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.
11). Without pathos, humans would not be able to achieve anything in their existence, and according to Seifert, you need to respect and learn from pathos to get farther in all aspects of your life. Seifert describes pathos as " a dramatic state of tension, a purposeful, energetic and resolute will, a yearning...for justice, for truth"(para.11). Seifert continues to emphasize the advantages of pathos by explaining that truth does not prevail without pathos, and that pathos even transform failures into an event that will move towards its goals that were to be achieved, for that one day it will conquer its goals. Furthermore Seifert explains that once you are
For centuries, even millennia, humans have believed that a conflict exists in the human mind -- a conflict between good and evil. But this isn't true. Good and evil are just the result of the conflict, because the real conflict is between the truth and lies. Perhaps we should say that all conflict is the result of lies, because the truth has no conflict at all. The truth existed long before humans; it exists whether we believe in it or not.
I. Introduction The world in which we live has been inundated by sea of presuppositions all vying for prominence as the dominant and most comprehensive view of the world and of human life. However the thoughtful seeker of truth, if he is diligent in his search, will observe that these competing ideologies are nothing more than the ripple effect of enlightenment’s plunge into this cosmic sea. The initial effect of this dive is the division of thought, and by extension society, into two warring factions, sacred and secular. This false dichotomy has so pervaded the conceptual framework of man that every aspect of his life fits into any one of these two spheres.
Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion. Discuss. This is a hard determinist statement which I do not agree with, hard determinism states that all your choices including ethical and moral choices, are predetermined and you have absolutely no free will to choose to do anything other. Therefore a person would have no responsibility for their actions. In my own opinion this causes many issues which can lead people to do immoral things and commit bad crimes, and be able to justify their actions by stating it was already determined for them to do it.
[awkward] The perception of how these true actions were depicted, lead the reader to a unique beginning and an alternate ending. Historians cannot argue Judaism and Christianity hold similar beliefs, but the events surrounding their very different origin can be debated. Regardless of deduction one makes throughout history, the ability to adapt to conditions, situations, tyrants and ensure survivability, demonstrates and embodies human beings themselves. To take an idea which is considered absolute and enhance it for clarity and usability shows tremendous intellect and…in the end, only factual events can be pressed…everything else is open for
Here, individuals enter a constant state in which they try to convince themselves of what they believe to be truth and become ignorant. The idea that there is no such thing as true knowledge poses the first problem in the impossible quest for knowledge. Everything humans know and understand about the world was created by them. Frye states that everything we know is a product of our imagination. So, everything we know—all of our knowledge—is a product of our imagination.
Everyone reacts to conflict according to their values. To suggest that everyone reacts to conflict according to their values would be to assume that our values and ideals are the only things that drive our reactions. There are many instances where individuals are given very little opportunity to think rationally and clearly in the face of violent conflict, in particular. This challenges the idea of whether all our decisions are based on what we ‘know’ and ‘believe’ to be morally ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Is it possible to hold our values responsible for our reactions towards or received from conflict?
Many people argue that times change and people of a previous generation do not know what to do with problems of their generation. This is true but society doesn’t change after just a generation or two, it gradually changes and the previous generation will always have had similar problems that we as in this generation experience. If your belief is so extreme that you would not conform no matter what, what is the harm of getting some advice? It will still and always be up to you how you solve that predicament. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, our pros and cons, what we know and what we don’t know.
Opposing Views The subject of Ethics has to be one of the most revolving subjects ever. What I mean is that there is no absolute end to any given topic. There are always people, philosophers, who have some kind of opposite opinion or philosophy about the way one should live. For example, for someone to live a “good” life could mean various amounts of things to a few philosophers. One could think that “good” is just relative, another could think that “good” has to do with and absolute goal in mind, and the other could think that a “good” life can’t be known to be good until one reaches life’s end.