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. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4
Plato, in his writing, uses powerful examples that work to communicate his ideas in a less extreme manner. Despite that, this does not work to explain why Plato feels so strongly about equality in the just city. In working through this argument, there are many difficulties in connecting it to the question of justice. It is hard to say, initially,
Plato also discusses that when we have an idea it 's not the idea rather than “what is”. What he means by that is our idea is ours and can 't replicate the perfect idea in physical form. Plato also goes by “the divided line”,
This driving force in the play led to the truth of his origin. This ties in with his own aspect of free will. His free will is based on his drive for knowledge. Introduction: The ancient Greeks acknowledged the role of Fate as a reality outside the individual that shaped and determined human life. In modern times, the concept of Fate has developed the misty halo of romantic destiny, but for the ancient Greeks, Fate represented a terrifying, unstoppable force.Fate was the will of the gods — an indifferent reality ritually revealed by the oracle at Delphi, who spoke for Apollo himself in mysterious pronouncements.
Beyond tragedies were topics of interest and dispute in the community. The Greeks did not believe in holy commandments to live by; indeed, they used the lives of their heroes as guidelines. Myths were stories that, depending on the storyteller, could have a different meaning. In his work Aeschylus had the genius of serving philosophy and psychology in a thrilling way. At the core, these three plays dwell on the problems of the cycle of violence and conflict resolution.
Plato had views to how to live a good life should be, towards what end the individual should act in accordance with their ideas of good life. Furthermore he thought of the world in a more theoretical insightful way theory of forms. Plato believed that a soul transmigrated until it was able to free itself from physical form and returned to the a realm without form. Plato also taught that true knowledge came from the soul and reason which would make him a rationalist and he believed that things like beauty and good in the physical world were glimmers of reality. Aristotle theory of forms with its two separate realms failed to explain what it was meant to explain.
The fact of the matter is yes, we can imagine such a device but yet, we do not have it. Why would God have it? We humans do a lot of things that are not completely ethical particularly when a lot of people is involved in the situation and yet end up choosing the most moral under the circumstances but not necessarily the most ethical because that is how we have agreed to live our lives. Licon says “The freewill defense cannot explain why God didn’t take such basic preemptive measures” referring to the device and the freewill defense does explain it, just as it explains why such device is nonexistent. His conclusions lack good support: “Freewill defense places too much weight on freedom, and not enough weight on the lives and wellbeing of innocents” (4) Wrong, freedom is and it is absolute.
Plato on the other hand sees weakness to written communication. Oral communication gives one the chance to defend and refute, while written text can not refute when questioned. It can be inferred through the story of Thamus in the Phaderus that written text promotes forgetfulness and the lack of truly understanding the subject. When one speaks upon a topic efficiently, it is because they believe in the information through their own logic, leading ultimately to
Since the ancient Greeks had no legal system in its modern sense, the justice is exercised not in its normative sense, but in moral sense. Since judging each as he deserved was the main principle of ancient perception of justice, the egalitarian character of the justice is one of the main questions that have to be asked when compare with its contemporary meaning. The concepts such as deserve, merit, talent or division of labor bring justice into a conditional situation. There is no doubt that the justice offered by either Plato or Aristotle, was neither inclusive nor absolute. Similarly when thinking the justice with its relation to equality, they did not
Socrates’ attempts to define the word justice it meet with a roadblock because they it is not possible to obtain through such needs. However, he may have mentioned the step to obtaining such justice, but evidently they can also downfall back to where they started form. Socrates had the concept of justice, but possibly no one can obtain such
And although the concept of an “unembodied being” does not coincide with our perceptual reality does not mean that the concept can not be true. In a sense, we merely refute the idea of the after-life because it does not seem logical and thus, we do not have a legitimate argument against the after life. A being wholly composed of a soul need not to move or talk, but the being may only “imagine thinking, wondering, doubting, and so on,”(Hospers 281) and all of those actions can more or less be performed without a
Humanity can’t fully realize how bad they are or what it is that is so bad about them without experiencing or being able imaginatively to represent what they’re like to us. In other words, is not relevant knowledge when we only know about evil but haven’t felt it or experience it. In comparison to Eden there were no evil. So Adam and Eve according to the traditional story did not have the relevant experience that would have given them the kind of full-body knowledge that would have permitted them to be fully responsible for what they did. Therefore, her conclusion is that classical appeals to free will to solve the problem of evil are not effective without further supplementation.
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.
The Pre-Socratics used rational thought to explain their world; if nature causes it, nature can cure it. They tried to explain natural occurrences without the use of religion. The Sophists suspected that Absolute Truths and Ideals are relative to the individual; they are not set by a higher power, but we decide them ourselves with our own human ideas and experiences. This idea seems to put a lot of power in our hands. Socrates, the father of philosophy, used the Socratic Method to teach; he asked questions, allowing students to use their own prior knowledge to form answers, looking within to find the truth.