The argument is laid out as such: Premise 1: I can doubt that my body exists. Premise 2: I can’t doubt that my mind exists. Conclusion: My mind and my body are distinct. The premises of this argument appear to be solid, while the existence of the material world can be put under scrutiny using his ‘method of doubt’ that of the immaterial world, the mind or soul, cannot. If we are to find a flaw in this argument it must therefore be
For thousands of years there has been conflict between belief and reason, there is one side, Rationalism, holds that belief can only be derived from evidence and reason, the other side, Fideism, holds that faith is independent of reason. With a certain perspective it can be seen that faith and reason work together for a greater understanding. Strong rationalism holds that the sole source and final test of all truth is human reason. Evidentialism, as a strong rationalist position, states that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it and that we should not hold any religious positions that we do not have evidence for. English philosopher William Clifford backs the position of the strong rationalist with his story of the boat owner who has faith is vessel, but, failing to find evidence for his faith his boat consequently sinks.
"The unconscious is not a concept, it is a rhetorical device." Thus wrote Stanley Fish in his article, "Withholding the Missing Portion". Fish's article argues that Freud's primary concern in his writings is to convince the reader of the strength of his interpretations and the validity of his theory through his clever use of rhetoric. In particular, Fish refers to the rôle of the unconscious in Freud's theory, arguing that it can be freely manipulated by Freud in such a way that it can appear to account for any data acquired in practice. This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific.
Copleston put forward a defines with was based on some ideas of the third way of Aquinas’ ways. Russell disagreed with Copleston’s argument and suggested that the universe was not explainable in the way Copleston described. In their debate was the issue of contingency and necessity and a reason to explain why anything exists. Copleston explained Leibniz’s “Principle of Sufficient Reason”, which is the claim that there has to be a full explanation for everything. There are things in the world that do not have the reason or cause of their existence, this mean that some things in the world are contingent - they might have no existed.
Through explanation and analysis of his position, this paper will set out his belief on the existence of God, the importance of this argument to his overall position, and to discuss several of the problems in his reasoning. The first proof Descartes considers God is the in the third meditation. By this point, Descartes has already concluded that the only thing thus far that he can be sure of is that he exists as some sort of thinking thing. He has considered the existence of a malevolent spirit that has set out specifically to deceive him at every turn, which has the effect of rendering any other belief spurious at best. In the face of the possibility that something is deliberately setting out to deceive him, he is left only with the knowledge that he is a thinking thing.
Aquinas’ 3 ways make far too many leaps and assumptions. For Example, in the 2nd way – from Cause, the argument clearly states that everything has a cause, that cause must too have a cause, there cannot be an infinite number of causes therefore there must be an uncaused cause. The logic in this argument is sound however, when Aquinas makes the leap from there being an uncaused cause to that uncaused cause being God this is where I feel it falls. This leap is unjustified and therefore I don’t feel it is sufficient to be convincing as proof to the existence of God. Bertrand Russell would argue against the 2nd way with fallacy of composition.
With respect to the two papers, I want to show (1) reasons for accepting or denying Self-Predication, (2) how this assumption leads one to a metaphysical or epistemological interpretation of the TMA, and (3) how this assumption determines their different views of the structure of the TMA. In the final section of Vlastos’ paper, Vlastos gives us his critique of only three discrepancies he has with Sellars’ interpretation of Self-Predication. It’s important to understand first why one should accept or deny the view of Self-Predication. And though it seems like a minor debate within the whole argument, the implications of either one’s assumption determines the reasons for many of their other discrepancies on the TMA as a whole. The first problem for Vlastos consists of Sellars’ attempt to discredit Self-Predication within the language used by Plato.
Rowe begins his argument by first stating that the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument which means the “argument depends on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world” (38). He then goes on to explain that the deductive validity of an argument is insufficient to prove the truth of its conclusion; there must also be rational grounds for believing that the premises are true. He further explains that the first part of the PSR is simply a restatement of premise one, therefore if PSR is true then there is a clear justification that the first premise is true. However, there are many objections about the justification of the second premise. The second premise states that “not every being that exists can be a dependent being, that is, can have the explanation of its existence in some other being or beings” (40).
They clearly define Aristotle's way of studying the world around him, which is empirical and observant of what we can see and know; a trait completely different to what Plato taught. The Final Cause differs greatly from the others because it describes something's ultimate purpose, not just a material viewpoint, and God (or the Prime Mover) has to be our Final Cause as he alone is perfection, and everything good that we do is to seek perfection. The first three causes are the Material Cause, the Formal Cause and the Efficient Cause. The Material Cause is what something is made of, and without the material to make the object, the object could not exist. This essay is made up of words, but without words the essay would cease to exist.
The absence of the necessity for any real world evidence to support his propositions makes this argument a priori. Consequently, this argument therefore must be based on pure logic, meaning all we need to do to ensure the validity of his premises is analyse their meanings, making the argument analytic. Anselm presents his argument in the form of a syllogism (a step-by-step presentation of an argument) that consists of three logically compelling premises which reach a deductive conclusion that has been made necessary by the certainty of what came before. His first premise states ‘God is that which nothing greater can be conceived’. Humanity is able to conceive of God and his nature of omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, whether a theist or an atheist, we can all conceive of these qualities of a perfectly good being – God.