https://www.echeat.com/ Science Mathematics Kurt Gödel American mathematician Ask the Chatbot a Question More Actions Also known as: Kurt Goedel Written by Mark Balaguer Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Jan 10, 2025 • Article History Table of Contents Kurt Gödel (born April 28, 1906, Brünn, AustriaHungary [now Brno, Czech Rep.]—died Jan. 14, 1978, Princeton, N.J., U.S.) was an Austrian-born mathematician, logician, and philosopher who obtained what may be the most important mathematical result of the 20th century: his famous incompleteness theorem, which states that within any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system; thus, such a system cannot be simultaneously complete and consistent. This proof established Gödel as one of the greatest logicians since Aristotle, and its repercussions continue to be felt and debated today. Quick Facts See all related content Gödel also spelled: Goedel Born: April 28, 1906, Brünn, AustriaHungary [now Brno, Czech Rep.] Died: Jan. 14, 1978, Princeton, N.J., U.S. (aged 71, died on this day) Subjects Of Study: continuum hypothesis Kurt Gödel Kurt Gödel, 1950. Contents Ask the Chatbot a Question T h e f i r s t a n d o n l y o b e s i t y t r e a t m e n t o f i t s k i n d . * *Activates 2 hormone receptors—GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide) and GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) Zepbound® (ZEHP-bownd) is an injectable prescription medicine that may help adults with obesity, or with excess weight (overweight) who also h i ht l t d di l bl INDICATION AND SAFETY SUMMARY WITH WARNINGS Early life and career Gödel suffered through several periods of poor health as a child, following a bout at age 6 with rheumatic fever, which left him fearful of having some residual heart problem. His lifelong concern with his health may have contributed to his eventual paranoia, which included obsessively cleaning his eating utensils and worrying over the purity of his food. As a German-speaking Austrian, Gödel suddenly found himself living in the newly formed country of Czechoslovakia when the AustroHungarian Empire was broken up at the end of World War I in 1918. Six years later, though, he went to study in Austria, at the University of Vienna, where he earned his doctorate in mathematics in 1929. He joined the faculty at the University of Vienna the next year. Britannica Quiz Numbers and Mathematics During that period, Vienna was one of the intellectual hubs of the world. It was home to the famed Vienna Circle, a group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who endorsed the naturalistic, strongly empiricist, and antimetaphysical view known as logical positivism. Gödel’s dissertation adviser, Hans Hahn, was one of the leaders of the Vienna Circle, and 2024-11-29T10:29:01.243-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/THE-KURT-GODEL-S-PHILOSOPHY-ALEXIS-KARPOUZOS-45600.aspx Many would still fight for the Evolution theory and big bang theory, but a much more sensible and acceptable explanation for the creation of everything, especially the human being, is the one that would not make me a distant cousin from an animal. As the Bible revealed that humans are God's greatest creation, that should give us confidence to fight for ourselves and for others, and of course our obligation as creations, is to give back the glory and give pleasure to the Creator. Numerous legends and people that denies the original and much more beautiful concept of the creation of the first human, and what they don't appreciate is the fact that we humans are and should be a moral being. Being a human means being alive, breathing, eating, see things, etc., while being a person means having an identity, realizing, feeling and deciding. Human person means a beautiful complex being that is created and loved by a Deity. It is very saddening that some or many people do not see the beauty of life and destroy it for pleasure or somehow appreciate the small things we feel of being alive. Being able to feel negative or positive feelings means being able to think or it just basically means that we are alive. As from Erich Fromm's theory of personality, a dog knows that it is alive but doesn't have the awareness that its life would end in a certain time and for a human that has an awareness about life and death, some would be afraid and chose to play safe in life and some would live their lives to the fullest. Experiencing things in life is not always happiness in green fields with butterflies and great weather but there would be gray skies and storms and that makes life beautiful. What I meant by this is that despite the great achievements by the humanity, we are still a fragile being that is dependent to someone who's more powerful to us. Explaining something should always consider the why, what, how, when and who questions. In the beginning of everything, God created all things before the humans. He first prepared the house before the ones who'll live in it. God breathed life to us and cherished us as His masterpiece, and He did this because He wanted it to be done that shows His authority and being a deity. 2022-04-24T22:39:09.9-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Humanperson-The-origin-of-species-45566.aspx Surname Instructor Course Date Philosophy of Human Person Humanity is a word used to the humankind for being ‘humane’ with wisdom and humility which is gained through the activation of mind and its creation of cultural ways of living in time and space. Humanity is not just being aware of humans when one can do something to them especially when basic humanity is being dismantled or damaged by any situation. The reason why one should not destroy humanity is that one’s consciousness automatically endows him or her with the notion of morality. It gives one a sense of what’s wrong and what’s right. The world would be insignificant without morality. However, humans cannot deny the existence of morality, and therefore one cannot justify destroying a fellow human. Morality is one thing that sets humans apart from animals. Meaning of Humanity as an “end in itself” and Kant’s Argument For one to be regarded as humane, he or she has to reason practically and with a moral view. Kant went ahead to argue that if a morally practical person can evaluate and assess himself or herself with his fellow rational beings depending on how he or she treats other beings. Based on equality assessment one can value himself depending on standards. The standards can be low, neutral or high. The criteria that one considers in the evaluation process include assessing one’s sensibility as a being and also checking on his or her moral predisposition. Kant went ahead to argue that human beings must pursue their end which is a duty to every being. When doing this duty, one is not expected to take part in moral arrogance. Instead, he or she has to be conscious of other people’s morals and its significance. He went ahead to claim that practicing false humility is not our end duty. False humility is the act of trying to equalize our moral self with other human beings. One has to practice true humility to make this world a better place. True humility deals with humans relating directly to the moral laws and its principles. Kant went ahead to list the end duty examples which consider the dignity of the entire humans amongst themselves. These dignifying acts included practicing empathy, being kind and compassionate, respecting others and being morally upright. Humanity should not have people with aggressive behaviors, who ignore the sufferings of the less fortunate, abuse or lack compassion for others. Justifications Kant’s argument 2018-10-13T01:36:50.437-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-of-the-Human-Person-45453.aspx Student Instructor Course Date Rational Ground for the Belief in God The belief in God is a question that has generated many questions among the philosophers. The conviction for the beliefs is pegged on the acceptance that the real issues are handled appropriately. Arguments have been raised to support the theological aspects that support the belief. The supporters of theism have developed arguments that have been in the forefront of safeguarding the basis for the belief. The rational arguments are classified into three categories. The categories include the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments that have been developed to understand the effects of the aspect of the belief in God. The three categories have been very significant in understanding the contemporary philosophies that discuss religion from a special angle. The paper will provide an insight into the rational grounds that are embraced by the believers in the existence of God despite the presence of evil. Ontological Arguments The arguments provide a traditional perspective to the idea of the existence of God. The arguments are based on the premises that can be isolated from the experience captured in the world. The arguments are founded on the concept of God and make a conclusion that God exists. The arguments seek to prove that the nonexistence of God is an impossible phenomenon. The existence is independent of the fact that evil also exists. The proponents of the arguments purport that God is the most powerful being. The argument is that God exists in both the mind and in reality. The superiority of God is attached to the aspect of conceivability in both the mind and the reality of life. The logical connection between the presence of God in the mind and in actual reality concludes the aspect of the presence of God. Teleological Arguments The argument is based on the idea of a deity pegged on the order that is found in nature. The argument is based on the capability of reflecting the design purpose and intelligence depicted in the world. The three aspects point to the presence of God. God is viewed as the designer of the features that constitute nature. The design and implementation are beyond the capabilities of man thus point to the presence of a unique design that is superior to the human beings. The complexity of nature itself is important towards describing the functioning of the appropriate elements that define the capabilities of the human capabilities. Cosmological Arguments The 2018-06-11T03:26:16.167-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/-Rational-Ground-for-the-Belief-in-God-45443.aspx Abortion Essay Author Institution The issue of whether to support or oppose the case of abortion depends with the argument made. In some cases, it is possible to present an idea that shows abortion is a good thing and needs to be supported. 2018-05-16T02:45:02.94-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Abortion-45437.aspx Compatibilism Name Institutional Affiliation Compatibilism Compatibilism is a fundamental philosophical context that humans can have both determined actions and a free will of their choice. In order to have a good understanding of compatibilism, one needs to know the elements of a free will. It entails a notion that every person has the ability to make a rightful independence and more free decisions. Nevertheless, various factors govern an individual’s free will. The paper analyzes the aspect of compatibilism and the aspect of 2018-05-16T02:21:55.943-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Compatibilism-Compatibilism-45436.aspx Social Justice Humanity gets fractured when humans neglect other beings. All humans are interdependent and the vulnerable deserve conscientious consideration and a level of care. If nations have the capacity to prevent anything bad from happening without foregoing anything comparable to moral importance, then they have to do it (Singer, 1972). Nations have an obligation to help 2018-05-15T08:00:16.287-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Social-Justice-45434.aspx Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence (A.I) refers to the development of wise objects that are capable 2018-05-15T07:52:45.82-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Artificial-Intelligence-45433.aspx Bias in Medical Research Article Analysis (Author’s name) (Institutional Affiliation) Date Introduction Over the years, different research projects have been conducted by experts that are skilled in diverse issues that affect the society in all its social, economic and political aspects. These research projects are meant to educate the public about the different problems that exist. However, some scholars have argued that public research findings have at times been found to be biased and they do not give the complete facts concerning the research issues. Therefore, the purpose of this project is to provide a compelling analysis of how bias and statistical manipulation have resulted in flawed medical studies as stated in the article in question. Discussion The main point expressed in this article is that many public research findings are false or biased in some ways. The author of the article, John Loannidis, has cited different reasons as to why he believes that the results of some research projects cannot be relied upon . One of the primary reasons is that numerous teams conduct research concerning specific issues yet attention is given to the findings of one group and those results are presented with a unilateral understanding . As such, no considerations are provided to the findings of other research teams, and no one tries to assess all the research findings of all research teams. The article has provided some accurate insights as to how bias and statistical manipulation have resulted in flawed medical studies. Some of the methods used in refutation of research findings include traditional epidemiological studies, modern molecular research, and clinical trials. Generally, the article provides evidence supporting the motion of how there biased and false research findings concerning the field of medicine. One gets a clear understanding as to how some findings are invalid because the article provides various analysis, designs, data and presentations factors that result in the production of false research findings. The article relates to what I have learned in class about experimental research in different aspects that concern research findings. In class, students are educated about strengthening the possibility of having accurate measurements concerning research topics through laboratory experiments, natural experiments, and field tests. In the article, the author gives a discussion about the credibility of the research findings concerning the field of medicine and the processes followed in the research projects. My beliefs and attitudes towards the quality and accuracy of research studies findings published in professional journals 2018-01-07T23:38:33.273-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Bias-in-Medical-Research-Article-Analysis-45414.aspx Gun control in the USA Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Gun Control in the USA The right to the ownership of a firearm is founded on the right to self-defense. Individuals have a right to defend themselves from anyone who wishes to destroy their lives. The right to self-defense is related to the right to life. It sounds ridiculous to provide the right to life yet there are no means to protect the life. The opponents of gun ownership have been against this right to protect life from danger. The paper will look at the moral right to own a gun and whether the Supreme Court judges make the law by offering an interpretation on the application of the Constitution. Moral Right to Own Guns I hold a belief that individuals have a moral right to the ownership of a gun. However, the rights are logically before the laws that are enacted by the state. Individuals have the right to take part in in any activity unless there is a reason as to why they should not be allowed to do it (Huemer, 2017). The person denying the rights has the task of proving that there is the reason for the existence of the right. Likewise, the person seeking to have the right must proof that they are sufficiently fit to hold custody of a gun. Limits on the Type of Weaponry Despite the right, I find that there should be a limit to the type of weaponry that people should be allowed to own. Individuals should not be allowed to hold unusual weapons. The Second Amendment has been made clear by a Supreme Court ruling on the type of weaponry that individuals should carry. The decision barred American citizens from having unusual and dangerous weapons that are not commonly used at that particular time. It can be interpreted to be a general rule that governs the right to the ownership of arms. Individuals should hold the weapons that are common to all. Justification The type of firearm that an individual can own is subject to the regulation under the National Firearms Act. It specifies the extra tax stamp and regulation to own a firearm. Individuals seeking to have special weapons need to get authorization by complying to the set restrictions and paying the relevant duties and taxes. Individuals are allowed to own any non-automatic firearm that has a maximum caliber of 0.5 (Findley, 2013). It 2017-12-06T10:15:37.167-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-control-in-the-USA-45403.aspx Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince Name Institutional Affiliation Date Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince The world over is made up of countries managed by political leaders who use various forms of governments and leadership styles. In the study of one of the federal governments, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book called The Prince where he presents a kind of leadership style for a prince in Italy (Machiavelli, 2014). Machiavelli dedicates the work to enlighten the Medici family by declaring to explain the conduct of great leaders and the policies of a princely form of government. Therefore, this paper analyses the literary works by Machiavelli in his book The Prince where he addresses the political leadership style for Italy in the 1950s particularly to the ruling family on how a prince can gain and retain political power over his subjects. In The Prince, Machiavelli examines the different types of leaders and their governments and sums up revolutionary strategies for a prince to gain the leadership roles in the government in addition to maintaining the official position (Machiavelli, 2014). Machiavelli focuses more on the evil leadership qualities because they help the prince to advance more power for himself from both within and outside the government (Machiavelli, 2014). As a matter of fact, he begins the book by dedicating the work to Lorenzo de Medici and winds it up with an assertion that Italy must revive and regain its considerable power again (Machiavelli, 2014). According to Machiavelli in Chapter 15, “Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in truth. For it is far from how one lives to how one should live. That he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation" (Machiavelli, 2014). He is making hints about Plato’s Republic by stating that philosopher kings should rule their societies in a similar manner or style (Machiavelli, 2014). He also stresses the importance of kings in a treating their subjects well in order to be good at each other and maintain purity in their souls (Machiavelli, 2014). To back up the features of his philosophic Prince, Machiavelli adds that the prince should only act good but does not have to be good as well (Machiavelli, 2014). He uses extremely wild examples of Romulus and Cain murdering Remus and Abel respectively. These killings were the fundamentals of evil in the society, and therefore, the author 2017-04-27T05:04:50.443-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Niccolo-Machiavelli-s-The-Prince- The-world-over-is-made-up-of-countries-managed-by-political-leaders-who-use-various-forms-of-governments-and-leadership-styles_-45320.aspx Student’s Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Theodicy Theodicy, being a subunit of both philosophy and theology helps in explaining what evil is. Coming from the Greek word dike meaning justice and theos meaning God, the phrase original meaning translates to "the justice of God." Theodicy gives a defined explanation of the structure, goal, and nature of evil believed to be created by a supreme being, God. Theodicy gives a detailed explanation for its existence in our lives and aims at bringing to light its key principles. Theodicy also brings in the challenge that displays when merging the concept of the seen evil in the world with the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God. Theodicy is presenting itself in the present world in various forms. For the most part, theodicy brings suffering and pain despite it presenting itself in the form of natural evil such as diseases, genetic defects, earthquakes, tornadoes, and lightning, or moral evil such as murder, kidnapping, abuse of all forms. Murder, for example, would be presented as a moral evil in which questions if God was all powerful and all knowing why would he allow such to happen (Davis). Theodicy is considered a monotheism religion because they believe in the existence in only one God. They believe that the God they worship is the one true creator of heaven and earth and all that is in it. They believe that the God they worship is all powerful, omnipresent, all knowing and is full of life and thus making theodicy a monotheism religion since they one true God cannot be contested. The importance of salvation in Theodicy is that it acts as a deliverance tool for the believers from negativity and suffering of this world. It is also associated with the restoration of a person or a community from the natural world to a whole new state of the Christian community. An individual can perceive salvation in three main aspects; resources required to attain utmost salvation, the steps involved in being saved and the actual definition of living in salvation. The resources required in attaining salvation and the step involved can be attained through inner resources. These include aspects such as good deeds, righteousness, asceticism, meditation and knowledge and wisdom of the religion. In some instances, salvation can be manifested through an external agent like in the case of God’s intervention to a someone like and turns him or her around to salvation. Cases of 2017-04-25T08:55:44.517-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Theodicy-45316.aspx Literacy is a fundamental aspect of a lifelong learning and achievement of educational goals among students in elementary school. Teachers in elementary school have the obligation to equip students with literacy instructions that ensure the development of linguistic and cognitive abilities. Literacy instructions involve reading, writing, oral language, and content that enriches students to achieve success. Numerous research studies suggest that effective teaching in elementary schools begin with a professional development plan and a perfect pedagogical approach (Allington). The essay aims at expounding on the essential elements and strategies of effective learning in an elementary school. Purpose of elementary education The significant goal of elementary reading instructions is to assist students in acquiring the needed knowledge and skills to comprehend oral and written language. In achieving efficiency in teaching, teachers ought to ensure sufficient background knowledge of vocabulary, use of the appropriate strategies to enhance comprehension, and provision of adequate motivation to learn from text (www.readingrockets.org). The core purpose of an elementary school is to equip students to read accurately and fluently. Therefore, comprehensive reading is indispensable to warrant the development of reading proficiency. Students ought to carry out extensive practice because it provides them with an opportunity to integrate the skills inculcated in a classroom. Contemporary learning domain There are many terms used in the modern world to describe the preschool stage of literacy development; for example, emergent reading, emerging writing, and emerging literacy, among others. Nonetheless, early literacy is the most suitable terminology because it fits the relevant skills, knowledge, and nature that herald the read and write practices in the primary grades (Tyner 68). Children tend to communicate through both written and oral language. Consequently, they draw and scribble as a way to add meaning to their talk and action. Teaching strategies Teachers have numerous teaching strategies at their reach through which students in elementary school can gain reading and writing proficiency. For instance, it is important to engage children in conversations in small and large groups. Additionally, teachers are expected to use rare words that students are unlikely to come across in routine conversations. On the other hand, storybook reading acts as an excellent strategy to perfect children’s reading skills. In this case, reading out aloud some enjoyable story, book information, or even a poem provide sufficient learning efficiency (Torgesen et al,. 28). Some activities tend to increase children’s awareness of oral language. Phonological awareness activities 2017-04-07T02:59:26.807-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Teaching-literacy-in-elementary-education-45305.aspx Reflection Paper about Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes Moral Philosophy, I believe is a branch of philosophy that deals with categorizing, then defending, and lastly recommending what is right and what is wrong in society. There are norms that are universal as far as moral and political conduct. These values are beyond what one might consider to be personal ethics with how we ought to live our lives. Thomas Hobbes is a well-known and great political philosopher of his times. His moral philosophy has been less influential than his political philosophy in some parts because it was not expressed or understood clearly, to have garnered any general agreement as to its contents and his beliefs. Hobbes's moral thought is difficult to untangle from his politics. On his view, what we ought to do depends greatly on the situation in which we find ourselves. Where political authority is lacking as in his famous natural condition of mankind, our fundamental right seems to be saved, by whatever means we think fit. Where political authority exists, our duty seems to be quite straightforward: to obey those in power. Hobbes's state of nature is unacceptable and shows a lack of hope for the future which he constructs it based on testing and experience and normative assumptions. He assumes that people neither are sufficiently similar in their mental and physical attributes that no one is invulnerable nor can expect to be able to dominate the others. Hobbes assumes that people generally “shun death” or to avoid death, and that the desire to preserve their own lives is very strong in most people. While people have local affections, their benevolence is limited, and they have a tendency to prejudice. Concerned that others should agree with their own high opinions of themselves, people are sensitive to slights. They make evaluative judgments, but often use seemingly impersonal terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to stand for their own personal preferences. They are curious about the causes of events and anxious about their futures, these characteristics incline people to adopt religious beliefs; although the content of those beliefs will differ depending upon the sort of religious education one has happened to receive. What happens, then, if we do not follow Hobbes in his arguments that judgment must, by necessity or by social contract or both, be the sole province of the sovereign? If we are optimists about the power of human judgment, and about the 2017-01-27T20:35:54.957-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Reflection-about-Thomas-Hobbes-Philosophical-Thoughts-35270.aspx The Unknown Reality in the Existence of God The existence of God has been a question since the idea of God was conceived. Descartes tries to prove God’s existence and to show that there is without a doubt something external to one’s own existence. He is looking for a definite certainty, a foundation for which he can base all of his beliefs and know that they are true. Descartes’ overall project is to find a definite certainty on which he can base all his knowledge and beliefs. Descartes attacks the principles that support everything he believes with his Method of Doubt. The Method of Doubt is Descartes’ method of fundamental questioning in which he doubts everything that there is the slightest reason to doubt. Thinking about it in a different way, to me it seems like almost everything you believe to be true comes from the senses or through the senses. However, the senses are sometimes deceptive. Since the senses are not completely trustworthy; it is irrational to place complete trust in them. However, it is no small leap of faith to presume that everything our senses tell us is false. In fact, according to Descartes it seems almost absurd to say such a thing. Descartes argues in Mediation IV that, "it is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is always indicative of some imperfection. And although the ability to deceive seems to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive undoubtedly attest to maliciousness or weakness. Accordingly, deception is incompatible with God." Descartes says that the will to deceive "attests to maliciousness or weakness". Therefore, stating that if a person has a will to deceive then she is either weak or malicious or maybe even both. Weakness and malicious, however, are imperfections. God, a being that has all perfections and no imperfections, cannot be weak, and cannot be malicious. Here stating, God cannot have the will to deceive. “For if everything that is in me I got from God, and he gave me no faculty for making mistakes, it seems I am incapable of ever erring... I nevertheless experience that I am subject to countless errors.” Descartes states that since God is not a deceiver, he cannot have given Descartes a mental means that inevitably leads him to make mistakes; this is why his clear and distinct perceptions must be true. And yet 2015-12-08T00:02:03.243-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/DESCARTES-EXISTENCE-OF-GOD-35156.aspx Philosophy in life is very important but as this time I am not really sure what are my philosophies in life because as for now I really don't understand what my life is. So, I'll try to list down my philosophies in life and I hope that, this will be an essay of my philosopy in life. Specifically, I want to earn money. Because, money provides everything. When I want to 2014-12-27T01:43:14.88-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/My-Philosophy-and-Perception-in-Life-35074.aspx 2013-12-10T00:39:52.53-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Justice-34992.aspx Denisse Arzola PHIL 8 10/14/13 Should We Carry a Gun? Personally, I would not be comfortable carrying a gun everywhere I go. I believe that it is reasonable to carry a gun in your car or home; but not inside the local grocery store, even though it’s more likely to be best effective there. It is to my understanding that people who carry a gun are more likely to look for a reason to use it accordingly, although, this article does raise a sound argument in defense to carrying a concealed weapon. Ratnesar reflects on a study published in 1995 that shows guns were used defensively around two and a half million times a year and that only five percent of cases were the defenders harmed after they were known to be carrying a weapon. This brings up a solid point in the argument of self-defense, but what wasn’t taken into consideration was that the study did not account for the levels of poverty in selected areas of the states. For example: would it be more understandable to carry a gun walking around the wealthy city of Beverly Hills or in the middle of Skid Row? So the benefits of carrying a gun fluctuate on the basis of a person’s conscience not science. He does indeed back up his facts by contending “that after more relaxed concealed carry laws were enacted, murders fell an average of eight percent, rapes five percent, and aggravated assaults seven percent for those areas; while in the rest of the country the numbers for murders went up twenty-four percent, seventy-one percent on rape, and the assaults more than doubled.” In my opinion, the only thing that proves is that the offenders were just more aware of policies, so in consequence they were more timid to attempt; not that the people were defending themselves by pulling out a weapon during a heated confrontation. Which backs up the idea of people’s conscience is where the gun safety laws really come into effect. After the laws were in place for an extended period of time, crime kept dropping while it was rising everywhere else. I agree more with Phillip Cook on the premise that “A more heavily armed public could easily result in more heavily armed army of robbers and assaulters who will fire first and ask questions later.” Even though it sounds far-fetched because no criminals with prior felonies would be able 2013-12-08T20:46:30.08-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gun-Control-Laws-34991.aspx And I ask him that with both feet planted firmly on love, you'll be able to take in with all followers of Jesus the extravagant dimensions of Christ's love. Reach out and experience the breadth! Test its length! Plumb the depths! Rise to the heights! Live full lives, full in the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3: 17-19) I want the Church to be like my playground in the back yard: 1. Fun 2. Imaginative 3. A place to be a kid You don't need a ton of proof to know that more and more churches are struggling to survive. It seems churches that are in this predicament have one of two options: revive or die. There are a lot of books, seminars, and workshops given on how to go about reviving a church. However, there is not one cookie cutter, full-proof, and effective strategy in reviving a church. Having said that, it doesn't mean that it is impossible. There are many examples of struggling churches that have successfully revived the congregation, increased the health of the church, and expanded their ministry. Now, before you go and buy another book, or attend another conference, or start selling off your pews for coffee tables and chairs, let me make a few suggestions. These suggestions are for the people in the church because you are the church. Pastors come and go, but it is the congregants, parishioners, and members that make up the identity, flavor, and, ultimately, affect the future direction of a congregation. 1. Who are you? Figure out who you are as a congregation. As Rick Warren once said, "You will attract who you are, not who you want." There is some truth to this and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Visitors can tell if a church is not being authentic to who they really are. When I first started at my church, my job description focused heavily on attracting the growing population of young Chinese-American families in the neighborhood. The problem was that the make-up of the church was the exact opposite. Furthermore, the suggestions being made to attract such folk were evidence that this wasn't being authentic to who we were. One thought was that by hiring me, an Asian-American woman, these families would feel more comfortable and accepted at church. It wasn't until someone pointed out that I was Korean and not Chinese that there was willingness to abandon this direction and 2013-05-23T17:40:10.903-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Church-and-State-34887.aspx Pragmatism, partly originated by John Dewey, is an approach on education that assesses the truth of meaning of beliefs in terms of the success of their practical applications. It is a philosophy that stresses practicality and learning through experience. Pragmatism, in education, seeks to conserve the culture, but also to renew aspects of social circumstances. The teacher—learner relationship in Pragmatic education uses a “problem—centered” solving method; in order for it to be successful, the teacher must guide and not control. (97) For Pragmatism, the truth is practical. “Ideas are to be judged by their consequences when acted on; truth is a warranted assertion, a tentative statement based on the application of hypotheses to solving problems; logic, following the scientific method, is experimental; values are experienced within the context of ethical and aesthetic problems and issues charged by the unique features of particular situations.” (78) In this quote, Pragmatism is explained as a problem—solving educational theory. Each step of a decision is presented and the pragmatic solution follows. In education, Pragmatism is practical in teaching. “Intelligence, the ability to define and solve problems, is acquired through the experience of persisting and working through problem—solving situations.” (89) This quote shows how vital experience and practical application are to learning by stressing the definition of intelligence as the ability to problem solve. For example, a biology teacher can explain to a student how to dissect a frog, but until the student has first—hand experience, they will not actually know how to do it. Experience also allows the student to branch out in to society. One of Dewey’s main points was the relationship between education and society. (93) He felt that education should equip the student to participate in the culture. Education has two main cultural goals; (1) conserving the heritage of our culture, and (2) reconstructing our culture for the better. “Cultural conservation does not mean that adults in a society use the school to reproduce currently held beliefs and values. Rather, it means that the young are provided the cultural skills and tools by which they can improve social conditions.” (93) Essentially, this quote explains that conserving culture does not mean saving the old, but rather making the new better. This quote also shows a little insight into Social Reconstruction and the implications of societal reform on our culture. In education, Pragmatists assert that a teacher’s role is less controlling and more helping. “The teacher’s 2013-04-29T10:28:38.797-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Pragmatism-and-its-Educational-Implications-34874.aspx Marxism is an ideology that was created by Karl Marx stating that our world is ruled by a class society. In this society, the poor lower class are poor and the rich upper class make sure the system remains in place to keep the lower class poor. “Thus, for Marx, historical change is economically caused by the struggle to control production. The origins of classes and the resulting class conflict were economically determined.” (232) In this quote, Gutek explains how the classes in our society 2013-04-23T11:49:51.387-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Marxism-and-how-it-applies-to-Education-34864.aspx Television shows don’t serve just one purpose. They are not just for our entertainment or to please our visual needs, but they serve as an escape while also acting as the bridge that unites families, co-workers, friends, foes, and more. A popular television show like The Office, for example has much deeper meaning than a 30-minute comedy NBC airs every week. It’s a television show I grew up with that leaves me feeling happy when I’m sad and is a time in which my family can break away from their busy schedules to sit and be together. I notice some similarities behind the global popularity of Indian cinema and reasons as to why I watch The Office. One case in particular deals in the former Soviet Union. In Sudha Rajgopalan’s short essay, “Indian Popular Cinema and Soviet Movie Enthusiasts”, he discusses dark times in the former Soviet Union. World War II had come to an end, the environment was in shambles and Stalin had just ended his rule. The Soviet people needed an escape from the real world to a place were they could forget and be in high spirits. Indian films served as that escape. Indian films were filled with bright imagery with cheerful songs and dancing. The Soviet people could loose themselves in Indian cinema and flee their dreadful environment the moment they began to watch these films. The television series The Office, serves a comparable role for me as Indian Films did to the former Soviet Union. The Office is a comedy about a “group of typical office workers, where the workday consists of ego clashes, inappropriate behavior, and tedium” (IMDb). It includes light and awkward humor in comical and often absurd situations. When I am in a bad mood, have had a rough day, or just want to relax I often turn to The Office. It is my escape from the real world. When I turn on The Office, my stress and anxiety are instantly erased and I am transported into an alternate world. I need The Office to act as a distraction the same way the people of the former Soviet Union needed Indian films to distract them in times of devastation and trouble. This is not the only parallel I can draw from the points in Rajgopalan’s essay and this television series. The Office puts a spin on a significant commonality for a very a large 2013-03-22T22:15:33.31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TESTING-TESTING-123-34835.aspx For centuries, the idea of God has been a part of man's history. Past and present, there has always been a different integration consisting of the believers and the non-believers of God. The group of those who have "faith" in God tend to be related to one religion or another. On the other hand, the skeptics find the existence of God somewhat puzzling and try to seek the answers through scientific methods. Even as of today with all the modern technologies and the development of sciences, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question "does God exist?" Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes' theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God? Does God exist? If such God does exist, then where does this being come from? Why do believers and non-believers hold on to their beliefs as they do? What significance does the existence of God have upon mankind? These are only the tip of the iceberg amongst the vast array of unanswered questions related to God. Though there are so many uncertainties as we have just mentioned, the existence of all other uncertainties in our world may explain why the existence of God is so real to many people. For the believers, God provides a convenient answer to all these questions except for the answers regarding God itself. The following are some of the general arguments for the existence of God. The first argument comes from the theory of design; there are orders in the universe which can't be occurring by mere chance. Secondly, the existence of God explains the arguments regarding the efficient causality; as the world exhibits orderly causal sequences, something had to start it all up. Thirdly but not the least, God provides an answer to the question of the origin of life and its destination after death. ( For the sake of convenience, we shall borrow some theological ideas from Christianity, the Christian God, to exemplify our comparisons.) 2013-02-22T11:05:55.463-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/-The-Existence-of-God-34807.aspx Travis Slaby phil-101 Alex Clarkson 2-17-97 Hume's Mind Game The human mind is a very intricate machine. There have been many people that have attempted, and failed, to explain how the human mind operates. After reading Hume, I was in agreement with a lot of what he was explaining. Hume, in my mind, has come the closest to uncovering the minds operations. Robert Hume dealt with a lot of what Decarte talked about in his writings. The difference between Decarte and Hume is that Hume "ironed out" a lot of the "wrinkles" that Decarte left behind. One in particular, was that of doubting everything. Hume believed that you could doubt some things, but it was impossible to doubt everything. I completely agree with Hume. Doubting everything would never lead anywhere. The human mind can not just wipe out all it's known memory and start over. The mind is always on. Decarte used his beliefs to prove his own theories. He cheated his own system. Another thing Hume did was throw the Law of Mediocrity out the window. He is saying, basically, that everyday life can change tomorrow. The sun may not come up in the morning, a pool ball, being hit by another, may not move. I still believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but I see what Hume is trying to get at. Everything that is thought to be definite can change. There is no proven facts that say the sun will come up tomorrow, we just assume it will. In Hume's writing, assumption is a dangerous word. Assumption is made up of what you believe and what you don't. I can believe light will turn on when I hit the switch, but I can not rule out the fact that it will not turn on. It is probable that the light will turn on, but not definite. Hume says probabilities are what the mind is consuming during everyday life. Science give the facts because it has been tested and proved. "Everyday life" hasn't been proven by science. One example of a nonproved science is gravity. Gravity pulls everything toward the center of the earth. They have tested gravity, but there are no definite facts known to prove the theories. Who knows, maybe tomorrow gravity reverses it's pull and 2013-02-12T05:46:44.253-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Hume-s-Mind-Game-34795.aspx "Prayer" is a means to connect the physical with the metaphysical. There are general no rules inscribed to perform a prayer. For some, it might mean joining hands before God, but for others it might be synonymous to reading out religious hymns in a temple. Ways might be different but all this points out to one fact that there is a superior power which can do things that are impossible to accomplish by any human effort. Hence there is 2012-08-13T06:50:12.87-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Simplicity-and-sincerity-Core-Essence-of-Prayer-34625.aspx When religion is involved people go to churches,or masses or whatever their preference is, to hear the word of god and to be happy in their own beliefs.Aristotle says ‘‘Happiness then is best,noblest, most pleasant thing in the world’’ When a person is happy nothing can stand in their way, Happiness is a form of freedom in many ways. Aristotle also says Now if there is nothing in the world that is a gift of the gods to men,it is reasonable to suppose that happiness is a devine gift, especially since it is the best thing that humans can possess’’ Bentham and Aristotle believes that happiness is the ultimate goal of morality, he also believes that pain and pleasure are the determining factors of human behavior.In life everyone experience, pain and pleasure in some point in their lives. Pain makes us stronger, while pleasure gives us reason to exist comfortably. Schweitzer believes that in preserving life and sharing the sorrows of others, we will experience a kind of joy that is missing from the lives of thoes who has lost the capacity for compassion. Unlike Aristotle and Bentham he doesn’t believe believe happiness is the highest human good. Schweitzer believes that we all had an elementary level of compassion but, as time goes on if the compassion doesn’t grow with you it’s all lost and soon after a lot of people become that way. So by leaving the ones with compassion wondering if they should become like the others. Instead of the compassionate ones trying to be like the ones that have no compassion at all, they should lead by example. Maybe we would be in a better place and be able to co exist in some type of formal manner. Kant says that only acts motivated by good will have true moral worth. If you do something from the kindness of your heart rather then doing it to receive praise is the only good will that is out there. He went against Aristotle happiness theory because he believed goodwill passes over everything. In one of our conversations in class we discussed the churches purpose, and i stated that, while everyone gives offering we are helping maintain the pastor range rover, or his five bedroom villa. But some people went against me and said that some churches help feed, and cloth the needy. I honestly think you have to 2012-06-08T08:20:36-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Religion-34589.aspx Religion & Morality Identify the arguments for and against the view that morality is dependent on religion (21) The debate surrounding whether or not morality is dependent on religion, arguably emanates from Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. If it is dependent on religion, it is good because God commands it. However if it is independent of religion, then the God only commands it because it is intrinsically good. The argument for morality being dependant on religion relies heavily on Divine Command Theory, which suggests that morals are only true by the virtue of being commanded by God. Often those who to hold this view ask ‘Without religion, what is the reason for being good?’. Religion appears to reinforce morality, and provide people with reason to be moral. Dostoyevsky explores this notion in The Brothers Karamazov where the character Ivan says ‘without religion everything is permitted’. This suggests that the very fact religion provides moral absolutes and guidelines, morality is preserved. As quoted by Owen, ‘if morals are commands by definition, there must be a commander’. This commander could be said to be God, without whom we would not need to justify acting morally at all. Society is an ideal example of where authority is a necessity, as without it there be chaos, and no coherence. Similarly, without God as an authoritative power controlling morality, the whole concept of it will be in disarray. Without religion, and this authority it posses, moral actions would be meaningless and nugatory. Such arguments will also encompass the idea of conscience. This conscience would be said to be a direct result of God and religion providing the human race with the ability to feel guilt and responsibility. Newman also agrees that such feelings, so often associated with religion point to God, therefore morality and religion should be interdependent. In addition to this, there have been numerous examples of morality ensuing from religion, largely due to its moral absolutes. The abolition of slavery in the UK for an example was largely due to pressure from Christian groups, who had strong moral convictions, and fought for what they believed was moral. Countries where religion has been removed, such as Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia, demonstrate how morality is dependent on religion, by the horrendous injustices and evils caused by such a removal. The argument against morality being dependant on religion, immediately refutes the notion that it is principally God and Religion which 2012-03-29T14:39:40.02-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Religion-and-Morality-34527.aspx Moral Authority We live in a world of wrong and right, black and white… constantly confronting situations where we have to choose and decide which path to take. Sometimes this predicament of the human existence reminds me of ‘The Road not Taken’ by Robert Frost. What theory of Human Development makes a person what they are? Why does a person do what they do? Where does personality come from and how does it grow? These are some frequently asked questions when discussing the topic of personality. Personality does originate from a specific point, and from then on it continues to grow and become exponentially more complex. There are some commonly made assumptions when developing a personality theory. The first of these assumptions concerns whether one believes that the behaviors, any type of action, a person exhibits are produced by conscious choices and decisions, also known as free will, or "determined" by forces beyond ones control. I believe in the free will explanation, but not the type of free will commonly imagined. Humans do ultimately have the power to choose their actions, however the extreme influence of other factors, such as heredity, environment, and learned behaviors, may make it seem like a person’s actions were predetermined. For that reason, it can be assumed that human beings do have free will, however the choices made are greatly impacted and seemingly determined by inherited basic needs, environment, and learned behaviors. All functioning societies have a code of morals that are established to distinguish what is right and wrong. This code of morals relates to almost everything in societies such as government strategy, laws and tradition. These understood and shared morals are the base of the community because without them the society would fall apart, morals are part of our lives every day and they keep order and maintain fairness. Although many ethics can be accepted by all many are not. Would culture or tradition be my ultimate moral authority? Any individual in a functioning society signifies and represents idealism and hope. Every generation charts out its own course to realize its dreams and aspirations in life. Meanwhile it is the perpetual responsibility of the elders to assist the youths in growing up and in becoming familiar with the eternal human values. It is this cycle of passing on the cultural, social and traditional values that lets the society evolve and develop. But the question 2012-03-29T14:28:25.723-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Moral-Authority-34526.aspx David Hume is a philosopher highly respected for his clarity of thought and constructive use of skepticism. His skepticism, however, did not extend to all the prejudices of his time: I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valor, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1 The above quote comes from a footnote in Hume’s essay ‘Of National Character’. The footnote was not in the original 1748 version of the essay, but was added in 1753. The first two sentences were revised in 1777 by Hume in response to criticisms he received (this is the version above). The opening sentences of the original 1753 footnote read: I am apt to suspect the Negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. On the other hand, … Note that in this earlier version, Hume refers to other species, not other races. Non-whites were, it appears, not even human (or at least not the same kind of human). Although he was swayed to remove this claim, the passage of twenty-four years obviously did not changed his opinion of blacks. To give some idea of context of the footnote(s), both versions come as a note attached to the end 2012-02-02T20:34:06.687-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Racism-David-Hume-s-View-34463.aspx Of Commerce The greater part of mankind may be divided into two classes; that of shallow thinkers, who fall short of the truth; and that of abstruse thinkers, who go beyond it. The latter class are by far the most rare: and I may add, by far the most useful and valuable. They suggest hints, at least, and start difficulties, which they want, perhaps, skill to pursue; but which may produce fine discoveries, when handled by men who have a more just way of thinking. At worst, what they say is uncommon; and if it should cost some pains to comprehend it, one has, however, the pleasure of hearing something that is new. An author is little to be valued, who tells us nothing but what we can learn from every coffee-house conversation. All people of shallow thought are apt to decry even those Miller 254 of solid understanding, as abstruse thinkers, and metaphysicians, and refiners; and never will allow any thing to be just which is beyond their own weak conceptions. There are some cases, I own, where an extraordinary refinement affords a strong presumption of falsehood, and where no reasoning is to be trusted but what is natural and easy. When a man deliberates concerning his conduct in any particular affair, and forms schemes in politics, trade, oeconomy, or any business in life, he never ought to draw his arguments too fine, or connect too long a chain of consequences together. Something is sure to happen, that will disconcert his reasoning, and produce an event different from what he expected. But when we reason upon general subjects, one may justly affirm, that our speculations can scarcely ever be too fine, provided they be just; and that the difference between a common man and a man of genius is chiefly seen in the shallowness or depth of the principles upon which they proceed. General reasonings seem intricate, merely because they are general; nor is it easy for the bulk of mankind to distinguish, in a great number of particulars, that common circumstance in which they all agree, or to extract it, pure and unmixed, from the other superfluous circumstances. Every judgment or conclusion, with them, is particular. They cannot enlarge their view to those universal propositions, which comprehend under them an infinite number of individuals, and include a whole science in a single theorem. Their eye is confounded with such an extensive prospect; 2012-02-02T20:16:26.737-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/David-Hume-Political-Discoures-34462.aspx Kant famously attempted to “answer” what he took to be Hume's skeptical view of causality, most explicitly in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783); and, because causality, for Kant, is a central example of a category or pure concept of the understanding, his relationship to Hume on this topic is central to his philosophy as a whole. Moreover, because Hume's famous discussion of causality and induction is equally central to his philosophy, understanding the relationship between the two philosophers on this issue is crucial for a proper understanding of modern philosophy more generally. Yet ever since Kant offered his response to Hume the topic has been subject to intense controversy. There is no consensus, of course, over whether Kant's response succeeds, but there is no more consensus about what this response is supposed to be. There has been sharp disagreement concerning Kant's conception of causality, as well as Hume's, and, accordingly, there has also been controversy over whether the two conceptions really significantly differ. There has even been disagreement concerning whether Hume's conception of causality and induction is skeptical at all. We shall not discuss these controversies in detail; rather, we shall concentrate on presenting one particular perspective on this very complicated set of issues. We shall clearly indicate, however, where especially controversial points of interpretation arise and briefly describe some of the main alternatives. (Most of this discussion will be confined to footnotes, where we shall also present further, more specialized details.) 1. Kant's “Answer to Hume” 2. Induction, Necessary Connection, and Laws of Nature 3. Kant, Hume, and the Newtonian Science of Nature 4. Time Determination, the Analogies of Experience, and the Unity of Nature Bibliography Primary Sources Secondary Sources Other Internet Resources Related Entries 1. Kant's “Answer to Hume” In the Preface to the Prolegomena Kant considers the supposed science of metaphysics. He states that “no event has occurred that could have been more decisive for the fate of this science than the attack made upon it by David Hume” and goes on to say that “Hume proceeded primarily from a single but important concept of metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effect” (4, 257; 7). (See the Bibliography for 2012-02-02T20:09:56.84-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Hume-and-Kant-on-Causality-34461.aspx The Equality of Unequals In order to clearly understand why Plato seems to find democracy and the democratic soul so objectionable one 2011-12-10T14:32:01.377-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plato-s-Critique-Of-Democracy-34381.aspx The Theory of Unity Applied to Consciousness A Pseudo-Scientific Theory Introduction To believe may be the most odious verb in the English language, for it implies the desire for something to be true: An old woman who is very attached to her children, grandchildren or other relatives might think that after death she will reunite with all of them in heaven, because that is her desire. Whereas a violent murderer may think that after death nothing happens and he will just disappear forever, because he does not want to be disturbed by some kind of punishment for his actions. Although these examples are simplistic, they may give a hint of a deeper and more complex problem. We live in a society where knowledge is dangerously overrated. Usually, the successful people are the ones who have accumulated useful, reliable knowledge that has been sanctioned by institutions that govern society. This utilitarian knowledge is necessary for the functioning of society up to a certain extent, but when we try to deeply understand the truly relevant issues that affect us the most, such as society, behavior, identity and consciousness, accepting or believing in that knowledge causes only distortions and falsehood. Everybody knows our world is corrupt, but very few people actually know how corrupt the world really is; thus, no official knowledge from this sick society will give us any true insights into the aforementioned issues. An insane or deranged man is not able to produce the necessary rational thinking to realize his own insanity; otherwise, he would not be insane. Regretfully, most people who we believe have insights or revelations into these issues just borrow knowledge from somebody else. There is the great difference between knowing and believing. If an aborigine from the Amazon who has never had any contact with the civilized world believes the Earth is round just because that is the religious belief in his culture, that is just his belief. And although he is right, he does not know that the earth is round just like an astronaut in outer space does. If that aborigine enters a culture with a different belief system, he may change his belief for adjusting the new culture. But nothing will make the astronaut change his mind, even if, hypothetically speaking, he ends up living with the aborigine in the same culture. Believing is, therefore, only an adjustment and it seems that if we cannot get 2011-11-26T12:54:17.667-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Theory-of-Unity-Applied-to-Consciousness-34358.aspx There is no such thing as good or evil, there are only those with power and the will to use it. There are several reasons for this being true, most importantly the fact that cultural differences dictate that there can be no universally accepted set of morals and ethics. By good, we mean something that people consider to be morally or ethically right. By evil we mean the exact opposite of good, i.e. something the people consider to be morally or ethically wrong. When we talk about whether or not there is a good or evil, we mean in a definitive, universally accepted sense. In different cultures there may be a widely accepted set of morals and ethics by which people are expected to live their lives, but there is no set of morals or ethics accepted by every single person alive. Therefore there can be no such thing as a definitive good or evil as opinions vary from person to person. An example of one group of people living by a set of morals which they think makes them “good” whilst others consider their actions to be “evil” is that of the Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler in the 1930’s and 40’s. Hitler and his followers believed that Judaism was a menace to society and the eradication of all Jews would make the world a better place. They felt that what they were doing was indeed “good”. However, it is widely believed that Hitler and the Nazis' actions were some of the most “evil” actions in the history of mankind. This shows us clearly that not all people agree on the same things as being good or evil, but rather opinion differs from person to person. This means that there is no such thing as “good” or “evil”, just different morals and ethics followed by individuals. One may argue that every human being has a common sense of what is good or bad instilled in them their whole lives. It is this instinctive set of morals and ethics that has ensured humanity has always been consistently filled with society and civilisation based on common ethics and/or morals in the form of laws and rules. It may be argued that if every person had a differing sense of good or evil, it would be impossible for there to be civilised society throughout the world, all through times, dating back to the 2011-11-01T00:18:05.323-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Existence-of-Good-and-Evil-34278.aspx This essay discusses the philosophical construct known as “pragmatism,” an American school of thought of the 19th Century. I Introduction When we use the word “pragmatic” or “pragmatist” today, we generally mean someone who deals in facts, has a realistic grasp of them, and can employ them in rational arguments. By extension, then, “pragmatism” is a realistic way of viewing the world. However, there is a older definition, one that deals with a far more philosophical construct; “pragmatism” in the 19th Century was a way of thinking that gave meaning to words and ideas so that those debating these subjects had common ground; it was a way to strive to make sure that everyone understood everyone else’s terminology. Furthermore, pragmatism in the philosophical sense is regarded as a uniquely American way of thinking. This paper examines three essays: “What Pragmatism Means” by William James; and “The Fixation of Belief” and “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” by Charles Sanders Peirce. It attempts to make the central ideas of the essays clear, respond to them, raise any objections to the thinking of these philosophers, and refute those objections. We’ll start with William James, since a definition of pragmatism is necessary before we can discuss it further. II James: “What Pragmatism Means” William James gave a series of lectures in 1904, of which “What Pragmatism Means” is the second. In it, he defines pragmatism, which he describes as a method or process, rather than a result: “The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many? – fated or free? … The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences.” (James, PG). If, he goes on, it would make no practical difference to anyone whether this idea or that idea were true, then the dispute is idle, for the alternatives really do not offer a choice. He introduces his lecture by giving a trivial example that might help us to understand the method. He relates that he and some friends were on a camping trip in the woods. He had gone for a solitary walk, and upon his return found his friends engaged in a heated debate. Suppose, they were arguing, that there was a squirrel on one side of a tree trunk and a 2011-10-31T01:16:29.39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Pragmatism-James-and-Peirce-34249.aspx This essay examines Aristotle’s and Plato’s theories of ethics, and briefly compares them. Classical Theories of Ethics – Outline I Introduction II Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics III Plato’s Republic IV Brief Comparison V Conclusion Classical Theories of Ethics I Introduction The study of ethics takes us all the way back to classical Greece. Since it does, I thought it might be useful to compare “classical” theories from truly classical figures. Thus, we’ll examine Aristotle’s and Plato’s ideas about ethics, as revealed in The Nicomachean Ethics and The Republic. II Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics We have nothing of Aristotle’s original writings left to us; the Ethics appears to be a sort of “compilation” of his works written down by one Nicomachus, from whom we get the title of this version of the work. Because it is a compendium, not an original work, it’s somewhat repetitive. However, it is still a vital guide to Aristotle’s thought. The basic point that the philosopher makes in this writing is that the goal of humanity is happiness. He arrives at this by suggesting, in the very first sentence, that the aim of every human activity is good: “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” (Aristotle, PG). He argues that what he is looking for is an understanding of the concept of a “universal good,” and he says that it will be “achievable by action.” Furthermore, this action will not be the same for everyone, but that each person will pursue his own ends and find good therein. That is, the doctor will find good in medicine; the farmer in tending his farm; and the politician in politics. “Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this will be the good achievable by action…” (Aristotle, PG). He also says that although it’s obvious that some ends are not final ends (we complete some tasks in order to get to others), at some point when the final end is reached, it will be the “chief good” of the entire process. Lastly, he says that those things that we pursue in and of themselves and not as a means to something else are desirable in themselves. This final end of goodness is what we call happiness. It is a 2011-10-27T15:00:01.77-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-and-Platos-Theories-of-Ethics-34206.aspx This paper describes the kinds of statements necessary to give rise to Moore’s paradox I Introduction Moore’s paradox was developed by philosopher G.E. Moore, who was struck by the idea that there are semantic constructs that can be consistent and inconsistent at the same time. This paper discusses Question #2 of the topic, “What sort of statement gives rise to Moore’s paradox?” II Discussion The typical example given as the basis for Moore’s paradox is “It’s raining but I don’t believe it.” However, according to at least one source there is not necessarily a logical inconsistency between the fact of it raining and someone’s not believing it. Perhaps they live somewhere where it hasn’t rained in months and is not expected to rain for several more months, so that when it does rain, they believe it is something else. The more general form of the statement is “It’s p but I believe not-p.” This indicates that something p is extant, but the person does not believe it. When this occurs, and we have a statement that is genuinely consistent and inconsistent at the same time, we have the factors necessary to generate Moore’s paradox. Much of the argument about Moore has to do with semantics and shades of meaning, so it’s important to construct a statement that cannot be interpreted so as to resolve the inconsistency. (This is more difficult that it first appears.) The heart of the matter seems to be constructing a statement in which the two halves are individually true, but together they become inconsistent. “Moorean absurdity emerges in cases in which one supposes a proposition for the sake of argument rather than asserting it or judging it true, while at the same time asserting or judging that one’s state of mind is not one of entertaining such a supposition.” (Green, PG). In other words, I say that I suppose it is raining (not that it is raining or that I judge it to be raining), and then at the same time I say I am not in a fit state of mind to think about such a supposition. How can I even make a statement if I’m not thinking about it? This is the type of thing that generates Moore’s paradox; it also leads into another area of inquiry, and that is the nature of consciousness. III Conclusion It is surprisingly 2011-10-26T23:42:56.09-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Generating-Moores-Paradox-34161.aspx This paper is a brief biography of the famous writer. (4+ pages; 4 sources; MLA citation style). I Introduction Today we use the word “Machiavellian” to describe people or situations that are convoluted, dangerous and perhaps even evil. The word comes from the name of the famous Italian writer, Niccolo Machiavelli, whose fame (or infamy) rests largely on a slim volume of essays about government that can either be seen as instructions to the prince or a handbook for assassins, depending on your point of view. But who was this man and was he really a sort of despicable plotter, or merely a realist who understood the politics of his day? Perhaps a brief look at the man behind the label will help us answer these questions. II Brief Biography Niccolo Machiavelli was born May 3, 1469 in Florence, one of four children born to Bartolomea and Bernardo di Niccolo di Buoninsegna. The family was poor, but Niccolo’s father loved books and had managed to collect a small personal library. (Viroli, p. 7). It is doubtless from his father that Machiavelli got his love of books and learning. At the time of his birth, Italy was in turmoil and divided into five important states: the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Milan, the Republic of Florence, the Church, and the Kingdom of Naples. (Bergin, p. vii). The country was ripe for invasion, and when Lorenzo de’Medici died, first France and then Spain invaded. Italy would not be free of the Spaniards until 1860. Although we know little more about Machiavelli’s early life than what I’ve said about his love of books and learning, that seems to have been enough to bring him to the attention of the Florentine government, and in 1498 he was appointed secretary to the Republic. His office found him concerned largely with war and internal affairs. Four years after his appointment he married Marietta Corsini, who bore him several children. Although he was apparently unfaithful, the marriage seems to have been a happy one. (Bergin, p. x). His office as secretary meant that he was sent on many diplomatic missions; he met such personalities as Caterina Sforza and Cesare Borgia. He also accompanied Pope Julius II through Umbria, and met the Emperor Maximilian; he was also sent on an errand to Louis XII of France. (Bergin, p. x). Machiavelli also found time 2011-10-26T14:50:47.62-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Niccolo-Machiavelli-34147.aspx This paper considers some of the opinions of these men, as given in The Prince and The Republic. (13 pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style) I Introduction We can learn a lot about our world from those who have gone before, even if they are removed from us by hundreds, even thousands, of years. Two such authors are Plato and Niccolo Machiavelli, whose ideas about government, justice and freedom are still relevant today. This paper answers some questions about both men and their beliefs and observations. II Question 1: Definitions of Justice The wealthy Cephalus begins the discussion of justice by saying that because he is rich, he has never deceived or defrauded others, and that when he dies he knows what he owes to both gods and men, which gives him great peace of mind. Socrates says, then justice is paying your debts and speaking the truth? But aren’t there times when one shouldn’t speak the truth? Cephalus’ son Polemarchus speaks up, agreeing with Socrates. At that point Cephalus leaves, saying Polemarchus will take up the argument. Socrates doesn’t say what he thinks justice is; instead he lets Polemarchus speak. The latter quotes Simonides as saying that a repayment of a debt is just, and he agrees with that. But Socrates then leads Polemarchus through a series of questions and answers (we now call it the Socratic method) that ends up with Polemarchus totally confused and having to take back what he said. At that point Thrasymachus, who can’t stand it any longer, interrupts and castigates Socrates for not answering directly but taking others’ arguments to bits instead. Then he says that justice is simply the interest of the stronger. Socrates demolishes him as well, taking him through the same type of questioning as he’d done with Polemarchus, until Thrasymachus admits that justice is a matter of the strong looking out for the interest of the weak; the opposite of his original meaning. Thrasymachus tries again and again Socrates demolishes him, concluding that justice is good and virtue and injustice is evil and vice. Thrasymachus retires and Socrates thinks it’s over, only to have Glaucon challenge him by saying that he thinks men are just only because they are forced, not because they want to do right. Adeimantus also chimes in, saying that men who only appear to be just gain the same respect as 2011-10-26T14:49:56.31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Machiavelli-and-Plato-34146.aspx This paper analyzes a passage from The Prince and relates it to the historical events in Italy at the time. (4+ pages; 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction Machiavelli is often cited as having invented politics as we know it. He codified his advice to the Florentine rulers, specifically Lorenzo de’ Medici, in The Prince, and the little collection of essays has become a sort of handbook for governing, and for understanding the political process. Its realistic approach to the problems of kingship, including his famous conclusion that it’s better to be feared than loved, has earned him a reputation as a schemer; a sly, cunning man with no conscience. But the truth is that he simply wrote down the maxims that every head of state knows, but few will admit. This brief paper analyzes a passage from Chapter XIV of The Prince and relates its advice to the situation in Italy at the time Machiavelli wrote. II Analysis The passage in question is this: “"As for intellectual training, the prince must read history, studying the actions of eminent men to see how they conducted themselves during war and to discover the reasons for their victories or their defeats, so that he can avoid the latter and imitate the former. Above all, he must read history so that he can do what eminent men have done before him: taken as their model some historical figure who has been praised and honored; and always kept his deeds and actions before them." (This is from the Penguin Books edition; I have the Appleton edition, and although the meaning is the same the words are quite different, so I’ve quoted the whole passage for ease of reference.) This essay is quite straightforward. In it, Machiavelli is telling Lorenzo what he must do to win battles. He says that first of all, the prince (Lorenzo de’ Medici was the prince referred to in the title of the book) should read history and study previous wars to see how those wars were waged. These historical documents, he suggests, will allow Lorenzo to understand how and why the victors won their fights. Finally, Lorenzo should pick one of these victorious men and use him as a role model for the conduct of his own affairs. (This is like one of our current Army leaders, for instance, asking himself “What would General 2011-10-26T14:49:21.447-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Machiavelli-An-Analysis-34145.aspx This paper discusses two aspects of Moore’s Paradox: what statements give rise to it, and why one can’t make such statements. (10 pages; 2 sources; APA citation style) I Introduction Moore’s Paradox is more than an interesting philosophical problem; it also must be looked at semantically to determine the relationship of the clauses in the sentence or sentences under consideration. When one clause is dependent upon and derives it meaning from another, then both must make sense when spoken together; the common idea they share must also make sense. This paper considers two aspects of Moore’s Paradox: What sort of statement gives rise to it? And why can’t one say such a thing? It also explores the Paradox in general and tries to come to terms with the concept implied in it. II Statements Giving Rise to the Paradox In the simplest terms, Moore’s Paradox describes those statements that inherently give rise to a contradiction. The example usually used is, “It’s raining but I don’t believe it’s raining,” also expressed as “p but I don’t believe p.” Several questions immediately come to mind, and we’ll see if we can find satisfactory answers for them The first is “Why don’t you/I/the speaker believe what they are currently experiencing?” The next is, are there circumstances under which “p but I don’t believe p” can be true? And finally, are there times in which the two halves of the sentence make sense individually but not as a whole, and vice versa? As I’ve read about this topic, it’s become apparent that much of our thinking about Moore’s Paradox is based largely on the way in which the sentences under discussion are linguistically constructed. There is a significant difference between asserting, “p but I didn’t believe p” and “p but I won’t believe p.” In the first, with both clauses in the past, the statement becomes illogical: if p has already happened, and has been seen to have occurred, then it’s impossible to assert not-p, because it took place. But if p is still in the future, then it’s possible to understand how we might say, yes, I believe p will occur, but I don’t think I will believe it, even if it does. (“I know someone will win the lottery next week, but even if I do, I won’t believe it.”) We’re not actually 2011-10-26T14:47:13.783-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Investigating-Moore’s-Paradox-34143.aspx This paper discusses the parallels and connections between the slaughter of the Sun God’s Cattle and the killing of Penelope’s suitors in “The Odyssey.” (4+ pages, 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction If often seems that the characters in Homer’s epic poem “The Odyssey” never learn from experience—particularly Odysseus’s crew. They get into trouble repeatedly, from which Odysseus rescues them, only to have them get into further difficulties. Their slaughter of the Sun God’s cattle is the last, and final, blunder in a series of catastrophes that marks their journey home. In this brief paper, we’ll explore why, in view of the behavior of Penelope’s suitors, Odysseus’s men’s slaughter of the Cattle of the Sun is significant. II Discussion It’s possible to draw many parallels between the killing of Helios’s cattle and the killing of the suitors that ends the poem, but perhaps the most striking is the fact that the slaughter of the cattle directly foreshadows the slaughter of the men. In many ways, the suitors who have been courting Penelope in her husband’s absence have proven to be no better than animals; we might consider them a “herd.” They seem to follow a herd instinct: they are always together; they have an apparent leader, Antinous, whom they follow, but casually, as cows might meander along after a single individual; and they seem to do the same things at the same time, as if none of them is capable of independent thought. In addition, like a herd, they have taken over Penelope’s home and made it their “territory”; they “graze” as they please there, eating, drinking, stealing, raping the serving women, and trying to get Penelope to agree to marry one of them. Although Antinous is the most active of them, it is difficult to differentiate one from another, since Homer has made them all equally grasping, unprincipled, and vicious. They all resemble each other, and I believe that is intentional: we are meant to see them as a group, and the slaughter of Helios’ cattle is a direct forecast of the deaths of these men. There are other similarities that are significant. In both cases, there is a taboo against the action being contemplated. The suitors have no concrete evidence that Odysseus is dead, but they are attempting to get his wife to agree to marry one of them anyway. 