The right to equality: philosophical genesis and implementation problems. Introduction : In common language, freedom is often defined as " do what you want " This leads us to believe that freedom must be studied in two forms . Freedom as freedom of action and freedom as the freedom of desire. We will therefore show the different conceptual approaches of freedom: formal freedom , real freedom and moral freedom, which belong to two ways of conceiving freedom either empirical or metaphysical. Equality is a concept quite equivocal, form the Latin aequalitas "equal" , it can be characterized as what is equivalent , which is no different either quantitatively or qualitatively , we need to distinguish equal rights and social equality.
Habermas critiques Gadamer’s thought by questioning the overall concept and the central role of tradition, arguing the possibilities of certain sub-conscious interests and specific authorial forces that distort tradition. In order to accurately explore the thoughts and beliefs of Gadamer and Habermas surrounding that of the concept of “tradition”, one must first establish the basic foundation of hermeneutics upon which these ideas are to be centred. Heidegger offers an effective ground on which to base the majority of these philosophical positions for that of classical hermeneutics by initially revealing hidden meanings in hermeneutical texts, exploring authoritative objectives and developing a clearer overall understanding of them. A later shift in focus in hermeneutics during the 20th century brought about an apparent lean toward specifically “epistemological foundations… or the methodological principles which lead to objective knowledge in the human sciences” (Ormiston, G & Schrift, A, 1990), thus encouraging the questioning of knowledge to be centred upon that of “truth” and “Being”. To Heidegger, it is the former understanding which leads to a solid basis of
To support this theory, there is Saint Augustine’s idea that even thought the result of an action is fixed, this can still be guided by free will; William James is then proposing that our actions are not completely determined. This last one is a clear “compatibilist” point of view, because it accepts the existence of both, free will and causal determinism. A theological approach to this issue is then been brought up. This theological approach is then divided and some are supporting hard determinism, while others are supporting soft determinism. In
Are we Humans being Moral? (Coetzee 59-90) Since at least the time of Plato and Aristotle humans have asked, of themselves, what it is to be good (Aristotle 1-213). Through the Middle-ages debate persisted, particularly over moral determinism and free will (Kent 177-205). Increasingly with the advent of modern technology free will is once again being questioned (Harris 1-96). That is not to say
Their philosophies have as great impact on the western world as Confucianism and Taoism in China. Though appeared almost the same time, they were created for different reasons. Take China’s history into consideration, we conclude three main reasons for which Confucius and Laozi created their philosophy: first, to educate the descendants; second, to give advice to kings about how to rule the country; third, to moralize the people. While the three philosophers in Greece simply wanted to express their own thoughts. They tried to illustrate what they thought to the common people by simple words.
With this thought in mind, how could I possibly acclaim the idea of freedom of choice to myself? Many questions have been brought up in regards to this topic. According to Compatibilists, we do possess the idea of free will. Compatibilists try and develop a certain sense of the word free in order to help better associate free will with determinism. Even though determinism is the belief that human action and many other things are ultimately determined by certain external factors not related to your will.
Freedom is a topic which is strongly debated on and is entwined with the ideas of liberalism and other ideologies (Anderson, 2012, What is Liberty, para.1).Freedom can be divided into two sub- sections known as negative freedom and positive freedom (Heywood, 2007; 324). Negative freedom is the exemption from any external influences which include the exemption from any interference (Pettit, 1989:1). Negative freedom thus means the absence of external forces on an individual which results in the individual being able to pursue decisions as he/ she desires. Positive freedom is the possibility where a person can act in such a way to achieve an identifiable goal; this would include personal development, self- realization or even self- mastery (Heywood, 2007; 324). This essay will criticise negative and positive freedom, outlining the concepts of them and their relevance to the concept of democracy.
(Ruth Abbey: "Charles Taylor" Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 41-47). Taylor who is best classed as a Moral Realist says that that there are both objective characteristics and interpretations concerning morality, that there is a moral world that is independent of, while intimately interwoven with, the self’s interpretation and understanding of it. His analysis of morality is
‘That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.’ Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge. If someone told me today that universe is static, I would laugh about it, however, in 1917 Albert Einstein introduced this theory and it was taken seriously. It has been proved wrong, but should the knowledge considered then, now be discarded? Do new theories always discard the old ones? Do they automatically become useless?
(Lawhead 2011:15-16). However, the pre-Socratic philosophers brought about change through discrediting the accepted mythical thinking that all things can be explained by means of the nature of the Greek gods. They went about removing the negativity surrounding knowledge at the time in order to facilitate human beings to determine truth for themselves instead of blindly believing explanations of a blind nature. This opened up a consideration for knowledge from a naturalistic standpoint (Curd & Graham 2008:8). The theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers were generally characterised by their link to perception.