Secondly, they authors state, “We need an explanation for why some people, but not others, are able to resist the impulses that nature has given them.” Because we don’t know why someone does something and another person do not, brings us down to a matter of choice. Free will can have a small part in the way people act. Summary: According to Rachel’s, we don’t just do things to do it, we do them because it is behavior that we constantly repeat and most likely get rewarded for. Also, they argue that any of us might behave badly of we were unlucky enough to be in the wrong circumstances. Lastly, they question whether people are just born bad.
I mistrust the judgment of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned. ~ Daniel Webster. To an extent I agree with this quote, but some arguments I have say otherwise. To a degree a man’s judgment can be trusted if his intentions are altruistic ones, but the pervasive issue still remains in that it is human nature to see flaw in others hopes to make a conclusion in which may or may not be true. The purest judgment lies in those who expect no results and thoroughly analyze the conclusion they wish to understand, disregarding judgments about selfishness due to one who’s own wishes are concerned.
Ellis believed people developed psychological disorders due to their beliefs about “insane thoughts” and “dogmatic associated feelings.” That it is not point “A” that upsets us but point “B”, the consequence or reaction. REBT was developed by Ellis because he was frustrated with the outcome of psychoanalysis; it did not work for all clients. Learning that one cannot change the past and not to dwell on past actions helps to teach self-acceptance. Accepting oneself with good or poor achievement, not rating oneself and loving oneself with or without approval is unconditional self-love and acceptance. This is rare and very tough to instill in ourselves.
Prompt 1: “stereotypes exist because they are grounded in truth” With their limited knowledge, humans tend to make generalizations based on assumptions and simplified images, ignoring the complex and vital definition of a human being. Stereotyping is a reductionist approach which ignores diversity within different groups causing a behavior to be oversimplified. Instead of taking account of the holistic picture it focuses on what is making sense according to the society’s predefined norms than what is actually true. Stereotypes may refer to a specific sex, religion, race or country. Judging people without knowing them will lead us to make false assumptions, which is a dehumanizing act.
! AP Lang Essay 2005: Q3 Lewis Thomas is an avid writer of The Medusa and The Sail, who claims that we should not coin the common phrase “trial and error,” but rather “trial and triumph.” This way of thinking is quite remarkable and out of the box. In agreement with Lewis, mistakes are the base of human nature. But this attribute should be praised and accepted rather than denied. However, people cannot learn what to do unless they know what not to do.
The jurors cannot base their certainty on concrete evidence as the play indicates that very few facts are absolute because (quote). Instead, they must make up their minds based on the apparent likelihood of various events and on their own personal beliefs. Rose portrays that when it is difficult to maintain certainty about one’s beliefs, in this case the innocence or guilt of the boy, doubt is a reasonable and intelligent state of mind. This is proven by the 4th Juror and the 11th Juror when they say they “ … now have reasonable doubt”. Each of the jurors has a different degree of certainty about the opinions they hold, but cannot be completely sure, as the 9th Juror points out “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty.
Wayne Dyer once said, “Judgments prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances”. A majority of people would agree with this quote. They’d say that judging is a bad thing, that you shouldn’t judge people on what appears to be on the outside. Sometimes when one chooses to carelessly judge another, one can get caught up with the wrong people and end up in unfavorable situations. Looks can be deceiving when judging someone, not everyone appears or portrays themselves to be who they truly are.
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
Because of this assumption, Descartes chooses to throw out all knowledge he has thus acquired and to start on a clean slate. He casts doubt on everything, but uses it as a tool to achieve certainty and to find a situation he can be absolutely certain of. Descartes also points out his Dream Hypothesis in which one can never be sure he is not dreaming unless he is awake, and uses the wax example to illustrate his point that one cannot fully rely on sensory perceptions for they can sometimes deceive us. The first truth that Descartes establishes is that he is a thinking thing- “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses.” (Descartes 5) This is based on the logic that he
Either to convince them to do something, to believe something, or to convince them of the bullshitter’s competency or knowledgeability. People may BS without intending to mislead anyone. Frankfurt asserts that bullshit is so common in the world because people are convinced that they must have an opinion about more or less anything and everything and so they speak about things that they really do not know anything about. “The lack of any significant connection between a person’s opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.” (On Bullshit ) This is especially common in politics. No one person can be up to date on all current events, and yet people, especially politicians and others in positions of power, are expected to have an opinion on all of their country’s goings-on.