For Socrates philosophy is a way of live, and we must always ask question to knowledge, which is also its philosophy. His kind of philosophy denies with other philosophers, because they believe only on the pursuit and building of knowledge. Those philosophers want to obtain as much knowledge as possible, while Socrates searches only the truth. Consequently, the main idea between the Apology and the Allegory of the Cave is knowledge.
For the sake of this paper, I will begin with the doubts Descartes’ Meditations arise leading to Descartes’ explanation, or lack thereof, of how mind and matter interact as different substances. I will then continue with a critique of Descartes’ statement(s) as
Plato describes that knowledge is possible, but is instilled in our reason. He contradicts the view of epistemology and says that our senses and experiences do not provided enough reason to be considered knowledge. Lawhead deplics Plato as being, “a typical rationalist who thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging and universal”.(194). When it comes to the second epistemological question, rationalist believe that reason alone is the only way to find true knowledge. Lawhead uses the example of mathematics and logic to describe that we come to conclusions by means of reason.(192).
Findley’s novel, when examined through the lens of deconstruction, reestablishes that the world is truly relative and nothing is ever as it seems. There are no rules or customs that must be taken into account because as soon as the situation changes, the conventions set in place are rendered useless and one must sift through the changes to find the true
Descartes in his “ Mediations on first philosophy” was concerned about radical doubt and he was looking forward to question the authoritative sources of knowledge. He questioned how could people want to reach deep knowledge of the way the universe works and why at the same time they had spend so long time not doing so. This question was answered that people put too much trust in their senses so they are deceived, because our
Existentialism Many people try to understand the meaning of life and whether there is a spiritual force behind it. This is what is known as absurdity since eventually, the person will not have any meaning of existence. Some philosophers tried to find out about existence, for instance, Jean-Paul Sartre, who does not believe in a God and that a person first live then discovers more about himself and the world (Booker, 2015 pg. 282). Albert Camus is another philosopher who wondered whether there is a God or not and what man was supposed to believe to protect him from bad faith. But each person has some range of individualism hence believes as he or she chooses just like Friedrich Nietzsche, who believed that God is dead and that man 's existence is meaningless, and life bears no meaning (Gillespie, 2015 pg. 86).
‘’Empiristic knowledge’’ is sooth only in measures of past experience, and there are no guarantees that future experience will not refute it. Any cognition, by Hume, can be just probabilistic but not reliable, and visibility of its objectivity and necessity is investigation of habit and faith in immutability of experience. “Must confess, -Hume wrote, -that nature holds us on respectful distance from our secrets and gives us just cognition of a couple of surface’s qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles, from which actions of these objects entirely depend.’’ Hume is considered an empiricist because he thought that there is no link between cause and effect, except of causal. Causal link can be detected only in experience.
Philosophers such as Albert Camus and Thomas Nagel believe in the ideology that life is absurd. In his publication “The Absurd” Nagel, questioned why sometimes people feel that life is absurd and how should we respond once we are aware of life’s absurdity. Throughout this essay we will discuss what Nagel believes is the best way to answer these questions. To begins his argument, Nagel explains how sometimes people believe that ‘what we do now will not matter in a million years’ which he states is a poor argument because he believes that if our present actions are absurd then their mattering in the distant future can hardly give them meaning. Because if something is to matter
Therefore, what he believed is that rational justification could not be found in human reasoning. For example, if there is a man who is very skeptic into a doubtful issue. Though he understands the relation of cause and effect for instance, as he finished work, he felt happy, they are not connected to each other as he thought because there are still a number of key elements in his life which are to be linked by one thing erupting, leading to another thing as “cause and effect”. Hume still claimed that there was no genuine justification for this concept of two things happening as cause and
Philosophical ideas of the numerous philosophers can sometimes overlap and eventually, provide the answers to one another. This paper focuses on such overlapping philosophical ideas of David Hume and Georg Hegel. Projection theory, imperfection of God, and building of personal identity are the examples that appeared in both of their philosophy. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how David Hume and Georg Hegel’s own philosophical ideas can reinforce one another and how Hegel’s idea of Geist can answer Hume’s “secret power”, creating constant conjunction. Several philosophical ideas overlap between Hume and Hegel; one of them is the theory of projection.
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way. ”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
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. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause.
This paper will attempt to summarize and explain the essay How to Argue about Disagreement: Evaluative Diversity and Moral Realism by John M. Doris and Alexandra Plakias. They claim that moral realism has a problem with its assertion that all disagreement is superficial, and would not persist under ideal conditions. They cite an experiment by Nisbett and Cohen in 1996 where there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between northern and southern white American men surrounding acceptable violence. Moral realism is the philosophical idea that morality is based in objective fact.