Stoicism was one of the new philosophical movements of the Hellenistic Stoics believe that nothing passes unexplained. There's a reason for everything in Nature. They believed there is an active "force" which is everywhere coextensive with matter. The Stoics believed that there was something acting within them — as they put it — "a spirit deeply infused, germinating and developing as from a seed in the heart of each separate thing that exists." Ancient skepticism is, for the most part, a phenomenon of Post-Classical, Hellenistic philosophy, the ancient skeptics argue that, if we cannot confidently claim knowledge, we should hold back from any kind of truth-claim.
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. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
This argument became known as Pascal’s Wager. If we examine Paley’s argument in Natural Theology, we see that it is not a good argument for the existence of G-d. It makes a jump from a designer of the universe to the assumption that this designer is somehow the Omni-G-d without any proof. Nevertheless, from Paley’s invalid argument we can create an argument that shows the existence of a designer of the universe. Through the idea of irreducible complexity, we see that there must be designer to the universe.
I will first show that the strength of his criticism lies in its all-encompassing penetration of the foundations of modern philosophy, running through both the ontological and epistemological channels. Ontologically, Heidegger presents a critique of subjectivism; epistemologically, he discredits the correspondence conception of truth and its underlying visual metaphor. I will then look at his view of history and the meaning of his concept of "overcoming" in order to show that his aim is not to destroy the tradition, but to provide a wider basis for it by rescuing forgotten elements imbedded in the tradition itself. Finally, I will show that in this process of "overcoming," Heidegger did not really depart from the tradition, but absorbed some of its basic tenets, as his concept of death echoes major elements of Cartesian doubt. 1.
He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it. Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz would have disagreed with this statement as his key idea was the principle of sufficient reason. His argument was that even if the universe had always been in existence it would still require an explanation, or a sufficient reason. He believed that we need to establish why there is something rather than nothing and to do this, we need to question why the universe exists and look outside the universe as there is nothing within the universe that tells us why it exists. The heart of Leibniz’s argument was that there must be a cause for the whole which explains the whole.
The existence of synthetic a-priori judgments is absolutely crucial to Kant’s argument in the Critique of Pure Reason. Not only is their existence essential to his argument but also their specific manifestation within Kant’s wider framework is. Analytic a-posteriori would undermine Kant’s Transcendental Analytic as the only possible explanation for the emergence of consciousness. Steven Palmquist was one thinker to have challenged Kant’s rejection of the possibility of analytic a-posteriori judgments. It remains to be seen that a line of papers systematically and slowly explore consistent type of analytic posteriori, generating a consistent reciprocal theory to Kant’s.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
The argument itself is leads down an inductive route and in itself tries to prove the existence of god, being through experience and though evidence of the existence of the universe, therefore enabling the ability for the argument to be a posteriori one; a posteriori argument starts from experience of the universe and argues by the induction back to god. Thomas’s ideas were originally from the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, whom in the end concluded that the creator of humanity and the world as we know it was caused by a very intelligent being, uncaused causer or an unmoved mover. People whom of studied the cosmological argument conclude different philosophies or hypothesises depending on what their faith or religion dies down to. Thomas Aquinas was a Theist whom of which used 3 ways to reach his conclusion of this principle; his three ways were based upon Aristotle’s philosophy of their having to be an unmoved mover. The argument
Edmund Husserl’s Idea of Going Back to the Things in Themselves I. Introduction: The main problem of this work is to laid down the ideas of what Husserl really meant of zu den sachen slebst. This paper will also see the difference of Husserl’s method in knowing things compared to the methods or to the process in knowing of other philosophers just like of Aristotle and Descartes to name a few. Basically, the researcher will try to follow the idea on how Husserl finds the way of going back to the things in themselves. The researcher considers that it can only be done by more focusing on the method to which Husserl asserted in knowing the essence of things.