2011-10-26T13:24:50.55-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Significance-of-the-Slaughter-of-the-Cattle-of-the-Sun-34117.aspx This paper examines Wittengenstein’s objections to St. Augustine’s characterization of the methods of learning language. (4 pages; 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein describes his work as an “album,” a collection of thoughts about a variety of subjects, including meaning, understanding, logic, and language. (P. ix). He jotted down observations and questions about things that interested him, without attempting to write a book in the traditional sense. The first part of the book is largely concerned with the ways in which we finding meaning in language, and how we know what we mean when we say something; he also wonders how people learn to associate meanings with words, and why the same word has different meanings depending on usage. (These are only a few of the concepts he visits with regard to language.) This paper discusses Chapter 32 of Wittgenstein’s book with the object of answering these questions: Why does Wittgenstein think that Augustine’s description of language, which he quotes in Chapter 1, compares a child to an adult in a foreign country who understands language, but not the local language? Why does Wittgenstein object to Augustine’s characterization of language in this manner? To answer these questions, we’ll consider what Wittgenstein has to say about the differences between ostensive teaching of words and ostensive explanation of words; and his thinking in general about words and meanings. II Discussion “Ostensive” means “directly pointing out” or “clearly demonstrative.” Someone who teaches words ostensively does not deal in shades of nuance and meaning; he clearly says, this is the word and this is what it means. This is the way in which Augustine defines language, and the way in which one learns language. St. Augustine says that he learned language by watching his elders, who named some object and moved toward it. “I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out.” (P. 2e). Augustine continues, saying that the elders showed their intention by the expressions on their faces, their movements, and their tone of voice; all of these mechanisms express “… our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting or avoiding something.” (P. 2e). Wittgenstein says that Augustine’s description “gives us a particular picture of the essence of human language … individual words in language name objects … sentences are combinations 2011-10-26T13:12:46.693-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophical-Investigations,-Chapter-32_-34108.aspx This paper examines the curse that Dido lays on Aeneas; as well as the intense sense of hatred and revenge found throughout the poem. (4+ pages; 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction Virgil’s Aeneid is usually “lumped” with Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey as one of the three major works of classical antiquity. Many of the same characters are found in all three poems, giving them a feeling of being a sort of set. Virgil’s work, however, differs from Homer’s in that it is less direct; things are not always what they seem. It is also, first, last and always, a work about hatred and a desire for revenge. It is possible to read the Odyssey as nothing more than a terrific adventure story, but the relentless anger that moves through the Aeneid delves deeply into human motivation. Dido’s curse, which she employs when she realizes Aeneas is leaving her, really rings true. But, like many such things, it has unexpected consequences. In addition, there are many events that seem to refer back to themselves; it’s a multi-layered work. II Dido’s Curse Dido’s curse has echoes throughout the entire poem. Her hatred of Aeneas seems to mirror Juno’s hatred of him that begins the work. Both gods and men seem to hate with a vengeance. Dido meets Aeneas when he is blown off course by a terrible storm. He’s a Trojan, on his way from the fall of Troy to Italy, where he is destined to found the city of Rome, and incidentally, the civilization that will surpass the Greeks. Thus, although Odysseus (I suppose I should call him Ulysses) and his men have defeated the Trojans and destroyed their city, they have merely delayed the inevitable. Dido is Queen of Carthage, a city in Africa; Carthage is beloved of Juno, Queen of the Gods. Because she is an all-seeing goddess, Juno knows that Aeneas will be instrumental in founding Rome, and destroying her favorite city. It is her hatred that begins the work, as Virgil tells us that Aeneas was “buffeted cruelly on land as on the sea”, by “baleful Juno in her sleepless rage.” (P. 1). Set against her is Venus, Goddess of Love, who sends her son Amor (Cupid) to impersonate Ascanius, Aeneas’s son. In the disguise of the boy, the god is able to get close to 2011-10-26T13:11:52.633-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Dido’s-Curse-34107.aspx This paper examines Sections 7 and 8 of the Critique and asks if Kant’s arguments make sense. (8+ pages; 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction Immanuel Kant’s philosophical treatise is a work that attempts to use reason to examine reason. Kant is concerned with the question of how we know what we know. This is not a trivial question, for it gets to the very heart of what it means to be an organism with the power of cognition. II Types of Knowledge Kant says that there are two types of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The latter is empirical knowledge; knowledge that we derive from experience. When we say, for example, that some cats are black, we know this because we have seen cats, and we understand that some are black, and some are not. But we have observed the physical creature known as “cat” and understand that the animal comes in many different species and colors. This is empirical knowledge, knowledge based on experience. A priori knowledge is much tougher—it’s based on nothing, really. It is what we know because we know it; we can’t point to any particular source as a first cause for our knowledge of the subject; we just know what it is we know. We might say that we have a priori knowledge of God, since we cannot empirically prove his existence yet believe that he exists. This argument, however, runs directly into the problem of those who do not believe in God and deny that there is such a thing as a Supreme Being. Philosophers have been arguing over this one for centuries, and because it is so completely abstract it may not serve us well here. Consider instead the concept of space: not outer space, as in space exploration, but space as the medium through which we move. No one ever has to define or explain the fact that we exist in a dimensional universe; we know without being told that there is “up”, “down”, “back”, “forward”, “left” and “right.” Or to take another example, we are aware of substance; the physical world. No one has ever had to teach us that some things are solid, others liquid, etc. We just know these things without any formal experimentation to prove that they exist or have properties of 2011-10-26T12:52:23.747-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Kant-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-34096.aspx This paper discusses St. Augustine’s relationship with his mother Monica as revealed in the Confessions, and relates that to Jane English’s article. (5+ pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style) I Introduction In his Confessions, St. Augustine tells us of the devotion between himself and his mother, Monica. In her article “What Adult Children Owe to their Parents,” Jane English takes a different tack when discussing that relationship, arguing that it should be love, not the concept of paying back favors rendered that dictates the child’s actions. This paper will both Augustine and Monica, and the article, briefly, then develop an argument either for or against using English’s model to describe this particular relationship. II Comments on Augustine and Monica The relationship between St. Augustine and his mother, Monica, as described in his Confessions, is a close and yet somewhat troubled one. Monica apparently spends most of her time praying that her son will turn away from the pleasures of the flesh and find God. This makes her seems like a completely selfless, devoted and loving woman. Unfortunately, since the Confessions are written in the first person, we have no one but Augustine to tell us about Monica. We see her through his eyes only and that means that of necessity we are not getting a complete picture of her. He frequently uses the word “pious” or “piety” in connection with her; early in the work we read: “The mother of my flesh was much perplexed, for, with a heart pure in thy faith, she was always in deep travail for my eternal salvation.” (Book I, Chap XI, 17). In fact, throughout most of the book, when he does refer to his mother, Augustine tells us that she was continually praying for the salvation of his soul. She doesn’t appear in much of the narrative, but he does give us a moving description of her life and her death in Book IX. He tells us that she became overly fond of wine, and was saved from becoming a drunkard when her slave girl accused her of that very thing. By naming the affliction, she enabled Monica to recognize what was happening and repudiate it. Thus we see that Augustine’s mother is no stranger to temptations of the flesh. Monica was also a clever woman, married to a man with a violent temper. But she knew 2011-10-26T12:48:52.433-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/St_-Augustine-and-His-Mother-via-Jane-English-34093.aspx This paper considers St. Augustine’s grief at the death of his friend, his attachments to mortal things, and why he regrets them. (4 pages; 1 source; MLA citation style) I Introduction In Chapter IV of his Confessions, St. Augustine describes his terrible grief at the death of a friend, and then goes on to discuss attachments to mortal things, and why he regrets them. This paper explores Augustine’s reasoning in this situation. II Discussion First, it’s interesting to note the terms in which Augustine talks about his reaction to his friend’s death. So many people say, “If he dies, I won’t be able to live without him,” yet here Augustine says, “I was wretched, and yet that wretched life I still held dearer than my friend. For though I would willingly have changed it, I was still more unwilling to lose it than to have lost him.” (IV, vi.) This is a very practical reaction to the fact of death, and yet it in no way diminishes the depth of Augustine’s grief. This man is obviously Augustine’s “soulmate”, for he says “I marveled all the more that I, who had been a second self to him, could go on living when he was dead.” (IV, vi.) He also finds that he doesn’t want to live as a “half-self,” but is even more afraid of dying, because then his friend would “die wholly.” (IV, vi.) Augustine relates that he couldn’t find any peace; everything was gloomy and miserable because his friend was gone. When at last he began to find some measure of comfort, when his “soul left off weeping” he found “a heavy burden of misery weighed me down.” (IV, vii). He knew that he should turn to God for comfort, but at that point he didn’t know God’s true nature and considered him only “an empty fantasm.” (IV, vii). And if he sought comfort from this fantasy, it only made him more downcast. Finally, though, time brought a measure of healing, and here is where Augustine begins a subtle argument about sorrow and the nature of God. He says that the sorrow he felt at his friend’s death was so extreme because he had “poured his soul onto the dust, but loving a man as if he would never die who nevertheless had to die.” (IV, viii). It’s implied, I think, that if 2011-10-26T12:42:16.467-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/St_-Augustine-and-the-Death-of-a-Friend-34090.aspx This paper explores ways in which Socrates’ prayer at the end of The Phaedrus reflects Plato’s ideas of love. (7 pages; 3 sources; MLA citation style) I Introduction The ancient philosophers seem far more accessible to me than some of their later comrades; it’s easier to understand Plato and Socrates than Hegel and Kant. And who can imagine one of our solemn moderns being interrupted by an attack of the hiccups? The speeches in The Symposium are clearly written, and yet each reflects the character of the speaker. As usual, Socrates can’t resist the opportunity of picking an “opponent” to pieces when he takes Agathon through a series of questions and answers about whether love is the love of something or of nothing. The point is that these men are quite obviously enjoying their debate, and because of this, and their quest for understanding of basic human issues, they retain a great deal of relevance for us today. At the end of The Phaedrus, a companion piece to The Symposium, Socrates utters a prayer. It’s very short, but it sums up Plato’s ideas of Love as expressed by Socrates in The Symposium. II The Prayer I’m using the Jowett translation found on-line, and this is the prayer as given in that text: “Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this place, give me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at one. May I reckon the wise to be the wealthy, and may I have such a quantity of gold as a temperate man and he only can bear and carry. -- Anything more? The prayer, I think, is enough for me.” (The Phaedrus, PG). We can break this into several “sections” that will help us understand how it contains Plato’s idea of Love. The first section is the salutation to Pan; the next the mention of the other gods; the third, the idea of the duality of man; and the fourth the connection between wealth and wisdom. It is the third section, which considers the dual nature of man, that is the most important. III Analysis There is something else to consider briefly, and that is the capital “L” on the word “Love.” Love, to the ancient Greeks, was not an emotion but an entity: Cupid (Eros). Later generations have done him a disservice by turning him into a chubby cherub 2011-10-26T12:38:57.067-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plato’s-Ideas-of-Love-34087.aspx This paper discusses in depth Section 184 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s book Philosophical investigations. 4 pages; 1 source; MLA citation style. I Introduction In his Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein spends a great deal of time trying to understand how we can understand our thought processes, a very challenging endeavor. This paper considers Section 184 in depth; how it bears on the discussion of the phrase “Now I can go on!” in Section 151; and how other remarks relate back to it. II Discussion In Section 184, Wittgenstein attempts the almost impossible task of trying to describe what it is like to suddenly “know” something. The example he uses is a song. If we try to recall a song and cannot, and then it suddenly “pops into our head” and we sing it, what is that moment like? What does it mean for us to suddenly know the song? And if we begin singing only to get “stuck” does that mean we really don’t know it after all? Is it valid to say that we know the song if we cannot sing the whole thing? Or is it a question of knowing it for a moment, and then having part of it “slip away”? In answer to all these questions, Wittgenstein says, “If someone says with conviction that now he knows the tune, then it is (somehow) present to his mind in its entirety at that moment—and this is a definition of the expression ‘the tune is present to his mind in its entirety’.” (P. 64, §184). In other words, Wittgenstein is setting up parameters for what it means “to know”—at the moment that someone says he knows something, that entire thing is present in his mind. Conversely, it seems logical to assume that if we get stuck half-way through the song, we don’t really “know” it, at least not in the way Wittgenstein defines knowing. But if we look back at Section 151 and the discussion of the phrase “Now I can go on!” we can see how Wittgenstein arrives at this conclusion. In section 151, he gives an example of a mathematical progression; in this case, person A writes down a series of numbers: 1, 5, 11, 19, and 29; after watching A for some unspecified time, B says, “Now I can go on!” What has happened is that B has discerned the way in which 2011-10-26T12:32:47.813-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Wittgenstein-Section-184-34083.aspx This paper discusses Machiavelli’s reactions to Borgia and Agathocles, and concludes that he found one to be admirable and the other a criminal. (4+ pages; 1 source; MLA citation style. I Introduction Machiavelli’s little book The Prince has been a classic of political thought for nearly 500 years. It is a realistic examination of the way people gain, and hold, power. This paper explores the question of why Machiavelli admires Cesare Borgia, but dislikes Agathocles, though the two men used similar methods. II Discussion In Chapter 7, Machiavelli discusses the problems encountered by rulers like Borgia, who acquire their principalities either by good fortune or though the efforts of others. He says, “[T]hose who solely by good fortune become princes … have little trouble in rising, but much in keeping atop; they have not any difficulties on the way up, because they fly, but they have many when they reach the summit.” (Machiavelli, PG). Borgia, after gaining power, did “all that ought to be done by a wise and able man to fix firmly his roots in the states which the arms and fortunes of others had bestowed on him.” (PG). His father had allowed the French back into Italy; the Venetians allied with them. Then Alexander used French soldiers to attack Romagna, which surrendered. It was this state that Borgia had to hold, but he had two main problems: the French soldiers didn’t appear loyal to him, and second, he didn’t have the goodwill of France. Borgia say that the men he was using were unwilling to fight and of questionable loyalty, so he resolved not to depend on the “arms and luck of others.” (PG). Instead, he weakened the opposition by winning the loyalty of his opponent’s adherents, “making them his gentlemen, giving them good pay … and honouring them with office and command.” (PG). Within a few months, these men were loyal to him. Then he set out to destroy their leaders. He was able to trick them into gathering at Sinigaglia, where he “exterminated the leaders,” without help from the French. He thus had eliminated his enemies, either by killing them or by turning them into friends, and he did it without relying overly much on outside assistance. Finally, to secure Romagna, he appointed a cruel minister, Ramiro d’Orco, to keep order. He 2011-10-26T12:20:36.483-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Machiavelli’s-Opinions-of-Cesare-Borgia-and-Agathocles-34077.aspx This paper examines Section 25 of Transcendental Deduction, contained in Critique of Pure Reason, in detail. (13 pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style. I Introduction Immanuel Kant’s work entitled Critique of Pure Reason is considered by many to be one of the most important philosophical studies ever written. In it, Kant attempts to reconcile two opposing viewpoints: reason and experience. Greatly simplified, the a priori viewpoint (reason) says that we know what we know because we know it; we reason it out. The a posteriori viewpoint says that we know what we know because we can prove it. Critique of Pure Reason attempts to find a middle ground. This paper discusses one section (25) of the Critique. Perhaps the best way to approach the subject is to restate Kant’s words to make sure we know what he’s saying, and then see what conclusions we draw. II Discussion Section 25 of the “Transcendental Deduction” begins “On the other hand, in the transcendental synthesis of the manifold of representations in general…” and ends “… not as it would know itself if its intuition were intellectual.” (Kant, p. 168-169). (I’m using the Norman Kemp Smith translation, 1965). The first sentence gives us a lot to think about: “On the other hand, in the transcendental synthesis of the manifold of representations in general, and therefore in the synthetic original unity of apperception, I am conscious of myself, not as I appear to myself, nor as I am in myself, but only that I am.” (Kant, p. 165). The first clause, “On the other hand” indicates that this is both an ongoing discussion and a comparison, and indeed it is, for in Section 24, Kant has been discussing inner intuition and how it affects our understanding of ourselves. He concludes “… so far as inner intuition is concerned, we know our own subject only as appearance, not as it is in itself.” (Kant, p. 165). The “on the other hand” indicates that now he is going to examine the opposite viewpoint—not intuition, but representation. There are terms that need examination here: “transcendental synthesis” “manifold of representations” and “synthetic original unity of apperception” must be understood before we can go further. “Synthesis” is a process, a blending of separate parts into a whole, an active rather than a reflective state. Kant says: “Space 2011-10-26T12:16:22.68-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Kant-on-Transcendental-Deduction-34075.aspx This paper examines the way in which Kierkegaard and Hegel’s writings express their idealism. (10+ pages; 4 sources; MLA citation style. I Introduction The dictionary defines “idealism” as “behavior or thought based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would wish them to be.” A moment’s reflection on this definition will reveal something interesting: idealism does not necessarily imply goodness. That is, for someone who enjoys pain, for example, the ideal state of being might well mean perpetual suffering. I mention this because when we use the word “ideal” it usually calls to mind a perfect state, almost paradisiacal—and almost always associated with good, kindness, joy, and other qualities that we call positive. Søren Kierkegaard is often described as having written his work “in response to” or “opposing” the views expressed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Thus, realizing that it is possible for an ideal state to be negative allows us to understand how two opposing philosophies might find a common ground. This paper will attempt to understand what Kierkegaard meant when he called Hegel an “idealist”; what kind of “idealist” Kierkegaard believed Hegel to be; and how Hegel’s “idealism” compares with that of Kierkegaard himself. The texts I’m using are on-line: Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments and Hegel’s “Preface” to the Phenomenology of Spirit. II Discussion I think the best place to start is probably with Hegel, since Kierkegaard is seen as reacting against his work. Hegel is widely regarded as one of the most difficult philosophers; some of the comments I’ve found in various places range from “don’t waste your time” to “the only person who really understands Hegel is Hegel.” Be that as it may, we’ll tackle his “Preface” to see if gives us a clue to his form of idealism. As background, another source tells us that Hegel is part of the movement referred to as “German Idealism”, and that this school of thought “tries to achieve a coherent philosophical system, the possibility of which was raised in Kant’s philosophy.” (“Philosophy 450”, PG). (Kant attempted to reconcile two diametrically opposed philosophies: empiricism and rationalism, or the idea that things can be known only via experience (empiricism) as opposed to the idea that things can be known through reason (rationalism)). Let’s see what we find in the “Preface.” Hegel begins by discussing the nature of writing about 2011-10-26T12:13:33.32-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Idealism-in-Kierkegaard-and-Hegel-34073.aspx This paper discussed several sections of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s book. (5+ pages; 1 source, MLA citation style. I Introduction Ludwig Wittgenstein takes a very different approach from other philosophers; he bases his inquiries into the human condition by examining linguistic techniques. In so doing, he often challenges readers in unexpected ways. This paper will examine Section 210 and sections that relate to it, with regard to the way in which we often use examples to help explain words and rules. II Discussion Let’s begin by considering Section 210 itself, which, like most sections in the book, is very short. In the section, Wittgenstein discusses how we explain to others what we understand. (It’s interesting to note that although it appears Wittgenstein is talking to someone else, because the section is a direct quote, I don’t believe there is another person present. This is a literary device that he uses in order to be able to answer direct questions.) Here the question is whether or not we tell another person directly what we understand, or give him examples and let him guess our intent. Wittgenstein says that he gives the explanation of every meaning he can devise to the other person, but it is up to the other person to decide which of the explanations appeals to him the most. As Wittgenstein puts it, “… various interpretations of my explanation come to his mind, and he lights on one of them.” (P. 84e). That is, Wittgenstein explains his meaning to the other person, who in turn interprets it and chooses the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Then Wittgenstein says “So in this case he could ask; and I could and should answer him.” (P. 84e). It appears to me this it is implied in this statement that Wittgenstein will “guide” his questioner to the “correct” explanation of his meaning, rather than allowing him to draw a false conclusion. Section 210 thus seems fairly straightforward: Wittgenstein reveals that in certain circumstances, he allows another person to guess his meaning, but he will also give a direct explanation of the meaning if the other’s guess is likely to lead him to misunderstanding. Section 211, however, though it relates directly to 210, is very difficult. Again, Wittgenstein talks to his invisible questioner. This person asks “How can he know how he is to continue a pattern by himself—whatever 2011-10-26T12:12:22.643-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Wittgenstein-§210-Explanations-and-Examples-34072.aspx This paper gives two examples from the Iliad of the ways in which godly intervention can have disastrous consequences for mortals. (3 pages; 1 source; MLA citation style. I Introduction The ancient gods (who are still around, laughing at us I’m sure) were far more accessible than today’s deities. They appeared to mortals, made love with them, sometimes bribed them or incited them to war; it was a different age, and gods walked on earth. However, if the gods were more easily available, they were no less capricious and self-centered than our modern ones, and interactions between gods and mortals often left the mortals dead, turned into trees, pregnant or otherwise disagreeably surprised. This paper briefly cites two examples of the way in which the gods’ intervention in human affairs had tragic results, as recounted in ancient poetry. II Discussion One of the best examples of the way in which a god’s wrath causes tremendous injury can be found in the beginning of Homer’s Iliad. There we read that the war began with the clash of Agamemnon and Achilles, and Homer asks “What god drove them to fight with such a fury?” The answer? A god: “Apollo the son of Zeus and Leto.” (1: 9-10). It seems that Chryses, priest of Apollo, had a beloved daughter named Chryseis who was taken as a captive by Agamemnon. When Chryses goes to Agamemnon and offers him a rich ransom if he’ll return the girl, Agamemnon refuses, despite the fact that his friends and colleagues urge him to accept, and despite the fact that a seer tells Agamemnon plainly that it is Apollo’s will that the girl be returned to her father. Agamemnon sends Chryses away, and the old man prays to Apollo to punish him for his stubbornness. Apollo hears him: “Down he strode from Olympus’ peaks, storming at heart / with his bow and hooded quiver slung across his shoulders. / The arrows clanged at his back as the god quaked with rage, / the god himself on the march and down he came like night.” (1: 51-54). Apollo, whom Homer repeatedly calls the “distant, deadly Archer” begins to shoot at the Greeks, first at their mules and dogs, but then at the men; Homer says he “cut them down in droves.” (1: 59). Apollo kept up his 2011-10-26T12:07:43.29-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Gods-and-Mortals-34070.aspx This paper discusses self transformation as described in The Prince and Confessions. (3 pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style. I Introduction Self-transformation (or “reinventing” oneself) is not new; it’s been a necessary part of politics of all kinds for centuries. This paper looks at what Machiavelli and St. Augustine have to say about it. II Machiavelli In his notorious little book The Prince, Machiavelli gives some very realistic advice to princes who want to be successful rulers. He says that although it would be nice if a prince could keep his word and live by “integrity … not with craft”, experience tells us that the greatest princes have recognized that such things might not be possible. Instead, they have learned that “there are two ways of contesting, the one by law, the other by force…”; the first is appropriate to beasts and the second to men. (Machiavelli, PG). Thus, a prince must understand how to access both sides of his nature; and be, when required, a beast or a man. However, a prince who uses this technique must also know how to deceive his subjects so they are unaware of the fact that he is using force rather than obeying the law. A prince must therefore learn to transform himself, as needed, while at the same time hiding this transformation from his subjects. This need for circumspection is therefore one of the greatest limits of self-transformation for Machiavelli. III St. Augustine In one sense, all of the Confessions is a story of self-transformation, and its limits. The first eight books are an autobiography of Augustine’s life, his passions, pleasures, and search for truth. He was in every sense a human being, which is why he is so much admired: he was a lusty young man who had several mistresses, traveled, read, taught and learned what it was to lose a dear friend to death. He also experimented with at least two other religions or philosophies before returning to Christianity (the “true faith”). He was, to use the modern idiom, constantly reinventing himself, now a sneak thief, then a teacher, finally a religious scholar. In Augustine’s case, I believe the lesson we can draw is that self-transformation is an on-going process; a learning process if you like. We experiment with various things, whether they be ideologies or drugs, until we find the one that suits us; the one 2011-10-26T12:06:33.663-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Self-Transformation-in-Machiavelli-and-St_-Augustine-34069.aspx This paper briefly discusses what advice Homer and Machiavelli might give us for coping with politics. (2.5 pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style. I Introduction Earthly existence is difficult, but there have always been people to give advice about how to cope with it. This paper examines Homer and Machiavelli to see what they have to say about the trials of living and how to withstand them. Both men are concerned, basically, with political struggles; the Trojan War, thought allegedly fought over a woman, also had great political and economic impact throughout the ancient world. (Recent scholars have concluded that there really was such a conflict.) II Discussion Homer’s great epic poems are basically stories in praise of heroes and heroic deeds, and this is really the way he appears to handle the political problems of the ancient world: through direct action, even combat. He is lavish in his praise of courage, and scathing in his descriptions of actions he considers cowardly. In Homer’s world, honor is the most important thing of all, closely followed by bravery. The Iliad is a poem about the use of force, and the heroic aspects of the men who use it; while the Odyssey is about the journey of one of the heroes of Troy as he returns home from the conflict. Although Odysseus isn’t always truthful (he in fact boasts of his skill at lying), he is always courageous. Machiavelli is much less generous in his opinion of his fellow men. Homer seems to believe that men are capable of exceptional deeds, but Machiavelli seems to view men as venial and opportunistic. He is a ruthless pragmatist, who favors the idea that a prince should do whatever it takes to succeed in his endeavors; whether that action is honorable or not doesn’t come into the equation. He is the one who coined the phrase “it’s better to be feared than loved,” and he suggests that if it’s necessary for a prince to break the law and use force to accomplish his goals, he should do so. Of course Homer also praises the use of force, but he is describing the clash of armies, not the leader of a state using underhanded tactics to subdue a civilian population, for instance. III Conclusion Homer is, I think, far fonder of men than Machiavelli. He has his heroes cope with the 2011-10-26T12:05:22.683-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Coping-with-Life-34068.aspx This paper explores the leadership styles of Aeneas and Cesare Borgia. (3+ pages; 2 sources; MLA citation style. I Introduction There are many different types of leadership. There’s leadership by example, by force, by persuasion, by coercion; there are as many styles as there are leaders. This paper considers the way leadership is portrayed in two classical works: Machiavelli’s The Prince and Virgil’s Aeneid. II Discussion Cesare Borgia led by force, trickery, and sometimes outright murder. After gaining power, he did “all that ought to be done by a wise and able man to fix firmly his roots in the states which the arms and fortunes of others had bestowed on him.” (PG). First, he weakened the opposition by winning the loyalty of his opponent’s adherents, “making them his gentlemen, giving them good pay … and honouring them with office and command.” (PG). Within a few months, these men were loyal to him. Then he was able to trick his remaining opponents into gathering at Sinigaglia, where he “exterminated the leaders”. He thus had eliminated his enemies, either by killing them or by turning them into friends. Finally, to secure Romagna, he appointed a cruel minister, Ramiro d’Orco, to keep order. He allowed d’Orco to do as he liked while he (Borgia) appeared not to know what d’Orco was doing. When complaints grew about the man’s cruelty, Borgia executed him, thus giving the impression that d’Orco was acting against his orders, when in reality he had obeyed them. It was by such means that Borgia exercised his “leadership.” Aeneas is very different, for many reasons, not least of which is that he is fated by the gods for a special destiny: Aeneas is a Trojan, and after the fall of the city he carries his father on his back and leads his son by the hand, out of the ruin of Troy. Thus begins his long journey to Italy, where he will found the greatest city of all: Rome. Aeneas’s greatest quality, which Virgil shows us again and again, is his compassion. He knows that his followers are suffering, and at one point, when they can’t go any further (Book V), he allows some of them to remain behind in Sicily: “Trust in his hands your old and useless train; Too num'rous for the ships which yet remain: 2011-10-26T12:04:05.807-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Leadership-in-the-Aeneid-and-The-Prince-34067.aspx The Poor Are Always With Us Tobias Wolff’s short story “The Poor Are Always with Us” portrays one man’s discovery of the road he will choose to follow in life. Set in California during the 1970’s on Easter weekend, Russell is an affluent computer genius who finds himself completely remote from society and unhappy. After meeting Dave and Groves at his mechanic’s garage, Russell faces many tribulations, particularly when trying to deal with Dave’s pugnacious demeanor. Through self-discovery, Russell finally comes to the conclusion that there will always be winners and losers in life. The saying, “It just wasn’t in the cards for him…” may depict Wolff’s resulting indeterminate view on life and how the universe functions. Russell realizes that through reverse social Darwinism, he too, can find his meaning of happiness. After trying desperately to fit into society, a portrait of a sad, completely alone Russell is painted. In Russell’s case, “fitting into society” means having friends. His lack of friends causes him to have conversations with himself, lie about his age, and gamble his car in a pointless bet. Russell’s quiet desperation is showcased when he takes a hit of marijuana and jauntily states, “Gracias. That’s righteous weed.” (Wolff 67). Revealing how easily he falls into peer pressure, Russell acts like a high- school dropout just so that he can impress two strangers. Also, his use of the expression “righteous” is an example of one of his many attempts to be upbeat and “cool.” A strong representative of one of the “weakest” in society, Russell’s struggles seem to portray that money elevates positively one’s favorable status in society. The phenomenon of a community’s protection towards those who are socially incompetent, or reverse social Darwinism, allows Russell to come out on top in society. In our contemporary time, the “fittest” in society is defined not by those who are gregarious, clever, attractive and athletic, but rather by those who have money. Considered to be two of the most powerful men in the history of our world, Bill Gates and John D. Rockefeller portray this type of social system clearly. In a conversation the story’s social outcast frequently has to himself, Russell answers his “roommate” by disclosing to him that he made “more money that you [he] needed, almost twice as much as your [his] own father made after thirty years of teaching high school math” (Wolff 70). Despite his many 2009-03-14T04:44:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Poor-Are-Always-With-Us-34014.aspx A SENSO-ry Experience Are you ready to loosen your belt a notch and unhinge your jaw for a mouth watering and authentic Italian experience? If the answer is yes, Senso is right here waiting for you! Located off MM Alam Road near Pizza Hut, Senso serves a menu of traditional Italian fare in a fine dining atmosphere. The restaurant