued that it was Hume's philosophy, flinched from the "dogmatism". However, in the changed context and something unlike Hume, Kant had just sense a source of moral norms. The changed context consisted in the fact that Kant does not ask how to justify all value judgments in the same way, rather than separately dealing with the so-called morality in the narrow sense, that is, the attitudes on which it is possible to agree all and make them subject to an obligation or duty and other value judgments in which it sets the request. This difference, which extends along ethic is well understood. You can consider that a good deal of long
Looking at the history of reflection on free will, it can be noticed that such concept was not known in the Ancient Greece. Albeit, Aristotle has shyly discussed about a concept of ‘’choice’’ (proairesis), however it is poorly connected with actual acts, let alone the power of free will. It can be argued that the Greek stoics somehow recognised the possible existence of free will, since they greatly attributed the necessity of defending our inner beliefs and morals, so that the human shall not inherently delve into seeking desires, not worry about them, as well as ignore the circumstances that are not dependant on us. Thus, stoicism attributed to the individual the necessity of being free from all external influences and defending their personal inner sentiments. The development of the concept of free will can be directly attributed and traced back to the late Roman stoicism, especially during the time of Epictetus, whose philosophical teachings and views were written down by one of his students.
Throughout this section, Socrates makes small individual points that build together to form his main claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice acts. This claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice raises the question of why would any person want to receive injustice, but that is not Socrates argument. Socrates understands that receiving injustice is not something that is enviable, but when compared to committing injustice, suffering injustice is better because committing injustice is pitiable and unenviable. Socrates never fully explains his reasoning for this claim but it deals with this idea of getting back