As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, “Vanity is the polite mask of pride.” Pride is often times defined as how we view ourselves, and vanity being how others view us. Ample amounts of success in life institutes pride in ones self. When speaking of pride, Franklin feels as though having or showing pride should be a humiliation but he also says that it is impossible to not have pride whether you “Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive” (Page 93). As Franklin distinguishes between vanity and pride throughout his autobiography, it becomes clear that he feels as though having pride is more of an imperfection as opposed to being vain. Benjamin Franklin addresses vanity, although considered a flaw by society, as rather beneficial to his character and success.
All this is part of his 'propaganda war' to appear a good and deserving leader of France by maintaining the moral high ground. Constantly focusing on maintaing the moral high ground makes a big impact on how successful Henry was. From early on he goes along with the seige even though most of his men were suffering from dystentry; he still manages to inspire them even though they were extremely ill. Once Henry had captured Harfleur he was confident enough to write a letter to the
"The book's aim is to provoke my fellow historians to greater self-consciousness about the nature of our work," Novick wrote of his motivation (17). It is obvious that Novick is going to try to convince historians that they should be more self-critical of their work and thought. Set in in this argument is
I also liked the way that the author went into every detail making the book easier for me to go back and review or read a certain topic again. I admired the way Napoleon won battles and was determined to win at any cost. I enjoyed the book, but I just have a different view or perspective than Owen Connelly of Napoleon. Owen Connelly negatively focused so much about Napoleon’s blunders. The author believes that Napoleon won many battles because of his enemies’ mistakes and not because of what he actually was…the greatest military mind that ever lived.
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
Among these were William L. Rowe, a professor of philosophy who counter argued Anselm’s beliefs with the support he took from many critics on the subject. One of these critics happens to be philosopher Immanuel Kant, who offered a rather interesting but strong counter claim to Anselm’s statements. A reoccurring idea in Anselm’s argument is that there is a precise difference in existing in reality and existing in the mind, AKA the understanding. Rowe interprets this idea and explains that Anselm is arguing that if a being only exists in one’s understanding, it is not as great as it could have been had it existed in reality as well. In Kant’s views, he believes Anselm’s mistake was in stating “existence” as a quality as well as a property that one may possess to add to the list of other’s one could conceive
Jung is considered the first modern psychiatrist to view the human psyche as “by nature religious” and make it the focus of exploration. Dunne, Clare (2002). Jung considered individuation, a psychological process of integrating the opposites including the conscious while still maintaining their relative autonomy. This is necessary for a person to become whole. Individuation is the central concept of analytical psychology.
If you don't think that Descartes actually believes in God defend your position. Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and writer, also known as Renatus Cartesius. He has honored as a Father of Modern Philosophy because of his writing which has still been considering by today’s modern world. As Descartes proved the existence of God, his argument for the existence of God was a perfect being. According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect.
Explain and cite 2 examples by two different authors of the transcendentalist preoccupation with the conformity or the desire to break from it. Transcendentalism, an American literary and philosophical movement from the XIX century, is highly connected to the idea of the individual as a nonconformist. Conformity can be defined as compliance in action, behaviour with certain accepted standards or norms. As Emerson describes it, conformity is the greatest threat to the individual. Transcendentalists adopt the whole connection to the spiritual doctrine, they believe in miracle, in the openness of the human mind, in inspiration, creativity; in contrast to positive or dogmatic thought which will mould individuals as “phantoms walking among phantoms”.
However, it does not take long to realise that Berkley appears to have not been careful with his choice of words and has committed various conflations leading to fallacies of ambiguity. It is my view that these fallacies play a large role in undermining the success of the Master Argument. In order to analyse the strength of what Berkeley saw as his most convincing argument against the existence of mind independent objects I intend to look specifically at Bertrand Russell’s discussion of the Master Argument in his evaluation of idealism in his book The Problems of Philosophy. I will then look into the nominalist interpretation of the Master Argument in order to see if Russell’s allegations can be sidestepped once we discern the assumptions that Berkeley arguably based the Master Argument on. The Master Argument was originally known as the inconceivability argument until Andre Gallois referred to it as the former in his 1974 article as a nod to the prominence that Berkeley gives it within his attack on materialism.