has already created hype among the Italian cuisine lovers. The eye catching signage and the simple yet elegant exterior reflect the true spirit of the ristorante. As you are ushered through the entrance door by a courteous attendant, Senso impresses you! The customers feel immediately at home in the dimly lit surroundings with the intoxicating smell of freshly brewed coffee. As you transport yourself to the upper floor of the restaurant, you are at once charmed and know that you have discovered something special .The comfy interior boasts romanticism with a decor of beautiful falling lights, candles, lamps, fresh flowers, Italian paintings and a smoky bar. A touch of “red” in tables, Italian paintings and wood work further adds to the ambience. The aroma of herbs, combined with the exotic ingredients is enough to make your mouth water while reading the menu! Tucked away in various corners of the dining area, a lot of young couples were seen enjoying the arduous task of decision making: “What shall we have tonight?” Pasta and thin crust oven brick Pizzas are their specialty but the enormous menu covers almost all the Italian bases from soups to salads, appetizers, entrees, sandwiches (served only during lunch), desserts and beverages. Chef’s specialties include Minestrone Soup that’s filled with tons of vegetables, Senso Shrimp Skewers, Farelle Pesto, Pizza Roma and Affogato al Caffe ice cream served with a shot of espresso topped with hazelnut syrup. The price for soups is Rs. 225 each. Salads lie in between Rs.325 and Rs. 375. Prices for Pasta are closer to Rs.425. The entrees range from Rs.425 to Rs. 755. Grilled Jumbo Prawns is the most expensive item in the entrees which clamors for attention with its description of being marinated with fresh herbs and garlic in a lemon caper sauce, served with cilantro risotto and wilted spinach. Once my order arrived, I considered the food overpriced for the quantity. But the delectable taste made it worth the price and it proved a belly filling experience also. After the delights of 2009-03-09T13:51:33-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Sensory-Experience-34007.aspx Lost Identity By Ayesha Shahid The roaring and the wailing of the wind awakened me suddenly from my ‘sweet dreams’. I looked out of my window and saw the trees in my backyard swinging violently. Almost immediately I saw two trees falling over the backyard. I ran to my bed, covered myself and prayed that the hurricane would stop and won’t cause much damage. Next morning, I dared to walk into the yard to see what Nature has done to my nature in the garden. I was grieved to see my plantation crashed to the ground. But there was something more than the grief: I noticed a tree on the ground with its huge root system exposed in the air. Then I marveled at another tree: Lightning had damaged one of its biggest branches but the tree itself stood intact; its deep root system held it firmly in place. At this juncture I realized a subtle yet profound relation between man and nature. I learnt that people, like trees, need roots and a solid system of connections fastening them firmly to the ground. As I thought about it, I realized just how rootless and disturbed our lives have become in these chaotic and in many ways, dark times. The present time carries, with itself, a sense of rootless ness and disconnection. In our humdrum lives, time seems to move at a tremendous velocity and people in turn travel great distances to reach out time. The majority of people in this postmodern world seem to have no connection with their past, family, community and nation. They have become a kind of globetrotter concerned with the physical comforts and the present moments only. The life in big cities, despite its industrial progress and physical comforts, is sordid and horrible where the identity of a human being is nothing but a ‘heap of broken images’ drowned in materialism. People have lost faith in the moral and spiritual values. It has become an exception rather than a rule to consider settling as a nation, to build deep roots and connections that will last a lifetime. As a result, in the times of crisis, these people come out hurt and wounded, sometimes homeless and alone. In the past 59 years, our culture has undergone a tremendous transformation. Our country is undergoing an identity crisis, a crisis that arises from cultural conflict. One of 2009-03-09T13:47:21-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Lost-Identity-By-Ayesha-Shahid-34003.aspx My Choice to Abuse Drugs INTRODUCTION A Once upon a time, I and a friend of mine were sitting on a bench in typical public garden between some little blocks of flats, just outside the center of the city of Sofia. It had stopped raining about an hour before, luckily we had found a dry bench - sheltered from the rain by the branches of a chestnut tree - and were sharing a joint, wearily eyeing a bunch of old ladies that were sitting and staring into empty space on the other end of the garden. One never knows with old ladies. Until 1989 many of them had the habit of ratting on you to the secret police for saying jokes about the communist party, or listening to capitalist music, and such a habit dies not, but rather adapts to new realities – like a “war on drugs”. “Agents” is the street slang for such over-curious old folks, who stare at you from behind the curtains of their windows, – “Watch it man, there’s an agent on third floor.” – “Which one? Oh yeah, well, light a cigarette then, be natural.” As the grass hit home, the colors got brighter as usual, the sounds of the city and the insects became more pronounced, the rate of heart-beats increased. On the wet ground below, many snails and slugs were wondering around in their slow motion dream, leaving glistening trails on the grass and cracked concrete. “Watch”, I said, and placed a “victory white” cigarette just in front of a snail. After a typical for stoner perception eternity, the snail had reached the cigarette and instead of just going over or around it, it stopped on top of it. Fifteen minutes later, three snails and one naked slug had joined into the party. Frozen, they sat stuck to the cigarette. “They are getting high”, my friend said, “yes”, I replied. - “Could it be dangerous to them? Like poison or something?” - “It certainly is poison for us, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be for them.” - “So they may die soon after this cigarette?” - “No idea, but they probably will die, or become ill or something.” - “Doesn’t that bother you?” This question made me collect my thoughts, which does take a bit of effort when one is high, and I answered something like: “My position is the following: these snails are pathetic little creatures. The little time that they are alive, they try to 2009-02-12T13:33:58-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/My-Choice-to-Abuse-Drugs-pt1-33969.aspx I mE mYselF By Adeel Salman What are you crying about boy? I looked up and saw myself staring at myself. It was a rare moment that occurs often in my life all the time occasionally. My Mr Hyde was staring at me with dissecting eyes. He was boring into my deep recesses. I wanted to run away, scream and hide. But there he was staring at me. 'Nothing', was all I could stifle out. I knew he was reading my mind as always. He knew I was thinking about all the times I had lost. I knew he was laughing at me, laughing at my sordid weak self. Before he could spit another question in my face, I slowly started narrating the same sad tale that I always had to tell. Self, individual, time all felt out of place when I juxtaposed me and what I wanted to be. They say dreamers are achievers. But for my case I had never been able to realize any of my dreams. I had failed where I wanted to succeed. I had succumbed where I wanted to rise, I had fallen where I should have achieved. It wasn't that I was dumb or I was not well provided for with opportunities. But yet I had failed. What was it that had pulled me back? Was it competition, too many expectations with myself, hope or over confidence which I thought was confidence. Modern man or should I say man- a poor victim of all these sad predicaments. Who was to blame? He looked at me with a scowl and I knew obviously his answer was 'you' or did he mean 'me'... in both cases I suffered... 'I suffered'... I blared out. I remember how my other used to tell me whenever I was sad or blue, that look at the evening star. It is the first one that comes out in th evening. When no other star would dare to show up challenging the dark, Venus stands tall and opens the road for the little light merchants to light up the dark. I still lift my head in th evening to take a look at Venus, to draw inspiration, to feed on some hope on an old story my mother had told me; Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful. The absurdity of the situation is almost hilarious yet is always drenched in tears. We start off with such robust positivity and this world , the time, the people we meet, the situations, the circumstances mar our existence 2009-02-11T14:58:48-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/I-Me-Myself-by-Adeel-Salman-33966.aspx My Choice to Abuse Drugs INTRODUCTION A Once upon a time, I and a friend of mine were sitting on a bench in typical public garden between some little blocks of flats, just outside the center of the city of Sofia. It had stopped raining about an hour before, luckily we had found a dry bench - sheltered from the rain by the branches of a chestnut tree - and were sharing a joint, wearily eyeing a bunch of old ladies that were sitting and staring into empty space on the other end of the garden. One never knows with old ladies. Until 1989 many of them had the habit of ratting on you to the secret police for saying jokes about the communist party, or listening to capitalist music, and such a habit dies not, but rather adapts to new realities – like a “war on drugs”. “Agents” is the street slang for such over-curious old folks, who stare at you from behind the curtains of their windows, – “Watch it man, there’s an agent on third floor.” – “Which one? Oh yeah, well, light a cigarette then, be natural.” As the grass hit home, the colors got brighter as usual, the sounds of the city and the insects became more pronounced, the rate of heart-beats increased. On the wet ground below, many snails and slugs were wondering around in their slow motion dream, leaving glistening trails on the grass and cracked concrete. “Watch”, I said, and placed a “victory white” cigarette just in front of a snail. After a typical for stoner perception eternity, the snail had reached the cigarette and instead of just going over or around it, it stopped on top of it. Fifteen minutes later, three snails and one naked slug had joined into the party. Frozen, they sat stuck to the cigarette. “They are getting high”, my friend said, “yes”, I replied. - “Could it be dangerous to them? Like poison or something?” - “It certainly is poison for us, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be for them.” - “So they may die soon after this cigarette?” - “No idea, but they probably will die, or become ill or something.” - “Doesn’t that bother you?” This question made me collect my thoughts, which does take a bit of effort when one is high, and I answered something like: “My position is the following: these snails are pathetic little creatures. The little time that they are alive, they try to 2008-10-17T12:11:17-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Choice-to-Abuse-Drugs-33812.aspx Marx vs. Fayol Karl Marx and Henri Fayol are both pioneers with theories on organizations. After that, the similarities fade as the details of their theories start to differ. Marx’s theories deal more with laborers versus the capitalists that employ these laborers whereas Fayol breaks down the divisions of works to help streamline how the hierarchy of the workplace should line up to be most efficient. The two theorize the same idea that the top of the organization is separate from everyone else below them but the gradients of the theories differ dramatically. “Once labor is defined as a cost of production, rather than as a means to achieve a collective purpose for the good of society, workers are disenfranchised from the product of their own work efforts” (Hatch). Marx feels that if labor is going to be treated as a commodity then there is going to be a breakdown in the workplace. The workers are now being “bought and sold.” To keep this from occurring, a check and balance needs to be implemented and for Marx, the answer is labor unions. Marx knows that the two groups are going to be separate no matter what but with a balance in place, the two can coexist. "Society as a whole is more and more splitting into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat" (Marx). Those class distinctions have always existed in some form and will always remain. This alienation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie is what Marx fears. “Marx’s early position maintain that the theme of alienation, if not central to later Marxist writing, is, at least, clearly in evidence there and perhaps basic to his sociology and his prescriptions for the good world” (Grimes, Simmons). Fayol on the other hand feels that instead of worrying about the segregation of capitalists and laborers, he felt the concern should be how the organization is setup from top to bottom. It is not black and white like Marx sees it. To Fayol, the area is grey from top to bottom. The scalar chain is the superiors ranging from the ultimate authority to the lowest ranks. The line of authority is the route followed via every link in the chain-by all communications, which start from or go to the ultimate authority. This path is dictated both by the need for some transmission and by the principle of unity of command, but it is not always the swiftest. It is even at times disastrously lengthy in large concerns, notably in governmental ones (Fayol). With dealing with chain of command 2008-09-30T02:48:44-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Marx-vs_-Fayol--33736.aspx The hierarchy of life Ahh... what a beautiful tool for organization, prioritizing, and being right. I imagine you would like to know a little more about it.. So if you are comfortable, we shall begin. In life, we consider ourselves lucky to be wealthy, happy, healthy, sexy - not to mention countless other words 2008-09-02T14:53:01-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Hierarchy-of-Life-33676.aspx Business has created wealth that has given numerous individuals financial freedom, yet at the same time, it has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The philosophy of business considers the primary principles that underlie the operations of an enterprise. Developing a balanced business ethic between profit-taking and honesty is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks for a corporation. In the wake of post-communism, we are now living in triumphant times of global capitalism; but the inevitability of corporate greed and deception in this system can create devastating results like Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson.8 These corporations failed because of the people that work there; a series of deceptive operational decisions left these billion-dollar corporations and their millions of investors in demise. And there are many other examples of smaller companies undergoing “corporate restructuring” in an effort to save themselves. What business ethics involves is the plundering of natural resources, exploitation of labor in lesser-developed nations, unfair competition, impacts on the environment, treatment of employees and social responsibility.1 Business managers must keep all of these points in mind when making decisions on behalf of their organizations. This paper will look at the different factors a manager ought to look at when making informed decisions, with consideration of the stakeholders – the manager him/herself, the corporation and greater society. Through the use of the role-differentiated model, the utilitarian model and the professional contract model, I contend that a business manager has moral right but not the moral obligation to act up to the limits of law in any situation; in other words, the manager will be considered amoral only if he/she has broken the law. First we must understand that all business is anchored in the subjective viewpoints of the manager, of the corporation and of society. Each of these distinct and interconnected entities hold their own beliefs on what businesses ought and ought not to do, and these beliefs often conflict with one another. What we need is a practical method of resolving morality in business dilemmas, and I feel the best way to do it is by reducing business ethics to the law. Legal reduction gives us a more practical way of resolving black and white issues, whereby the grey area is significantly reduced in size. The law gives managers a clear view of the limits of a corporate decision. An opponent of this 2007-11-20T07:32:07-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Practical-Guide-to-Evaluating-Professional-Business-Ethics-33432.aspx In the Allegory of the Cave Plato represents man’s condition as being “chained in a cave,” with only a fire behind him. He perceives the world by watching the shadows on the wall. He sits in darkness with the false light of the fire and does not realize that this existence is wrong or lacking. Much like the matrix, it merely is his existence — he knows no other nor offers any complaint. In the Matrix when Neo is freed he realizes his life has been a deception and is given a choice to go back to “the cave” (his reality) or “embrace the sun” (truth). Socrates plays the part of the prisoner who returns to the cave to save the others from bondage. Like Socrates, Morpheus cannot show Neo what he most needs to see because truth cannot be told it has to be experienced. When Morpheus asks Neo: “What is real? How do you define real?” he is echoing Socrates in his own search for the truth, When Socrates denies the oracles prophesy, Socrates makes it his duty to prove he isn’t the wisest man by questioning all who were believed to be the wisest men Athens. "I must go to all those who had any reputation for knowledge [or, who were believed to know anything] to examine its meaning." Socrates questioned well-established men, poets, craftsmen and failed to find any of them wise like he had thought. "Those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable." Socrates’ persistent questioning and examining earned him many enemies as his scrutiny exposed the men’s ignorance and left them feeling angry and foolish. This eventually led to his trial where he was charged with corrupting the youth and impiety. In the Apology, Socrates references himself as a gadfly stinging the lazy horse (the Athenian state), claiming that a god has placed him in the city to do so. Socrates claims, the state is liable to drift into a deep sleep, but through his influence it can be wakened into productive and virtuous action. Socrates believes that his persistent questioning will lead to the realization of the men’s ignorance and serve as a motivation to leave “the cave”. Socrates’ reference to himself as a gadfly is comparable to Morpheus as Neo only accepts his true nature after the series of 2007-08-23T02:23:40-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Allegory-of-the-Cave--33315.aspx Descartes: Concerning God, That He Exists Early in Meditation III, Descartes states that he is going to “inquire whether there is a God.” (Page 71) Descartes believes that the light of nature reveals to us ideas that are clear and distinct; and that any idea that is clear and distinct “cannot in any way be doubtful.” (Page 72) Of any idea that he has, that of God’s existence, he feels, was revealed to him through the light of nature and he considers that to be the most clear and distinct. Throughout the next few pages he goes on to “prove” that there is a God based on three main principles: the causation principle, the existence of innate ideas, and our perfect idea of God. The Causation principle states that there must be at least as much reality, and perfection, in the cause of something as there is in the effect. By this Descartes was saying that our creation is the result of the acts of someone, or something, more perfect and containing more reality than ourselves. He uses this principle as one of his arguments for God’s existence, saying that God must be the most perfect and contain the most reality because he “created me along with everything else that exists.” (Page 76) According to Descartes, there are three types of ideas: adventitious, invented, and innate. Our perfect idea of God is not adventitious because in order for this to be so he would have to be recognizable by our senses. He is not invented because we ourselves do not possess enough perfection to think of such a perfect being on our own. Therefore, this idea of God must be innate. Innate ideas are discoverable; we have these ideas without actually experiencing them. This innate idea of God must come from God, referring back to the Causation principle, because it must come from something more perfect and real than the idea itself. If we were able to invent such a perfect idea, we would have made ourselves similar. Descartes states, “I see no reason why, with my knowledge thus increased, I could not acquire all the remaining perfections of God.” (Page 77) However we are incapable of produced-by-me ideas with this much perfection; again affirming that this idea came from God and that there is a 2007-04-23T03:38:23-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Descartes-Concerning-God,-That-He-Exists-33084.aspx PHILOSOPHY OF LIFEand other essays by B. J. Gupta bjgupta@yahoo.com Table of contents HARD WORK AND FAIT 1 ALTERNATE MEDICINES 3 EXISTENCE OF GOD 4 RELIGION 5 MORALITY 6 PROMOTING MORALITY 7 'WHY ME?' SYNDROME 9 GOODNESS QUOTIENT 10 GANPATI BAPPA MORYA 11 ANGER 12 ARROGANCE 13 PURPOSE OF LIFE 14 WOMEN’S LIBERATION 18 LIFE OF A JEEP 19 MEANING OF LIFE 20 PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE 22 MY WEB SITES 24 Hard work and fait There are two widely prevailing and mutually contradictory views on hard work. One is that however hard you work, you are only going to get whatever is there in your fate. Other one is that 'nothing is impossible'. First view is held by those who are either influenced by eastern religions or who have experienced failures in spite of hard work. Second view is held generally by those who have experienced success. My views on hard work are somewhat statistical. To me fate is nothing but chance. While people say somebody is born in rich family by fate, I would say it is so by chance. Thus it would be more appropriate to say that hard work doesn't guarantee success, but increases it's chance. "Hard work hasn't hurt anybody but why take chance ?" Alternate medicines In greek the 'allo' means different. Perhaps allopathy meant a different therapy. Today it is no longer just a different therapy but since long time has established itself as main therapy. Alternate systems of medicines harp on the fact that allopathic medicines have side effects. Many of today's so called alternate medicines do not have any effect. Where is the question of side effects ?. "If we get cured we thank God, If we don't we curse the doctor. Next time you get cured, do thank God, bless the doctor too." Existence of God Existence of God is matter of faith. He exists at least to those who have faith in him. But it is the society which creates the faith and society consists of men. This brings us to famous question 'Man is God's creation or God is man's creation? Religion All religions originated with the aim of making the world a better place to live in. Originators and propagators of most of the religions realized that if every body works for self interest only there would be conflict of interests and weaker would suffer more. Hence in most of the religions, any activity which adversely affects others is considered immoral. The biggest challenge confronting religious heads was how to keep man away from doing immoral things. In most of the religions this challenge was met by 2007-04-18T16:47:23-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-of-life-and-other-essays-33000.aspx Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses what the greatest good could be. He begins by saying, “Every craft and every investigation, and likewise every action and decision, seems to be aimed at some good.” This means that Aristotle thinks that everyone’s actions in life are directed at something greater, something that they are striving for. I believe this to be true because it seems in life that everything you do, you are aiming for something else. With every decision and action that a person makes, they try to gain a greater self worth and prosperity. The true meaning that Aristotle hints upon is to achieve greatness and to be the best person that lies in your grasp. Aristotle believes that all good is subordinate to some point. For instance, the end, or good of a student would be the degree; with an inventor it would be the invention. This means that different people have different ideas about what the greatest good is. Some examples that Aristotle gives as to what he thinks people to see as the greatest good, or end, are wealth, pleasure, honor, virtue, and health. The most vulgar, which are also what many people see as the greatest good, is wealth. The problem is that wealth does not necessarily last forever. It may never be bestowed upon people who work their whole life, yet may be gained by others why never thought of achieving it. Today, the saying goes “money is the root of all evil”. This is true in some respects because money has destroyed countless friendships and lives. An example would be people who have had money their entire lives. Wealthy individuals probably think that money is not the greatest good because they are used to be able to have everything that they could want and will never be satisfied with anything because they will always want more. Another example Aristotle goes into is health. This is quite similar to wealth because when one is sick, they wish that they were in good health. This is only true because they are tired of being sick, and it isn’t necessarily what they think the ultimate good is. Once you lose a certain status, permanently or maybe even temperately, you realize how good your life was before your 2007-04-18T03:04:27-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-s-Nicomachean-Ethics-32977.aspx Philosophy on the Knowledge of God Throughout history there has been a concept of a greater being(s) that guided our lives. In the beginning the main idea was that of plurality and polytheism. In ancient Greece and Rome, there were various gods that were believed to control different aspects of life. At some point, people began to worship only one god, the god of their own tribe. This religious position of henotheism eventually shifted to monotheism, for many. With monotheism comes the idea that your god is not only the god of your “tribe”, but of all humanity. And it is this position of that has undergone the most change and evolution throughout time. Yet, it remains with us today. As John Robinson explains, the most profound change within monotheism is that of the idea of God changing from “up there” to “out there.” This change has brought us to the most traditional concept that we have of God today. This is a concept in which we imagine God as a purely spiritual being, separate and independent from the world. He is supremely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. (these attributes will be discussed later in the paper). Whether Robinson's ideas of the existence of God are right or wrong, we can say that it is undeniably true that there is an idea of God that most of us reference to. And, that is the idea of traditional theologians. It is for this reason that it is beneficial to elucidate our own thoughts about God and to investigate more thoroughly the concept of God that emerged from the thinking of past theologians. The Attributes of God: As a closer study of past theologians advances, we come to St. Anselm. Anselm, a good philosopher and great theologian developed a formula for what we can claim to be the attributes of God. He began this formula by stating that (1) God is a being than which none greater can be conceived and (2) God is the greatest conceivable being (Notice here that Anselm leaves room for a being greater than God. He urges us to not disprove the idea that there could be a being greater than can be conceived). With these two statements we can begin to formulate what Anselm meant by greater: power, goodness, knowledge? 2007-04-18T00:58:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-on-the-Knowledge-of-God-32941.aspx Analysis of Aristotle's Chief Good Aristotle’s first argument concerning the nature of pleasure answers the question of whether of not pleasure is the Good. While he holds that pleasure is indeed, a good, it is just that, one of many. Pleasure is not however, the Chief Good. Aristotle backs up this first argument with some key notions about pleasure. Firstly, that pleasure can be enhanced or decreased through the addition, or taking away, of other factors. Wisdom, for example, can increase one’s experiencing of pleasure, while a negative attribute can diminish it. Since the Chief Good cannot be made more or less desirable by other features, pleasure is not it. Second, Aristotle illustrates the idea that some pleasures are good, and some are negative, and some pleasures vary in degree. The Chief Good is not a variable. It is complete in itself. This again proves that pleasure is not the Good. I cannot see many holes in this part of Aristotle’s argument concerning the make-up of pleasure. I am therefore inclined to agree with him. Take the example of gardening, an activity which many people enjoy. This pleasure can be increased or decreased by other factors, such as weather. If it is cold outside, gardening will be less pleasurable, while if it is very sunny, pleasure in gardening is increased. As the Chief Good does not vary in degrees, I concur with this aspect of Aristotle’s argument on pleasure. Aristotle’s second assertion in his evaluation of the nature of pleasure is that pleasure is neither a movement, a process, nor, a transition. On the contrary, Aristotle believes it to be complete the whole time. He backs up this argument firstly, by stating that while becoming pleased (from displeased) might be a transition, pleasure itself, once reached, is not a process of this type. Second, he claims that while we can become pleased quickly of slowly, we can’t be pleased in the same way. For pleasure is not an activity or movement, but a state of being. He uses the example of walking, an action, and contrasts this with pleasure. Aristotle goes on to strengthen his argument by comparing the wholeness of pleasure to that of thought. On this account of Aristotle’s nature of pleasure, I must disagree. There are several 2007-04-18T00:40:28-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Aristotle-s-Chief-Good-32936.aspx Morality describes the principles that rule our behavior. Without these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is often thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of view. Everyone sticks to a moral doctrine of some kind. Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. C.S. Lewis defines them as to ensure fair play and agreement between people; to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior. Professor Lewis says most reasonable people agree. We begin to see problems happening. Consider the popular philosophy "I'm not hurting anyone but myself," often used to excuse bad personal choices. How can we be the good people we need to be if we continue in making these choices, and how will that result not affect the rest of our society? Bad personal choices do hurt others. While the majority of the world's population believes in God, or at least in a god, the question of Creation, as a theory of origins, is debated in today's society. A recent report in Psychology Today said: "The most significant predictor of a person's moral behavior may be religious commitment. People who consider themselves very religious were least likely to report deceiving their friends, having extramarital affairs, cheating on their expenses accounts, or even parking illegally." Based on this finding, what we believe about Creation has a decided effect on our moral thinking and our behavior. Without belief in a Creator, the only option that seems to be left is to stick to moral standards we make up for ourselves. Unless we live in a ruling society, we are free to choose our own personal moral code. But where does that freedom come from? The view of many who do not stick to Creation is that morality is a creation of humankind, designed to meet the need of steady societies. All kinds of life are in a process of deciding between life and death, choosing what to do with power and or authority. This ultimately leads to a system of virtues and values. The question is: what happens when our choices conflict with each other? What if something I believe I need in order 2007-03-23T01:09:26-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Moral-Behavior-in-Today-s-World-32861.aspx The Question Of Truth The goal of any philosopher is to find what can only be referred to as “truth.” Truth is the undeniable, that which can be relied upon in any circumstances, obviously the one thing in life that has real meaning. Unfortunately, truth is quite elusive, as philosophers have been going at the question since Socrates, and no one has produced a definitive answer yet. In the course of my years of reading about the subject, I have accepted only a few concepts as being valid, and I would like to share them now. Rene Descartes essay “The Search For Certainty” should be considered the jump-off point for any discussion about truth. In it, he expounds one of the few hypotheses that possesses no holes—solipsism. It states that a person’s own existence is the only thing that they can truly be sure of. The existence of others or of external objects, while it may be quite likely, cannot be completely relied upon. Firstly, any perception one has cannot be trusted. Our eyes regularly sees things that later prove not to be there, our ears hear voices that do not exist, and so on. If we accept that our senses can deceive us, how can we be sure that they’re ever being truthful? At any given time, or all the time, our sensory perception may simply be playing tricks on us, and therefore it cannot be trusted. Similarly, we can never be sure that other supposedly sentient beings are, in fact, thinking and acting. They could be complete figments of our imagination just as easily as non-thinking things. But now that all these different things have been ruled as “not necessarily in existence,” how can one be sure that they, themselves, exist? At first it seems like a difficult question, and Lord knows that any number of pseudo-intellectual beings have posited that our lives could just be someone else’s dream, but in actuality, the answer is quite simple—thought. Independent, creative thought and action are sure signs of a true existence. Now, while it cannot be proven that other humans think, everyone can be sure that at least they do as individuals. I know I exist, for I feel control over my body, and I actively compose thoughts in my mind. This 2007-03-19T14:10:02-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Question-Of-Truth-32831.aspx Discuss the claim that killing in warfare is more justifiable than other types of killing. Abortion is a type of killing, and brings no peace, whereas wars such as the Nazi overthrowing brought peace and justice to those who were being hurt. Thus, war is more justifiable than abortion, because it is achieving something greater as an outcome. If we justify war, then we justify pre-meditated murder because its still killing that has been planned in advance. If we justify war as a society, then we justify other types of killing such as murder, euthanasia and abortion. Those who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation point to Jesus' words, "Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"(Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this is not the case. Note the specification of right cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? In fact, it doesn't really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek. When is full-scale nuclear war right? Emphasis is obviously given to numbers of lives saved and to the extent to which people’s lives are worthwhile, therefore it would be strange to think it such a war could be justified. It is also remembered that after such a war most of what is valued would have been destroyed and horrendous genetic effects would still be in store for any survivors. President Kennedy said in relation to this issue “the survivors will envy the dead”. The effects of nuclear war to this scale would of course take much longer to resolve than even the worst regime. Also it must be remembered that a widespread or prolonged nuclear war would end the human race. This being the case contingent pacifism is the only sane attitude to a full scale nuclear war. In certain cases such as that of Hitler’s Nazi regime contingent pacifism is not viable, with the II World War being the lesser evil than that which did and could have occurred. However all things considered even 2007-03-19T12:29:16-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Killing-in-Warfare-32816.aspx Examine the via negativa as an approach to understanding the nature of God. Another word for via negativa is the apophatic way. It comes from the Greek word ‘apophasis’, which means negation. It argues that God cannot be known in terms of human categories. God is beyond all signs and languages. The great Jewish scholar Maimonides wrote that we come nearer to knowledge of God through negative attributes, for example God is not evil, or God is not limited. Arguably, speaking about God in negative terms avoids the problem of misrepresenting God. Problems in gaining knowledge about the attributions of God do not necessarily imply God does not exist, nor do they support the possibility of Gods existence. People talking about God do not normally want to talk about God in terms of negation. Believers describe God in positive terms and in personal terms, rejecting the via negativa. Since it is impossible for humans o use human language of God and of humans without confusion, then to speak of God in terms of what he is not may lead us to a full adequate understanding of the nature of God by avoiding serious pitfalls. Peter Cole argues that ‘by denying all descriptions of God you get an insight and experience of God rather than unbelief and a scepticism.’ This full understanding of God leads to true belief and faith in God. Via negativa relies on a common method of the negative way. One moves beyond words and concepts by denying them. Leading them not to a level where one cannot understand, but to a level of understanding whereby we realise that God is beyond all words. The via negativa theory is an important step to understanding religious language and thus the nature of God. Via negativa has been adopted by many scholars to gain an understanding of God and the nature of God. A central tenet of Don Cupits early theology was via negativa. ‘I try to show the restless character of belief in God which continually strives after intelligible content, and yet must be by its own inner dialect always negate any proposed specific content.’ However, when used on itself via negativa cannot distinguish an adequate difference between atheism and theism, since to say that God can only be spoken of in negative terms it effectively denies God altogether. This can be shown when looking at John Wisdoms parable of the gardener 2007-03-19T12:27:23-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Examine-the-via-negativa-32815.aspx In the light of ethical theories discuss arguments for and against pacifism. Pacifism is the theory that peaceful rather than violent or belligerent relations should govern human intercourse and that arbitration, surrender, or migration should be used to resolve disputes. Pacifism is as much an element of Western thinking as is the notion of Just War Theory, the argument that the state may legitimately or morally bear arms. While most people accept the necessity of war, conscientious objectors (or martyrs in much of European history) have often been accorded a special recognition for their moral bravery in refusing to take up arms. The philosophical study of pacifism requires examining a variety of aspects of the broad proposal, as well as an investigation as to its consequences. Pacifism relates to war as well as to domestic injustices and repressive policies. It can be studied in terms of its coherence as a deontological, or intrinsic, value as well as in terms of the beneficial effects it seeks. Examination of the broad theory draws our attention to a vast range of possible ethical meanings and issues that the committed pacifist or critic must consider. The doctrine of absolute pacifism is first dealt with, before turning to an examination of the more flexible doctrines of conditional pacifism and "pacificism". There are three main versions of pacifism are religious, contingent and philosophic. Pacifists hold that violence. Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances. Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs. The Christian idea of just war thinking has a long history. Its origins go back to Ambrose of Milan, and in particular, to St Augustine, who had to face a new political situation. The Roman Empire in which Christianity has grown- in spite of great and terrible persecution- was pagan. The emerging Christian religion was 2007-03-19T12:24:50-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Pacifism-32814.aspx I believe that to be misunderstood is to be great. If people are not quite understanding what it is you are saying, that is a true sign that you are great. Some examples of people who we now see as great, are Galileo, Jesus, and Thoreau. These are all people who, during their lives, were seen as borderline crazy, and in the first two cases, heretics. Galileo was an Italian scientist who believed, based on discoveries in the sky that the earth actually revolved around the sun, instead of vice versa. For this statement, he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, an act recently reversed only decades ago when the Church released a statement saying it was wrong. Too bad Galileo died years and years before. People misunderstood Galileo’s discovery for heresy, and in a time when everything was based on religion, it must have been difficult for the Italian scientist to live a normal life. Jesus. The very name sparks controversy even today, yet it is a fact that both historically and religiously, this man was certainly great. Over the course of his extremely well known life, Jesus was understood as one of the following: a great prophet, a second Elijah, or even a rebel against the Roman Empire. Unfortunately for all who thought they knew what they were talking about, each of these suggestions is wrong. Theologically speaking, Jesus was the Messiah, the one who had come to take away sin and restore life. Thoreau, the great romantics writer, was heavily misunderstood in his time, and even now, occasionally. People tend to think of him as a smart person who led a clearly “un-ambitious” life. However, these people are terribly wrong. Thoreau was not un-ambitious, he just had ambitions that most people did not understand or realize. He wanted to understand and prove what life was all about. He wanted to become aware of what how individual parts of his day were made up, exactly how does one build a house, how much does it cost, and how effective is this dwelling? In short, he was a seeker of knowledge like many great thinkers, just not necessarily the same knowledge most people tend to look for. Overall, this proves that the greatest of the historically famous people were actually widely misunderstood, especially in their time. But this is actually a refreshing thought. For those of us who are misunderstood, at least we 2007-03-15T23:49:59-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/To-be-Misunderstood-is-to-be-Great-32800.aspx “The conditions of Just War Theory are both practical and reasonable. They provide the basis to justify any conflict” – Clarify and evaluate this claim. Just War Theory states a collection of criteria that come before choosing to go to war. They are intended to ensure that the decision to wage war is the right one. However, while what they state seems to be reasonable, it appears impractical to expect a war to follow the rules, as war is generally disordered. I also think that it is untrue to say that the Just War Theory justifies conflict as I do not believe that conflict or war can ever be justified completely. Just War Theory attempts to protect the innocent, so that the only people involved in the war are those who chose to be involved. While on the surface this seems a sensible idea, how can we protect the innocent in an event as haphazard as a war? It would be virtually impossible to ensure that no civilian is harmed or killed during a war because soldiers and fighting naturally expands into civilian areas. It also would be difficult to determine which civilians are innocent and which are not – for example, would a munitions worker who agreed and supported the war be a legitimate target? We can see that it is controversial to make a decision on who is innocent and who is not. The theory states that the reason for going to war must be just or fair. According to Aquinas, the war must occur only if it is to confront a ‘real and certain danger’, including protecting innocent life or preserving basic human rights. However, to me it seems hypocritical to justify going to war because it is protecting innocent life, when clearly war itself is going to destroy innocent lives. It seems hypocritical also to say war can be justified if it is protecting human rights, because what about the rights of civilians who are caught in crossfire or bomb attacks? To me, justifying war by saying it is for a good cause is incomprehensible because trying to achieve peace or harmony by introducing conflict and war is clearly not going to work. The theory also states that a war can only be fought with ‘good’ intentions, or according to Aquinas ‘the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil’. While this rule has sensible grounding, to guarantee there are 2007-02-25T14:35:03-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Just-War-Theory--32694.aspx William Paley argued for the existence of God by reasoning that the world shows such complex structure that it must have been designed. He used analogy to compare the universe to a man made structure such as a watch. He argues that if we were to find a watch on the ground, we would naturally infer that it had not come into being by chance; rather that it had been designed for a purpose. He also argues that regularity in the universe also shows that the world must have been designed – Newton’s laws of motion and gravity alone show there is design in the universe that did not come about by chance. Paley’s argument has both its strengths and its weaknesses. The argument itself is a posteriori and inductive meaning that everyone can understand and relate to it and it is easy to understand. It appears to be a logical argument – most people would agree that if they were to come across a watch they would assume it had a designer. It is therefore easy to follow the argument and agree with its conclusion – that there is a God. By using the analogy of a watch, we can see more clearly the point that is being made; that as like effects have like causes, it is reasonable to assume that an intricately designed object such as a watch has a designer, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that our intricately designed universe has a designer. However the fact that the argument uses analogy can also be seen as a weakness. David Hume criticised Paley’s argument because he believed it was illogical to liken the universe to a vast man made machine. He believed the universe would be more believably likened to a vegetable or inert animal – something growing of its own accord rather than something made by hand. Hume believed that analogies were a poor way of arguing for the existence of God because they leave so much room for argument – for example, the watch that we assume has a designer could have in fact been designed by ten different people, and therefore we can say the same about the universe. I find that using the analogy of a watch makes little sense to me when it comes to proving the existence of God. I do agree that were I to come across a watch I would 2007-02-25T14:33:18-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-Succesful-Is-William-Paleys-Design-Argument-32693.aspx Teachings and Philosophies of Gandhi The roots of civil disobedience exercised today stem from Gandhi's teachings, philosophy and practices. Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi, a.k.a. Mahatma Gandhi, Mahatma meaning great soul, was born in 1869 in India. Gandhi was a great humanist, a social reformer of fight imperialism morally and non-violently. In the early twentieth century, India was a colony of the British Empire. Many people lived in poverty because the British took all the wealth. After school Gandhi went to London and studied Law in a university. He became a lawyer. The idea of offering moral and non-violent resistance to injustice was born when a young man Gandhi, a fresh barrister from England, was thrown out of a train in 1893, while traveling from Durban to Pretoria in South Africa. He had a first class ticket, but was asked to leave the compartment and shift to a third-class coach. He was not a white man therefore; he did not have a right to be traveling first class. He refused to leave voluntarily. He was pushed out and he had to spend the cold night in the Maritzburg railroad station. He started a project called ashram where he had the idea of people from different religions lived together in peace and freedom. It was here in South Africa that he perfected the techniques of 'Ahimsa' and 'Satyagraha', meaning non-violent mass action and civil disobedience. He led the struggle against racial discrimination and imperial domination for almost 20 years. To be one of the people in poverty, he traveled through the country by train and in third class wagon. He also attained a hobby of spinning. He had an opinion that a lot of poverty in India was the result of all the clothes that were produced in and imported from Great Britain to India. Gandhi encouraged the people not to buy any more British clothes but to produce and buy their own Indian clothes. After that, many people started to boycott British goods. People in the British factories got unemployed. Another very important step to independence was that he asked the whole nation to strike for one day. And they did. Nothing worked on that day. There was virtually no traffic, mail was not delivered, factories were not working, the telegraph lines did not work and the British in India were cut off their mother country. Gandhi returned to India 2007-02-02T17:39:55-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Teachings-and-Philosophies-of-Gandhi-32534.aspx Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although it is backed up by no scientific evidence, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy. This fanaticism has resulted in many of disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question 'What is a human being?' has changed. People who used to answer: 'Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches' have now begun to think that 'Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival.' There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception. This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time. The Darwinist Misconception: 'Life is conflict' Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: 'The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.' According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life", encapsulates that view. Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also applied between human races. According to that claim, 'favored races' were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the 'struggle for survival' entirely, and thus disappear: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the 2007-01-27T18:29:04-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Darwinism-and-Materialism-32467.aspx All the information we have about the world we live in is conveyed to us by our five senses. The world we know consists of what our eye sees, our hand feels, our nose smells, our tongue tastes, and our ears hear. We never think that the "external" world can be other than what our senses present to us, since we've been depending on only those senses since the day we were born. However, modern scientific research in many different fields points to a wholly different understanding, creating serious doubt about our senses and the world we perceive with them. This approach's starting point is the notion that any "external world" is only a response created in our brain by electrical signals. The red hue of an apple, the hardness of wood, your mother, father, your family, and everything that you own—your house, your job,—and even the lines of this article, are composed of electrical signals only. Thanks to present technological developments, it's possible to have realistic experiences without the need for an "external world" or "matter." The incredible advancement in virtual reality technology has come up with some especially convincing proofs. To put it simply, virtual reality is the projection of computer-generated three-dimensional images that appear to be real with the aid of some devices. This technology, with its diverse range of applications, is known as "virtual reality," "virtual world," or "virtual environment." Its most important feature is that by the use of some purposely constructed devices, it misleads the person experiencing it into believing the experience to be real. In recent years, the word "immersive'' has begun to be used in front of the term "virtual reality," reflecting the way that witnesses are literally immersed in the experience. The rationale of any virtual reality system is based on our five human senses. For instance, when the user puts on a special glove, devices inside transmit signals to the fingertips. When these signals are relayed to and interpreted by the brain, the user experiences the sensation of touching a silk fabric or ornate vase, complete with all of its surface details—without any such thing actually existing in the environment. One of virtual reality's foremost applications is in medicine. Michigan University has developed a technology that trains assistant practitioners—in particular, the personnel of emergency wards—to learn their skills in a virtual reality lab, in which environment is created by projecting the details of an 2007-01-27T18:16:56-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Scientific-Investigations-into-the-Essence-of-Matter-32466.aspx Philosophy of Free Will and Necessity In his essay, “Freedom and Necessity”, A.J. Ayer maps out his argument for Determinism, the idea that humans act the way they do because of the way already existing factors in their lives incline them to, and not of their own freewill. These already existing factors are known as casual laws. These casual laws are past experiences, feelings, and other factors that make people be who they are. He believes that this theory of Determinism and the idea of freewill can coexist in relation to human behavior. Meaning that even though people are compelled to act a certain way by certain casual laws, they are not constrained to their choices and are therefore responsible for them. He argues this theory by redefining the term freewill. He defines freewill as the absence of constraint. A.J. Ayer said that Freewill and determinism are compatible. He said free will is only free if ones actions could have differed and because of ones actions he/she is held morally responsible. He also stated that if the agent would have acted otherwise if the causes of his actions had been different. But being what they were it seems to follow that he was bound to act as he did. And if there is any causal determinism then there is no way for it to be free will, there for defining determinism. Ayer believes that once you acknowledge your freewill, it is no longer free. He believes it should be in your unconscious. Once you think to yourself “I am acting on freewill.” You no longer are. It is now determined that you will act this way. Also just because you think your will is free. It very well might not be. Ayer tells about a scientist he meet back in the day, who always stops an experiment before he can come to a conclusion. He stops because he thinks it is his lack of knowledge that is keeping him from reaching any conclusions, when really it is just that he is not going deep enough into the experiment. What Ayer is inadvertently saying is that the scientist is acting on free will when he stops the experiment. The experiment is always open for more research, it’s not like he went as far as he could, and 2007-01-06T18:20:27-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-of-Free-Will-and-Necessity-32247.aspx Socrates' Controversial Approaches to Philosophy Socrates was a teacher and a very wise man. He was very controversial because of the way he approached things. He often questioned people to get his points across. In the Trial and Death of Socrates, he is charged with impiety, corrupting the youth, introducing new gods, and atheism. He is brought to trial for these accusations. Socrates explains during the trial that a friend of his went to the Oracle of Delphi(a temple of Apollo) and is told that Socrates is the wisest of all men. Socrates goes to the politicians, artisans, and writers to see if this is true. He discovers that none of them are smarter than he. From this, Socrates explains the difference between the wise and unwise is that the wiser people admit when they do not know everything. The unwise pretend that they do know, but Socrates does not see this as wisdom. He believes the only true being is God. As the trial goes on, Socrates defends the charges brought against him. He explains to Meletus, an accuser, that the introduction of new gods charge and the charge of atheism are false. These two things are impossible to have together. Socrates cannot both introduce and believe in gods if as an atheist he does not even believe in gods. Also, Socrates claims that he is not a corruptor of the youth. As he argues, he asks if everyone else improves the youth, and he is answered yes. Then, he says it is not logical that he is the only corruptor of the youth in the whole world and so this accusation is false. Finally, Socrates explains that he is not a sophist. Everyone knows he is poor so how would he be receiving payment to teach. Socrates believes the real reason he is on trial is because others hate him for showing them that they are not as wise as he is. This makes sense because people in power do not want to be made out to be fools, especially in front of other citizens. Socrates sees this whole thing as his mission to show others that they are not as wise as they think. He argues that people need to analyze themselves better to be wiser. Socrates goes on to say that he is not ashamed of his life. The jury would allow Socrates to live if he stops questioning everything 2007-01-03T16:11:30-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Socrates-Controversial-Approaches-to-Philosophy-32188.aspx Contradiction among the Worlds of Socrates Wisdom is an important topic examined by Socrates in Plato’s Apology. Socrates points out that wisdom is admitting one’s own ignorance. Socrates believes that his own wisdom comes from realizing that “in respect of wisdom he is really worthless”(44). Socrates shows wisdom because he is able to admit what he does not know. He does not pretend to have knowledge when he does not have it. Socrates puts different people reputed for knowledge into examination and concludes that they do not really have any wisdom. He finds that “the people with the greatest reputations were almost entirely deficient, while others who were suppose to be their inferiors were much more noteworthy for their general good sense”(43). It is actually those who claim to lesser knowledge who have greater wisdom. This means that possession of human knowledge cannot lead to wisdom. Instead, ignorance and one’s capability to accept it is the key to true wisdom. Even though Socrates shows that knowledge cannot bring true wisdom, he is on a continual search for knowledge and truth. He proposes to the jury, “think of my adventures as a cycle of labours undertaken to establish the truth”(43). Because Socrates had already stated that knowledge is not the way to wisdom, it makes his investigations seem pointless and contradicting. Once a person pursues and gains knowledge, he can no longer admit to ignorance. But Socrates had claimed that realizing one’s own ignorance is true wisdom. I found Socrates to be contradictory in his arguments because he strongly believes in examination for truth and the search for knowledge, but he claims that accepting ignorance instead of acquiring knowledge is true wisdom. In his defense against his old accusers, Socrates centralizes his argument on disproving any personal wisdom that he possesses. He asks himself, “I have no claim to wisdom, great or small; so what can he mean by asserting that I am the wisest man”(42). Socrates’ objections of his own wisdom leads to an examination of what is true wisdom. He examines different classes of people who held a reputation for wisdom. In all of them, the politician, the poet, and the craftsmen, all seem to exhibit the same flaw. In addition to each of their respective lines of work, 2006-12-19T16:16:34-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Contradiction-among-the-Worlds-of-Socrates-32078.aspx The Three Parts Of The Soul According To Freud And Plato The soul or psyché is the non-physical, spiritual or emotional centre of a person . The soul is the element that survives death. An example of the definition of the soul according to the infamous philosopher Plato is outlined in the ‘Republic’ whereabouts Socrates engages in a discussion between with Glaucon regarding primarily the justice of the city and the justice that exists in the soul. Secondly, another example of the explanation of the soul is outlined in Freud’s ‘The Question of Lay Analysis’. In order to understand which of these accounts is truer of human nature, one must primarily define the theories of both Socrates and Freud and furthermore explain the differences existing between the two accounts. This will in collusion draw together the truer account based upon personal opinion. Within Plato’s Republic, The soul (psyché) is summarised by Socrates to have three definite parts. Man has inside of him the impulsive or appetitive element, the element of thought or reason and between these two, exists an element that can curb impulses and cravings and take orders from thought and reason. These three parts of the soul, according to Socrates, correspond with three different kinds of interests, three kinds of virtues and three kinds of personalities, all depending upon which element of the soul is dominating at that specific time. All the parts of the soul have functions to perform under the leadership of the awakened nous. According to Socrates, the ‘parts of the soul’ are governed by certain inflicting desires. The soul consists of appetite, spirit and reason. Appetite that includes hunger, thirst and sex. Thumos or spirit which includes the ambition and strength of purpose and finally reason, being according to Socrates the highest faculty of our material and immortal soul. Socrates begins, sensibly enough, declaring that the principles which underline the just state must reflect those by which the individual person acquires the good life. Socrates equates ‘appetite’ in his just state to the ‘workers’, who cannot be trusted with many decisions, and whose virtues are industry and sobriety. The ‘spirit’, is associated with the soldiers…who must defend the state and whose virtue is courage. ‘Reason’ is associated with ‘the philosophy-kings’ who make the decisions, and whose virtue is wisdom. Evidently Socrates ideal state is a tight oligarchy in which the few philosophy-kings make sure 2006-12-08T03:26:14-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Three-Parts-Of-The-Soul-According-To-Freud-And-Plato-31955.aspx Having a Balance Between Work and Happiness in Life What is happiness? Does money necessarily bring happiness? Many people think that when become rich and successful, happiness will naturally follow. But let me tell me tell you that the world is full of very rich people who are as miserable as hell. We have been reading stories about movie stars committing suicides and dying from drugs. Then what is the key to happiness? I believe that long- term happiness is based on productive work, honesty, and self-esteem. Happiness is not an end; it is a process. It is a continuous process of productive work that makes a real contribution to others that makes you feel like a worthwhile person. As Dr.Wayre wrote,¡± there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way.¡± If you wait for certain things to happiness and depend totally on the external conditions of life to make you happy, you will always feel unhappy. Some may argue that if one have enough money to spend and can live a comfortable life without any real work, why should he have to work to make himself happiness? Yes he may live a comfortable life, but a comfortable life doesn’t mean happiness. I have a female friend who married a very successful businessman. Money is not at all the problem to her. People around her all think that she is lucky. Some even envy her of her wealth. But the fact is that she is far from happiness. She told me that once in a party one of her friend drew a picture of her jokingly: there suddenly stopped a very luxurious car. The door was open. Then came down a Pekinese followed by a well-dressed lady. After seeing that, instead of felt flattered and envied, she got a very strange feeling. She felt that her life was so meaningless and that she almost lost her own her. So she started her own business all by herself. Thou she is now very busy and have to work very hard but she felt most happy. Long-term happiness is a process of moving towards worthwhile goals and contributing to happiness of others. It does not mean you should give away your own wealth. It means that continuously creating values for others through productive work. It means doing what you love and loving what you do. It mean achieving 2006-12-07T19:37:36-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Having-a-Balance-Between-Work-and-Happiness-in-Life-31938.aspx The Importance of Having Dreams There is no person alive that isn’t filled with dreams, 2006-12-05T16:21:53-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Importance-of-Having-Dreams-31905.aspx Descartes' Skeptical Method of Doubt Descartes’ main task in the Meditations was to devise a system that would bring him to the truth. He wanted to build a foundational philosophy; a basic structure from which all further intellectual inquiry could be built. It was essential that his foundational beliefs were sound. If any one of them were at all in doubt, then it put the credibility of the whole structure of knowledge in jeopardy. Thus, Descartes utilised a method of systematic doubt to weed out those beliefs of which he could not be entirely certain. This approach is called the Method of Doubt. There are two parts to Descartes’s overall method. The first part is the skeptical Method of Doubt. The second part is a constructive phase where he would rebuild the structure of knowledge based upon the truths that remained after the employment of his Method of Doubt. The main problem with Descartes’s method is that when he reconstructed his body of knowledge, he made use of many assumptions that he had not shown to pass the Method of Doubt. The principle behind Descartes’s approach is that there is a distinction between belief and truth. For example, having made a pot of tea five minutes ago, I may well believe that it is now full and ready to pour. But in truth, perhaps, someone else may alreald have drunk the tea and emptied the pot while I was out of the kitchen waiting for it to brew. Although I think this is unlikely, and I continue to believe the pot is full of tea, I cannot be sure of it. Thus it is possible that I may believe something, but to my surprise find that it is not true. This situation is not inconsistent. The Method of Doubt ultimately involves the task of removing all uncertain beliefs, ensuring that only beliefs that are certainly true beliefs remain in one’s philosophy. Descartes states in the first paragraph of Meditation 1 that ‘I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterwards based on such principles was highly doubtful; and … I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking … to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted’. Descartes saw that the Method of Doubt could be 2006-11-11T18:35:47-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Descartes-Skeptical-Method-of-Doubt-31712.aspx Why A Skeptic Can Have Religious Faith Ockham’s Razor, the God of the Gaps, and Yearning and Learning, as used by Raymo, show us that a Skeptic can be a person of religious faith. What exactly is religious faith? Must a person be a True Believer to have religious faith? Ask ten different people these questions and you will receive ten different answers. Some answers may be similar, yet at the same time, some can be the complete opposite of the others. Having faith in something is having some belief in whatever it is. However, complete belief is not necessary to have faith in something. A person could have faith that he is going to receive an A on his calculus test, but he could also have a small amount of doubt in his mind that he could make mistakes causing a lower grade. A person of religious faith believes in God or higher spiritual beings, but the person could also have his own questions as to if that higher being truly was the cause of something, which then makes him a Skeptic. If a Skeptic is defined as a person who habitually doubts accepted beliefs, we should then consider Jesus a Skeptic. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” With that question, Jesus is doubting the beliefs of the religion. If Jesus, the son of God, can be considered a Skeptic, any Skeptic could be a person of religious faith if so desired. Take, for example, a young woman, whom has never smoked anything, with lung cancer; a person can tell you why this young woman has cancer. Her genes have a problem which caused this disease to occur. However, no person can tell us why she was burden with the disease instead of the man down the street whom smokes four packs of cigarettes a day. This could be where a person’s religious faith answers questions. “God is the reason she got cancer instead of him.” This is called the “God of the Gaps.” Also, if you look at the case of the Shroud of Turin, you will see that a Skeptic does not believe the cloth is the winding sheet of Jesus. There is evidence to show that the cloth is only a few 2006-10-27T19:38:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-a-Skeptic-can-have-Religious-Faith-31568.aspx Philisophical Examinaiton of Plato's Dialogues In Plato’s dialogues, Euthyphro, Apology and Crito, Socrates demonstrates his belief that “the most important thing is not life, but the good life”(Crito 48b). Socrates believed that a good life is equivalent to one that is just and honorable. The good life is also one where the beliefs and morals of a person are not put aside in order to save one’s own life and wealth should not be desired. The true purpose of philosophy is not to give answers to questions but to raise more questions to the answers given. By doing so, Socrates teaches or at least suggests the idea of living a good, moral, honorable, and just life to his friends and his fellow Athenians. Socrates is portrayed as a religious man who spent most of his life obedient to what he believed was a divine being. He had a profound faith in the spiritual meaning of life as well as the belief in God as the source of a person’s morals. Acting in accord with the voice that he hears, Socrates was accustomed to do what he believed was right and would not leave this way of life in order to save his own life. In Euthyphro, Socrates raises the question of “What is piety?” to see if Euthyphro is as wise as he claimed to be. After various answers, Socrates exposes the shallowness of his claim. Euthyphro believed in piety in terms of religion as a relationship between gods and men. This relationship is by the means of giving and receiving. This is what Euthyphro meant when he said that “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Euthyphro 7a). Also he replies that making something dear to the gods is by attending to their wishes by making sacrifices and offering prayers. Socrates disagrees with Euthyphro’s differentiation between service to the gods and service to men. He does so because he does not believe that a person’s duty towards a divine being should be separate from his duty to his fellow man. Also the purpose of religion, instead of it being a tool in order to get something one wants, should be to bring harmony between a person’s life and God’s will. Socrates believes that religion and morality are very closely 2006-10-03T20:27:20-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philisophical-Examinaiton-of-Plato-s-Dialogues-31492.aspx Existensial Elements in Shakespeare's Works One may find it ridiculous to contrast between Shakespeare and existentialism in its 20th century form, however one must keep in mind, that existentialism does not appear as a single philosophical system. It is more an attitude of life, a general vision - existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre is known to have stated that existentialism was never invented, it has always existed as the ultimate foundation. Upon that light, why not seek the foundations from the work of the forefather of all dramatists? It is above all naïve to claim Prospero’s Epilogue in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest a mere conventional appeal for applause or the stripping of the imaginary glamour built up by the plays magic. Even the greatest of artists would rather give away his life than surrender his art to be judged solely by the public. Art for an artistic genius is practiced for its own sake; art for the purpose of art. Existence for the sake of existence itself - stripped of meaning, of value and of subjective interpretation. In its bear meaningless form, something still remains: the necessary Natural Law, a philosophical concept considered the basis of human well-being, a system of the values that determine human existence. Throughout The Tempest Prospero’s character portrays an image of a nearly Nietzchean superhuman capable of disclaiming authority, killing God. He is in control of every situation and event as if the chain of causes and effects would be a conductible melody waiting for an artist’s touch. On the other hand he is very human: a wronged duke and a father, a symbiosis which Shakespeare displayed with the use of Prospero’s garment as a theatrical tool. An artist is the creator, the maker of realities yet he remains human, an animal with feelings and urges, ties only waiting to be cut. The view implied is not far from the ideologies that emerged from the great suffering of the second world war: a man is capable of constructing himself a framework of personal and social meaning, but his true animal nature remains unchanged. In the heart of existence, life has no predefined meaning, it is a mere passage of survival from necessary birth to necessary death. Prospero's and his daughter's situation on the island was hopeless, however Prospero had chosen a function for his life - revenge. Prospero created a meaning for his life, built a synthetic reality to keep 2006-08-28T00:07:50-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Existensial-Elements-in-Shakespeare-s-Works-31359.aspx Philosophies on Beauty Wolf's basic thesis states that there is a relationship between female liberation and female beauty: "The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us...During the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing specialty...pornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal...More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers." Wolf's research shows that there is a cultural backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty to keep women "in their place." How many folks have succumbed to the idea of the ugly feminist activist who is only a feminist because she's too undesirable to get a man? That popular concept first showed up on the scene to describe suffragettes lobbying for the vote. Wolf shows that, throughout the years, there have been forces in culture that attempt to punish women who seek more control over their lives and their environment. The Beauty Myth is the last (and most dangerous) of a long line of lies concerning the "rules" of feminine attributes and behavior. It is the most dangerous because it has succeeded in effecting women's internal sense of themselves. It has created a standard of femininity that is impossible to attain, and women are reacting with increasingly obsessive behavior in their attempts to measure up. Energy that might be used to further positive goals is turned inward instead--dissipated in guilt, shame and unhappiness at one's physical faults. Wolf traces the historical path of these lies: "A century ago, normal female activity, especially the kind that would lead women into power, was classified as ugly and sick. If a woman read too much, her uterus would 'atrophy.' If she kept on reading, her reproductive system would collapse and, according to the medical commentary of the day, 'we should have before us a repulsive and useless hybrid'...Participation in modernity, education and employment was portrayed as making Victorian women ill...Victorians protested women's higher education by fervidly imagining the 2006-08-27T23:05:41-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophies-on-Beauty-31338.aspx Philosophies on the Existence of God Aquinas, Anselm, Paley and Kant all famous philosophers, have proven that god exists; yet people still question God’s existence. As Anselm said, “We are like students who, unable to solve a mathematical problem, are given the answer to it and then discover they can reason out why that answer is correct.” For thousands of years, philosophers have given evidence proving the existence of God. The evidence at hand should prevail but some philosophers beg to differ. In this paper I will try to go over and give the best arguments to both sides, but in the end, like I, all non-believers will believe. I will start off by discussing the evidence and opinions of Saint Anselm. St. Anselm was one of the greatest thinkers of the Middle Ages and became known for being an “ontological arguer.” An ontological argument is an argument, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises, which are supposed to derive from some source “other than the observation of the world.” Anselm proposed the first and most popular of these arguments in the 11th century AD. These famous arguments are recorded in his Proslogion. He expresses his opinions on the existence of God, and says no greater being can be conceived than God himself. He argues that nothing can be greater than a being “than which no greater can be conceived.” While his theories are not the easiest to believe, philosophers are still fascinated with his work and give him the most amount of respect. What amazes philosophers the most about Anselm is his ability to combine the roles of saint, ecclesiastical leader, and major philosopher. Anselm’s famous Proslogion mentions that the idea of the perfect being cannot be separated “from its existence.” To put it in simple fashion, the first version of his argument says the following three main points: 1)“The term God describes the greatest conceivable being.” 2)“ Existence in reality is greater than mere existence in the understanding.” 