talks about the different concepts and perceptions of three most known theorists of all times; Aristotle, Karl Marx, and MacIntyre. Each author defined praxis or practice differently depending on their criticism, insights, and experience. The following points of the paper such as, exploring the three traditions of practice from Aristotle to MacIntyre. Second, it will offer an argument that aims to bring to the present discourse the independence of practice from theory. Lastly, how MacIntyre’s understanding of practice can be considered in itself as a theory, especially in morality.
Ideas of doubt and skepticism are inherent his philosophy. One of the central places in his work occupied by causality problem. Even though there are many nuances to discuss concerning his personality-I am going to stress on: ‘’Why he is considered empiricist? How his human understanding conceived from his position?’’ and ‘’What are the challenges with this account?’’
2. He asserts that personal identity is not what matters for the survival of the self. 3. He claims that it is Relation R or connectedness that matters for the survival of the self. (Johnson, 2007, p.2) Throughout his essay, Parfit relies on the results of certain thought experiments particularly ones put forward by fellow moral philosopher, metaphysician and philosophical logician David Wiggins.
Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility.. He describes the nature of Moral Responsibility as an illusion. There is an argument which he calls “Basic Argument” which proves that humans can not be morally responsible for their actions.
Here is the place reasoning at last goes up against reasonable esteem in Russell's eyes, in light of the fact that in applying the goals of thoughtful examination to the universe of activity, it prompts equity; and to the universe of feeling, to all inclusive love. I think this is the most crucial point from this section, so I will attempt to explain this in my own words. When we approach philosophical issues appropriately, we adjust our thoughts of truth to the reality we watch, as opposed to adjusting our view of reality to our own particular prior ideas of truth. The point of philosophy is to make us question life, and without it how would the human kind learn the art of reasoning? how would life be meaningful without being
If you were to ask an individual what their perception of the self is, you would get a variety of answers but mainly along the lines of, the self is an inner being that one possesses. For many years philosophers have attempted to find the answer of what exactly is the self and how it relates to the brain and mind. There are two important philosophers I will discuss in this essay; whose ideas and thoughts vary in comparison to what the knowledge of a self is. Descartes and Locke are two philosophers that have many thoughts and concepts to offer towards self, identity, and consciousness. Rene Descartes, commonly known as the “Father of Philosopher” seeks to find if the self exists.
The doctrines of Mencius and Hsün Tzu are the part of the core and major, almost compulsory to the studying of Classical Confucianism. Some of the researchers found their differences, even called contradiction among discussing about human nature. Here comes the conclusion that Men Tzu and Hsün Tzu are two extremes, with completely different in their views about human nature. Nevertheless, we should refocus on the root of their philosophy, to determine rather they are different or not. Conversely, it can be concluded that Mencius and Hsün Tzu are similar base on their process of thinking, also their continuous advocation on self-cultivation and education.
I read both the William James article, “The Will to Believe,’’ and William Kingdon Clifford’s “The Ethics of Beliefs”. Each of these writings explained the author’s views on human’s and their belief systems. William James broke down belief into different category’s that certain beliefs could fall under. William Kingdon Clifford’s idea was much more straight to the point. Clifford states that if you do not have good evidence for something, then it must be wrong.
This essay will consider Russell’s reasons for believing that there exists a mind-independent world. The philosopher offers few arguments, two of which will be outlined, namely, the argument for simplicity and the argument for instinctive beliefs. Though, the essay will argue that only Russell’s simplicity argument is effective since it stands against criticism. In fact, the critical discussion will be mainly focused on the simplicity argument because it provides more room for debate. Therefore, after an outline of both the arguments, this essay will aim to a narrow focus and explain only briefly why the argument for instinctive beliefs is unsound, while giving a deeper explanation of why the simplicity argument is valid and sound.
Reality is also the major concept that is focused in this philosophy (Flyvbjerg et al., 2012). Based on the research philosophies’ implications and the hypothesis of the research, an interpretivism philosophy will be used. The reason is that this will be comparing the observations and results of new data with previous trends independently. Furthermore, exploration of social authenticity might be achieved by using interpretivism research philosophy, as the topic is subjective. On the other hand, alternative philosophies are remarkably quantifiable and literature extensive, which makes a study general.