This means truth that exists outside of bias and perspective (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). The third opposition is "an opposition between a self or consciousness that is turned outward in an effort to apprehend and attach itself to truth and true knowledge and a self or consciousness that is turned inward in the direction of its own prejudices, which, far from being transcended, continue to inform its every word and action" (HB, 1611L). Fish is stating that the third opposition is consciousness searching for truth and true knowledge (Doll, Lueders and Morgan, 2006). Each of these oppositions is attached in turn an
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out. Searle is no stranger to this having previously published works on the philosophy of mind, of which he cites throughout the book. He begins his argument focusing on Descartes’ theory of dualism (that the mind and body are separate entities but cannot function without one another) titled as a “disaster” by Searle. His views on the matter are already well known after publishing “Why I am not a Property Dualist” (2002) but here he furthers his intent. It is in the opening exchanges here that one begins to grasp Searle’s prose like writing technique which, as a first year psychology student, I found light and fairly enjoyable to read.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. 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.
Purpose- Why was this source produced, what’s the reason for it being published? Does the source want your support or does it want you to go against it? Question 3- Is asking you to compare three sources, A, B and C! Firstly; compare sources A and C, stating their similarities and differences Secondly; state how reliable the sources are, question NOP- when, who and why the source was produced? Lastly; make a conclusive comment on how much you agree with your statement by using words such as: strongly agree/disagree, mainly agree/disagree.
As far as James was concerned, the most important thing about this theory was that it had a purpose. James emphasized that humans were both rational and irrational, or also can be thought of as being emotional. When looking at the functionalistic movement, three theorists come to mind, John Dewey (1859-1932), James R. Angell (1869-1949), and William James (1842-1910). All of these great theorists had different views on this theory. John Dewey, who wrote “The Reflex Are concept in Psychology”, attacked the growing tendency in psychology to isolate a stimulus-response relationship for study.
It is important to keep separate Dawkins’ two central beliefs: 1) that god does not exist and 2) that belief in god is a bad thing. For Dawkins, the two are linked as he believes passionately in the pursuit of truth (where truth is defined in terms of unequivocal empirical evidence) and, further, that it is irrational – ‘bad’ – to believe in something that is not true (‘true’ in the sense defined above). However, I believe that whilst god does not exist, the belief that he does can and does have positive effects on individuals and society. In the following paragraphs I will address these two of Dawkins’ central beliefs and argue that he is correct in holding the first, but incorrect in holding the second. To this extent, my answer to the question ‘Does Dawkins do religion justice?’ will be a predictably philosophical ‘yes and no’.
However, as simple as it seems to use these words, philosophers still haven’t managed to define knowledge in an adequate way, which will be able to cover all the controversies hidden behind it. Frequently, it is argued that knowledge is justified true belief. However rational this might seem at a first sight, there exist situations in which this definition fails to meet the criteria that will make it adequate for a definition of knowledge, as I will explain further on in this essay. The most widely known definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) is the tripartite definition, a definition based on three conditions, truth, belief and justification. This definition -as its name suggests- consists of three parts and is expressed further on : S knows that P IFF (i) P is true (ii) S believes that P, and (iii) S is justified in believing that P There are many problems that arise from this definition.
The point of the experiment is to show that we cannot successfully think of such a being without thinking of a being that exists. Guanilo’s counter-argument represents usage of the same logic and reasoning as St. Anselm’s inference to prove the existence of another being. Guanilo proves that in his case St. Anselm’s argumentation is incorrect and hence, St. Anselm’s ontological argument is incorrect as well. In his response, St. Anselm emphasizes inaccuracy of Guanilo’s interpretation by distinguishing two kinds of beings and, as a result, strengthens his argumentation. Ontological argument is the argument for the existence of God, based only on premises derived only from logic reasoning and analysis.
Essay Two: Descartes and the Evil Genius Doubt In this paper, I will first deconstruct the Evil Genius hypothesis brought forth by Descartes, as well as lay out the basic elements of O.K Bouwsmas’ argument that was intended to refute it. Following which, I will evaluate Bouwsma’s objections against Descartes’ hypothesis and consider how Bouwsma’s arguments do not invalidate the Evil Genius hypothesis because of the limitations of various definitions Bouwsma has confined his argument to. In his meditations, Descartes first realizes his need of establishing for himself truths that cannot be refuted under any circumstance because in doing so, he would be able to base all his acquired knowledge upon a rock solid foundation that would ensure that the consequent knowledge he would possess would be nothing short of certainty and reliability. The methodology that Descartes uses revolves around the notion of the existence of a “malicious, powerful, cunning demon” (Descartes 3), also known as the Evil Genius, who utilizes all its power to deceive him in every possible way, even in the simplest of ideas such as mathematical knowledge, without his knowledge. Because of this assumption, Descartes chooses to throw out all knowledge he has thus acquired and to start on a clean slate.