3)“Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding.” Heres an example of the ideas Anselm provides which may make it easier to understand. Major Premise: The extra mental EXISTENCE of X is a greater perfection than the IDEA of X. Minor Premise: God is a ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought”. Conclusion: God must exist. There is a weakness to this argument. Like I mentioned 2006-08-27T14:53:25-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophies-on-the-Existence-of-God-31293.aspx Philosophies of Hume Hume accepts that the problems of philosophy are those Descartes isolates; he rejects all of Descartes solutions. Hume asks the questions how does the mind work? What are the principals that the mind follows when it thinks? These questions are answered in Hume’s “ Enquiry concerning Human understanding” section II. -Of the Origin of Ideas. There is a great difference between the perceptions of the mind. When a man feels the pain of a wound or the pleasure of comfort, when he remembers this sensation or anticipates it by his imagination, these memories may be copied by the perceptions of the senses. The memories will never fully reach the same feeling as the original. Sometimes there is an object, which is so lively, one should say they almost feel or see it. But the mind disordered by disease or madness, which would make all these perceptions undistinguishable. The most well written poetry that illustrates our minds with beautiful images, can never illustrate natural objects to be taken as real. “The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.” (10) Our minds memories and thoughts are mirrors of situations from our past. These images are faint and dull in comparison of those in which our original perceptions are derived. Therefore we can divide all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species. The classes are distinguishable by their different variations of force and vivacity. “The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated thoughts or ideas.”(10) Other species want recognition, they do not want to be ranked under general terms or label, and rather they would like individuality. Hume uses a little “freedom” to give distinction by calling them impressions, meaning that the world impression is different from usual. By term impression Hume means that all our more lively perception such as when we hear, see, free, love, hate, desire and will. Impressions are distinguishable from ideas because impressions are less lively perceptions of which we are conscious of there presence. When we reflect on any sensations or movements that we have felt the feeling is not as “real” as the original. Nothing at first glance may seem more unrealistic then the idea of a man, whom managed to escape all human power and authority. Yet is not restrained within the 2006-08-12T16:49:17-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophies-of-Hume--31244.aspx Embracing Free Thought If the law is of such a nature that it requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law."(HDT) In the past and present, non-conformists have tried to change the benchmarks of society, but were suppressed and chastised for their tenets, even though they were correct in their speeches. Such activists of the change movement were Copernicus, Galileo, and the ambiguous duo of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. The late fifteenth and early to mid-sixteenth centuries were the times of Nicolaus Copernicus's revolutionary ideas in Poland that contradicted the latest ideas of astronomy. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, Galileo Galilei furthered the Copernican Theory, and openly disagreed with Aristotle's claims. Eventually leading to his arrest and death. Finally, in the eighteenth century, Emerson's teaching of Transcendentalism to Thoreau lands Thoreau in jail for not paying his taxes. This was an open defiance, a smack in the face to the all-mighty United States government. The changes these people tried to bestow on society were extremely cost worthy, but were worth it. They were actual law and fact. After years and years of more suffrage and proof from other dedicated scientists and non-conformists, though, these inevitable changes were finally ingratiated into the common world, but at great expense to the creators and supporters of them. Society, and change, just moves too slow for the over-achieving non-conformist. In 1473, Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Poland. His entire life he studied astronomy and mathematics in many different institutes and universities. Starting in 1500, he began speaking on these topics all over Europe, this one being in Rome. He openly put down the closely held beliefs of Ptolemy from one thousand years ago. He believed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but the sun was, and that the earth rotated once per day on an axis plane and one revolution per year around the sun. He called this his heliocentric, or sun-centered system. He knew that Ptolemy couldn't possibly be correct in his ideas because on March 9, 1497, he and his mathematics professor both witnessed an eclipse of the star Aldebaran by the moon. As he went throughout Europe he preached his own ideas of the heliocentric universe and returned to Poland in 1503, when he started work on his first of many major works. These works supported and endorsed 2006-08-12T15:22:53-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Embracing-Free-Thought-31237.aspx A Study of Biomedical Ethics Understanding that everyone is different, will greatly improve our willingness as a society and as a people to accept change. What any given care provider deems correct may not be a shared views by all, or even a select few. Generalizations tend not to work for most of life, however in Bioethics, we base everything on generalizations, and from time to time, specific cases. Controversies arise when what a patient wants differs from what the care provider deems necessary and at times crucial. Most care providers rely on the marvel, which is modern day medicine to cure illness and to save lives. Some cultures and religions have a difficulty in accepting this fact. There are cultures in which a child being circumcised is an everyday occurrence, however not in America, not here. Controversies arise when what a particular person or family deems their specific norms; override those of the vast majority of us. Why? Because not everyone here in America was brought up the same way, with a station wagon, or a Barbie doll. America is a land of freedom and prosperity for most, and it is the melting pot of the world. Every race and ethnicity is welcomed here, and whether the people of Haiti share the same views on medicine as, lets say a doctor from Alabama, has nothing to do with one another. When people are ill, they need to be taken care of regardless of the means, as long as they survive. CHOSING ALTERNATIVE HEATHCARE TRATMENT, In Mrs. P’s case where she takes herbal remedies to combat high blood pressure and diabetes, cannot be told which is the correct choice of action for her. She should however be informed of consequences, and the dangers of not treating an ailment effectively and what the results and side effects may be. In WHAT IS QUACKERY? This relates to the practice of those health professionals, who look to benefit from a service they are not qualified to give or not educated enough to make a basis upon. Such is the case of Dr. U, and when he tells his patients the benefits of herbal remedies, and also has products people can purchase though him. DIVERSITY AND LIMITS: FEMALE CIRCUMCISION deals with the difficult situations that physicians at time 2006-08-12T10:44:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Study-of-Biomedical-Ethics-31222.aspx “Ethical Egoism versus Virtue Ethics” Theories concern ideas of how things are or how things ought to be. Ethical theories are concerned with what morally ought to be the case. There are three types of general ethical theories: Consequentialism, Deontology, and Human Nature Ethics. Consequentialism is mainly concerned with bringing about proper ends of acting. Its descriptive claim is that every action seeks a particular end. Deontology concentrates on moral duty, i.e., the general principles that ought to guide our actions. Moreover, it claims that humans are rational and free; the intention of the person determines whether an action is moral. Human Nature Ethics concerns with what it means to live a good life. That is, one should act in such a way that one lives a good life depending on how one defines ‘good’. It claims that humans are basically good. Ethical Egoism and Virtue Ethics are two ethical theories that fall under one of these general ethical theories. The focus of this paper is on these two ethical “sub-theories”. I will start with Ethical Egoism. The authors of “Ethical Issues in Business” state that this consequential theory interprets “right action as action whose consequences, considered among all the alternatives, maximizes my good- that is, action that benefits me the most or harms me the least.” (3) Thus, ethical egoism falls under the consequentialistic theory that claims that moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences. The normative claim of ethical egoism is that one should act so as to maximize good and minimize bad for oneself. The foundational claim for this theory is that humans are poorly self-interested and there are no moral demands beyond self-interest, i.e., no obligations to anyone other than ‘myself’. Therefore, under this theory, it is understood that humans should act selfishly if they wish to live healthy and meaningful lives. The second theory to be discussed is Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics falls under the general theory of Human Nature Ethics. This theory is traditionally associated with Aristotle. The human nature approach, as described in “Ethical Issues in Business”, “assumes that all humans have inherent capacities that constitute the ultimate basis for all ethical claims. Actions are evaluated in terms whether they promote or hinder, coincide with or conflict with, 2006-08-09T15:35:54-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Ethical-Egoism-versus-Virtue-Ethics-31202.aspx Aristotle on Selfishness Aristotle is often thought of as the best philosopher who ever existed. He was the first notable philosopher to say that the world we see is reality, and that the best way to live in this world is through the use of reason. In the course of Politics Aristotle condemns selfishness, believing it an unhealthy extreme of self-interest. Aristotle says “life according to reason is best and pleasantest, since reason more than anything else is man. This life therefore is also the happiest.” He then mentions, “in a secondary degree the life in accordance with the other kind of virtue is happy.” This may be where Aristotle’s confusion starts. If a life according to reason is the happiest, why would anyone want to live in any way other than according to reason? For, if one were to live a life in accordance with some other virtue, and not completely in accordance with reason, his life would not be the happiest that could be. So, we see that Aristotle has already compromised reason for “other virtues.” If Aristotle had not compromised on reason, would he have found selfishness to be a virtue rather than a vice? We have already established that reason is itself a virtue, so now it must be demonstrated that selfishness follows logically from reason. Aristotle has said, “The objects of reason are the best of knowable objects.” Thus, using reason to produce must be a truly virtuous activity as not only is man using the best in him (reason), but he is also creating the best objects (anything produced through reason being an object of reason) that can exist. A better adjective for these objects (rather than best) would be valuable, as a man of reason surely values all objects of reason. In the same way a man of reason also values all men who are ‘of reason.’ While a man of reason values others, he values most those who bring his life happiness (happiness being the goal of all men, and reason being the means). Such a man certainly values his wife and his friends. Now, what is a selfish man, but a man who wishes to bring as much value into his life as possible? This man is merely trying to bring as much reason into 2006-08-09T13:25:39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-on-Selfishness-31197.aspx Analysis of Siddhartha’s Thinking Siddhartha had one single goal - to become empty, to become empty of thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure and sorrow - to let the Self die. No longer to be Self, to experience the peace of an emptied heart, to experience pure thought - that was his goal. When all the Self was conquered and dead, when all passions and desires were silent, then the last must awaken, the innermost of Being that is no longer Self - the great secret (14) Siddhartha, according to his actions, was constantly in search for knowledge, regardless of what kind, or what he had to do to obtain it. In the book titled Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, this is shown to us by Siddhartha's leaving home to join the Samanas, and all the actions leading to his residence alongside the river. Leaving his loving family and home where all loved him, shows us that Siddhartha not only knows what he wants but will do anything to attain it. As described on pages 10 through 12, Siddhartha did not leave his father's chambers until he had gotten his way, until his father had submitted to Siddhartha's wishes and agreed to let him leave home to join the Samanas. This stubbornness, this patience with people and situations is also a large part of Siddhartha's character. It enables him to out wait anyone or anything, which teaches him how to do without and also helps him through his time with the Samanas. "Siddhartha learned a great deal from the Samanas he learned many ways of losing the Self" (15). Despite the new knowledge he acquired, Siddhartha realized that it was only " . . . a temporary palliative against the pain and folly of life" (17). And with this, his next decision was to leave the Samanas and go in search of the Buddha in order to learn perhaps something he did not already know. Through this we learn that Siddhartha, having learned all that is possible in one place, moves to another in search for more wisdom in search for the secret of how to obtain inner peace, how to find the Self. This action also shows his change by showing us that Siddhartha no longer has the patience to stick to certain routines as he did when he was at home in his youth. Finding the Buddha in a garden, Siddhartha and Govinda 2006-08-09T12:34:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Siddhartha’s-Thinking-31192.aspx Proposal for Institutionalized Revenge in Society Restorative justice facilitators today are taught to cringe at the word “retributive”. We learn that retributive justice is the antithesis to restorative principles, and is a necessary evil at best. However, the logic behind this assumption is flawed, and hence not conducive to the optimum restoration that restorative justice ideally hopes to achieve. In this paper, I will endeavor to show that retribution, especially a specific sub-category of retribution: institutionalized revenge, are not antithetical to, but rather, compatible with current restorative justice principles and practices. In order to present a sound argument for the compatibility of restorative justice and institutionalized revenge, we must first have a clear understanding of the term institutionalized revenge. I will begin the paper by discussing what is meant by retribution, revenge, and institutionalized revenge. Second, I will briefly clarify what are commonly held to be the principles and practices of restorative justice. Finally, I will describe in what ways institutionalized revenge can be compatible with, and facilitating of, restorative justice principles and practices. Let’s begin with a discussion of what is meant by the terms retribution, revenge, and institutionalized revenge. In the arena of punishment, there are several motives on which punishment can be based. These include consequentialist motives such as rehabilitation or deterrence; however, the motive with which we are concerned is retribution. Retribution is a de-ontologically based motive, based in the idea that punishment should be imposed upon wrong doers, because receipt of punishment for wrong is their just desert. The next key term that we must address is that of revenge. In Getting Even, Barton defines revenge as a sort of sub-species in the greater genus of retribution. More specifically, he defines revenge as personal retribution. Unlike the doling out of just deserts by an anonymous or detached party such as the court system, revenge is personal in that the enactor of revenge has a closer relationship or tie to the victim than she does to the recipient of the revenge. We move on now to the concept of institutionalized revenge. Because our culture connotatively associates revenge with wild, unfettered barbarism, the idea of revenge within and institution may seem alien. However, if we are to accept Barton’s definition of revenge as nothing more than a personal giving of just deserts, the idea of revenge within an institutional framework becomes much more comprehensible. Institutionalized revenge would simply be a 2006-08-08T09:41:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Proposal-for-Institutionalized-Revenge-in-Society-31163.aspx Immanuel Kant’s Principals In the Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals, the author, Immanuel Kant, tries to form a base by rejecting all ethical theories that are connected to consequences, and then focusing on our ethical motivations and actions. Kant wants to derive good characters out of contingently right actions. He believes that everything is contingent (everything can have good or bad worth, depending on how it is used). So he is trying to find the supreme principal of morality in all his reasoning. Kant also believes that an action is right or wrong based solely on the reason by which it was performed. However, a Utilitarian, like John Mill, would reject Kant’s reasoning of originating good characters out of actions alone, and instead argue that if an action has bad consequences, then the action was morally wrong. Kant believes that an action has moral worth only if it is done out of respect for our moral code. He names this moral action a ‘duty.’ Kant also believes that in determining the moral worth of an action, we need to look at the maxim by which it was performed. So, we need to look at one’s reason for doing an action to determine if it is a duty. If the reason for performing the action is justified, then the action is a duty. However, Kant says there are two different types of reasons for performing an action. Kant calls these reasons ‘imperatives.’ The first reason for performing an action, the hypothetical imperative, is based on consequences and on our personal preferences. They are also contingent, meaning that they can be good or bad depending on how they are used. People choose to perform a given action because of the hypothetical imperative. The second reason for performing an action according to Kant is called the categorical imperative. These are not based on our preferences, don’t deal with consequences of an action, and are derived a priori. They are completely separate from hypothetical imperatives. We all have knowledge of categorical imperatives before experiencing them first. They are kind of a second nature for us, which needs to be recognized according to Kant. These are the most important reason for performing an action. These imperatives also have the characteristics that Kant 2006-08-05T11:12:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Immanuel-Kant’s-Principals--31027.aspx Innocence of Socrates “Virtue and justice are man’s most precious possessions,” Socrates once stated (Plato 55). I was present when Socrates gave his compelling argument as to why he could not possibly be guilty of the crimes of corrupting the youth of Athens, and creating his own gods in lieu of the gods already recognized by the city. It is unfortunate, however, that even with his prolific dialogue, he was not able to save himself from his own death. Out of the five hundred and one jurors, including myself, listening to Socrates’ defense, he lost his case by a marginal difference of a mere thirty six votes. Many of the jurors present that day claimed that Socrates did not possess a strong enough argument for his freedom, but to these nay Sayers, I tell them this: Socrates was able to convince a good portion of the jury, a majority of which previously held biases against him and came into his trial with a predetermined vote, to choose innocence for him. Socrates’ plea for innocence was one that was well deserved, and therefore, one of which we wrongly denied him. There are only two charges Socrates was guilty of, the first being that he would not conform to the norm of society. He was one who constantly contradicted the common belief of the city, not because he did not respect these beliefs, but because they needed to be proven to him. The courts charged him with creating his own gods and trying to institute them instead of recognized gods of the polis. The common misconception is that Socrates created entirely new gods; this idea is wrong. Socrates did not invent new gods, but simply attempted to redefine the existing gods. He challenged people to look away from the standard belief of the gods. I have not yet understood how Socrates was found to be guilty of attempting to institute new gods if during his defense he willingly admitted to believing in divine beings. Socrates proved to the court his belief in the gods during his trial. He questioned Meletus as to what divine beings can be classified as, and they both came to the common conclusion that divine beings are gods or the children of gods. Socrates goes on to state that “since I do believe in divine beings, 2006-08-05T10:21:54-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Innocence-of-Socrates-31010.aspx Aesthetics and the Concept of "Beauty" If you took the time to analyze each person you encountered, touch every blade of grass you walked upon, or reenact every event you possess in your memory, then you would successfully know what beauty was. A pretty face is not a complete definition of beauty, nor is the quality of one being kind and compassionate. To contain beauty, someone or something doesn’t have to physically be beautiful. Beauty is everywhere. Take a simple flower. Your first glance at a flower would not establish it’s beauty. You look at its whole appearance; the color(s), structure, scent, design, and even ponder for awhile about it’s growth process. All of these observations of a flower lead to its defining beauty. Now take a simple person and relate it to a flower. In many cases a person is defined to be beautiful by one thing; the physical appearance. But think about it…Would you think a flower was still beautiful if it’s smell was outrageously disgusting? The color of the flower is like the personality of a person. The structure, is like one’s confidence and impact upon others, the scent, is like someone’s over all aura, the design but one’s individualism, and a flowers growth process is merely like an individuals over all history. If all of these qualities are needed to make a flower beautiful, then why not a person as well? Beauty is more than just a word to define someone or something. As Webster says :beauty is the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit. However if you think about this deeper, is beauty just a quality in a person or thing? Or can beauty be something overlooked and abstract? Can situations be considered beautiful? What about conversations, memories, or even life in general? The feeling of seeing two young people in love is beautiful. A brush stroke in an insignificant painting can be beautiful. Even the tiniest pebble lost in a sea of other rocks and boulders can simply define beauty to some people. Beauty is how you see it. There is beauty in the tears of a new mother who had just given birth to a child. There is beauty in the emotions expressed by high school friends as they depart to 2006-08-01T20:04:29-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aesthetics-and-the-Concept-of-Beauty-30980.aspx Barnlund on Individualism Barnlund states, Access to the world view and the communicative style of other cultures may not only enlarge our own way of experiencing the world but enable us to maintain constructive relationships with societies that operate a according to a different logic than our own. (66) Barnlund believes that if people learn aspects of other cultures, people will be able to maintain associations and communications between different cultures within a society. The meaning of appreciation of other cultures is what Barnlund specifies as the survival of a global village. Barnlund would say that Baldwin’s process of renewal might work, because comprehension of other cultures will bring people together and revitalize the differences between people. This would help explain a solution for discrimination and communication complications between Blacks and Whites in Baldwin’s essay. I believe that acceptance and knowledge of cultures are essential in order for people to understand and respect each other. Barnlund states, What seems most critical is to find ways of gaining entrance into the assumptive world of another culture, to identify the norms that govern face-to-face relations, and to equip people to function within social systems that is foreign but no longer incomprehensible. Without this kind of insight people are condemned to remain outsiders. (63-64) This passage from Barnlund’s essay reestablishes the fact that learning and understanding other people relieves the tension amongst how others cope. Baldwin would say that the path when whites begin to learn and understand Blacks, will eventually relieve the problems and intolerances between Blacks and Whites. I believe that if White or Blacks do not want to try to respect or learn from each other, then each race will become isolated and ignorant towards each other. Bellah describes how people tend to isolate themselves by trying to separate their private and public lives. Bellah suggests that people should realize that their public and private lives interrelate with each other. Bellah writes about how each person eventually found a “renewal of their own lives” by correspondence of their public and private life in his essay. In the case of Les Newman, his life became renewed when he found his place in church. Bellah states, “His church community has helped Les Newman find a language and a set of practices that 2006-08-01T09:31:21-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Barnlund-on-Individualism-30915.aspx On the Philosophy of Descartes Seven men have come to stand out from all their counterparts in what has come to be known as the ‘modern’ period in the history of philosophy: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant.” Essentially these modern philosophers, with perhaps the exception of Kant, have been classified into two distinctive streams of philosophical thought rationalism and empiricism. The following discussion will focus on understanding the division between these streams of philosophy. The focus will primarily concentrate on understanding the contrasting views relating to the origin of ideas, with particular emphasis on Descartes theory of innate ideas. The report will argue that Descartes provided not only a more optimistic and encouraging understanding of the faculties of the mind, but in relation to the empirical response, also a more plausible one. Undoubtedly the father of modern philosophy, but more specifically of rationalism Rene Descartes approached philosophical dilemmas influenced predominately by the progress and success of science and mathematics. Descartes attempted to answer epistemological issues with the assurity of math and science. Similarly Spinoza and Leibniz, inspired by of Descartes developed his philosophical arguments with the same level of exactness in mathematics . The rationalists set out to formulate clear rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Fundamentally their emphasis was upon the rational capacity of the human mind, which employed the principle of reason which had precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge. Contrastingly developed the school of philosophical thought of empiricism, which John Locke has been attributed with being the founder of this style of thought. Empiricism evolved with a more modest objective, “clearing the ground a little and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.” However, Locke developed a bold and original interpretation of how the mind works and one that challenged rationalist understanding. The scope of our knowledge according to Locke, “is limited to and by our experience.” Locke called into question the assumptions of Descartes that there was no problem that human reason could not solve if the correct method was employed. Locke developed a resistance “to the assumption that the human mind has capabilities that enable it to discover the true nature of the universe.” Descartes and other rationalists contrastingly viewed the workings of the mind 2006-07-31T18:48:35-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/On-the-Philosophy-of-Descartes-30896.aspx Modern Analysis of Utilitarianism Before diving into the depths of Utilitarianism let me first lay the foundation on which ethical philosophy is based. When conducting any type of business in today’s society it is generally expected that you follow a strict code of ethics. In my profession as a Real Estate Agent we have a very specific “Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice” that must be followed. Without these “descriptive ethics” many of the benefits we have in our free market economy would be jeopardized. Once the descriptive ethics are laid out we as individuals must stand back and analyze the specific conclusions that were derived. Instead of describing the beliefs & values, “normative ethics” prescribes what we should or ought to believe & value. The final level of ethics is that of the “philosophical ethics” which will be the main focus in this paper. Philosophical ethics is that which analyzes and provides justifications for certain basic concepts of ethics. In this paper the ethical theory of Utilitarianism will be delved into and dissected. It will discuss the characteristics and attributes of utilitarianism as well as the problems associated with it. This paper will also attempt to show how a utilitarian can justify the laissez-faire free-market system and what problems arise from it. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory developed in the modern period by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) to promote fairness in British legislation during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the interests of the upper classes tended to prevail and the sufferings of the lower classes were neglected. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that calls for putting benevolence into action. Mill interprets the term utilitarianism as signifying any moral theory in which acts are judged on the basis of their utility. Mill further specifies that there is no one conception of what constitutes utility and there is no implication of a sect. Also known as universal hedonism, utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which the most moral or ethical acts are those which serve to increase the happiness for the most people and/or decreases the suffering for the most people. The Principle of Utility says: "Follow those rules, the following of which will result in the greatest good for the greatest number." Two important distinctions 2006-07-27T12:55:01-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Modern-Analysis-of-Utilitarianism-30731.aspx The Value of Questions “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” When I hear that statement, I automatically think of “The Freedom of Speech” an idea America was based on. However, that quote is not at all American, it was taken from Voltaire, a French philosopher who’s thoughts changed the world as we know it. In fact, Victor Hugo said that the name Voltaire was to characterize the entire eighteenth century. For just as surely as the geological periods in the earth's history have left their stratified imprint on the earth's formation, so the work and influence of Voltaire are unmistakably impressed upon the progress and intellectual development of mankind. One of the most important days in the history of mankind was November 20, 1694, when Francois Marie Arouet was born to humble parents as a puny, sickly, ugly child. This anemic and cynically faced individual made the time in which he lived momentous (10). Before he was ten years old, it was plain that the young Voltaire had a clever mind. At that age he was sent to a boys' school in France. His body was lean and thin and his mind was keen and active, and neither his body nor his mind changed these characteristics to the day of his death. At the school he says he learned "Latin and nonsense," and nothing else. Voltaire was not like the other boys. He did not care for games or sports. While the other children were busy with youthful games he was talking with the fathers, who were the teachers in the school. He turned his eyes to his professors and said, "Everyone must jump after his own fashion." This was an idea Voltaire always carried with him his entire life (28). At the age of fifteen, his father decided to make him an advocate. He picked out the profession for his son, because it was his own; but Voltaire's early efforts at poetry had given him the ambition to write and he insisted that he should not follow his father's footsteps, but devote his life to literature. "Literature," said the parent, "is the profession of the man who wishes to be useless to society, and a burden to his relatives, and to die of hunger." Bur even Voltaire's father could not make a 2006-07-26T12:20:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Value-of-Questions-30675.aspx Royce on the Problem of Evil Before spelling out why I think Royce’s loyalty-centered ethics is best understood as part of his response to the problem of evil, let me indicate what I take to be other clues that Royce was thinking about loyalty in conjunction with the struggle against evil for many years prior to the publication of The Philosophy of Loyalty in 1908. The structure of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy is such that the practical precedes the religious. In Book I, Royce discusses “the moral insight,” which can be (too) briefly summarized as the insight that ultimately all of life is related, is one, is a part of the Absolute. But, Royce warned — in words that James stubbornly refused to hear — “The moral insight discovers harmony not as already implied in the nature of these blind, conflicting wills, but as an ideal to be attained by hard work” (RAP 162, my emphasis). Then, at the end of Book II (“The Search for a Religious Truth”) when Royce reminds his readers of the practical consequences of his discussion, he invokes loyalty as the best description of that life of work. In words that preface his ethical treatise published over two decades later, in 1885 Royce writes: This chief present work of ours, this extension of the moral insight, is best furthered by devotion to our individual vocations, coupled with strict loyalty to the relations upon which society is founded. The work thus set before us demands the sacrifice of many ideal emotional experiences to the service of the Highest. Our comfort however in it all must be that the Highest is there above us, forget it as we may… (RAP 473). Loyalty appears in the pages of The Spirit of Modern Philosophy several years later as Royce tries to steer between the Spinozistic view, whereby God is the laws of outer nature, and Kant’s admonition that we can only postulate, but never fully take hold of, the divine. For Royce, we are one with the divine, “just in sofar as we have vitality, courage, loyalty, wealth, strength, sanity, of will and of understanding. We know of him just so much as we are. And we are of him just so much as we are morally worth to be” (SMP, 142). A few years later, in a lecture at the Brooklyn Institute 2006-07-22T18:14:17-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Royce-on-the-Problem-of-Evil-30477.aspx Analysis of Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave" The moist air of the cave hovers in a homeostatic manner around the man’s conditioned skin. He sits, staring at the flat, cold surface of rock in front of him. Nothing that he sees surprises him. He just stares blankly at the recurrent shadows dancing in a dull glow. He is motionlessly caught in a state of a calm, content trance. The cold chains around his neck match the vacancy of life his face. The only expression seen is a small rising in the corners of the man’s mouth, producing a strangely content smirk. Nothing is heard except a constant, repetitive drip of water forming a stalagmite deep within the cave. Suddenly a voice awakens the man out his trance. The voice whispers into the man’s ear, “I can show you a path to knowledge and bring you out of your cave and into the sun. I can show you a life without the chains, a life of absolute freedom. All you have to do is follow me.” The man sits, contemplating the reliability and safety of this advice. These cave walls are all he has known. Why should he want to leave the familiar to follow an untrustworthy voice to what he claims to be a better existence? Suddenly the world around him collapses. He is confused by what the voice says, and is driven emphatic by his curiosity of what this path to the truth of life really is. In “The Allegory of the Cave,” Plato addresses one of the most controversial and recurrent themes of human existence. He is the philosophical voice that tempts the man of the cave to join him in a journey to enlightenment. He views most of the population as prisoners, chained in a dark cave, watching shadows dance on the wall. They do not care what causes the shadows, nor do they try to resist the chains that hold their head in place. If someone were to break free, they would see that the shadows are the effect of people dancing around a fire. If they dared to venture even further then they would eventually find there way out of the cave and see the sun, the ultimate truth, for the 2006-07-19T12:28:53-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Plato-s-The-Allegory-of-the-Cave-30383.aspx Analysis of Ion by Plato In Ion, Plato presents a dialogue between his influential teacher Socrates and a distinguished rhapsode, Ion. While Socrates considers himself “a common man who only speak the truth” (47), Ion is proud and boastful, regarding himself as a rhapsode who can “speak about Homer better than any man” (47). The primary issues between these two contradictory characters’ are the difference between gift of speech and knowledge of speech, as well as the attending of oneself to moral by understanding an idea as a whole rather than superficially understanding. Ion is a rhapsode, a professional narrator of Homer, who obtained the first prize in the festival of Asclepius. Despite his “talent” for dramatics, intonation, and voice of inflection, the seemingly necessary vocal tools of a reciter, his knowledge and understanding of Homer, specifically in terms of those various arts featured in Odyssey, fails to extend beyond his ability to memorize the epic poem. Socrates speaks candidly about such paradox Ion is experiencing; “Of whom, Ion, you are one, and are possessed by Homer and when any one repeats the words of another poet you go to sleep, and know not what to say; but when any one recites a strain of Homer you wake up in a moment, and your soul leaps within you, and you have plenty to say; for not by art or knowledge about Homer do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by possession.” (50) Socratic theory of inspiration is a divinity that is moving a person. Socrates speaks metaphorically, saying that such is like a magnet that attracts iron rings and magnetizes them along a chain. Muse inspires poets, and poets inspire rhapsodes or critics. Socrates also mentions, “And every poet has some Muse from whom he is suspended, and by whom he is said to be possessed, which is nearly the same thing for he is taken hold of.” (50) Socrates has caught arrogant Ion in a contradiction: if Ion is a good judge of Homer, whose content does not greatly vary from other poets, Ion should also be able to judge these other poets. Ion’s lack of understanding of literature becomes crucial when one considers the role of such Greek rhapsodes as interpreters of Homer, and in that capacity, as essentially rewriters of the text. The danger is apparent 2006-07-18T12:53:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Ion-by-Plato-30348.aspx Philosophy Analysis of The Apology by Socrates In The Apology, Socrates talks positively about an instance in which he committed an act of civil disobedience, but in The Crito he argues that civil disobedience is not an acceptable option. These two claims are irreconcilable. Although Socrates claims that civil disobedience is never alright, he insists he would practice philosophy even if it were against Athens’ law. Although