Lange argues that the Leibnizian-Wolffian system – and specifically Wolff himself, is subject to a version of partial Spinozism. His predominant justification for this claim stems from a critique of Wolff's variation of pre-established harmony and application of the principle of sufficient reason to human actions. Lange holds that this view entails that everything occurs in their system under a necessary, mechanistic series of causes and effects, that is entirely incompatible with his spontaneous version of freedom.17 Lange reasons that the pre-established harmony collapses into the same infinite series of cause and effects that reduces human action to the same which undermines the possibility of morality. Since both true morality and true …show more content…
Wolff claims that Spinoza confuses attributes with essential determinations, modes with attributes and being from another, and finally confuses substance with being from itself.19Wolff argues that the Spinozistic concept of "mode" is vague precisely because he does not explicitly define what it meant to be conceived through another. This is especially true since beyond modes and attributes it is impossible to conceive of substance, additionally problematizing his notion of substance.20 Since Spinoza's terminology is so vague his concluding substance monism does not necessarily follow. Since substance monism does not legitimately follow, Wolff does not have to be subject to the view that human beings are subject to the same necessary causal relationship to this substance. By problematizing Spinoza's substance monism, Wolff is not subject to Lange's third criterion for …show more content…
In addition to distinguishing his system and criticizing the "total Spinozism", Wolff's system is more than capable of avoiding the accusations of "partial Spinozism". Wolff is allowed to posit contingency by allowing for the sufficient reason of the universe to the be the free will of God.27 Since God exists outside of the world, what happens in the world does not occur out of a fatal necessity, as it is was always possible for something to happen otherwise. The freedom that Lange supposes is not necessary to defend against universal fatalism, and therefore Wolff's account does not lead to fatalism, immoralism and atheism. This is especially the case when Wolff's account demands that God is outside the world and the world is not infinite. Wolff is capable of avoiding Lange's accusation of partial
Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right. In this argument, I take the stand that morality is what God wills it to
Wiesel's loss of faith was brought on by the absence of God. This resulted in him questioning why it was God's will to allow Jews to suffer and die the way they had. Another portrayal of religious confliction within Wiesel was the statement of his faith being consumed by the flames along with the corpses of children (Wiesel 34). Therefore, he no longer believed God was the almighty savior everyone had set Him out to be or even present before them. To conclude, his experiences within Nazi confinement changed what he believed in and caused him to change how he thought and began questioning God because of the actions He allowed to take
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.
In the memoir Night, the narrator Elie Wiesel recounts a moment when he questioned God, ¨Blessed be God’s name? Why, but why would I bless him? Every fiber in me rebelled, he caused thousands of children to burn his Mass graves?¨(Wiesel 68). Overall, Wiesel does not follow the words of God and is not believing in him anymore because he thinks God is the one thatś letting all the inhumanity occur. One theme in Night is that inhumanity can cause disbelief or incredulity.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
When he no longer accepted god, he had no other thing besides his father to live for. “Man is a creature of faith as much as reason” (Economist 77). It is faith that gives man reason and a will to live. Though the way one might accept his fate may appear involuntary, Victor Frankl claims that man has a choice to hold on to his faith. Elie Wiesel’s relative, Stein, for example, chose to give up on faith and his life when he realized his wife and children were dead.
Additionally, the broader question of belief in God is raised when taking Wiesel’s statement into account “the little faces of children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke…” How could God allow this killing of innocent children to occur, if one is being honest with themselves it seems fallacious and almost disturbing to believe in God considering this. Greenberg encapsulates this when he states that “the flames and smoke of the burning children bot out faith.” However, Greenberg also writes that despite of this, there are also moments when faith “flickers again.” Greenberg holds onto the idea that there are still moments “when redeemer and vision of redemption are present.” That is to state, that there are incredible experiences and moments in which God is present.
Argument and Thesis Elie Wiesel’s thesis in Night throughout the book is about faith and God. At the beginning of the book Wiesel is devoted to his Jewish religion and his God. Throughout the book as Eliezer Wiesel sees horrible things constantly happening, he begins to doubt God and question him. “But why should I bless Him?” (64).
According to the principles of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, man must decide what is best for himself based on reason. This often plays a major role in the survival of that organism, as some decisions, if incorrect in the circumstance, can result in death. Frequently, the deciding factor in such circumstances is reason. Equality 7-2521 uses reasoning while traversing the Uncharted Forest outside of the City after he has decided to leave his old life behind. In the City, he did not have to care for himself nor provide himself with basic necessities, such as food and water.
Mackie believes that there are no objective moral values, and to support his stand, he famously puts forth two arguments. The first argument is the Argument from Relativity or Disagreement, and the second is the Argument from Queerness. The focus of this essay will be on Mackie’s argument from queerness, and I seek to prove that his argument does not succeed in showing that there are no objective values. I will first be summarizing Mackie’s argument from queerness. Subsequently, I will proceed to form an argument on the first part of Mackie’s argument from queerness, the metaphysical component.
in the end neither of Mackie’s arguments give us good enough reasons not to be moral realists. Mackie’s argument from relativity asserts
Nearing the end of the Holocaust, Wiesel uses the term to mock God. If God was truly the ‘Master of the Universe’ than the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Wiesel no longer welcomes God into his
It is, rather, to what degree we (and others) can converse across our differences, whatever they are, however deep they go” (p. 264). Borofsky emphasizes what is needed is for us to build on ‘common points of reference’. He argues that in this debate between Obeyesekere and Sahlins we should focus on “three critical points” (p. 264). The first of these three points is for the argument to be consistent, then we must compare the assumptions within other writings regarding the issue, and finally, we need to agree on events that are accepted as actual
The rationalist and their followers developed theoretical positions ranging from existence and nature of God to detailed theories of physical and physiological processes. They looked to observation and experience to provide data and evidence for their theories.” They look at metaphysics and physics of the human and this led them to psychological topics concerning the characteristics and principles of animal behavior, the process of sense perception, the passion, emotion and the cognitive operations of the mind and the relationship between mental phenomena and bodily processes in the brain and sense organs (Viney&King,