Nanx Dakum PHIL 100 TA: Xuan Wang Proff: Dave McElhoes December 2, 2011 ‘A Defense against the Teleological Argument’ ‘Introduction’ In this paper I will argue that the Teleological argument is not a good argument for God’s existence. First I will explain the argument, and then I will object to specific premises of the argument. I will also point out the strengths of the argument and what a theist could say to counter my objections. I will explain objections such as the ‘Bad Engineer Objection’ to expose the weaknesses of the Teleological argument and prove that my thesis is indeed correct. To strengthen my credibility I will also use other objections by different philosophers.
Yet before analysing this, it is important to consider the main ideas behind Descartes’ meditations. The first of these see’s Descartes engage in a process of radical doubt, one which he believes will leave him with one certain truth, and thus a truth which can be used as a criterion to judge every other idea which he may obtain (Cottingham, 1992). The reason for this being the deceptive nature of the senses from which all his knowledge was obtained from. “All that up to the present time I
Ch. 5 and 6 of Critical Thinking cover fallacies and rhetoric. What are 2 examples of persuasion that are not valid arguments according to the text? Why are these invalid arguments? The text states that euphemisms and weaselers have uses but only if we are speaking, writing, listening, and reading carefully could we even distinguish prejudicial uses of these devices.
Fill in the other levels with items the CT thinks relevant to those levels. Then progressively alter the position of the feared event until ‘it is in perspective in relation to the other items’ (Froggatt, p. 9). iv) Devil’s Advocate CR argues vigorously for irrational belief of CT while CT tries to convince CR that belief is irrational. Good to use for consolidation purposes. v) Reframing Re-evaluate bad events as ‘disappointing’, ‘concerning’, or ‘uncomfortable’, rather than as ‘awful’
This article also brought up an interesting question stating “Do translators imbue their work with temporal signifiers, those that don't stand out as readily as "dude"?” This question brings about the question of whether the responsibility of interpreting these terms should be put on the reader or the translator. Another interesting point I read in this article is about how difficult it is translating from
ABSTRACT: Are rights universal? This intriguing yet controversial question is discussed in terms of how rights is perceived through the works of major philosopher’s of all time; all of which perceive rights in different political spectrums. Additionally, cultural relativism is hugely discussed in this essay, with it being arguably a crucial factor in determining how universal rights can be. This essay also highlights Jeremy Bentham’s work “Anarchical Fallacies” which criticized the Declaration of Rights and Karl Marx’s ‘On the Jewish Question’. This essay weighs on both sides of the scale, and it is generally concluded that rights are not universal even though they have been efforts to promote its universality.
They are both very complex and in order to understand them fully as well as to be able to compare and contrast they need to be looked at in much greater detail. Of course in order to look at an ideological analysis of anomie and alienation it is important to firstly examine their classical meanings as theorised by Marx and Durkheim. Both Marx’s alienation and Durkheim’s anomie are similar psychological states and for both were metaphors for a radical attack on the dominant institutions and values of industrial society. They criticise similar behaviour but from different view points with Marx looking more at the problems of power and change compared to Durkheim who looked at the problems of the maintenance of order. A clear similarity to Marx’s alienation and Durkhiem’s anomie is that they both critically describe states of social order from utopian standards.
Figurative Language versus Literal Language Domonic Lastoria Dr. John Becker Critical Thinking 4/28/2013 Figurative Language versus Literal Language In this assignment, I will be going over the misuse of figurative language. The misuse of figurative language a lot of times makes it rather difficult for others to think productively about certain topics and issues. Throughout this assignment, I will provide many different types of figurative language and describe how they are used and examples of how they could lead to misunderstanding. The first is Idioms. “An Idiom is a word or phrase that is not taken literally” (LoveToKnow Corp, 2013).
In other words, truth is an illusion. Similarly ethics and morality are social constructs. In other words, faith becomes more important than science or logic. The central tenets of Postmodernism includes elevation of text and language as a fundamental phenomena of existence, questioning of reality as represented because of inherent flaws in language, and a general critique of western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar, 2008). It is evident that there is a fundamental tension between the two world views.
The use of figurative languages could be considered a double edged sword when it comes to engaging in productive thinking. While the use of them may seem pertinent at the time, sometimes the meanings of the words are lost on those that are conducting a brainstorming session with you, and force the group to think harder as a whole to try and understand the reasoning behind the use of the word. Below are definitions and examples of figurative languages that could be misconstrued or misunderstood when engaging in productive thinking exercises. An idiom is an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own. Idioms exist in every language.