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.
I don’t believe that solipsism lines up with what Glasersfeld believes. I think that Glasersfeld has a perception that there are other things that creates the world and one’s reality. I personally lean hard on “The Reality of Experience” portion of the reading to explain his position. It is here that I think that his argument is given strength. It explains that the mind cannot be the only place to determine the world and reality.
On the teleological argument, McCloskey’s claim that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” is not reasonable. Why does one side of the equation need examples and the other does not, is not a fair assessment of a problem. There should always be examples to prove that each side is disputable or undisputable for the premise. A person can assume that a statement is true but that does not make the argument true and in all fairness why would that argument be considered true without some type of proof. The teleological argument is to show probability of theism, exhibit purpose of order, design and infer that the cause must be an intelligent
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.
Critical thinking begins from the element of though all the reason has a propose, how to choose the most significant and realistic propose become important. Some of the though said that all the reason done from the point of view, from the different background, personality and level of educating we will all have different point of view, therefore which thinking can become the critical one. We are wondering if there is really a standard. There are a number of universal standard what is critical, and the research does show the most significant: Clarity It is base on the statement; if it is unclear we cannot determine that it is accurate or precision. Before we understand what is the
The first thing that must be discussed in order to answer the question appropriately is: What is truth? This is a really difficult question to answer. There is a big difference between something that is believed to be true and something that is true, basically because if something is believed to be true is not completely certain or accurate, could be one way or another. On the other hand something that is true is certain and definitive and no questions are raised, but there are many types of truth as well. According to Daniel Patrick Moynihan “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts” which means that everyone can believe in what they want, but their facts must be able to be seen and understood
In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.
Virtue ethics solely emphasizes admirable characteristic traits rather than the actions performed by that individual. However, some argue that the charge of virtue ethics is impractical and it doesn’t provide any rules making moral decisions in complex situations. Those that are virtuous often do not need to over think temptations that
When thinking about the communication process, we usually tend to think about a simple process in which one person speaks and another listens. However, literature on the issue has shown that this sort of thought is completely wrong and that human communication processes are in fact quite complex and ever-changing phenomena. But, why are these processes as complex? How does communication really work? Answering to these questions is the main aim of this topic.
Opposites Attract! 1. Page 241. “Self-ignorance is one of the principle enemies of autonomy, and self-knowledge requires being honest with oneself about who one is-owning up to and owing one’s identity”. My Thoughts: I found this quote to be extremely important and felt it connected back to Anaïs Nin’s section.
He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument.
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