He believed since god is all knowing (of past, present, and future), than there is nothing to surprise him. That is especially true when considering action, and in this case choosing between options when approaching an ethical dilemma. This idea of forfeiting free will to rely on God’s infinite wisdom doesn’t sit well with me. I, personally, like to believe that there is a right or wrong answer. Even when the choices don’t necessarily present “right” versus “wrong”.
Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).
Although very few would argue that the terminological jungle set forth by other philosophers like Bentham and Kant can be characterized as simple, the two set forth theories of morality that seem to ignore the complexity of most multi-faceted decisions. Bentham’s utilitarianism distills moral decisions into a seemingly mathematical net measurement of pain and pleasure, advocating for decisions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The Kantian conception of a “categorical imperative” creates a universal binding set of right and wrong decisions that is not subject to changes in an individual’s whims or differing situations. For instance, if lying is considered morally wrong, telling a lie that may benefit another person is still morally inexcusable. However, whereas these approaches seem rational and practical, they are not applicable to real-world decisions.
Causal relationships are discovered only when the categories apply to the experience. We have no way of causal relationships behind and draw conclusions out of the experience. Therefore, we cannot from the causal order of nature validly conclude about God, freedom, immortality of the soul, etc. Nature is quite impersonal and amoral, and I can be seen as the product of a creator (God), but we cannot confirm that so is (no experience of it). Therefore we are forced to look for moral area outside the areas of nature.
The contempt power, then, is generally not intended to affirmatively cloak litigants with any substantive rights, but rather to assist the courts in exercising its necessary functions. Id. In recognition of this principle, we perceive no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal of the denial of his petition for contempt because he “was not held in contempt, however closely related and intertwined it is with other orders or judgments” in this case. Pack Shack, Inc., supra, 371 Md. at 260.
The method he invented — the radical and methodical doubt —is a reproducible model for demarcation between subjective opinions and objective truths. However, not only is the application of his method of radical doubt unfeasible, but his insistence on the “purity” of knowledge as sciences that are certain, indubitable and, independent of the existence of corporeal things is also questionable. First, Descartes assumes that he is capable of detaching himself from all of his opinions. However, his theory is both practically unfeasible and theoretically inapplicable, for as long as one is situated in the world, what he thinks cannot
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
The issue of circularity with the syllogistic view no longer applies because it no longer makes sense: if a point is self-evident there is no room for circularity. If the Cogito is self-evident, then there cannot possibly be circularity. Likewise, if the Cogito is self-evident, then the objection I raised regarding the reliability of logic itself does not hold, as no logic is needed to arrive at something that is self-evident. Therefore the Cogito, if it is self-evident, is sound. As a result, the Cogito as a self-evident fact and intuition successfully defeats the strongest skeptical point that we cannot even know if we exist, and Descartes conclusion of the Cogito
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the