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".
Turritopsis nutricula and Turritopsis dohrnii – The Immortal Jelly Fish Turritopsis dohrnii was discovered in 1988, by Christian Sommer, a German marine-biology student in a small Italian town. In its immature polyp stage the Jellyfish is only about 1 mm long and by maturity is still on 4-5 mm long. Scientists described that the species, during any stage of development, could transform back to a polyp, its earliest stage of life, “thus escaping death and achieving potentially immortality.” Does this appear to debunk one of the most fundamental laws of life, that if after you are born, you have to die? Think of it like a butterfly that instead of dying turns back into a caterpillar. Or a chicken that transforms into an egg.
He talks about our consciences, both authoritarian and humanistic. He even goes into detail about why it’s better to Garra 2 obey out of love then out of fear. Erich also states that “For centuries, obedience was insisted as a virtue, and disobedience was insisted as a vice.”(Fromm 683). This statement implies that obeying was the right thing to do, and disobeying was the wrong thing to do. He even uses religion and terms that deal with religion throughout his article for more evidence.
Ancient skepticism is, for the most part, a phenomenon of Post-Classical, Hellenistic philosophy, the ancient skeptics argue that, if we cannot confidently claim knowledge, we should hold back from any kind of truth-claim. That is, we should hold back from belief, not just from knowledge-claims. As a consequence, the ancient skeptics face puzzles about thought, belief, language, and action. How far can one abstain from belief, and still lead a life that is recognizably the life of a rational anim Stoicism bases reaction to an event on logic and rationale. Skepticism is basing one’s reaction to an event on past experience to make judgment of an occurring event.
Critically asses the falsification debate The falsification debate, also known as the ‘university debate’ arises when Philosopher Antony Flew relates Karl Poppers original criticism of the verification principle to religious language. Popper proposes that the verification principle is based upon an assumption that the Vienna Circle had made, the assumption being that a statement is meaningless if it could not be verified. Yet, Popper contradicts the beliefs of the Vienna Circle as he states; what makes good science is, knowing the method of falsification, having the ability to prove it false is good science and bad science would therefore be seeking verification. This is because we may be bias and seeking verification could cause us to ignore any anomalies as we thrive for it to succeed. Flew then takes Poppers criticism and applies it to religious language during the delivery of his paper on ‘Theology and Falsification’ in the University Debate.
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.
Augustine and Skepticism St Augustine refuted the teachings of other philosophers, this is for the reason that he felt his theories were more appropriate and explained things in more detail. He also repudiated total skepticism in three ways, which are principal of non-contradiction, the act of doubting, and sense perception, which should be considered when analyzing his theories (Moore & Bruder, 2011). St Augustine’s first refutation of skepticism consists of the principle of non-contradiction. The principle states that a proposal and its contradiction cannot be true at the same time. According to this idea, one or the other must be true however; both cannot be true at the same time.
what we call sensible qualities. Berkeley’s response is that he cannot make sense of the notion of a material substance and this is largely due to the fact that the supposed material substance and the nature of our ideas occasion fundamentally different properties and thus it is unclear how a material substance can support our ideas. Consequently, this paper will attempt to substantiate such a notion and argue that belief in the existence of a material substance offers a better explanation of the phenomena of being conscious of an external world than Berkeley’s idealism. In his First Dialogue, Berkeley attempts to quench atheism and skepticism by aiming to retain a philosophy of common sense. In this attempt, he makes the claim that there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance.
Cavell discusses through Plato, the fact that moral perfection is an unobtainable, obtainable self, and striving for moral perfection only expunges one’s true characteristics and diversifies one’s knowledge about life. Plato’s focus on moral perfectionism interpreted by Cavell, I sense a belief that moral perfectionism is the fight against one’s self in order to be a truthful functioning member of society. More often than not, the path one tends to take, like Walter and Hilde, divert the truth or point a finger to have a false sense of entitlement. This explicates the illusion of contentment, and brings Walter and Hilde to delve deeper into lies with their peers and stray farther and farther from the pinnacle of moral perfection. Although having a perfect moral compass is a utensil to live a more just life, one’s happiness flows from a fountain often times in an about face, or south on one’s moral compass.