Confucius best summarizes Jen in the Analects through what is sometimes referred to today as the Golden rule, “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you." (Analects 15:23). This idea of treating others the way you would want to be treated emphasizes the importance of acting virtuous, and in return will be rewarded with acts of virtue. Confucius teaches that virtue is an act, and by acting with virtue good will come. Lao Tzu was another great philosopher around the time of Confucius who had a different take on life.
‘The moral argument for God is not convincing.' Discuss. (10 marks) Kant’s moral argument attempted to answer questions surrounding the idea of “right and wrong” and whether we got these ideas from a God and subsequently whether our morality depends on God. Thus his argument obtains a stronger focus on morality and duty as he felt it was not in human knowledge to prove God’s existence which is arguably why part that proves God is not necessarily as convincing and Kant merely states that we should postulate the idea of God as to explain morality it is necessary to believe that God exists. Kant believed that everybody had an innate moral awareness, “two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”.
A. Rose Miller 12/11/12 An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (Summary) Kant’s essay “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” is a very in-depth and detailed analysis and critique of how his present world is and what people can do about it for the better of humanity. However, the first sentence of this essay, summarizes a great deal of what he’s trying to say, “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority.”(600) He argues that minority, one’s “inability to make use of one’s understanding without direction from another”(600), is caused, not by a lacking in comprehension, but in a lacking of courage to use one’s own intellect, independently. He goes on to say that few have broken from societies’ chains and fewer still because of our inability to “cultivate our minds”(601).
Dillon hopes to accomplish this by using the two texts that conveniently explore the same subject. The author begins by historically tying the two subjects, Socrates and the Buddha, by calling them “contemporaneous.” He provides Socrates birth and death dates, which are believed to be accurate, and the Buddha’s, which are always in question of exactitude. Additionally to living in the same time period, both of them lived in similar situations in their home countries. The author states that both Greece and India underwent a challenging of beliefs by new philosophical systems. To bridge the gap further, Pythagoras is brought into the picture as being said to have had communication with India and Socrates said to have had a conversation with an Indian in Greece; both very inconclusive points as the author states he lacks evidence to prove them to be true.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific. In this essay, I aim to argue that while Fish makes a valid point about Freud's use of the unconscious as a rhetorical device, to consider it as only a rhetorical device and to dismiss its importance as a scientific concept is not only unjustified, but also impractical in psychological theories of the mind. Freud's theories, I argue, are no less scientific than other theories in science. Before I assert my own arguments concerning this matter, I shall examine Fish's position in greater detail, in order to understand the extent of his claim. A rhetorical device, according to Fish, "is entirely constructed and stands without external support", and "that insofar as it has been installed at the centre of a structure of conviction it acquires the status of that which goes without saying and that against which nothing can be said".
The three postulates namely freedom, God and Immortality though can’t be theoretically proven, is incorporated into the already coherent and meaningful ethical structure of Kant to give more practicability to his ethical theory taking into account the fact that man is not a purely rational being but a creature haunted by inclinations. Freedom, God and Immortality, the three postulates are not theoretical dogmas but are presuppositions having necessary practical reference. The introduction of postulate in Kant’s philosophy can be considered as an attempt to limit the theoretical and extend the practical so as to make them stand together. God as postulate by Kant is not the God of religion. This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason.
Erich Fromm Critique Essay In discussing obedience, people usually will think that obedience is the right thing to do, and disobedience is in the wrong. In Erich Fromm’s essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, he states that around different places, people all believe that the world we live in came about as an act of disobedience. In his argument, he states multiple examples taken from the Greek myth of Prometheus, and of Adam and Eve, with the Original Sin. Erich even assumes that the beginning of our race starts through disobedience: “[our] intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient..”(Fromm 684) With this statement, Erich Fromm strongly argues his view that “human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.”(Fromm 683) In his article, Fromm discusses his reasoning for believing that history began with disobedience, and will end in obedience. Erich Fromm talks about the different kinds of obedience, and how they can help one’s society, or even destroy it.
Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably increase human good. With being said we can assume that Dewey did not believe in God or Jesus Christ. Because Dewey’s views are the way they are it would be easy to point out the differences in his Ideas and those of Jesus Christ. Dewey believed that schooling should be humanistic instead of Christian. Of the idea of God, Dewey said, "it denotes the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and actions.” Jesus Christ had a different belief when it came to the existence of God and the increase of “human good”.
Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.