In that respect I compare this with the Matrix by stating the humans in the Matrix thought that they were awake, but it was a type of sleep because it was all an illusion and as I’ve stated prior, they were living a virtual life, and that is not real. Descartes goes on to talk about the “malignant demon” and question if all “external things” are basically “nothing better than the illusions of dreams” and that the demon has deceived him. When he seems to resolve that he will stay in his “slumber” he is stating the same thing that Cypher did in the Matrix. Cypher believed that “knowing the truth would make life easier” but he found out that for him he liked being controlled by the computer and wanted to “erase his memories of the truth.” So he wanted to stay in an illusion or a
In his introduction, it is clear that he is well aware of his critics and the fact that the autobiographical project may not be fully accurate or truthful. He states that he has “concealed nothing that was ill, added nothing that was good” and “indifferent ornamentation” to fill in the gaps in his memory. While “indifferent” creates a sense that Rousseau is objective and fair in his portrayal of himself by not caring for the parts that are not truthful, it is important to keep a critical view of his writing. The act of writing allows the confession to be analyzed and reflected upon by the author and society as a whole once it is published. While it is honest to acknowledge the possibility of untruths in the text, it is difficult to reconcile that with the claim of truth that an autobiographical text holds.
For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger. Belief is not decision, because people can not just decided to believe something, they believe in something for a logical and rational reasons. In other words, believe in God by making a decision that people get infinite gains in life is a bet, because this method is not useful to let
That’s another thing with universal truths, they aren’t usually true to that name. They’re simply repeated observations, and because these observations have been said before, they’re safe to say again, and again, and again, with very little fuss. It doesn’t matter if it’s actually true or not, it’s just something people say. Such is the case with the final paragraph of Joyas Voladoras. Frankly, Bryan Doyle could only accurately speak on his own experiences.
Overall, I would recommend this book (as a friend) to someone who might need to do a little soul searching or perhaps one with a crisis of faith. I personally did feel real emotional about it. I felt it was a little heavy handed in how one can create or achieve anything. As a realist, it’s not something I personally believe, however, I do believe that we are capable of great things. It’s also nice to have a religious book that isn’t hyper-focused on the Bible.
31) says Popper. He claims that with every discovery made, there is some illogical way it is come up with. This is known as the context of discovery; it is the idea that when scientists come up with theories, they do not do it in a deliberate way. Popper claims, "Indeed, if there were such a thing as a purely logical principle of induction, there would be no problem of induction" (Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 28). People who question the validity of induction as a way to reason about our lives are justified in their thinking.
It is undeniable that people have different experiences and approaches of perceiving their environments, hence, the symbols in their dreams must have countless versions of interpretations. Furthermore, Ferenczi mentions in the article that the completeness of people’s recall about their dreams are not important, rather, only a few hardly noticeable images are crucial to dream analysis, such as the concert ticket. While deciding which objects or images are truly significant is a challenging work. Most importantly, most of the dreams are quickly forgotten, because the censor would become more active when people are awake, and it would erase the details of dreams that contain undesirable thoughts. The dreams later being recalled may lose their accuracy easily due to those facts.
Throughout Malcolm Gladwell’s passage, “ It’s a Sure Thing”, he conveys the central idea that Turner is not truly a risk taker, and that all his risks are calculated and thought thorough. In the text Gladwell uses a change of connotation throughout the text to show how Turner is not truly a risk taker. He also goes into more depth to show more detailed thinking behind the so called “risk”. In the beginning of Gladwell’s passage his connotation towards Turner is positive. He portrays Turner to be a spontaneous person who is never afraid to risk it all.
This theory is based upon the ideas of philosopher Leibniz and is satirized throughout the book while being met with both skepticism and pessimism. Pangloss himself represents folly. Master Pangloss’ name however, became a word itself in history after the book was published, defined as “a person who is optimistic regardless of the circumstances” (Dictionary.com). It also can be translated as “all-tongue”, which pertains to his love to philosophize.
During the time period this was written, the idea of “faith” and trusting in something/someone you cannot see was something the Catholic Church held to the highest standard. However, Descartes suggests to doubt all types of knowledge unless it is self-verifying and unquestionable. . After speculating the things, he was confident he knew about himself and society, he concluded with, “I am, I exist”. After he recognized that he holds some sort of presence, he continues to argue, “But I do not yet understand sufficiently what I am”.
I find it appealing when Kant talks about the "Golden Rule". The "Golden Rule" is accepted almost universally from people of different religions and even from the non-religious. What I find discouraging about Nietzsche 's theory is that he believes that humans are incapable of being altruistic. He thinks that there is always an agenda when someone does something good. I believe that when someone does something altruistic, we should just accept it, instead of thinking what someone 's agenda is.
Yes and no. You’re right that some noise at night is normal, and even the quietest sleeper can snore a little bit on occasion. But the kind of snoring that happens all the time and loud enough to wake the whole house is definitely not supposed to happen. Such noise could be a sign of a serious health problem called sleep apnea. What Is Sleep Apnea?
Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above. There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering.
the cosmological argument seems to be successful in both its first and second stages that the cosmos exists and it has a first cause. Its third point the first cause is God is more contentious, but it is far from easy to decline. Aquinas ' appreciation of God is a practical one God is not just an appropriate thing that might or might not exist. God is existence in its accomplishment or completeness. accepting that our compassionate accessible us on to such an existence is a common aspiration for do we not all want to know a more perfect reality?
Immanuel Kant and Blaise Pascal offer contrasting opinions concerning reason, or man’s ability to come to conclusions on his own. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant provides an optimistic view of reason, depicting that reason can attain certain conclusions. Pascal argues in Pensees that man is inherently flawed and can’t be certain from reasoning while faith, or belief in the supernatural, is the only thing that can create certainty. Kant’s positive outlook on human reason is a sound assertion, although it doesn’t necessarily create a rupture between faith and reason because despite reason’s capabilities of reaching universal truths, faith compensates for potential mishaps made by reason and provides a more in depth knowledge when combined with reason. Reason is satisfactory in reaching conclusions because reason can identify universal truths.