The main goal in people’s lives is to achieve happiness. There is no set in stone way to live a happy life, so people can use others’ experiences to help them get happiness. Additionally, people live in a world with technology, and the new technology helps them get more information and work efficiently. Since people think technology is beneficial and brings more happiness, they all choose to use it and change their lifestyles. In the essay “Reporting Live from Tomorrow” written by Daniel Gilbert, he describes how people predict their future emotions by using others’ experiences. He suggests that these experiences help people anticipate their future more accurately than their own imaginations. Also, he examines that popular beliefs will also
In this philosophical essay, I will be providing a brief introduction of David Hume’s skeptical argument against induction. Also, in order for Hume’s skeptical argument to make sense, I will also be referencing René Descartes’ theory of foundationalism and Sober’s categorization of beliefs into three distinct levels. Furthermore, I claim that both Hume and Descartes’ perspective of how rational justification is defined will always lead to skepticism being true. In addition, I will argue that there exists a valid, alternate perspective which will falsify David Hume’s skeptical argument and allow induction as a valid method of reasoning.
In “The Power of Realistic Thinking,” Sharon Astyk asserts that being an excessive optimistic or pessimistic thinker will not aid in determining the future. According to Astyk, the common future scenario of humans consists of a utopian vision that assumes through the usage of science and technology, barriers between humans and the serene future will diminish, producing a teleological and alluring world. On the other hand, Astyk discusses how a dystopian visualization of the future implicates with the destruction of humankind and catastrophic termination. Moreover, she advises that since we possibly might have produced the environmental problems or rendered them inferior, therefore, preventing us to control them, the human race is not unbound
Every day we go into life with expectations about how things will occur. These beliefs have an astounding impact on our perceptions of and reactions to the world around us, often times without us even being aware. Society, culture, religion and education help to develop these notions over the years. Also, these ideas form a certain image of everything in our mind without adequate evidence. These social constructs prevent us from seeing the real truth. In Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s story, A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings, the reader has an encounter with a very old man with wings, who is thought to be an angel at first but later, the old man is mistreated and tortured because of his unusual appearance. At the end, the story conveys how prejudice
They say free will is compatible with determinism. Immanuel Kant is one of those compatibilistic philosophers. He thought that neither determinism and free will are not real, but they “are a priori folders in our head to help us make sense of world” (lecture 13). In his opinion, people have both physical beings and conscious beings; the physical beings are determined and the conscious beings are free. People must have free will so they can maintain morality. “The notion of free will is indispensable to our choosing, deciding, and judging...This is the case with our apprehension of the ‘moral law’...Before any act I should ask myself: Would I approve if all men do this? Any action that can be universalized can be accepted as ethical” (p247 text). Without free will, people will lose the capacity to abide by “moral
William James thought the real problem was not understanding freedom, but rather knowing what determinism was. Determinism could be looked at as a belief. Indeterminism is not to accept this, but accept the alternatives. The world could be viewed as deterministic or in deterministic. There is no correct view because it brings conclusions only on facts we have. We are to pick which one looks to be more logical. The deterministic look is made by chance. Objecting a chance is assuming that there will be a positive. This is a not right because chance is not relative. For example, think about the decision on what street to walk down on one’s way to school. To claim that it is chance to choose to stroll down Wall Street or Maple Avenue is saying the decision is not to force anything. Think about the difference between a deterministic world and a world involving chance. We make assumptions and mistakes, but is necessary for eternity. Determinism helps us move on from our mistakes to being resilient. It also presents a dilemma either evil or not evil. We can only escape by taking on indeterminism. This option seems to be the better because it contains fewer challenges. The correct human agency is Holbach’s because our actions are not perfect and we make
Ray Bradbury is a renowned author famous for his short science fiction stories and his novel "Fahrenheit 421". His works have inspired many and raised numerous questions about what the future may hold. He's quoted as saying "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." (Bradbury), and in many ways you can see the motif of this mindset in his work. He goes into detail about the dangers of reliance on technology, the ways it could result in our downfall as societies and people. He passed away in 2012 yet his stories live on and remain significant, not only as relics in history, but as reminders of what we've become and what we may be moving toward if we're not careful. In today's world its hard to go too far without seeing somebody wrapped up in something as simple as a
The concept of future can be imperceptible. It is forged by our present and untouchable past of our life. Relationships can be maintained if built on the foundation of strong undisputed past. Yet, if built upon the uncertainty of past they come crumbling down. Ignorance and selfishness starts to blossom in our veins. However, those relationships can still be resurrected on the shifting sands of uncertainty if we decide to reflect upon our mistake. Past can’t be altered, yet reflecting on it and making a difference in present can heal the uncertainties of past and provide a better future. Today I reflect on the text of Don Bailey called “A Few Notes for Orpheus” which tells the struggle between a father and a son, and how their uncertainties
Are we able to control our destiny or the outside forces? There are very good arguments about that but at the end of the day, I feel like we don’t control what happens to use in the future. Especially after I read the book, “A Lesson Before Dying”. Jefferson, the main character, was executed for something he didn't even do. He had a future and it was all gone due to what he couldn't control. He was at the wrong at the wrong time. He was also wrongfully accused and convicted of the robbery and murder of a white man, and sentenced to death by electrocution.
