My perception of my body and matter in general is that it is in its essence divisible (Descartes,1641) This essay here will insert a reference to ‘Leibnitz’s Law’ or otherwise the relatively intuitive principle that for two things to be the same thing, they must share all the qualities of each other. Descartes does not specifically do so, but it is heavily inferred from his argument. Descartes now concludes that since minds are indivisible and bodies are, that according to the Leibnitz’s law they cannot be the same thing and hence:
outlook.’’ He critiques Kant’s thought by observing ‘‘every action explicitly calls for a particular content and a specific end, while duty as abstraction entails nothing of the kind.’’ (Hegel Philosophy of Right 134) Hegel contends that the only way Kant can possibly deduce a particular duty is if Kant already accepted certain existing moral opinions or customs as justifiable. For example, it is certainly a contradictory maxim to accept a deposit that is entrusted to me without planning to return it, but it is only contradictory, according to Hegel, if we first accept the notion of property.
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.
Epistemic regress problem: the problem of how to avoid an infinite and presumably vicious regress of justification in one's account of the justification of empirical beliefs. Foundationalist theories of empirical knowledge, as we shall see further below, it attempts to avoid the regress by locating a class of empirical beliefs whose justification does not depend on that of other empirical beliefs. Externalist theories, the topic of the present paper, represent one species of foundationalism (Bonjour 363). Clairvoyance: It means that reliable vision, seeing ability (Bonjour, 369).
1. Dualism is an idea that attempts to answer the mind-body problem by arguing that the mind and body are two distinct substances. Descartes’ coherent conception argument is a form of interactionistic dualism, which states that if the mind and body are undoubtedly separate than they interact in a casual relationship. This argument states that anything a person coherently conceives can be made possible by some power. It then states that if a person distinctly understands the mind and body are separate substances than some power can make it such that the mind and body are separate.
According to Descartes, our minds and our bodies are two distinct substances capable of existing apart, which is called substance dualism. A substance is a particular kind of matter with uniform properties, meaning that something is a substance if it needs no other thing in order to exist. His argument is rooted in the idea that the essence of the mind is thought, and the essence of the body is extension. Descartes defines extension through his understanding of matter, which he believes has spatial extension, and is what takes on true form and essence. He argues that if a person can clearly and distinctly perceive something, then God makes that something that exists correspond to the person’s clear perception.
Many philosophers believe that there are reasons to demonstrate the God does exist through arguments. There are three main types of arguments that explain the existence of God. These include Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological, which are all traditional arguments. There are two groups that divide the arguments “An a posteriori argument is based on premises that can be known only by means of experience of the world (e.g., that there is a world, that events have causes, and so forth). An a priori argument, on the other hand, rests on premises that can be known to be true independently of experience of the world (Pojman 19).
Internal criticisms of functionalism Robert Merton (1910-2003), an influential functionalist, criticises Parsons’ views, suggesting that Parsons assumes that everything is indispensable when in practice there is a wide range of possible alternatives. Merton also disagrees with Parsons when he assumes that all parts of society are integrated as a whole, and each part has a knock-on effect. Merton argues that it is difficult to see the connection between some parts of society. He would also disagree that there is a ‘universal functionalism’ where everything performs positive roles, arguing that some things are dysfunctional for other parts. The assumption that society is always smooth running is untrue and he also adds that there are differences between the manifest and latent functions.
The Cosmological Argument is an a priori argument, seeking to establish the existence of a self-existent being through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), in order to then attempt to prove that that self-existent being is the “theist God” (48). In the Cosmological Argument, philosophers argued that the world’s foundation is based on the implicit relationship we have with the world and one another. Their arguments can be epitomized below: (a) Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being. (b) Not every being can be a dependent being.
Therefore, metaphysics produces a list of real things. This list also tells us what is believed to exist but the reality does not. There are three main views of what is real namely materialism, idealism and dualism. The first concept is materialism.
Ghostblasters simply tries to create a theory by claiming they are superior in the field of Geistology, without any confirmations, thus placing the theory in violation of the third law. Moreover, the second law deals with acceptance, stating that a theory can only be accepted if it is in accord with the method employed at the time. Since ectoplasm is an unobservable entity without any novel confirmed novel predictions, and the method used in attempt to accept this theory does not follow the afore mentioned Hypothetico-Deductive method, this theory cannot be accepted in accord with the second law. As we cannot accept Mr. Kneezer’s theory as scientific, it is consequently in violation of the first law of inertia, where an element of the mosaic remains in its state in the mosaic
Kant’s attempt to save the metaphysics was to propose synthetic a priori knowledge that Hume failed to recognize. Hume holds that we have no necessary (or even probable) material synthetic knowledge, but Kant believes that there should be another type of knowledge that is universal, necessary and a priori that tells us about the world (synthetic). We shall start our discussion with the first part of the Transcendental Doctrine of the Elements with the Transcendental Aesthetic. Kant holds that there’s no other way that objects can be given to us through anything other than our sensibility (A20). By sensibility, he refers to the faculty of our receptivity of representations in which we are affected by objects.
In the First Meditation, René Descartes called upon all knowledge to be doubtful. It was a significant reflection on how reality and dreams are vague. By eliminating previous knowledge and theories, Descartes wiped out every conceivable mistake in finding new establishments of information. An indisputable outcome of questioning the senses induced the chance that God is in actuality a malevolent liar, a powerful being capable of manipulating the senses. In the Second Meditation while he contemplates the previous day, he discovered trouble in solving his questions and deemed his senses and memory conniving and faulty.