David Hume comes from a school of skepticism, and thus is a skeptic and a very careful thinker. He questions several concepts of the personal identity and argues that ‘I’ or the self described by Descartes is not a thing, and that there is no constant self that persists over time, and finally he mentions that human reason is inherently contradictory, and it is only through naturally instilled beliefs that we can navigate our way through common life. He uses his destructive nature to destroy the foundations of Descartes idea that the ‘I’ is a non-extended thinking thing and thus he reaches a definition for identity throughout his arguments. Throughout the text, he uses three arguments to prove that we have no idea of the self. Descartes previously
Such Geometry is one example of a situation that not possible to observation. The paradigm of Positivism seem to be combine of Rationalism and Empiricism. Positivism focus on A priori knowledge same Rationalism but in difference point, Positivist beliefs in nature of reality that can be verified by science process but don’t belief in the innate. They’re trying to explanation about the reality for warranted beliefs and Empricism is rejected the innate knowledge but emphasize truth-reliable process. It’s look like the one of science process, Such measurement which needs to be reliability and generalize outcomes.
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
In the ontological investigation of language, namely the classification of what makes language what it is. Many philosophers are fascinated by the nature of language. Some philosopher holds a view of essentialism that presupposes there is an identical and continuous universals essence, which can justify all human language. However, the objection to Essentialists’ approach to the study of language is that with such assumption of intrinsic properties of language exists, they have presupposed “language” as a constant real substance. Both Western philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein have rejected the simplistic notion of the essence in explaining the nature of language, and suggest the similarities between languages are merely one side of the linguistic phenomenon.
(p22) However, Saunders 2009 p.119 advocates that positivism can be understood through both ontology and epistemology views. It raises the confusion whether positivism should belong to ontology view and be connected to objectivism like what Bryman said, or positivism should not be tied to objectivism and can also be comprehended through epistemology view like what Saunders proposed. In 2014, Hanson stated that the root of positivism could be constructive instead of being tied only to objectivism. This makes us realize that our thesis might not be limited to the view of Bryman. When we discuss the positivism, we are set to think both in epistemological way and ontological way and then we will distinguish our philosophical choice of view with realism.
Descartes provides us with the notion of the “self” in his Second Meditation after establishing a plan of radical skepticism. Descartes views the self as the mind, insofar as he believes that he is primarily a “thinking thing”. For the remainder of this essay, the body will be defined as possessing the ability to receive and transmit the senses, as well as being able to interact with the world outside of the mind. I will discuss and judge the merit of the arguments Descartes stands on. Then I will conclude by arguing that the conclusion Descartes comes to cannot be achieved by his own path of logic.
Critiques of Kantian moral philosophy on the basis of emptiness come from a variety of thinkers and from many different schools of thought. For example, Mill claims the universal law permits commonly immoral behavior and can only become consistent by resorting to Utilitarianism. ‘‘All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur’’ (Mill.Uti.162). Mill criticizes Kant for failing to identify ‘‘the actual duties of morality’’ (Mill.Uti.162). Mill’s critique derives from the Introduction of Utilitarianism, where he makes the claim that Kantian ethics, and all a priori abstract concept of ethics, derive from first principles (Kant’s the CI) that go unstated, leaving an actual description of action as elusive, and thus the prescriptive ethical determinations derived from the CI unable to inform action (Mill,
Plato and Aristotle are famous western philosophers who studied ethics, mathematics, physics, etc. Although some of their ideas were similar, Aristotle disagreed with Plato’s Theory of Forms. His realm of ideas is introduced in The Beginnings of Western Science. “The forms are incorporeal, intangible, and insensible; they have always existed, sharing the property of eternality with the Demiurge; and they are absolutely changeless.” (Chan Chi Wang 13) For Plato, he thought that the sensible world is not perfect. Hence, it is less real.
In Being and Time, Martin Heidegger attempts to answer the question of what it means “to be” or “to exist”. He argues that, historically, philosophy has failed to answer this question because it erroneously assumes that there is one form of “existing” that is shared universally among all things. From this philosophical framework, to say that chairs exist would be the same as saying that we exist. Heidegger rejects this framework. He argues that if we seek to answer the question of what it means to exist, we have to study the unique entity that has an understanding of what it means to be (i.e.
Consequently, Hegel contends that Kant’s principle of morality remains merely formal because it has not justified the required content for instantiating the CI. Facing the narrow emptiness charge and broad emptiness charge, Kant’s defenders have clarified the validity of Kant’s morality by using different approaches by Kantian formalists and Kantian inspired non-formalists. The formalists defend a version of interpretation that holds that the moral law (mostly CI1)