Socrates gives himself an out when he says that one must either accept the law or argue that it’s unjust, I do not think this allows him to use his argument to practice philosophy if there were such a law against it. He may argue against a law that outlawed philosophy, but practicing philosophy would be breaking the state’s law and therefore committing an act of civil disobedience, which he denounces in The Crito. As part of examining our lives through the practice of philosophy, we must be able to perform acts of civil disobedience when necessary. When Socrates says that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38a), he forces himself to agree to the principles behind civil disobedience. Socrates believes that philosophy is the root of the human soul, and without it life is not worth living. I think this is an accurate claim, and that this is Socrates’ principle of life. Without the practice of philosophy, and the questioning of virtue, the world would become a stagnant environment, never evolving from past cultures and past ideals. I agree with his principle, and therefore I cannot agree with his other claims against civil disobedience. Socrates says “…it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for man…” (Apology 38a). If he believes in this statement, then Socrates claims against civil disobedience cannot be held in high regard. Without civil disobedience, we are missing a crucial part of the examined life. He says that discussing virtue is the “greatest good” and without it “life is not worth living.” Socrates claims against him were that he “is guilty of wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worse argument into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others” 2006-07-18T12:31:16-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-Analysis-of-The-Apology-by-Socrates-30337.aspx Personal Philosophy on Life I have no single philosophy for life, but rather three philosophies. Each of which has different meaning. My three philosophies include the following: work hard, take pride in myself and the accomplishments that I make, and also everyone is on this planet for a reason. In the following paragraphs I will explain each of my three philosophies. From this, I hope that others will understand why I look at life the way that I do. The first of my three philosophies, to work hard, can be very easily explained. I feel that if money or a gift given to me by another person because I earned the reward is much more valued. In other words, knowing that I worked hard, did a good job, and deserve a reward makes me feel good inside. I also feel that all persons should have to work and support themselves. If a person doesn't wish to put forth any effort and work hard to support themselves, then that person deserves nothing. The next of my three philosophies is to take pride in myself and the accomplishments that I make. I have found that if I don't take pride in myself and what I do than I might as well give up on life. My reason for this being that no one else will think highly of me if I, myself, don't. I always set goals for myself before I begin a project or take part in an activity. My rule is to "Set my goals high, but obtainable," and although I may not always reach all of my goals that I have set, I should always be proud of what I have done. My final philosophy, everyone is on this planet for a reason, may be looked at from numerous different views. A very small part of the population may be put here for obvious reasons such as curing diseases and saving the environment, and the majority of people think that those persons are the only ones that are here for a reason. However, I feel that all people have a reason for being here whether they cure diseases or do a deed as small as helping disabled people. Numerous people do not realize what they are here for until they are older, and 2006-07-17T22:54:29-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Personal-Philosophy-on-Life-30325.aspx Philosophy Essay: Socrates on Definitions Late in his life Socrates went around the market place having discussions with the countrymen. He believed that if someone claimed to know what X was then they should be able to define it. So he would usually ask a question such as, what is X? Socrates would not be pleased by just any answer; it had to be a solid definition. According to Socrates a solid definition consists of three conditions. The first is that the definition of X must hold true for all things that are X, but not for those things that are Y. The second is that a definition cannot be an example of the word. The third is the definition must be a description of X not an evaluation. Since Socrates never kept a record of his dialogues, we must rely on the dialogues that Plato wrote about him in Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Meno, which are a close approximation of Socrates’ discussions. Euthyphro and Meno have a lot of questioning, which allows us to understand Socrates’ style of questioning and his expectations for a definition. Euthyphro deals with what is pious and impious, while Meno deals with what is virtuous. In these two dialogues Socrates rejects many attempts made by Euthyphro and Meno to define pious and virtue. In the dialogue Euthyphro Socrates asks Euthyphro. “What is the pious, and what the impious (5d)?” Euthyphro suddenly gives an answer that pious is what he himself is doing now. Impious would be not to prosecute his own father for murder (5d-e). Socrates is not satisfied by Euthyphro’s answer. Socrates understands that prosecuting his own father maybe an example of what is pious, but there are many pious actions. Socrates was looking for the definition for what all pious actions are (6d-e). I agree with Socrates that examples make it difficult to truly understand a word. For example, if I were to say this is an “A” paper to the five GSI’s at the same time, there is a great chance that they will all interpret my claim differently. Charles might think an “A” paper is merely four 8.5 X 11 inches of paper stapled together. Josh may believe a bunch of small black words written on a blank white page 2006-07-17T13:18:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-Essay-Socrates-on-Definitions-30300.aspx Analysis of Plato's "The Republic" I am going to describe Plato’s theory of justice and sophist theory of justice in relation to a happy life. I will describe Plato’s theory on form and how things derive their “being” or “essence” from it and an analysis of the Allegory of the cave. Plato says that justice, in short, is a virtue, a human excellence. His next point is that acting in accordance with excellence brings happiness. Then he ties excellence to one's function. His examples are those of the senses -- each sensory organ is excellent if it performs its function, as the eye sees, the ear hears. Therefore, the just person is a happy person is a person who performs his function. Since these are tied together, injustice can never exceed these virtues and so justice is stronger and is the good. Justice is coupled with the virtue of temperance, the harmony and self-mastery that results when all elements agree as to which should do what. Thus the rule of reason is not a tyranny but the harmonious rule of the happily unified individual and society. The Sophist shows how a proper understanding of appearance depends on an account of being and nonbeing and of the relation between particulars and Forms. I agree with Plato’s opinion on justice how all the body must come together as a whole and be just for example if all you do is see and hear bad thing then that is what you will do and act out on. The Form is introduced as a principle explaining individual instances of being X, the very thing itself that is meant by the name X and that is the transcendent object of understanding what it is to be X. The Forms constitute a realm of unchanging being to which the world of individual changing objects is subordinate. The Form of good enjoys a unique status, responsible for the being and intelligibility of the world as a whole. Plato sees the world of being itself governed by the Form of the good, as also the source of value and the object of proper desire. The philosopher is thus pictured as in love with the Forms, that is, in love with the world as it truly is. His wish to see through the world of flux to the true principles of its being is thus basically an act of 2006-07-16T20:32:04-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Plato-s-The-Republic-30250.aspx Scope of Impartial Philosophy In a society that molds individuals to think in particular ways, it is rare for someone to defy its aimless influence. Aimlessness can be defied only by having an aim. This aim must not be a pursuit of one's emotions and whims, or of an arbitrary goal one chooses. Only one goal is therefore left to pursue, which is to find purpose. A person who defies society in this way is called an impartial. The essence of an impartial is to follow logic alone. His philosophy is that of wanting nothing. He is therefore open to anything and may have the appearance of being aimless. It would be so, if not for his belief that logic and reason can be used to devise a strategy to achieve the goal. His life he spends optimizing that strategy to the best of his ability. Derivation of the goal It is clear that either there is a purpose or there isn't. And if there is none, it does not matter what we do, so that case is covered no matter what. An impartial is therefore interested in the case in which there is a purpose; the alternative need not concern anyone. As no specific purpose has logical basis, the impartial pursues the non-specific one, to find it. An impartial's criticism of present economic systems Human needs are few and limited, requiring a small workforce to satisfy. In today's society, most people are working to satisfy non-existent needs, or are working for businesses that make each other necessary. In a more efficient society, money, ownership, and entrepreneurship would be obsolete. An impartial's criticism of aimless evolution Information in today's society spreads largely according to how well it fits into the market (how well it catches attention and is able to replicate). The purpose of humans in our social structure is primarily to serve as willing hosts to various ideas. In a more efficient society, random evolution of information would be obsolete. The nature of the impartial's defiance The impartial never loses sight of his aim and he never takes an action for which there is no logical reason to believe that it will help achieve the goal. Purpose of this web page The purpose of this page is to define impartiality sufficiently for you to recognize, so that you will consider joining us in a 2006-07-10T16:17:57-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Scope-of-Impartial-Philosophy-30180.aspx Many philosophers have argued against the verification and the falsification criterion of meaning, and its challenge to religious languagee. However the falsification theory in religious language can be considered “meaningless” since true believers exercise faith, but do not allow any evidence to count against their ideas. Criticism of logical positivism came from many philosophers which include; Ayer, Hare, Mitchell, Swinburne and Wittgenstein. The principle behind the idea of falsification was first suggested by Karl Popper, “Science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification.”(Tillman ,195) Popper recognized that science did not move from observation to theory but rather the other way round. The falsification theory isn’t without its criticisms. It has been argued in various ways that theory does not rule religious language to be meaningless. Hare was one such philosopher; he argued that religious statements were never intended as assertions, but alternative ways of looking at the world. Hare illustrates this by argueing against Anthony Flew. He claims that Flew does not realize that different people have very different standards for verification and falsification. What counts as falsifying evidence for one person might not count for another. In Hare’s terms, not everyone has the same blik. A blik is a frame of reference in terms of which data is interpreted. Hare says: “without a blik there can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we decide what is and what is not an explanation.”(Stewart, 229) Hare illustrates this with the parable of the paranoid man. “A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, “You see, he doesn’t really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?” But the lunatic replies, “Yes, but that was only is diabolical cunning; he’s really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it, I tell you.” However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.”(Stewart, 227) The paranoid man’s entire frame of reference is paranoid. Any evidence that might count to falsify the claim that dons are all killers simply does not count as evidence in a paranoid’s frame of reference. Many kindly dons 2006-07-08T19:46:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Religous-Language--30100.aspx Philisophical Defintion of the Meaning of Evil Evil has been described throughout time and in all places of the world in numerous ways. Tradition has taught both scholars and average individuals to appreciate the delicate balance between good and evil; right versus wrong; bad versus good. Hell has long been feared by many as the permanent resting place for tortured souls that committed unforgivable sins on Earth. To some, it is the simple fear, such as a monster underneath one's bed, which lingers from that person's childhood continuing to challenge the senses. To others, it is the inner voices within the mind expressing the ultimate freedom that can only be obtained by taking another life in a gruesome fashion. History has even allowed for the celebration preceding the Christian feast of All Saints Day. The observances connected with Halloween are thought to have originated among the ancient Druids, who believed that on that evening, Saman, the lord of the dead, called forth hosts of evil spirits. (Halloween np). Clearly, evil has a past, and a very active future. The many variations of evil will be compared and contrasted through instruments such as poetry, art, and musical selections to gain a heightened awareness of what existed in the past, and still exists today. Webster defines evil as, "morally wrong or bad; wicked; causing pain or trouble; threatening or bringing misfortune; unlucky; offensive, or anything causing harm." (Neufeldt 471). Although large in breadth and depth, this definition is symbolic of what most people relate to when they think of evil. However, the non-typical association with evil arrives in the form of mental torment or torturous thoughts ranging from negativity to self-destruction. Obvious to many, yet hidden from some, evil can manifest itself into one's very being and begin a dangerous journey. The first poem to be analyzed is "The Slave Auction" by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper. (Harper 13). [see appendix A]. This piece of work expresses evil in the states of brutality and sadness. Slavery is thought by some, as being "morally wrong." In the poem, a woman describes the ruthlessness of the slave auction and the sadness which it induces. The woman speaks of young, defenseless girls crying and heartbroken mothers losing children and spouses. Tyrants tore apart families and ultimately dictated the 2006-07-05T23:48:52-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philisophical-Defintion-of-the-Meaning-of-Evil-30057.aspx Definitions of Knowledge In order to answer this question, must assess whether each of the above are necessary to having knowledge, and then consider whether any other requirements must be added. Traditionally, knowledge is believed to constitute three requirements. They are that the thing which is known must be true, the person who knows it must believe the fact to be true, and he must have justification for his belief. This idea can be shown in the following way. s only knows q if 1. q (meaning that q is true) 2. s believes in q 3. a's belief in q is justified. This is known as the tripartite definition, due to there being three parts to the definition. Let us consider each aspect and decide on its value in this definition. The first principle claims that one can only know q if it is true. This seems reasonable. I could not be said to know anything that was false. I cannot know that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1061 if the idea itself is false. Truth is a crucial criterion for knowledge. The second principle claims that one can only know q if one is in a state of belief concerning it. This also is reasonable. If I do not believe something to be the case, I cannot possibly be in a state of knowledge. If I do not believe that The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, then I cannot be said to be in a state of knowledge concerning such a fact. If one fails to agree with something, he cannot have knowledge concerning its truth. The third principle is equally important. If criteria one and two were satisfied, I might still not be said to have knowledge. For example, I might believe that a football match took place yesterday between Ipswich football club and some other team. If this turned out to be true, I would have belief in a truth. However, it was just a fortunate guess, there was no justification for such a belief, and hence it cannot be considered knowledge, because there was no foundation to my belief. Therefore, the aforementioned principles of belief seem to be essential criteria for having knowledge. However, they are not enough on their own. E.L. Gettier in 1963 composed examples where the above are satisfied and still do not lead to knowledge. For example, 2006-07-05T22:47:59-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Definitions-of-Knowledge-30035.aspx Evaluation of Candide and Leibnitzian Optimism “Everything happens for the best, in this the best of all possible worlds.” This is a statement that can be found many times within Voltaire’s Candide. Voltaire rejected Lebitizian Optimism, using Candide as a means for satirizing what was wrong with the world, and showing that, in reality, this is not the best of all possible worlds. The philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, which Voltaire called “optimism,” is one of the main themes of Candide. The two main points of Leibnitzian philosophy are that God is beneficent, and that in creating the world, He created the best possible one. Leibnitz did not argue that the world was perfect or that evil was non-existent, but thanks to God’s goodness and His constant concern with his creation, right finally emerges. It is all a matter of being able to see the Divine plan in its totality and not to judge by solitary parts. This theory was attractive to many because it answered a profound philosophical question that mankind had be struggling with since the beginning of faith: if God is all-powerful and benevolent, then why is there so much evil in the world? Optimism provides an easy way out of this. Voltaire’s experiences led him to dismiss the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. Examining the death and destruction, both man-made and natural (such as the Libson earthquake), Voltaire concluded that everything was not, in fact, for the best. As a Deist, Voltaire’s God was one who initially created the world, and then left it to its own devices. Voltaire does most of his satirizing through the character of Dr. Pangloss, an unconditional follower of Leibnitz’s philosophy and Candide’s mentor. Pangloss’ ramblings are not personal attacks on Leibnitz, but in some way represent the thoughts of a typical optimist. He is a very hopeful character in the story because he refuses to accept bad. When Candide encounters Pangloss after a long period of time, Pangloss explains how he was almost hanged, then dissected, then beaten. Candide asks the philosopher if he still believes that everything is for the best, and Pangloss replies that he still held his original views. Voltaire frequently exaggerates his point on optimism; there is nobody in reality who is positive about everything all the time, especially after so many horrible experiences. One could say that Pangloss is irrational 2006-06-26T17:33:08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Evaluation-of-Candide-and-Leibnitzian-Optimism-29855.aspx The Definition of Life The definition of Life is being alive, the ability to function and grow. I never thought about what life means to me. We always act like we are going to live forever but we actually don’t know when it’s are last breath. About half our existence we plan what we are going to do in our life. We don’t live every day to the fullest. Are society is institution that is consist of all this planning and not taking pleasure in life. When you are a child your parents create this protective shields for you. You are care free nothing on your minds just friends and adventures you had. This is the phase when you are so eager to start your day. This time when you are so full of life you see no restriction you only see possibilities and the word can’t is not in your vocabulary. You have so much ambition and dreams that fill your mind that you can’t retain it. When your parents said that is impossible you would say that you would be the first to do it. I think how child see life is how we should perceive life. The change between child and adolescent is phase that can change your whole perception of life. The regulation and limitation start come into view and obstacles seem to be only thing ahead. As in plain words reality starts hitting you hard. Every little childhood dreams seem to dissolve when social statues, requirements and money seem to be issues instead of your capability. You begin to lose faith in what you believe in and you’re in potentials. You stop dreaming at nights and losing that eagerness for life. In adulthood you are already operate in the institute that has been established in society. That’s limits you in your ability and constructs a procedure. Instruction and guidelines seem to be only thing that contains our life and if we pursue these guiding principles does assure our security and our values. We live in institution that eliminate your dreams and turn you into a robot that only takes commands. We live in society that you can’t fulfill your dreams and your bound of their short coming experience in life. Society set a boundary around you, which limits your ability to achieve your dreams. If we take 2006-06-20T18:10:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Definition-of-Life-29739.aspx Capitalist Nihilism in the Works of Glass The primary theme of the works of Eco is not dematerialism, but subdematerialism. Lacan's analysis of Foucaultist power relations states that society has intrinsic meaning. In a sense, Sontag promotes the use of the postdialectic paradigm of consensus to challenge class. The subject is interpolated into a capitalist nihilism that includes consciousness as a whole. But Derrida uses the term 'Sartreist absurdity' to denote the bridge between sexual identity and society. The subject is contextualised into a Debordist image that includes sexuality as a reality. 2. Capitalist nihilism and constructivist capitalism "Culture is dead," says Lyotard; however, according to de Selby[1] , it is not so much culture that is dead, but rather the absurdity, and therefore the rubicon, of culture. In a sense, in The Name of the Rose, Eco reiterates materialist rationalism; in The Island of the Day Before, although, he affirms Sartreist 2006-06-16T14:57:59-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Capitalist-Nihilism-in-the-Works-of-Glass-29610.aspx Relativism versus Ethical Absolutism Relativism is the denial of any absolute or objective values (truth, moral goodness, beauty, etc.) and the affirmation of the individual, community or culture as the source of values. Absolutism is the view that values (truth, beauty, and/or moral goodness) are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal application. The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutivism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). Relativism and Absolutism About What? As with skepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas, and dogmatists or epistemological optimists about others. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so. Relativism related to moral issues is called ethical relativism: the denial of any absolute or objective moral values and the affirmation of the individual, community or culture as the source of moral values. A relativist might say that there are no absolute moral rights for women to walk the streets unaccompanied by men; they do have that right in the U.S., but not in Afghanistan, and who are we to judge what another society believes? The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism: there are universal moral standards--not in the sense that everybody accepts them, but in the sense that those who do not accept them are wrong. Thus, a person who defends universal human rights is an ethical absolutist, on at least some ethical issues. An ethical absolutist might say, "Women have the human or moral right to walk unaccompanied by men, even if this right is not recognized by others. So the current practice in Afghanistan is wrong." There are aesthetic relativists too. An aesthetic relativist will say that beauty or coolness or awesomeness or whatever is in the eye of the beholder. "My kid may think Ace Ventura is cool, but that's his opinion, not mine. But nobody is absolutely right or wrong--it just depends on who you are, what your background is, your personal perspective, 2006-06-16T14:26:13-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Relativism-versus-Ethical-Absolutism-29590.aspx The Power of Fate and Predestination in our Lives In our lives, certain things may lead us to believe that our lives are mapped out, are predetermined by some higher authority. Other things may make us think that our lives are decided solely by our own actions, by our own free will. In my opinion, I believe that our lives are a concoction of both. There are times in our lives when we think that the decisions we make our purely our own, but are they really? Are we ALWAYS the ones who “decide” what is best for ourselves? I think certain choices and actions are left up to us. The real question is: which ones? How do we know which choices are our own and which ones are already decided for us? That is a question that only He can really answer. To me, our lives are mapped out, to a certain degree. We have many aspects of our lives predetermined. For example, I think that the field in which we work is already decided for us. I think that God has planned for me to become a nurse, and that He has planned for my best friend to be a psychologist. I also believe that our soul mates are already chosen for us. There is a reason people meet and marry, and there is also a reason people meet and break up. When people break up, it is God’s way of showing us that this person is not our soul mate. Let’s say that you break up with someone, and then you get back together. I can’t see why God would “let” you get back together for any other reason than to show you that this other person is, in fact, your soul mate. When it comes to moving and relocating, I believe that this is also already established. For example, I have moved three times in my life so far, since the age of eight. There has to be a reason for that. God decided this for us; these types of things happen for a reason. Sometimes these reasons don’t seem fair or just, but there is always a reason. As E.B. White once stated, “I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man 2006-06-15T22:28:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Power-of-Fate-and-Predestination-in-our-Lives-29566.aspx Decisions that may shape our Destiny “ Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved”(William Jennings Bryan) Both Septimus and Clarissa, two unrelated narratives, fell into the superego stage. They both believed that what they had to do were necessary to be expected and what was necessary to be achieved. Clarissa’s relationship with both her childhood love, Peter Walsh, and her present husband, Richard Dalloway, helped to clime from the id to the superego. Her life has been spent in regret and sorrow, forcing her to think suicidal thought like Septimus and living everyday not knowing real love. Clarissa always believed in finding her own destiny, she found it, she just took the wrong road path too it. Clarissa is very heart broken woman who made the wrong choice to her destiny and future. In the novel Mrs.Dalloway, Virginia Woolf uses the element of conflict to illustrate the theme that one shapes their own destiny and future. Through the character of Peter Walsh, Woolf uses conflict to show how one makes their own destiny. Peter sat down beside Clarissa, and everything seemed to race past him “he just sat there, eating, and then half way through dinner he made himself look across at Clarissa for the first time”(61). Peter was very much in love with Clarissa. Every time Peter saw Clarissa it was like for the first time, his eyes would light up and in his mind he would think she was my destiny that’s filled with our future. He wanted to marry her he thought they where destined to be together. He expressed his love by bringing the fun to her life, meaning taking her to new places and doing new things. Peter wanted to be with her to see their future together but she just didn’t get the picture. Clarissa loved Peter very much but in her mind Peter was the guy “that had no heart, no brain, nothing but the manners and breeding of an English gentleman”(7). Clarissa, at the time, id personality, made her want more and more and his is what she loved most about him, his on going personality. Peter Walsh loves Clarissa very much but he couldn’t give her the kind of life that Richard could. 2006-06-14T21:02:40-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Decisions-that-May-Shape-our-Destiny-29487.aspx Benefits to Experiencing Solitude Solitude—the word is scary to some people, but for many, solitude is one of the greatest aspects of their lives. I do not think that people see the advantages of living a solitary life. Most of the time they think that it would be miserable. For many people, their picture of solitude is someone pacing the house trying to escape boredom or loneliness. I think differently. Solitude enables you to grow in many directions: in self-reliance, in enjoyment of life, and in dealing with life’s difficult situations. It is a way of getting to know oneself. Many people misconceive solitude. A lot of people believe that they have to be with other people at all times. They never look inward nor outward—they do not even look back; solitude is left in the dust. When spending time with others, it is difficult to discuss things about yourself with yourself. I know that sounds funny, but it is very true. If you are spending time with others, you usually do what they want to do or you do something that involves all of you. You may learn things about what you enjoy doing—golfing, playing guitar, reading—but you never really learn about what your inner thoughts are. When people make assumptions about solitude, their misconceptions prevent them from learning about themselves. Solitude helps you believe in yourself. If you are always dependent on other people, you will not be able to deal with life’s changes. Solitude, however, helps you become more independent. Imagine yourself trapped on a deserted island. There is nobody else within 300 miles. What would you do? Solitude helps you utilize your independent capabilities. You have to rely on yourself to use your own resources to solve the problems held before you. The same kind of isolation can occur if you live in an apartment in New York City or Chicago. You have to rely on yourself to function. Self-reliance can help you solve not only small problems, like fixing the bathroom sink, it may also help you solve complex problems such as what you want to do with your life. Solitude can bring enjoyment and excitement to your life. I didn’t really believe this at first, but once I tried to live in solitude, I 2006-06-13T18:25:55-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Benefits-to-Experiencing-Solitude-29438.aspx The Importance of Values in Everyday Life In our everyday lives we encounter situations in which we take many things for granted. These forgotten things become of value to us the moment we find our self without their presence. For instance, a man holding his house keys does not take into consideration the value of those keys. He only thinks that they are odd shaped metals things in his pocket, which annoy him when he walks. Yet the moment he misplaced his keys, they become the most important things to him at that time. We only treasure things when they are gone. This is a sad truth of human nature. One day, I found my self as a witness to a similar situation. It was 5 PM, a typical evening rush hour in New York. I had left work and boarded the “F” train from Queensboro Plaza. When the train arrived, I entered and noticed something unusual. The center of the car had a few empty seats while both ends were crowded with people standing. I didn’t pay much attention and sat down on one of the empty seats. I sensed a funny smell. It wasn’t long before I noticed a homeless person sleeping on three seats in front of me. He was bleeding from his nose. Why isn’t anyone helping him? He looked very filthy. His clothes were torn and he was emitting a foul smell. Along with the smell, his eyes are glazed over, watery, and red. He was unshaven with a scraggly beard. He was shivering from cold weather. He had a trash bag full of empty soda cans and dirty clothes. Occasionally he scratched himself and people looked at him as if he had committed a crime. His mouth was a nightmare for a dentist. Looking at him would disgust them. As the train stopped at stations and more people came in they covered their nose and faced away from him. No one showed any sympathy towards him and his condition. He snuggled like a baby. All the seats around him were empty. He woke up and looked around at the people. He wiped the blood off his nose with his hand. He sat up and stared at the blood on the floor. 2006-06-12T19:14:12-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Importance-of-Values-in-Everyday-Life-29361.aspx Examination of Differences in Kantian and Mach Ethics In your class discussions, we learned the basic aspects of Kantian and Machiavellian Ethical standards. I found that it is fairly easy to establish a basic attitude on the subject, depending on how a specific person handles the situations in their life. I chose my preferred ethical standard rather quickly. I did, however, decide to further research the subject and see if I was missing any information. It didn’t take very much research to find a great deal of writing on the subject. In a short time I found that the intricacies of these two ethical classifications are quite well examined by many people, and can be quite open to interpretation. After looking deeper into these philosophies, my beliefs only grew stronger. I believe that Kantian ethical values are the superior form of ethics. For most people, Kantian type values are given to us beginning at a very young age. We are taught to treat others as we would like to be treated. This is referred to as “The Golden Rule.” It is a basic overtone in Kant’s writings, although not specifically stated. It does, however, seem to apply to the moral standards of this belief. “A maxim or rule governing an action which cannot be universalized is unacceptable” (An Ethic of Duty). The Golden Rule seems a perfect fit. When we are young, treating people good is always emphasized. This is especially true in early grade school where anti-social behavior is punished quickly. “Act by treating people, you own person and others, always as an end in itself, never merely a means to an end” (O’Neil). Obviously, at that age we are far too young to understand what that means. But we can still grasp the concept of treating people fairly and not hurting their feelings or hurting them physically. Machiavellian ethics can be fairly easily summarized. “To be called a ’Machiavellian is to be equated with power seeking, political cunning, and a controllable hypocrisy” (Jarvis). I use the word opportunism to describe it. The goal of life is what you get out of it, and it doesn’t matter how this is accomplished. My personal view of Machiavellian ethics is a straightforward one. I do not like to support the attitude 2006-06-12T03:10:19-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Examination-of-Differences-in-Kantian-and-Mach-Ethics-29297.aspx Ethical Analysis of Virtues Everyone strives to do good with their lives. Some people, in certain aspects, try too much or too little to do good. There is no such thing as doing too much or too little good, when something is good it is only good. Although, someone may think that they are still doing good, when they are actually not doing good. We need to try to stay within the mean. Once we start to stray from the mean, we are heading towards the vices. Excess and defect are the vices. When we are doing something to excess or a defect, we may actually be causing more harm than good. Courage is a mean. Courage is when you are brave and you face your fears. In order for courage to be a virtue, the courageous act has to be performed for good and not for some personal gain. Some examples of courageous acts would be standing up for something good against the majority. This one may be especially hard to do because it may seem like everyone is against you, but if you are standing up for the good you will be considered courageous, maybe not by those that you are standing up against, but many of the wise people will see you as courageous. Another form of courage is when you risk your life to save someone else’s life. The people that have done this we name heroes, they have performed very courageous acts that were detrimental to their health just to save someone else from death. This type of courage is mildly easier to perform than standing up against the crowd, because, this type of courage is normally supported by the majority. One type of vice is defect, where you have to little of the virtue. If you have to little courage then you may not stand up for what is right because you are afraid of the crowd or you are too afraid to risk your life to save someone else. If you are a coward you are not doing good, and you are giving in to the aversion of pain. The other vice is excess, where you have too much of the virtue. You may say how can you have too much courage, wouldn't that be a good thing? Having a lot of courage may seem like a good thing but when you really look at it, 2006-06-12T02:06:39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Ethical-Analysis-of-Virtues-29266.aspx Examination of Language within Social Context What is sociolinguistics? - It is the study of language in its social context. It is a field of investigation which describes all areas of the study of the relationship between language and society. