A model of a situation in which the skeptic’s perspective would be true for certain people, would be the world depicted in “The Matrix”. In class, the movie “The Matrix” was used as a modern example of a situation in which people’s beliefs, which they had derived from their own experience of the world (which was modeled after our world) were not knowledge, but in fact a computer simulation. If any one of us were to be dropped into the Matrix (if we’re not in it already), we would have no idea that anything would have changed—that nothing was real, that now none of our beliefs were knowledge. There are three main skeptical arguments as outlined by Michael Heumer in Reason and Responsibility: the “Infinite Regress Argument”, the “Problem of the Criterion”, and “How do I get Outside my Head?” In this paper, I will focus on explaining the infinite regress argument, and the foundationalist’s response to the skeptical argument. The skeptic’s infinite regress argument is built on the premise that in order for one to claim that any of their beliefs are knowledge, they need
William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Cultural relativist, William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Two arguments will be presented to support this thesis. Firstly, Sumner’s statement is invalid as his claim is self-refuting. Secondly, moral absolutes do exist.
Husserl vs. Bergson: Conception and Perception of Time Edmund Husserl holds the notion that time cannot be calculated without bias, meaning that the suggestion of ability to encapsulate time inside a collection of prearranged components such as minutes or seconds, is impractical. The concept of time isn’t intended to be detained, but is something that can’t be summarized in this approach. Despite the fact that Edmund Husserl does not objectify time by means of segmented measures, such as seconds or minutes, he has to classify it in some shape or form to bring the discussion to the table. In communication concerning the concept of time, we are then able to infer that each individual instant in time holds its own position, relative to all of the other previous instances, and also, to the current moment. If this was a false truth, we wouldn’t be aware of the variations between the years.
Overall, I believe that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing as a proof of the existence of God. The different ways in which Aquinas try to prove the existence of God just make it either impossible for there not to be a God, which rejects any other ideas or, they make misleading assumptions that are not justified. My first reason for believing that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing is the 2nd way – from Cause. David Hume argues that you cannot see, hear or use any of your senses to see a cause. You cannot see a cause only two things happening in conjunction with one another.
The two virtues, certainty and doubt are very controversial. The doubt somebody has can cloud their judement but it can also guide them in making a better decision. On the other hand, certainty can blind someone from seeing their true colors of something. In our modern society, doubt is looked down upon; or viewed as a negative idea. Doubt doesnt always contradict certainty, but instead somewhere in between.
I will conclude with an examination of Young’s claim that Schopenhauer’s metaphysics is not pessimistic and my own assertion that while I must concede with Young, that certain keynotes – for example, the universality of mankind – point towards something positive, Schopenhauer’s thesis falls short of ‘love’, or any meaningful transcendence which for me, would be the supreme optimism. Reading Gardiner, one is tempted to believe that Schopenhauer is more mystic than pessimist but my own reading of his work does not bear this out. In the World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer argues that what drives all life, what constitutes the very essence of life, is ‘will’. This will is a ‘blind irresistible urge’ without knowledge. The will transformed through the prism of the world becomes the fragmentary ‘principium individuationis’.
Though Descartes makes a powerful case, I believe that his arguments do not actually support skepticism to the degree that he claims. Each of his skeptical arguments will be considered and replied to in turn. First, while Descartes is correct in his claim that the senses deceive us in some cases, his general skepticism about the senses is not warranted. That this is so is shown by the following argument. In order to make his case, Descartes presents a variety of examples in which he has found that his senses deceived him.
Augustine and Skepticism St Augustine refuted the teachings of other philosophers, this is for the reason that he felt his theories were more appropriate and explained things in more detail. He also repudiated total skepticism in three ways, which are principal of non-contradiction, the act of doubting, and sense perception, which should be considered when analyzing his theories (Moore & Bruder, 2011). St Augustine’s first refutation of skepticism consists of the principle of non-contradiction. The principle states that a proposal and its contradiction cannot be true at the same time. According to this idea, one or the other must be true however; both cannot be true at the same time.
His skepticism exists because a priori “truths” exist don’t necessarily pertain to the real, material world. Knowledge gained by experience is also suspect for Hume. He believes that knowledge gained by experience is unfounded because inductive reasoning is based on the habit of constant conjunction, or the assumption that patterns from the past will repeat themselves in the future. He is skeptical about this because the argument for inductive reasoning is circular—you have to assume the conclusion (that inductive reasoning is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge) to reach the conclusion. In other words, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning.
Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good. Contempt for organized religion is not, however, grounds for calling oneself an atheist. An atheist is someone who has considered all sides of the argument and come to the conclusion that God does not exist, not due to opinions on organized religion, but on the actual facts and arguments of the discussion. A