It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
Clarke's Cosmological Argument begins with an interesting assertion; interesting for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that merely asserting something is by no means equivalent to proving it via logical reasoning. His assertion is that from eternity, meaning from the “beginning of time” (itself a problematic concept, one to which this argument will return), there has existed an unchangeable and independent being (37). He begins his support of this assertion by stating that it has already been proven that something must have existed from eternity (whether proven by him, or another philosopher, he does not say). Because this is already an established fact (according to Clarke), then one of two possibilities must exist. Either his independent, unchanging being must also have existed since eternity, or else an “infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings” must exist, thus leading to our current “being-filled” situation.
Kant argued that existence was not a ‘predicate’, in other words existence is not a characteristic or an attribute of something. What Kant is trying to say is that existence is not the same as a predicate because it does not tell us anything about the object that would help us identify it, you can’t describe your favourite animal to a person by saying it exist. When we say something exist we are not say that it has this quality or characteristic what we are saying is that is that this concept, with all its characteristics, has been ‘actualised’. For Kant, all philosophical statements about existence are synthetic, meaning it needs to be verified as true and false. Therefore, Kant would disagree with proving God’s existence through definition alone.
Justice is a term that is used and defined in many ways. Therefore, if justice exists, why can it not exist within a codified constitution? The area in which Plato’s logic falls short on the subject of codified constitutions is that Plato does not take into account the differences that arise from an individualistic world versus a communal one. In the Phaedrus, Plato speaks of a universal truth which should be our ultimate guiding principle (248a-c). However, this universal truth is only known by the individual, who is incapable of knowing that truth until that exact moment that it presents itself.
Pechorin represents the Byronic Hero. Identity in ‘A Hero of Our Time’ In Lermontov’s novel ‘A hero of our time’, the character of Pechorin in many respects is the embodiment of the Byronic hero and is often represented as the prototype of a superfluous man. He is possessed of extreme arrogance, yet has a deep insight into his own character and epitomizes the melancholy of the romantic hero who broods on the futility of existence and the inevitability of death. Although his existence throughout the novel tends to be interpreted as superfluity much of his actions reflect self-destructive intentions and therefore would show him to be more of a Byronic figure than a superfluous man. Throughout the narrative it becomes apparent that Lermontov’s depiction of Heroism is demonstrated more through Pechorin’s physical actions rather than heroism in an altruistic sense.
Treatment of Willy Loman as a Tragic Hero: Death of a Salesman, Miller’s most famous work, while addressing the painful conflicts within one family, tackles larger issues regarding American national values. The play examines the cost of blind faith in the American Dream. In this respect, it offers a postwar American reading of personal tragedy in the tradition of Sophocles’ Oedipus Cycle. Miller charges America with selling a false myth constructed around a capitalist materialism nurtured by the postwar economy, a materialism that obscured the personal truth and moral vision of the original American Dream described by the country’s founders. The tone of Miller’s stage directions and dialogue ranges from sincere to parodying, but, in general, the treatment is tender, though at times brutally honest, towards the protagonist’s plight.
We see examples of this pull of money in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book The Great Gatsby, through Nick’s eyes. It is through the narrator's dealings with high society that readers are shown how modern values have transformed the American Dream's pure ideals into a scheme for materialistic power and further, how the world of high society lacks any sense of morals or consequence. Fitzgerald shows the influence of money in decision making and motivation for people in every character of the book; money pushes Gatsby to get what he has lost, it leads Daisy to marry a man who she does not love, and money influences the actions of Gatsby’s friends after he dies. Gatsby, the protagonist of the book is attracted to Daisy, her social standing, and wealth, but he realizes that he did not had the influential charm of money or power that could create a similar pull in Daisy’s heart for him. Gatsby puts away every other aspect Samra 2 of American Dream and focuses on earning enough money to get his Daisy to him.
It also belongs to the common man—in this case the “low man,” as in Willy Loman. Willy’s tragic flaw stems from the fact that he has misinterpreted the American Dream, the belief that one can rise from rags to riches. For Willy, the success of that dream hinges on appearance rather than on substance, on wearing a white collar rather than a blue one. It is this snobbery, combined with a lack of practical knowledge, that leads to his downfall. Indeed, much of the lasting popularity of Death of a Salesman both in the world of the theater and in the canon of English literature, lies in its treatment of multiple themes.
He argues that experience only is not enough to justify the knowledge we have, because universal and necessary truths cannot be justified by experience, such as mathematical and scientific laws. The universal law can only be tested a finite amount of times, so experience does not sufficiently support it for all objects at all places at all times. A quote about his disagreement states: “It is a question of knowing whether the soul in itself is empty entirely like a page on which one has not written anything (tabula rasa), as Aristotle and Locke maintain, and all that is traced there comes only from the senses and experience.” He argues against them saying: “Logic along with metaphysics and morals---one of which comprises theology and the other jurisprudence are full of such truths, and consequently their proof come only from internal principles that are innate.” He also adds: “It is true that reason ordinarily leads us to expect to find in the future what conforms with our long experience of the past, but it is not for all a necessary and infallible truth, and it can fail when one least expects it….” One question one may have is: “What does Leibniz think about the knowledge of animals compared to humans?” He would answer that “animals are purely empirical” and obtain knowledge only by experience. They expect only what happens before, because “their images are connected in memory.” They
Every living thing on this earth must have a cause, God is said to be an uncaused cause (which means nothing caused God, but God caused everything), but many say that God is existing and if this is possibly valid he must have to exist. However, if he does have a cause he can’t be God. So in reality God cannot possibly exist, He may not attribute both divine and human like traits. Hume’s argument mentioned above, relates to his