In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability. There are several different supporting views for this belief. Hard determinism is underpinned by the work of Isaac Newton’s theory of scientific laws which is that we are completely governed by these laws. According to these laws one does not have moral responsibility for their actions as they were predetermined by a ‘higher power’. Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism.
Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out. Searle is no stranger to this having previously published works on the philosophy of mind, of which he cites throughout the book. He begins his argument focusing on Descartes’ theory of dualism (that the mind and body are separate entities but cannot function without one another) titled as a “disaster” by Searle. His views on the matter are already well known after publishing “Why I am not a Property Dualist” (2002) but here he furthers his intent. It is in the opening exchanges here that one begins to grasp Searle’s prose like writing technique which, as a first year psychology student, I found light and fairly enjoyable to read.
The first and most obvious place to look for Aristotle’s view on relativism is Metaphysics I’. Here, Aristotle is mostly concerned with the law of non-contradiction and those who deny it. He includes Protagoras with such thinkers based on his relativistic notions that x and not-x can both be true for different people. A consequence of the law of non-contradiction (Met I’3) is that, if x is contrary to not-x,
‘Our ethical decisions are merely the result of our social conditioning’. Discuss. The base of our ethical decisions can only be described as a mystery to a non-philosopher, but debates have taken place between many philosophers determining whether our decisions are due to having free will, or if everything we do is pre-determined anyway. Libertarianism is the view that human agents can, when faced with a moral choice, freely act and retain moral responsibility for that act. However determinism take an opposite view to this; hard determinism is the theory that everything in the universe, including all human actions and choices has a cause which proceeds it.
Many revelation experiences can be described as being non-propositional; it usually involves a moment of realisation or when an event is seen or interpreted in a special way this is demonstrated in the case if the exile in Babylon of the Jews was seen as God’s punishment. In some cases it can also involve gaining a new truth or understanding which had not existed before. The third type of revelation experiences is special revelations this is when special/ chosen individuals or groups of people. This is illustrated in the Jewish branch of mysticism Kabbalah, they are considered to be an elite group who had to go through intense study and complex rituals in order to gain revelations from God. The fourth type of revelation experience is general revelations these are open to everyone and
Jessica Moore December 4th, 2013 Metaphysics Paper 2 Do the Phenomenological Features of Experience Make Physicalism False? A Defense of Nagel A major area of contention within the realms of the philosophic world is how to accurately depict the relationship between mind and body. Physicalism attempts to answer this question through the view that the universe, including all that seems mental, is entirely physical. However, according to dualist philosophers, such as Thomas Nagel and Frank Jackson, a primary obstacle for the physicalist is the apparent contrast between the intrinsic natures of our experiences and of the brains states with which they are allegedly identical. While both Nagel and Jackson propose that the nature of the mental makes it such that it cannot be explained solely through the physicalist perspective, they reach very different conclusions.
DUALISM VS. DAOISM Plato’s metaphysical dualism has influenced the thoughts and ideas of many philosophers, scientists, and belief structures. Dualism can be understood as the view that the world is comprised of two ultimate entities, such as mind and body, or metaphysical and physical realms. This dualism has set the bar for important figures like René Descartes. Plato’s dualism states that the realm of Forms, a type of arché, sets the standard for the empirical world, but this imperfect world does not quite measure up to its perfect counterpart. Chinese Daoism goes in a completely opposing direction believing that everything is a product of interacting modes of energy, yin or yang, or positive and negative.
The lower Forms depend for their existence on the higher Forms. Plato believed that the physical world around us is not real; it is constantly changing and thus you can never say what it really is. There is a world of ideas, which is a world of unchanging and absolute truth. This is reality for Plato. Does such a world exist independent of human minds?
Is Hume’s rejection of abstract ideas sound, and is his theory of concepts adequate? The notion of abstract ideas has been used by many philosophers, most notably Locke, to explain concepts/thoughts with general content, i.e. being about a class or set of objects. For example, our grasp of the word “triangle” as being about all triangles can be thought to rely on an abstract idea of triangles. An adequate account of concepts is especially important (and challenging) for Empiricist philosophers (such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume), as they cannot rely on a Rationalist-style belief in ethereal, inbuilt intellectual content .