He then trounces the argument, saying, “If we use the causal argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect uncaused cause. The most it would entitle one to conclude is that the cause is powerful enough and imperfect enough to have created the sort of world we know.”1 He then states that because the world is imperfect, and because we see a great deal of unnecessary evil, if we reason that there is a creator at all, he must be either “a malevolent powerful being or . . . a well-intentioned muddler.”2 It would seem that Mr. McCloskey assumes that the universe as we know it (with its current defects) must be the world as it was created, without considering the theist’s appeal to special revelation as to why this may be so.
They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
Existentialism is a philosophical theory that states that each individual has absolute freedom of choice and each has the responsibility to regulate one’s own actions. Existentialists believe that life has no universal meaning thus the pursuit of any greater truth is unnecessary and trivial (Existentialism). In slight contrast, absurdists believe that in the trivialality of a universal meaning, but that the pursuit itself may contain greater truths (Belanger). However, both believe that the world as a whole is purely nonsensical and illogical (Existentialism). Camus’ philosophical beliefs are evident throughout his first work, The Stranger.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one's groups, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of idealism by those habituated to its selfish use. Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought.
Because it engages the whole self without a fixed yardstick it can be called a personal reflection…. [I]n this reflection the self is in question; what is at stake is the definition of those inchoate evaluations which are sensed to be essential to our identity (117). Taylor makes this claim about responsibility for self in opposition to Sartre’s characterization of the human condition as nothingness and absolute freedom. Sartre derives from this condition an understanding of freedom as the radical, infinite openness of the freedom of our choices and concludes that it is this freedom that characterizes our fundamental moral dilemma. Taylor argues that it is not the weight of the openness that defines our moral selves or the moral dilemmas we face, but the fact that various choices necessarily blind and pull us in different directions.
Essentially Hobbes believes in a world in which everyone is constantly in jeopardy from each other, a life of fear and restlessness. I do not think Hobbes’ interpretation of human nature is accurate, and is excessively pessimistic and cynical. Hobbes beings by assuming that people are adequately similar in their mental and physical attributes that no one is capable of monopolizing any benefit nor can expect to be able to control the others. Hobbes says, “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he” (Hobbes 98). Humans are unique in the manner that even if one is physically stronger, the other can use mental faculties to overpower him or her, “For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others” (Hobbes, 98).
They are afraid to die, therefore they have a force resulting in procreation, they will in another way continue to survive by their offspring. Nietzche believed that it was not only the will to survive, but to succeed (power) and that everyone has this power, even subconsciously. Everything strives for power. The overman (Ubermensch) is the superior man who justifies the existence of the human race. It is described to be the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of the enhancement of humanity.
It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance. Laws do not solve the problem, rather they make individuals dependant on outside authorities, to regulate out lives and provide answers for problems that may arise. Therefore, we lose our reason and ability to think for ourselves, we lose out natural autonomy. Thus a state has the opportunity to put a moral code upon us which we cannot question as we become dependant on the rules of the state. Godwin argued that human beings are naturally rational and have the
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract