Unit One: Text Questions Review Questions 1. Why is philosophy sometimes defined as “thinking about thinking”? Philosophy is sometimes defined as “thinking about thinking”, because Philosophy isn’t about theories and facts. It’s about thinking. Philosophers are full of wonder and always asking questions.
Heraclitus’s greatest claim in his theory on metaphysics is that the LOGOS is the key to understanding everything. This idea of the LOGOS was one that Anaxagoras expounded on, in particular “all things were one.” (Mckirahan 196, Fr. 13.1) In this paper I will address the ideas posited by Anaxagoras as they relate to Heraclitus’s ideas in their respective metaphysical theories. Moreover, I will focus on how Anaxagoras elaborated and in a sense corrected Heraclitus’s view on the nature of being. Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is.
Philosophers such as René Descartes, John Mill, and John Locke are just a few examples of the people whom have had a hand in the discoveries of psychology. In addition, many have their own opinions and do not believe in psychology. However, when one is discussing facts, observation, and results, it is hard to disagree with advancements in psychology. Philosophers
Explain the relationship between The Form of The Good and the other Forms (25 marks) Plato was a dualist and so he believed that there were two worlds: the unreal physical world and the spiritual world of The Forms. This view is portrayed throughout Plato’s theory of The Forms in which he suggests that the truth does not lie in the real world or our empirical knowledge but in fact the truth lies in our a priori knowledge. The Forms are eternal, unchanging and transcendent. The world is merely an imperfect copy of The Forms- The world of Particulars. In the platonic theory of Forms, there is a hierarchy of the Forms.
Traditionally most moral theories have been written through some form of coherentism. Recently, people have started to worry about the practicality of moral theories, as it would seem that they cannot be applied in real life situations. Philosophers such as Susan Wolf have attacked the ideals of traditional moral theories. The problems of moral theory have been the main focus of most philosophers, but there is another problem in modern moral philosophy. There are so many conflicting theories that it makes it almost impossible to choose what the moral thing to do would be.
In this work, Locke contradicts the theory of innate ideas and put forth the concept of the human mind as being a “tabula rasa” or blank slate where it is void of any ideas. Locke believed knowledge came from two sources: externally through the five senses and internally from functions of the mind such as perception, reflection, and doubting. Although both are important in the development of knowledge, the mind’s interactions between the two sources are the decisive
Why or why not? Immanuel Kant is one of the great philosophical thinkers in his time. He developed a lot of theories that are still in practice today. Categorical Imperative is a concept that is essential to the philosophical concept in the moral philosophy. The wise Immanuel Kant in his quote said that humans should be treated as an “end in itself.” One might read this and wonder exactly what Kant try’s to portray in these words.
The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances that “minds” and “body” is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences. It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understand in terms of them. Nor such an understanding can be gained by supplementing scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like capture important aspects of the human condition, neither moral thinking nor scientific thinking suffices.
This essay will analyze the dialogue between Socrates and Euthryphro that takes place before Socrates’ trial with the gods of Athens. Though there were many concepts that were shared throughout the dialogue, I chose to discuss Socrates’ argument of piety, love, and what is just and unjust. Socrates’ dialogue with Euthryphro is one of many forms of tedious arguments that Socrates’ is able to present to his peers. This argument is a pivotal question in Socrates’ philosophy. It teaches us the meaning of free will and being able to independently decide what is truly pious or impious based on personal beliefs.
It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Politics) making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. This is completely absurd because all he is trying to do here is get him in power. What a bold statement to say that only philosophers were the only people suitable to govern people. Socrates was in no way subtle about his particular beliefs on government. He openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life.