The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason. For such an argument will most closely accord with the agreed facts; and it will allow the conflicting views to be retained if analysis can show that each is partly true and partly false. Ultimately, Aristotle tries to “preserve obvious truths of common sense” while attempting to justify what we see in philosophers paradoxes. To discredit them, he separates the discreditable conclusions from the authentic notions they were built upon, thus disarming the effectiveness of the arguments. The first and most obvious place to look for Aristotle’s view on relativism is Metaphysics I’.
Why? Is it useful to “invent cases”? How “inventive” should we be? What examples have we seen so far in PHIL 1500 of invented cases being used to develop a moral argument? Were these examples convincing?
Introduction to Philosophy Final Essay __________________________________________________________________________________ Please answer one of the following questions: 1) If a mad scientist were to transplant your memories, beliefs, desires, and character traits into someone else’s brain (and vice-versa), which of the two resulting people would you be? Defend your answer. 2) Do Parfit and Descartes agree on the nature of the self? Explain your answer by discussing their views. 3) What does van Inwagen think is so puzzling about the compatibilist’s position?
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
Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
Philosophy in the Real World-Philosophers Kant and Nietzsche Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two admirable philosophers from different times with many contributions to philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to identify and evaluate the key concepts and analyses that comprised each of these philosophers theories, identify and, describe each philosophers contributions to philosophy, describe how the culture and the time period each lived in influenced their ideas, and compare and contract these philosophers thoughts with that of their predecessors. After reading this paper we hope that a deeper understanding of both Kant and Nietzsche is acquired. Kant provided many great theories to philosophy, one of Kant’s key concepts to the idealist philosophy was on time and space has been noted as his best theory. The idea that time and space are merely conditions of our own animalistic instincts combined with intuition and life experiences opens the door to explore ideas of why humans seem to be in such a rush.
Do we have a good reason to believe in what we do? It is normal to have a skeptical mindset when everything is questionable. Just as the great philosophers did in their search for knowledge to reanalyze and obtain a better view of their beliefs. To better understand we will discuss “The Allegory of the Cave” by Socrates, the excerpt from Rene Descartes, Meditation on First Philosophy, 1641; and the synopsis of the movie: The Matrix. We will compare and contrast the different scenarios and information of all three sources to make up our own analysis of reality and knowledge.
If this was your client, what would you say and do? Be specific. Why would you respond that way? 2. What are your personal values on this ethical issue?
What makes an argument deductive? - When the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion 2. Why do people use deduction? - To direct apply knowledge in the production of new knowledge 3. How do people create them?
Rather, we will use different tools to analyze the arguments, validity, usefulness, and practicality of some of the ideas philosophers have explored in order to answer ethical questions. We will also analyze some of the ethical issues we are facing in our