If we didn’t have intuitions of space and time there would be no experience at all so we must possess some innate knowledge in order for us to live within it. Kant says that we have a conceptual scheme because senses alone are not enough to make sense of the phenomenal world. He believes that a conceptual scheme is made up of 12 innate concepts (which he called categories) e.g. causality, unity and substance. He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them.
Explain the relationship between The Form of The Good and the other Forms (25 marks) Plato was a dualist and so he believed that there were two worlds: the unreal physical world and the spiritual world of The Forms. This view is portrayed throughout Plato’s theory of The Forms in which he suggests that the truth does not lie in the real world or our empirical knowledge but in fact the truth lies in our a priori knowledge. The Forms are eternal, unchanging and transcendent. The world is merely an imperfect copy of The Forms- The world of Particulars. In the platonic theory of Forms, there is a hierarchy of the Forms.
Explain what Aristotle meant by Final Cause: [25] Aristotle’s Final Cause is his theory that all objects have a fundamental reason or purpose for its existence. He questioned why material was the way it was and looked beyond its physicality to what was its purpose and why it exists in our material world. Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed in only the material world and opposed Plato’s world of the Forms. To him, the final cause was important as the material efficient and formal causes would be pointless without the end product. This is the final cause.
It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate. Taking central stage in the history of this debate are Hume and Kant and their examinations of the concept have been very influential. I will attempt to show how they unfold their different conceptions of cause and effect and how the two compare to each other. A note on Terminology: While Hume and Kant discuss more or less the same subject matter they do as most philosophers, discuss it in their own (or that most native to them) terminology. For sake of clarity I shall utilise the concepts of each in their respective sections.
A Summary of Unit One A Summary of Unit One As writers sometimes you will need to summarize someone else’s thoughts or ideas. In order to do this properly you must, briefly restate, someone else’s content, in your own word’s (Behrens & Rosen, 2013, p. 3). When writing requires paraphrasing instead of quotations the writer needs to understand the work then put it to his/her own words. Quotation are only used when you need to use the exact language of someone else, these should be used scarcely. When writing, knowing how to write a summary, paraphrase, and quote a source is key conveying your ideas without plagiarizing someone else’s.
Does the Works Cited section appear on its own page?|Yes there is a works cited page. They are in the correct format, but are not organized alphabetically. | 12. Is the essay formatted correctly (margins, font, spacing, etc.)? If not, what needs to be corrected?|The essay is formatted correctly.| 13.
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist. To support his claim of God as the divine constant perceiver, Berkeley must prove the existence of God and God’s constant perception of existence. Berkeley’s arguments one weakness and last step to being completely empirical is the removal of God as a divine perceiver. Perception presupposes two parts, a perceiver and the perceived; why not a singular entity; human. With the removal of God from his argument, Berkeley would take empiricism to its conclusion, and position self-perception as maintaining our existence.
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
Descartes believed that in order to have this idea of a being that is truly infinite; something must have put that idea in our mind. He believes that it could not have been ourselves because we are not infinite beings; however we have this idea of what a perfect being is and therefore something outside of us must have put that idea there. In order to prove that a perfect being was the outside force that would have put that idea in our minds, Descartes follows his central argument. The main pillar of Descartes’ argument is the causal adequacy principle. This causal principle revolves on the idea of existential dependency.