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. With this matter, the researcher anticipates that this paper will serve as a gadfly of those people who are already enclosed by the presuppositions, beliefs, judgments, prejudices, and biases that hinders them of being a pure consciousness. It is now our concern to know and follow the ideas of Husserl in knowing the essence of things. Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology: a means to arrive the vista of transcendentally purified phenomena. To begin this paper, it is more appropriate to talk first about the method which Husserl fashioned in order for man to get back to the things in themselves, and this method is what he called phenomenological reduction.
The cosmological argument rests on certain principles of causation. In particular that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence (this is what Leibniz points to in his principle of sufficient reason), and that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues. There are three main categories of criticism that Hume makes of the argument. Firstly he has general concerns about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious, secondly he has more specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of contingency and necessity.
If all my actions, my beliefs and my desires are determined by preceding conditions, how can I ever be free? This is the conflict presented by traditional theories of determinism and freewill. But analysis of such a concept of freewill shows it be incoherent. In this case, we must either reject the thesis that we have freewill, or reformulate our concept of freewill so that it is coherent. I will argue that such a reformulation is not only compatible with determinism but also necessary, if we are to maintain that we have any kind of freewill.
For Descartes’ in the 16th century, the ability to discern truth was a matter of paramount importance. How do we know what we know? Descartes subjected all ideas to skepticism and doubt in order to find a foundation for knowledge. He argued if there was any way in which he could imagine that something that he thought he knew was true wasn’t true, then he could not say for certain that it was true. Descartes expounds on his “Method of Doubt” in three stages: the “Argument from Illusion,” “Dream Skepticism,” and the “Evil Genius.” The first two stages allude to the inclination of humans to be deceived by their own senses, and the third argument was essentially a thought experiment for Descartes, and will not be considered here.
With respect to the two papers, I want to show (1) reasons for accepting or denying Self-Predication, (2) how this assumption leads one to a metaphysical or epistemological interpretation of the TMA, and (3) how this assumption determines their different views of the structure of the TMA. In the final section of Vlastos’ paper, Vlastos gives us his critique of only three discrepancies he has with Sellars’ interpretation of Self-Predication. It’s important to understand first why one should accept or deny the view of Self-Predication. And though it seems like a minor debate within the whole argument, the implications of either one’s assumption determines the reasons for many of their other discrepancies on the TMA as a whole. The first problem for Vlastos consists of Sellars’ attempt to discredit Self-Predication within the language used by Plato.
The first step is to “ask what odds will your give that the presumption proves correct?” Step two is to “require each to specify what makes his answer different from the others.” Step three is to “Encourage argument, promote articulation of differences.” And the fourth step is to “review presumption accordingly.” All these questions must be asked when going through my agenda before the next step in counting the ballots is carried on. Another mini
Rowe begins his argument by first stating that the cosmological argument is a posteriori argument which means the “argument depends on a principle or premise that can be known only by means of our experience of the world” (38). He then goes on to explain that the deductive validity of an argument is insufficient to prove the truth of its conclusion; there must also be rational grounds for believing that the premises are true. He further explains that the first part of the PSR is simply a restatement of premise one, therefore if PSR is true then there is a clear justification that the first premise is true. However, there are many objections about the justification of the second premise. The second premise states that “not every being that exists can be a dependent being, that is, can have the explanation of its existence in some other being or beings” (40).
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory for all times, when faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question what ought a man to do? It is guidance for government and personal action is based upon the maximization of the good; by government for those within the society, and by individuals. Utilitarian considerations play an important role in emotion regulation. Although the application of utilitarian principles may strengthen majority rule, unfettered democracy can lead to tyranny.
In order to evaluate whether determinism leaves room for moral responsibility, I must first define determinism. In the scope of this essay, I will consider that which is generally viewed as “hard determinism.” I will then further argue that this rigid view of determinism is too stringent to be relied upon, and that a more fluid version would allow for the coexistence of both determinism and free will. Thus, I posit that determinism can be compatible with moral responsibility, insofar as we use the right type of determinism. Hard determinism generally posits that if determinism is true, every human action is pre-determined by conditions that have been set forth before the existence of a specific agent. It then follows that an agent does not act freely, has no free will, and is therefore never morally responsible for its actions.
In this essay I am going to systematically outline these three arguments whilst also looking at some of the counter arguments against them before finally formulating a personal assessment as to the weight of his claim. The doubting argument is the first Descartes expresses in favour of his dualism. It is essentially a manipulation of his ‘i think therefore i am’ as he observes that while he can call into question the existence of his body, it is impossible for him to doubt the existence of his mind and that he is thinking as through the very act of doubting he would express thought. From this he deduces that due to the fact that the existence of one can be doubted and that of the other cannot, mind and body must be distinct. The argument is laid out as such: Premise 1: I can doubt that my body exists.