Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure. However if an individual gains pleasure through inflicting harm can we conclude that good and pleasure are one and the same thing? In short ethical naturalism is unable to define good, yet continues to claim that ethical language is based on objective truth. Non Cognitive approaches to meta ethics such as emotivism and prescriptivism argue that ethical language is subjective. A. J. Ayer claims that ethical language
This is not beauty. Beauty can not be limited to such a simplistic and superficial view. Beauty is something much grander and much more abstract. In his poem, “Confession”, Linh Dinh supports the realism that there should not be an archetype for beauty. So what is beauty?
Modernism describes the art and aesthetics movement as a reaction against realism. Modernists are similar to structuralism on its view of the world that it is composed by underlying formal systems which can be known and explained (Sturken and Cartwright 2009, 4498). Postmodernism appeared as a reaction against modernism. Defining postmodernism is difficult as it would contradict inherent beliefs of postmodernism which defines that there is no absolute truth. However it is stated as a “ set of trends in the art world that question, among other things, concepts of authenticity, authorship and the idea of style progression (Sturken and Cartwright 2009, 454).
“Logos” describes a kind of truth that strives for objectivitythrought the use of critical reason, while “mythos” describes a truth whose purpose is to overcome our subjective sense of separateness from the world and other living beings. Though past societies understood the distinction betwwn the two, Armstrong contends that in our time both skeptics and religious people treat mythos as a set of objective claims. After reading “Homo Religiosus,” the concept of keeping mythos separate from logos is impossible to
The term Post-Modernism must not be confused with the term Post-Modernity, which has another focus: Post-Modernism is, as already mentioned, a cultural and intellectual phenomenon, whereas Post-Modernity as a term is used within sociology and political science to describe societies economically and culturally – mostly seen from a global point of view. The Post-Modern writer focuses on expression without content, which means that the writer puts up a scenario which the reader is free to interpret in whatever way he wants to: there is no correct interpretation. But while Post-Modernism seems very much like Modernism, it differs from Modernism in its attitude. Post-Modernism does not see the fragmented reality of the 20th century as necessarily bad but comments on its meaninglessness and plays with it. Post-Modern literature is very experimental and every story is very different from the other.
Postmodernism is seen a series of propositions, attitudes or values that, independent of the degree of theoretic value, cannot be denied and that operate ideologically as part of culture and sensibility of postmodern times. The rejection of totality and meta-narratives, the cult to fragmentation and difference, chaos, irony, relativism, and weariness are all characteristics of postmodernism. For some, postmodernism belongs to a historic period different to modernism in the sense that these new times take off from the logic that prevailed in modernism. The self is bombarded and invaded by propaganda until it succumbs to defragmentation. To be able to determine the existence of postmodernism as a cultural phenomenon, it is necessary to accept the demise of modernity.
Transcendentalism is the idea that the truth transcends the senses. Writers like Whitman and Thoreau believed two of truths were the relationship with nature and becoming one’s own individual. Though in today’s society, these truths have become distant and irrelevant. The transcendental philosophy is based on the premise that truth is innate in all creation and that knowledge is “intuitive rather than rational”. Thoreau’s and Whitman’s writings were emanating individuality of one’s voice, the strength of having original character—that “imitation is suicide” (Emerson).
What does Paul Feyerabend’s notion of “Epistemological Anarchism” mean? Evaluate this in relation to his critique of Kuhn’s Paradigms. While Emphasizing the subjective side of science, Kuhn claimed that operating within science means existing within the restrictive confines of the dominant paradigm, which attempts to limit particular questions that can be asked, how these are asked, and how their answers are formulated into viable scientific facts that are accepted by fellow scientists. This paradigm, in turn may actually obstruct the progress of science by nature of being untranslatable to other paradigms and impede rational argument. Kuhn states that a scientist’s switch between one paradigm to the next is similar to a “gestalt switch” where neural programming is required rather than argument and persuasion.
Before talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, it is necessary to answer questions such as what is science and what is religion? The science is a tool by means of which it is possible to receive true knowledge of the world. How there was a Universe or how life has appeared? Very deep and difficult question. While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them.