And this has repercussions, according to Bro. Abulad, “something of this nihilistic tendency in the air, making it difficult for our time to decide which is good and which is evil.” Thus if this is the case, existentialism serves as a response towards nihilistic tendency. Existentialism is a problematic term to define.
In Wiggins’ case of fission he undermines the belief that all questions of personal identity must have answers. The belief when asked in response to brain division is found implausible. According to Parfit, ‘If all the possible answers are implausible, it is hard to decide which of them is true, and hard even to keep the belief that one of them must be true’. (1971, p.8) He also undermines the second belief that personal identity plays a part in survival.
Many kinds of faulty logic or perception interfere with our ability to think critically, for example, superstition, argument from ignorance, false analogies, irrelevant comparison and fallacies. Therefore, I believe that perception is certainly not reality and most mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logics. Perception is defined as the ability to see, hear or becomes aware of something through the senses (Nature of Logic and Perception). However, since the senses are susceptible to personal interpretation, they are therefore potentially unreliable sources of data. If one is able of rationally thinking through the information that they perceive, then they are more likely to make accurate assumptions.
In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.
While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist.
Objections 1. It would seem that life is absurd. For, Nagel states in his article, “that life as a whole is absurd arises when we perceive, an inflated pretension or aspiration which is inseparable from the continuation of human life and which makes its absurdity inescapable, short of escape from life itself.” Absurdity results when there is a certain incongruity between the ways the world actually is, and the way we in turn deal with the world. (Nagel,4) 2.
Second, when Kant’s theory is interpreted as two object interpretation it seemed that the theory implies a radical form of skepticism that traps each of us within the contents of our own mind and cuts us off from reality. According to Kant’s, things in themselves are real while appearances are not, and hence we cannot have experience or knowledge of reality. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical
He should now be arranged to accept, not simply what can 't be demonstrated, but rather what can be invalidated from different convictions that he additionally holds. The issue of
Rene Descartes introduces his argument by questioning the certainty of everything based on the deceptive human senses, and unreliable memory which leads him to conclude that almost nothing is absolutely certain. Descartes argues that if there is a possibility that everything surrounding him is merely an illusion, then there must be a powerful being that is constantly deceiving him with a possibility of him himself being that being. He also believe that if he can convince himself of these ideas then he must be something and thus concludes that if he is capable to think then he exists even without a body or a shape. He further reflects on his existence as a man with body parts and shape who consumes food and walks the earth. As a result, he deduces