Imagine a situation where an individual is forced to make a decisive decision to protect one’s life from potential death. To what extent will the individual go to protect one’s life? Is there even a certainty that their life is in danger? In the short story, “On the Rainy River”, Tim O’Brien suggests that when an individual is forced to face the element of uncertainty within their futures, their imagining of such futures, driven by emotions to fight or flee, results in the creation of positive and negative futures. The conception of such futures leads to an internal moral conflict where one compares and weighs the consequences of their depicted futures. Conflicted with their multiple impending fates, the individual has a choice to either embrace their uncertain fate, knowing they cannot prevent such, or reject their uncertain destiny, becoming negligent toward the possibilities of what is to come.
Since Edmund Gettier published his work on justified true belief as knowledge, there have been a plethora of philosophers poking holes in his theory while attempting to discover alternate solutions to his theory. Linda Zagzebski is one of the many philosophers who criticizes and attempts to resolve the Gettier problems in her article, “The Inescapability of the Gettier Problems,” providing concice reasoning as to why they are truly inescapable. According to Zagzebski, the contradictions between reaching the truth via the correct casual connection and the use of warrant, or justification, for obtaining truth are the root issues of the Gettier Problems, and knowledge can only be obtained by means of meeting certain conditions.
For centuries, scholars and philosophers have debated whether chance governs our lives, or our choices rule our destiny. History provides a multitude of stories of protagonists following the stars as well as others who decide their future. Beowulf battles enormous monsters, knowing his future is predetermined to win. Whether it be fate or free will, the main character always needs the guiding hand of a wiser individual. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the monster’s crimes are a direct result of his horrid circumstances.
I am Cassidy Briann Norton. We’ll be talking about me today. My first name means clever and intelligent. It also means curly hair. My name kinda represents me because I am intelligent and I do have naturally curly hair. My last name means Northern Settlement which leads me to believe that I came from a family that once settled in the North. This makes me think of the people who settled in the North. These people were French and English people. So I think I am a descendant from there. My middle name, Briann, means strong. So Cassidy Briann Norton means clever, curly haired, strong, and from the North. I like this name because in a way it represents me. And when I asked where my parents got my name they said that they couldn’t decide between naming me Cassidy, or Briann, so they named me both of the names!
Long before philosopher, Edmund Gettier came along, knowledge was thought to be equal to justified true belief, which is to say that:
Whilst reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, one will encounter The Third Antinomy. In The Third Antinomy, Kant addresses difficult metaphysical conundrums in a way many have refused and dismissed as impractical (Metaphysics, Critique, and Utopia, 1988). However, Kant may have argued, to do so is important because humans cannot be cured of their metaphysical impulses. While reading, one will eventually encounter Kant’s discussion of free will and determinism. However, after serious analyzation, one may find this section of the text problematic - a main issue being Kant’s attempt to reconcile two seemingly mutually exclusive concepts: determinism and free will. Ultimately, the result of his attempt is unsatisfying and seems incomplete. Because of the nature of transcendental realism, Kant leaves his reader with a conclusion that he, nor we, can fully digest.