These men were similar in many regards. They were both “presocratic” philosophers who were primarily concerned with metaphysis (“the first philosophy”). They both asked the very fundamental question: what exactly is the nature of reality/ being? Both philosophers came to the conclusion that all the universe can be reduced to one basic substance: this is called “Monism”, which was first suggested by our good friend, Thales of Meletes. However, while each was a monist, they had different ideas about what exactly this single substance was.
Hegel has also criticized analytic thinkers for being guided by empirical sciences alone. If your step was forward, it does not mean that your next step will also be forward. He argues that Kant’s claim that faith can go beyond understanding and reason leave us with scepticism. Hegel never agrees anything irrational would govern you blindly. He also said, it makes no sense to talk about something
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
With this argument, Descartes is presenting himself as a skeptic of all empirical, a posteriori knowledge we have. However, he does clarify that his scepticism is potentially temporary - as his aim is to find a way he can ground his knowledge (in this case, a posteriori knowledge) with certainty. Nevertheless, in this argument, Descartes is calling for a mistrust of the senses. Senses are sometimes deceiving, so we cannot trust that all (or anything) we learn from them are
These traits are the reason why most modern scholars describe him as a kind of mediator between myth and philosophy. Xenophanes’ criticism is directed against the epic interpretation of two epistemic topics: the difference between men and gods and the problem of absolute knowledge. His arguments concerning the first topic
There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it. I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty.
Descartes felt the need for this “hyperbolic doubt” in order to reach an impartial truth. He then takes you through the thought process that led him to the one thing that lies beyond all doubt. He finds certainty in the statement Cogito, ergo sum or “I think, therefore I am.” FOOTNOT The first Meditation in Descartes Meditations On First Philosophy, is based on doubting almost everything he once believed as true. When Descartes found that beliefs he had were false, he realized all of his beliefs could be threatened. He embraced scepticism and refused to accept anything that it is possible to doubt.
However fundamentally Plato thought that the reason for this inconsistency was an consequence of no “competent leadership” (501b) with suitable ability and ethics. The Republic for this reason in the first several books looks at the description of justice. This is the big question which forces Socrates wander from person to person asking “what is justice”. The descriptions given by Cephalus, Thrasymachus, and Polemarchus are not enough since each one of them is just an idea. Hence Socrates completes that justice is “concerns no ordinary topic but the way we ought to live” (352d).
We must remember that at the time of Pascal’s writing, scepticism reigned due to the Scientific Revolution. What could the theist say to the ordinary sceptic? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the intelligence to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of unbelief into salvation? Pascal’s wager is the lowest ladder, appealing to selfish instincts instead of high moral ones but it works because it gives no middle ground. Pascal theorises that agnosticism is impossible.
SOCRATIC PARADOXES Many of Socrates ' beliefs have been characterized as paradoxical because they seem to conflict with common sense. The following are among the Socratic Paradoxes: No body seeks evil No body will commit wrongdoings with his own will All virtue is knowledge Virtue is sufficient for happiness The expression 'I know that I know nothing ', is a renowned phrase from Plato 's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. This quote from Socrates was an opened door to think and analyse. It has many meanings and interpretations. At one point in time, Socrates ' good friend Chaerephon went to the Oracle at Delphi and asked whether any man was wiser than Socrates.