Socrates suggests Euthyphro must be an expert in religious matters to be willing to prosecute his own father, and Euthyphro agrees: "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have an accurate knowledge of all such things." (Plato, Euthyphro, Moral Philosophy: Selected Readings) Socrates firmly believes that knowledge only comes when we are able to justify and account for our beliefs so
Critically evaluate Wittgenstein’s language games theory as an approach to religious language. God’s transcendence means there is widespread discussion as to how any statements in regards to his existence or nature can be deemed as ‘meaningful’. Influential philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889 - 1951 was heavily involved in studies of Language and developed the idea that the purpose of philosophy was to clear up the conceptual confusions that arose through our unexamined use of language (including statements of religious significance and any religious language) and that words are a function of language, not just simply a signifying of an object. 'Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.' Wittgenstein believed, in opposition to Rene Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) that language was a social product, and that statements made about the world were basic and 'groundless' and believed that judgement through opposing 'language games' was not possible, as they are parts of different discourse.
This train of thought cleverly warrants the evocation of faith, or belief without physical proof or empirical knowledge. Appropriately so, Anselm opens the chapter of Proslogion discussing Divine existence with a meditative prayer in which, he modestly supplicates such highly pertinent concepts including wisdom and faith in order to better understand the existence and character of God. With such faith and understanding, Anselm boldly asserts his beliefs about God’s nature, existence, and attributes before even finishing his central argument in an attempt to comprehend what he genuinely believes to be true about his higher power. While my own personal convictions are comparatively nowhere near as bold as that of Saint Anselm, his approach epitomizes what I believe to be an authentic and selfless demonstration of faith. Ideally, I believe that unconditional faith of this
Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” attempts to justify the need for nonviolent direct action, and how both King and the Clergymen should work together to find a solution. King wanted to find common ground with the clergymen. King tried to convince the clergymen to see his point of view, and realized and attempt the problem as a problem, not just a disturbance. He found common ground through beliefs in which they all believed and feelings that they all felt. King used a very strong quote that stated, “ An unjust law is no law at all.” This quote was from a great Christian philosopher and king knew the clergymen couldn’t ignore the words of such a wise man.
Zorba believes in the concept existentialism and embraces intuition over rationalism; as he tends to go with his gut feeling, not questioning whether it is right or wrong, whereas the narrator believes that a person can obtain life’s fulfilment through Religion. Another interesting aspect discussed that I found amusing was the use of technique to bring out the major themes in the book and the underlying meaning of each philosophy. Nikos uses a range of metaphors and Greek References to compare/contrast. He
Andrew Helm Philosophy Paper 1 The purpose of this essay is to prove that Socrates is not guilty of the charges brought against him. I will do this by giving a posteriori and a priori piece of evidence for each charge. Socrates was charged with both being an atheist as well as corrupting the minds of children. Socrates immediately is able to make his case on trial, as he gives real life examples of none other than himself referring to spirits. Soon after, we are able to find that spirits are the children of god.
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
In particular, when speaking of Spies, the lines are not as clear as they do not accept the tenets of Christianity but see activities such as prayer or forgiveness as useful to the secular world. Because of this area of debate, the idea of absolutes is not possible. Without absolutes, how can we actually give someone guidance on how and where to go in their lives? Without a spiritual path that is laid out and definite, where does someone with a troubled soul go? I am grateful for the door that the book opens by illustrating how the two worlds of psychology and Christianity can be married yet as in any marriage, there is always areas that are not
Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good. People should think critically about their actions regardless of what a god would command. The other dialogue of Plato that we discussed was the book I, and II of The Republic. This books deals with the theme of justice. Plato concludes that there are four kinds of life.
He does, however, agree to the idea that rhetoric is a form of persuasion in which it is broken down into three modes: ethos - the speaker, pathos – the audience, and logos – the speech. He insinuates the idea of one’s failing of unjust is equal to the idea of failing as a speaker, and believes rhetoricians must know how to argument in both ways to be a strong persuader. Socrates and Gorgias believe that human’s have a natural need to instruct and deceive disciplines, while Aristotle defines humans as good-natured whom have no need to convince others through persuasion. Aristotle also disagrees to Socrates’ definition that rhetoric is to soul as cookery is to body. Instead, he views rhetoric as the method of creating the truth without deception and creating truth with people’s own view.