The second of Hume’s points is that the causal principle is doubtful. His evidence for this is that we can conceive of things without a cause therefore things without a cause are possible this is also backed up by Mackie who says that the causal principle has no evidence and only exists in a methodological sense. However this argument also has severe faults that discredit it. If the arguments from causality are questionable then that means that the arguments from conceivability are questionable as well. This could also mean that a logically necessary truth could be conceived as false if you don’t completely understand it.
Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance. Since substances cannot be understood in terms of external properties in relation with each other then they cannot be said to account for one another either because they do not relate to each other. Hence, since they cannot account for another, then they cannot cause or produce one another. From this line of reasoning Spinoza provides the corollary that substance cannot be produced by anything outside of it because there only exist substance and their
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
It has nothing to do with the book. It was just some random question asked by Quinn to end the book. Yes, it was thought provoking but once one digs deeper it doesn’t mean anything. It was just a way to end the
Wisdom does not require any kind of experience beyond normal experience. Empirical sciences require experience. Deny truth altogether: subjective Truth is subjective: it’s whatever you think it is Self-fulfilling: statement “there is no truth” would mean that statement is false…therefore there is truth. Subjective vs. objective Relative vs. absolute Way of
G.E Moore begins by rejecting ethical naturalism, the belief that ethical knowledge is based on empirical evidence. ethical naturalism observes that physical properties such as rough, smooth can be discovered through observations in the world around us; in the same way moral properties such as wicked or kind can be defined through observation. Moore felt to define an ethical statement as a factual one, is to confuse goodness with some other non- moral property. For example, to describe a knife as good is to confuse the term good with the term sharp. From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’.
‘By Definition a miracle can never happen.’ Discuss. Clearly the answer to this question depends on your definition of a miracle. The traditional understanding of a miracle involves the interruption of a Law of Nature, usually bearing deeper religious significance. ‘A transgression of a Law of Nature’ to quote Hume, suggests to many an impossible event and it is therefore immediately obvious why many agree that, ‘by definition, a miracle can never happen.’ However, it is interesting to note that Hume, in his famous argument against miracles, at no point implies that a miracle, by definition, can never happen. The basis of Hume’s attack is that there will never be sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in a miracle.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Therefore he said, by Anselm's logic, we can go on to say that for this island to exist in our minds, it must be inferior because it only exists in our minds. So, it must exist in reality. However, there is no such island in reality. Gaunilo states that we cannot bring an object into existence by defining it as superior because Anselm makes an illegitimate jump from existence in the mind to existence in reality. However, this was seen as a weak, invalid argument to Anselm.
Infalsafiable it may be I do not find it persuasive due one singular point of contention. I cannot find tenable any argument that is contingent on the existence of God or any divine spirit. Berkeley’s answer to his own admission of the likelihood of the continued existence of ideas over time is contingent on the existence of God or some sort of Divine perceiver. Berkeley’s theory presents God that is at all times perceiving. If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist.