There are two main types of materialism - hard and soft. Hard materialists believe that everything that occurs is nothing but a material moment, it is what it literally is, like sound for example. They would argue that a ‘nice song’ as a song is basically a series of sound vibrations, or that love is an internal animal instinct that we simply have - it is nothing more than humans attempting to fulfil the need to reproduce and replicate our genetics. This is a ‘reductive’ argument. Soft materialists agree to a point but their key belief is that everything emerges from the physical, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that everything can be reduced to the physical.
Inspired by the Ancient Greek thinkers and encouraging new ways of thinking and creating, letting artists and inventors push their boundaries, humanism supported education in science and astrology, mathematics and languages. One such thinker and writer was Francois Rabelais whose satirical work, Gargantua and Pantagruel, has lived on through the ages. The question is, based on these extracts, how is it clear that Rabelais himself, a monk who started out in the Franciscan and moved onto the Benedictine order, was a humanist? The main protagonists of Rabelais’ stories, Gargantua and Pantagruel, who are depicted as giants, symbolise the nobility and omnivorous curiosity that typified the humanistic scheme. Rabelais’ work is a far cry from the earnest moral and educational programs of the early humanists.
Aristotle’s Prime mover: A) Explain Aristotle`s concept of a Prime Mover [21] Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived around the time of 384 BC – 322 BC. He was a student of Plato’s; however, there are differences in their beliefs. He was also tutor of the Ruler of Macedon‘s son Alexander; who later became Alexander the Great, one of the most successful commanders in history. Along with Socrates and Plato, Aristotle was a major influence on western philosophy as it is today. One of the key differences between Plato and Aristotle’s philosophies are beliefs about the ‘creation of a form.’ Plato believed in a demiurge – a figure that shaped a form from matter that already existed, so not in itself a creator, but a force that molded a form into shape.
Explain key criticisms of the Cosmological argument. (30 marks) The are many criticisms of St. Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument, many that arose after his death so naturally there are more of them than the strengths. Aquinas spoke of three ways in his argument. The first is from motion, the second through cause and the third from contingency. One key criticism of these arguments is the they all commit to Bertrand Russell’s fallacy of composition- Aquinas said that everything he could see was moved by something else (first way, caused by something (second way) and relied on something else for its existence (third way) so this must mean it is true for the universe as well.
These advancements were most likely the basis for a sudden philosophical argument: What do we truly know? People wondered whether science was really giving us knowledge of reality. The quest for the answer to this question led to the development of these two schools of philosophy. Two of the most famous philosophers of epistemology are Rene Descartes and David Hume, the former being a rationalist, and the latter an empiricist. In this paper I will attempt to give an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideas and contributions each of the men made to their respective schools, and hopefully give my personal reasoning why one is more true than the other.
Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism. However, James Lovelock argued that according to GAIA theory the world changes, adapts and amends itself in order to survive and the human race is of little significance. Humans do not control nature, nature is in control. Philosophical determinism, like all forms of hard determinism, is based on the theory of Universal Causation. This is the belief that everything in the universe including all human actions and choices has a cause.
This work will attempt to highlight Socrate’s allegory of the soul to Phaedrus, and juxtapose it with St. Augustine’s theory of the soul in his well known book of confessions. Their view on good and evil and the fundamental properties of the human soul are amazingly similar despite the two men’s stark differences in their approaches to philosophy. Augustine believes a Soul exists in everything that is living. That which is lifeless is without soul. There are three different levels of souls.
Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined. Soft determinists believe that some human actions are determined, but we still have moral responsibility. Hard determinism is the view that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. “Everything is planned, connected, limited.” Voltaire, 1764. This demonstrates that hard determinism is a concept that has been around for centuries.
In this case there is the argument on if Data, the Android Robert, has a mind (or soul). Picard defends Data in that he is more than just an Android, that he has a mind and soul and that he should be considered as a human person, having the same rights. Picard takes the Dualism theory approach. He believes that Data has a mind (or soul). “Since the mind is seen as a completely nonphysical entity, the mind (or soul) cannot be generated through the biological process of reproduction” (Hasker p. 67).
The many are the one and vice versa. Plato was the great rational mind of the ancient world of metaphysics. The key piece of Plato's philosophy is his theory of the realm of Forms. Plato’s dualistic theory sets a major cornerstone in the foundation for the entire history of Western philosophy to build upon. In philosophy, it is presumed that the phenomenon of the mind has no form or extension in time and space; basically, the mind and body are separate.