Richard Rorty has also made profound leaps and bounds into the vastness of nothing being new. He picks up where Nietzsche leaves off and perpetuates the extinction of truth as making it relative to oneself within pragmatic notions found in his book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Both men can see that the ends are more important than the means as long as human life is triumphant just as long as “it escapes from the inherited descriptions of the contingencies of its existence and finds new descriptions. This is the difference between thinking of redemptions as making contact with something larger and more enduring than oneself and redemption as Nietzsche describes it: ‘recreating all “it was” into a “thus I willed it’” (Rorty, 29). In “The Antichrist”, Nietzsche sets out to denounce and illegitimize not only Christianity itself as a belief and a practice, but also the ethical-moral value system which modern western civilization has inherited from it.
Nietzsche set out to find the origin of the Judeo-Christian meaning of moral was. points out that the nobles were the first to distinguish their own moral values and they decided what was right and anything that is not in accordance with these principles were bad and wrong. Resentment was then formed because when one was born in the earlier times they were born into that social status and nothing and no one was going to be able to change that. He then separates the morals into two sets the noble Good/Bad and the ignoble good/evil. He says that by nature humans are not promising animals.
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
Erich Fromm Critique Essay In discussing obedience, people usually will think that obedience is the right thing to do, and disobedience is in the wrong. In Erich Fromm’s essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, he states that around different places, people all believe that the world we live in came about as an act of disobedience. In his argument, he states multiple examples taken from the Greek myth of Prometheus, and of Adam and Eve, with the Original Sin. Erich even assumes that the beginning of our race starts through disobedience: “[our] intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient..”(Fromm 684) With this statement, Erich Fromm strongly argues his view that “human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.”(Fromm 683) In his article, Fromm discusses his reasoning for believing that history began with disobedience, and will end in obedience. Erich Fromm talks about the different kinds of obedience, and how they can help one’s society, or even destroy it.
Although, Descartes and Putnam are playing devils advocate I will fully argue for Putnam’s discretization of the Brain in the Vat theory. In the First Meditation, Descartes acknowledges that most beliefs he has come to accept throughout his life have come from those resulting from his senses. He then further argues that our sensory experiences can lead us astray and that to guarantee our beliefs concerning reality we must first make sure that our beliefs are formed on a concrete foundation of pure truth. To determine whether or not anything we know is true, Descartes suggests that we must put everything we know into question. This idea of doubting anything with even the slightest potential question is termed hypothetical doubt.
The Oh-So-Devout Puritan It is common belief among philosophers that the definition of anything that “exists” is relative to one’s perception of said thing. What exactly is the boundary between “good” and “bad” and, thus, “just” and “unjust”? For societal balance and structure, definitions of such abstract concepts must be fashioned, for the masses to hold as standards and use for comparison and judgment of one another. This theory is seen at full effect in regards to Reverend Parris, Danforth, and John Proctor in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible; Proctor’s disregard for Parris’ “divine” role as religious overlord of Salem, seen through his criticisms of Parris’ motives and behavior, and his own behavioral “failures” substantiate the claim of his being an “impious” Puritan in the eyes of a Puritanical society, which ultimately earns him unjust accusation and death at the hands of Danforth. To begin, how John Proctor voices his views on Reverend Parris’ legitimacy as a minister suffices to bring him on the path to accusation.
Hobbes’s account of how bad the state of nature is relies on a false Generalisation about human nature, therefore his account of the state of Nature is implausible”. Argue for or against this claim. Hobbes’ contribution to modern political philosophy is outstanding. Leviathan, published in 1651, laid down some fundamental concepts of western political philosophy concerning mankind which continue to influence philosophers and political writers today. Above all else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is an investigation into human nature and the structure of society.
Explain the theory of duty in Kantian Ethics (25 marks) Kantian ethics is an absolutist theory as Kant claimed what is morally ‘good’ is constant and unchanging. Because of this, it can be a universal concept applied in different societies and cultures with the idea that an action should only be performed for duty’s sake. His approach was deontological because the idea of right or wrong was based on the action rather than the consequence, he believed that this was the only rational basis for morality and could be proven objectively, independent from emotion and opinion. As humans we have the innate ability to reason, something which we gained prior to any sensory experience in this world. This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
Marlow and the unnamed narrator are ultimate characters in both novels who are in search for the true identity of Kurtz and Sa’eed. They follow a quest that turns in to waste when they realize the surprised nature of the truth that is reveled to them. Marlow’s quest to find Kurtz obviously did not turn out as he thought.. An example of this can be found in the report read that was from Kurtz: “He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, ‘must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings — we approach them with the might of a deity,’ and so on, and so on.” (Conrad pg 71) Kurtz’s feelings about Africa were strong and he took a stance of white dominance that can be argued to be needed if they were to have dominion on the region and most importantly the people. Marlow kept this