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, a widespread interest in sociolinguistics developed. The study of language in relation to society has a long tradition, but a recognizable growth in sociolinguistics took place in the 60s and 70s. As most other fields of investigation as well, sociolinguistics is partly theoretical and partly empirical. The development of quantitative studies of speech has coincided with that of sociolinguistics and, for many linguists whose main interest is the structure of language, this part of sociolinguistics apparently makes the most relevant contribution, providing new data which need to be reconciled with current linguistic theories. The work which is done quantitative studies is all based on the study of spoken rather than written language (though in some cases the speaker is reading from a written text, such as a list of words), and its aim has been to find out about everyday speech of ordinary people, in reaction to the high degree of idealisation that is typical of transformational-generative grammar. The aim of this branch of sociolinguistics, like that of the 'dialect geography' branch of dialectology, is explicitly comparative - to compare texts with one another, rather than to make some kind of 'total' analysis of each text without reference to others. It is the purpose of studying texts - to test hypotheses about relations among linguistic and social variables. The fact that the investigator starts with a predetermined list of linguistic variables and their variants shows that he expects the variants in his list actually to occur in the sort of texts he has collected, and he also generally starts with a range of hypotheses about the social variables to which those in his list are related, such as region, social class, or sex. If each text contained instances of only one variant for each variable, then it could be located in the relevant multi-dimensional linguistic space without using quantitative methods. Different variants of the same variable occur together in the same text, and texts can be arranged on a continuous scale according to how often the variants occur. The relations between different linguistic variables are also a matter of degree, some being more closely 2006-06-11T19:39:58-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Examination-of-Language-within-Social-Context-29223.aspx Analysis of Nietzche's Genealogy of Morals The genealogical method is the basis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche’s genealogy can be illustrated as a way to investigate values. The investigation of values, points out, how certain values were originally initiated. Nietzsche’s genealogy also presents a critique, by Nietzsche himself, on already established values. Nietzsche’s genealogy also creates a future in a revolutionary manner values. In order to understand the Nietzsche’s genealogical method one must first analyze the parts that make it work. One area to analyze is Nietzsche’s critical reversals. He feels that the current values, which are imbedded into society, are in some way a reversal of actual truth. Nietzsche wants society to consider the concept that values that seem to exhibit goodness actually to the reverse. A prime example of critical reversals can be seen in Nietzsche’s concept of Good and Evil vs. Good and Bad. From Nietzsche’s viewpoint, to fully understand the concepts of Good and Evil vs. Good and Bad, one must first understand certain how moral systems developed and how culture played a role in its development. Nietzsche felt that moral systems were not created by exterior beings. He feels that moral systems are developed from within a society. Nietzsche feels that there were two categories for morality. The initial morality conveyed was a Master Morality. This was the morality illustrated by the nobles in the times of Ancient Greece. To better understand the Master morality one must first analyze the thinking of the Nobles. The nobles felt a pathos of distance over their slaves. Pathos of distance is a feeling in which the nobles feel completely set apart from the slaves. The nobles also felt they had the lordly right of giving names. In this concept the rulers control the language. They define the meaning of words. In the concept of master morality the word good means noble, aristocratic, privileged, truthful, master etc. The word bad means common, low simple, plain or in other words the word described a slave. This brings Nietzsche to the concept of Good vs. Bad, which is the main basis for master morality. In the concept of Good vs. Bad, there is no resentment of the slaves on the part of the nobles. 2006-06-11T18:43:52-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Nietzche-s-Genealogy-of-Morals-29193.aspx A Critique of the Works of Immanuel Kant But if the mind actively generates perception, this raises the question whether the result has anything to do with the world, or if so, how much. The answer to the question, unusual, ambiguous, or confusing as it was, made for endless trouble both in Kant's thought and for a posterity trying to figure him out. To the extent that knowledge depends on the structure of the mind and not on the world, knowledge would have no connection to the world and is not even true representation, just a solipsistic or intersubjective fantasy. Kantianism seems threatened with "psychologism," the doctrine that what we know is our own psychology, not external things. Kant did say, consistent with psychologism, that basically we don't know about "things-in-themselves," objects as they exist apart from perception. But at the same time Kant thought he was vindicating both a scientific realism, where science really knows the world, and a moral realism, where there is objective moral obligation, for both of which a connection to external existence is essential. And there were also terribly important features of things-in-themselves that we do have some notion about and that are of fundamental importance to human life, not just morality but what he called the three "Ideas" of reason: God, freedom, and immortality. Kant always believed that the rational structure of the mind reflected the rational structure of the world, even of things-in-themselves -- that the "operating system" of the processor, by modern analogy, matched the operating system of reality. But Kant had no real argument for this -- the "Ideas" of reason just become "postulates" of morality -- and his system leaves it as something unprovable. The paradoxes of Kant's efforts to reconcile his conflicting approaches and requirements made it very difficult for most later philosophers to take the overall system seriously. Nevertheless, Kant's theory does all sorts of things that seem appropriate for a non-reductionistic philosophical system and that later philosophy has had trouble doing at all. Kant managed to provide, in phenomenal reality (phaenomena="appearances"), for a sphere for science that was distinct and separate from anything that would relate to morality or religion. The endless confusion and conflict that still results from people trying to figure out whether or how science and religion should fit together is deftly avoided by Kant, who can say, for instance, that God and divine creation cannot 2006-06-11T01:37:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Critique-of-the-Works-of-Immanuel-Kant-29153.aspx Examining a Philosophy of History That history contains errors, will not come as news to a person who has reflected on the topic. The very first history, a Greek one, History of Herodotus, written around 450 BC, likely had quite a number of fictional details so as to effect its purpose.1 Those parts of our history which are suspected to be fiction are, at least, through research and comparison, salvageable. What, however, is possibly more disturbing than the realization that, in general and throughout, our history is wrong (a sub-topic which I shall treat to a greater extent further on, herein) is the realization that there are great gaps in it. We have failed to record and gather together the little human events which make up the fabric of history: it is little events, strung together and accumulated over time, which account for our place in history. Though it may have been, in certain of its parts, reconstructed incorrectly and small shards are missing here and there, history, by a well-read and descriptive author, like a Grecian urn, is a spectacle to behold; like man himself -- fascinating, seductive, intriguing, and spectacular. It maybe, that I, like most, enjoy looking in on, at a safe distance, the follies and misfortunes2 of his fellow man, a method to gratify the natural curiosity that most of us have about such things. History, written in a lively and descriptive manner as the best are, so to grip and hold the reader, have, veiled and concealed as it might be, a lesson or moral such that the reader might modify his view of the present and his forecast of the future. This, incidentally, is the principal reason that history ought to be at the core of any scheme of education. In this light, as John Morley observed, the actual twists and turns of the great historical happenings are not so important in themselves, "except as it enables me to see my way more clearly through what is happening to-day." While its primary allure is like that of gossip, history is important because it is the story of the collective self, the story of passionate man. Fiction, coming as it does from the imagination of some fellow human being, does not have the same attraction, at least, not for me, simply because it is not true. What I need from my reading is to learn something, and 2006-06-07T16:48:19-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Examining-a-Philosophy-of-History-29110.aspx Philisophical Analysis of Elitism as a School of Thought The article In defense of Elitism by William Henery III from the June issue of Time Magazine. Which was a forty-five year old man's opinions on the number of American students going from high school to college. Including the over population of schools and majors. HE gives good statistics and gives a good argument from his point of view. Throughout this article the author tries to inform people that if one is not one of the few elitist than one should not go to college. He thinks that there are too many people that are going to college than there are jobs for. He says himself that "yet our colleges blithely go on "educating" many more prospective manager and professional than we likely need. In my own field, there are typically more students majoring in journalism at any giving moment than there are journalist employed all in the US " This is true with many other jobs; he calls them "periodic over supplied M.B.A.-wielding graduates." In such jobs as financial annalist, teachers, computers programmers and engineers he calls overpopulated. Some of those are the people we look up to are now unemployed only because there are not enough jobs for them in our society. He many points telling why many students waste money on a college education" The U.S. Labor Departments Bureau of Statistics reports that about twenty percent of all college graduates toil in fields not requiring a degree, and is projected to exceed thirty percent by the year 2005" He even talks about the lower level of students so the teacher are forced to lower the curriculum. This article gives readers many facts and statistics on why not go to college. It gives them a good objective point of view on not wasting their time on educating themselves, but to go to training schools for jobs that are more practical for them. There may be a lot of people that won't agree with Henery and there may be a lot of people that do agree with him. Some of the people that I have discussed this article with thought that he had some good ideas. They liked the Ideas about having training schools for blue collar jobs but they also think that people should have the choice of going to college. Instead of being chosen at an early age they should have the 2006-06-02T16:30:38-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philisophical-Analysis-of-Elitism-as-a-School-of-Thought-29048.aspx Existentialism Thought in Modern Philosophy Free will is something that many people don’t realize they have, especially in today’s society. There are a lot of factors that influence our way of living like how we dress, how to talk, what to eat, what to drive and how to think. When was the last time that anybody done something because they felt like it or just wanted to try it out, good or bad decision? Existentialism is a philosophy that expresses people to know who they are as individuals and to decide for him/herself what is right and wrong. The definition of existentialism is philosophical doctrine emphasizing that individuals must create their own meaning and purpose in life. In education, an existentialist believes that each student must ultimately make meaning through individual learning, not group learning (550). In the early European times there was a school called “Christian Existentialism,” which practice this philosophy like water being essential to human life. They taught the students that there is no God and that we came from evolution, in addition to teaching the concept that we are all an insignificant part of the galaxy; the meaning of life is determined by what individuals make it out to be (320). There are parts of this that I do not agree with like the fact that there is no God, which I feel is just ignorant to say. Also the facts that we live in a meaningless world, if it wasn’t significant then why are we here in the first place? What is the purpose of going through life at this point if that statement is true? However one thing I do agree with is the fact that we do make decisions that determine our meaning of life. God gave us a free will to live life how we see fit and that He will only interfere when He is called upon. The decisions we make today will have an effect to our future no matter how small it may seem. The modern American version of existentialism is not as extreme as the early time European version. This philosophy does exist in the classrooms through discussion over certain topics that involve different point of views. Also a teacher that practices existentialism encourages students to try and discover themselves, who they are as an individual? The teachers tell the students that they are free to make whatever decisions that 2006-06-01T18:38:00-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Existentialism-Thought-in-Modern-Philosophy-28976.aspx Existentialism Explored through Meaningless Reflection Although there is no specific question in which to answer for this reflection, I found that in order for me to successfully accomplish it I had to. The first question I asked myself was, what exactly did I do? It is hard to remember every exact piece for English that I read or wrote, however I do know the less than substantial amount of time that I put in, up until my American dream definition paper. The point of a reflection is to reflect upon myself, the work I accomplished, and my writing technique. I have put in contributions to the pursuit of my learning, however one of the major downfalls that I have failed to accomplish is my ongoing procrastination in all of my schoolwork. Up until the American Dream definition paper, I was not using my time wisely. It was hard for me to manage other schoolwork, sports, dancing, and my job. With the American dream essay, I had a month to sort through my papers, thoughts, and also look up more information on people's beliefs of their American dream. I started to jot down many ideas and sentences, however the problem with that was that I didn't stay organized at all. I ended up losing two drafts of my paper until I decided to save everything on my computer so I could write and cut whatever I wanted without the fear of losing papers again. This turned out to be very effective, and I plan to use this way of writing papers much more often. I have not been responsible this year in my schoolwork in the fact that if it isn't procrastination, I am losing papers. All year as a whole I also haven't been responsible in English in the fact that I haven't rewritten one paper. On my Caesar essay I knew I could do better, and on my Great Gatsby timed essay I received a D+. The comment written on my paper says, "This just scrambles, never makes a point." When I read this and looked at my essay, I realized it was mostly because I didn't have a good prewrite to help me along the way. I decided that I wasn't going to let that happen with my American Dream essay, which is why I put a lot more effort into it by organizing my thoughts and writing good prewrite to 2006-06-01T02:34:30-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Existentialism-Explored-through-Meaningless-Reflection-28969.aspx Logical Arguments on the Existence and Meaning of God The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God. It is a reflection on the meaning of the word God; it is an a priori argument. This could be seen as a major strength of the Ontological argument it does not depend on evidence. It is what it is. For example how do we know a bear is an animal? Because as part of the definition of bear we know it is an animal, in the same way God is the definition of God. It is an analytic statement; existence is God as an animal is a bear. Therefore God is necessarily true because the predicate is included in subject of the statement. He is ‘de dicto’, a logical necessity. God is defined by the statement God is, if it is said that God exists this implies he didn’t exist before and will cease to exist at some point but the statement God is does not imply anything, God will always be, and has always been he is timeless and eternal. It doesn’t make sense to ask if God exists. If there is no God then where did the idea come from? Descartes argued that it is illogical to think of God without existence it is like thinking of a triangle and not a shape with three angles. God is a logical necessity therefore God must exist, this argument was put forward by Anselm he thought that it was possible to conceive of a being, the existence of which is necessary, and God must be such a being if he is ‘That which nothing greater can be conceived’ Because there must be something that nothing greater can be thought of. Descartes argued ‘God is a supremely perfect being’ And that existence is perfection; this means that God must exist, as he is ‘supremely perfect’ The Ontological argument does not rely on or involve faith or religion. In this respect in can apply to everyone and the do not have to belong to a particular religious group or set of beliefs. There are also weaknesses to the Ontological argument as illustrated by Guanaco and Kant in particular. Gaunilo argued against Anselm’s argument by suggesting that he can imagine ‘The most perfect island’ does this mean that that island exists somewhere? However Gaunilos argument also has its flaws as he suggests that it is logical 2006-05-31T23:37:39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Logical-Arguments-on-the-Existence-and-Meaning-of-God-28946.aspx I believe that there is no such thing as the ‘most reliable source’ because every thing that we know or experience must be confirmed by a combination of different things. Reason and Emotion are not reliable sources of knowledge on there own. Therefore we must use a combination of reason and emotion to draw an accurate picture of the world. It is possible to draw an accurate picture using only emotion or reason by itself, but the most accurate picture can be drawn using both emotion and reason. To start, let us analyze reason first. Reasons, such as logic are examples of knowledge which take thinking and calculation to draw a conclusion. There are two types of logic; inductive and deductive logic. Inductive uses specific examples to draw a general conclusion, and deductive uses general examples to draw a specific conclusion, but both believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Emotion is instinct as well as learned. We are born with a form of emotion called innate emotion, which includes feelings such as laughter and crying. Another form of emotion is learned emotion; these are feelings that develop depending on the society we live in, location and our upbringing, such as hello and goodbye which are different in many cultures. One obvious disadvantage of emotion is how easily it can be affected, with things such as alcohol and drugs, giving us a false picture of the world. It can be argued that reason is more accurate than emotion because emotion can also affect our decision making in very negative ways. Our emotions can hinder our learning and can force us to think in negative ways. For example a soldier who survived a war may be living with guilt because he is wandering why he was spared and why he was ‘chosen’ to survive. The soldier may very skeptical and stereotypical way towards the ‘enemy.’ However it is emotion that drives our hunger for knowledge. It is because we want to learn and discover the unknown that we are curious and cause us to reason. Without the emotion of curiosity we would not want to draw a an accurate picture of world. In some cases we even use reason to try and explain our emotions. For example, the character Mr. Gradgrind in ‘Hard Times’ by Charles Dickens, is a very practical man, a man of facts and calculations, and he 2006-05-18T19:46:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/ToK-What-is-The-Most-Reliable-Source-of-Knowledge-28864.aspx Does knowing we are going to die help us to live? How? We often take our lives for granted especially when we're young. We think we're going to live forever. But, from one moment to the next, nobody knows what will happen. A person could be alive and well one moment and dead the next, this shows the value of life and the uncertainties of death. Death is the “great unknown,” and that's why it's so frightening. Also, we perceive the inevitability of death long before it happens, which can be worrying, even tormenting. This fear and suffering keeps us from thinking seriously about death as it impedes our happiness. We need to know how to do this, how to live in freedom, not being imprisoned by the future and not being carried away by things in the present. When we can live our daily life deeply and genuinely, we begin to feel free and are able to live; we can see the true nature of life, we arrive at a great freedom with in you and freedom is the essence of happiness. All of us are equal as far as life and death are concerned; we are all going to die. So it is very equal, death will happen to everybody. Everyone has to die however, before we die, can we live properly? Properly being living life and enjoying life, not being sucked in by your surroundings and thought. I am determined to live properly until I die. If we are going to die, then we have to live the best we can. If we don’t live the best we can why should we live? You are given an extraordinary thing, which is life, and you should use it to fulfil everything you desire, that is how life should be lived. The saying, “To live well is to die well,” takes on great meaning. If our life is filled with being caught in the restraints of pain and suffering, then our life doesn’t have the same kind of meaning as if we live in freedom. Knowing that we have to die, I am determined to live my life properly, deeply. If we aren’t able to live with peace, joy, and freedom before we die, then we live as if we are dead already. Hearing the doctors’ words, “You have cancer, you may live for six months.” This completely overwhelms the 2006-05-14T20:15:26-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Death-Does-it-Help-us-Live-28846.aspx Moral Autonomy: A Matter of Innate Reasoning In any functioning society, a system of morals must be present to establish what is right and wrong. Nearly everything in a community is at least loosely based on a code of morals: laws, traditions, government policies, and even simple relationships, such as business transactions. Without such a system society would crumble, since daily operations depend so heavily on shared ethics. In the U.S., a Judeo-Christian ethic largely dominates the culture, but problems still arise. While certain basic values—such as “thou shalt not kill”—can be agreed upon by most of the population, it seems that no single, cohesive moral guideline has been widely accepted, despite the existence of several. Emmanuel Kant, advocating absolutism, and John Stuart Mill, who supports utilitarianism, represent two of the most prominent theories. Both Kant and Mill provide noble visions of morality, and center their thoughts on respectable principles that focus the rest of their works. One principle lies at the heart of both utilitarianism and absolutism. Kant places great faith in the human mind, particularly its ability to use “pure reason,” as opposed to “empirical reason.” In a straightforward way, he explains that “all philosophy insofar as it is founded on experience may be called empirical, while that which sets forth its doctrines entirely on a priori principles may be called pure (Kant, p. 1).” Any conclusions made through sense experience are termed empirical, whereas a doctrine based on a priori thoughts—using only reason—is termed pure. Empirical philosophy, for the most part, can become subjective, but pure reason is solely objective. For Kant, an objective perspective is required for any consideration of morality. He claims that “everyone must admit that if a law is morally valid…then it must carry with it absolute necessity (Kant, p. 2).” A moral law, in the eyes of Kant, must be obligatory for all rational men. Further, “[everyone] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason (Kant, p. 2).” Again, the emphasis is placed on objective thought. The rationale for the absolute nature of moral law cannot be found through 2006-05-01T19:52:19-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Kant-vs_-Mill-Deontology-vs_-Utilitarianism-28774.aspx The Necessity of Liberty In political philosophy, there is no greater question than the proper relationship between the state and the individual. John Rawls directly addresses the issue in his famous work A Theory of Justice, in which he offers a comprehensive argument for an active welfare state. Robert Nozick, his colleague at Harvard, responded only a few years later with Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a work focusing not on a specific formulation of distributive justice, but rather whether any such formulation is possible. Each author develops principles of justice with implications for the role of government. Rawls offers a framework based in the context of social contract theory that appears both logical and egalitarian; his conclusions appeal to both intuition and reason almost inescapably. However, Rawls fails to show an appreciation for the fundamental tension between liberty and equality, and it is a flaw that Nozick duly exposes in his retort. Rawls begins with a Kantian statement that “each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole can override (670).” However, he quickly rejects the premise by declaring “no doubt [these propositions] are expressed too strongly (670).” In the beginning, Rawls acknowledges the tension between an individual and society as a whole. The principles of justice, within his theory, are the principles that best reconcile the interests of the two parties. Society is described as a “cooperative venture for mutual advantage,” although “it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests (670).” Conflict occurs because humans are self-interested. “Social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts,” but “persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed (670).” While society makes each individual member better off, they are constantly competing for the spoils of their cooperative efforts. Necessarily, “a set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of advantages (670).” This set of principles, which decides how goods are to be distributed, represents the principles of justice for Rawls. Proper principles must proceed from a position of fairness and equality: “they are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their 2006-05-01T19:43:02-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Rawls-vs_-Nozick-The-Necessity-of-Liberty-28773.aspx A Comparison of Plato and Aristotle Plato versus Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern. Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the 2006-03-19T09:30:17-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-vs_-Plato-28574.aspx Philosophy Of Law In an attempt to answer the question “What the law is?” Professor J. L. Austin proposes a “Command Theory of Law”. One way of understanding this theory of traditional positivism is to compare it to the famous empires of Medieval Japan. These empires consisted of a single Emperor, or a “sovereign” , that was considered to have the complete obedience of the people in his empire. Another aspect of his authority is the idea that there is no other political figure higher than the Emperor. With such power and status at his disposal, the Emperor is able to inflict any degree of punishment that he sees fit if his commands are not carried out or followed. In describing law as being a command backed by threats of punishment for insubordination, Austin is not arguing that any type of command be considered a law. It would be absurd to think a father commanding his son to take out the garbbage would be a type of command to be considered a law. Rather, being that laws govern entire groups and societies, the commands must originate from an authoritative source or “pedigree” that the people in the society give obedience to. In analyzing Professor Austin’s theory of law, Professor H. L. A. Hart argues that Austin fails to describe the true “essence of law” . Hart views Austin’s command theory of law as no different than a gunman commanding a bank teller to give him the money. In this example, the gunman is in a position of authority (in relation to the bank teller) and is capable of inflicting lethal punishment to the bank teller if his commands are not carried out. Thus, as Hart contends, the bank teller would feel “obliged” to hand the gunman the money for fear of the consequences that may follow if he does not give the money over to the gunman. It is apparent that the fallacy of such a theory is that it does not accurately describe what the law is and where it comes from. One may extract from such a theory the pressumption that the strongest person/group in a particular society will be the one capable of administering commands with threats of punishment. But, as an observer can see in modern society , the administors 2005-12-30T19:20:42-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Philosophy-Of-Law-Command-Theory-of-Law-28328.aspx Descartes And Philosophy Descartes sixth meditation deals with Descartes trying to find the real distinction between the mind and body. Descartes expresses the mind as being separate from the body. I agree 2005-12-24T19:01:31-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Descartes-and-Philosophy-28226.aspx Should medical research with children as subjects ever be carried out? The purpose of this essay is to explore reasons affirmative to medical research on children, without deviating from legal and ethical practices on children . It will discuss in particular, reason’s why children are not little adults, the need for pediatric medicine, the benefits of therapeutic and non-therapeutic research, the difficulties of such research, and a child’s right to promotional well-being. When it comes to medical research subjects, children are a vulnerable population and so are granted special protection from potential research risks. Researchers in pediatrics often encounter conflicts between protecting the children who are vulnerable research subjects (therapeutic research) and developing generalized knowledge to benefit children as a class (non-therapeutic research). It is also stated that benefits of medical research must clearly outweigh the risks. Many guidelines tend to shy away from non-therapeutic research, as it does not directly benefit the child, but the thin line between these types of research often inappropriately excludes children from potentially life-saving research and it withholds potentially effective therapies. Inappropriately excluding children from research effectively denies them the right to promotional well-being. As discussed in the Otago Bioethics Report , ..Research with children is important for the benefit of all children and should be supported, encouraged and conducted in an ethical manner. In fact, to exclude children from participating in scientifically and ethically sound research may be to deny them a basic human right, as it may impede the promotion of their health and well-being. Current policy of Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that we are to recognize “the child has a right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health..”, and “to ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care..” and lastly, “to develop preventive health care.” In order to progress in the field of pediatric medicine, children as subjects are the only way to gain understanding about how to treatment them. This can successfully be done through therapeutic and non-therapeutic research, giving the child direct benefits without undermining their rights, and providing generalized data to treat other cases that may occur. Attempts to protect children from the risks of medical research may have the unfortunate consequence of perilously harming children by impeding research in pediatric drug 2005-12-16T03:35:49-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Medical-Research-with-Children-as-Subjects-28187.aspx Plato's Critique Of Democracy: The Equality of Unequals In order to clearly understand why Plato seems to find democracy and the democratic soul so objectionable one must first understand the definition of what democracy means. Platos discord with democracy does not concern the democracy we know today nor does it directly concern Athenian democracy. Rather, it is the Form of democracy in which he criticizes. For a Greek (man), democracy, meant the rule of the people in a much more literal sense than it does for the citizens of most of the modern states which claim to be democracies. Platos charge against democracy is simply that it violates the proper order of society by creating an artificial equality. His fundamental criticism of democracy is (essentially) that it is an irrational form of the constitution. It is based on the assumption that every citizen is equally entitled to a say in political affairs, no matter how unsuited he is in terms of ability, character or training . Basically no matter how ignorant a person may be, they still could find themselves playing a significant role in public affairs. The key to a successful political career lay in being able to speak persuasivelyfor this reason the art of oratory or public speaking came to be highly valued. A system where value and merit are disregarded and instead unconditional equality promoted disgusted Plato. Plato and Socrates both felt that all people were born with knowledge but that not all people were in touch with the knowledge they possessed. It was through a process of questioning that simply made them recall what was already ingrained. Plato throughout the book rejected the idea that all men are equals. Instead of supposing every man is innately good, Plato holds that every man has a right to pursue the good. Socrates and Plato both believed with much support that all men should strive to reach the highest forms knowledge. Socrates believed in three parts of the individual soul- sensation, emotion, and intelligence. Each part must function in moderation to contribute to the health of the whole. Desire must be inferior to reason, or else it will throw the individual out of balance and lead him into injustice and unhappiness. Emotion can also master desire with the alliance of 2005-09-25T03:41:34-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plato-s-Critique-Of-Democracy-The-Equality-of-Unequals-28020.aspx ‘Conscience should be given no part to play in Decision Making’ Discuss Conscience is defined as ‘the faculty, power, or inward principle which decides as to the character of one's own actions, purposes, and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong, and approving and prompting to that which is right’. Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs. One person can feel a moral duty to go to war whilst another can feel a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances. There are 2 main types of conscience the ‘judicial conscience’ and the ‘legislative conscience’. Judicial conscience is evaluating and critically analysing our past actions or those of others. For example, One would use their judicial conscience when judging if in a certain situation at work they should have dismissed a member of staff regardless of their situation. Legislative Conscience is when one uses prescriptive judgement in order to decide how something needs to be done in the future. For example, one would dwell on their conscience to decide whether to seek revenge on another or to forget the incident. In order to answer this question I will aim to explore the works of key thinkers in the field who proposed theories on Conscience in order to determine my own opinion. The philosophers I will analyse can be divided into two categories, relativist and absolutist. An absolutist philosopher believes that there is one set of absolute truths upon which all decisions are made e.g. Plato. This view in ethics is also referred to as deontological. A deontological view is ruled based and takes a morality and classifies it as either definitely wrong or right. A relativist believes that that truths are dependent upon (relating to) the situations we find ourselves in e.g. Aristotle. A relativist also can often be classified as a consequentialist. A consequentialist argues that what ultimately matters is the consequences that result from choosing one action or policy rather than the alternative. The philosophers that I will analyse are Plato, Aquinas, Hutcheson, Schleirmacher and Butler who relate to conscience through their absolutist ethic. The view on consciousness introduced by Aristotle, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Hegel, Piaget and Moore are relativist. Plato (427BC - 347BC) was the first philosopher to introduce the concept of consciousness. Plato, a student of Socrates, believed that there were some ‘absolute unchanging truths’ defining 2005-09-05T23:16:04-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Conscience-Should-not-be-Involved-in-Decision-Making-27912.aspx A Biography for Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Immanuel Kant was born in Konigsberg, Russia on April 22nd 1724. From a young age he attended a school devoted to the tenets of Pietism (a 17th century evangelical movement) devoted on bible study and personal religious experience. His Mother had no education and devoted her life to God and her family, his father supported her on the little wages he earned from making saddles. In 1740, at the age of sixteen, he enrolled in the University of Koningsberg. He developed a passion for physics and mathematics from a child and continued an in-depth study of these at University. His father died in 1742, which resulted in Kant being forced to drop out of education and become a private tutor to support himself. In 1755, he received financial aid from a friend and continued his education. He obtained a doctorate and became a professor at the institution teaching in mathematics and science for the following fifteen years. Throughout this time he attended a number of lectures by other members of staff in the field of philosophy and eventually began to teach this subject also soon thereafter. Kant began to attract students from all over the world, intrigued by his ideas and concepts of philosophy. He gained national recognition due to his concepts of morality, his idea of the categorical imperative and his description of the autonomy of will. He worked towards making philosophy a scientific concept, that knowledge is also a matter of human reason. Kant lectured on the issue of the existence of God. Agreeing with Hume that no rational argument of the ‘pure reason’ form could be given for God’s existence but however, he proposed that ‘practical reason’ could. Kant believed that in observing moral instincts of people, through the eyes of faith we can see a source behind the mere human will itself that directs life. Kant lived his life in a studious nature, he never married and rarely socialised. He was well regarded as polite and graciousness but rarely adventurous as he never ventured out of his home town. His lifestyle was very regular, he took a walk each day at 4.30pm walking 8 times up and down his street before returning home. Kant began to publish books relating his ideas and concepts on philosophy. In 1785 he published a book entitled ‘Metaphysics of Morals’ and later in 1788. He published his 2005-09-05T23:10:06-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Biography-of-Immanuel-Kant--27909.aspx THE SECOND MEDITATION: I THINK THEREFORE I AM “The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt.” --René Descartes Le Discours de la Méthode, I In the First Meditation, Descartes invites us to think skeptically. He entices us with familiar occasions of error, such as how the size of a distant tower can be mistaken. Next, an even more profound reflection on how dreams and reality are indistinguishable provides suitable justification to abandon all that he previously perceived as being truth. (18, 19) By discarding all familiarity and assumptions, Descartes hopes to eliminate all possible errors in locating new foundations of knowledge. An inescapable consequence of doubting senses and prior beliefs is the introduction of the possibility that God is in fact a malicious deceiver, an all-powerful being capable of confounding the senses. (22) As the Second Meditation begins, Descartes again faces the “inextricable shadows” brought forth by the previous day’s thoughts. (24) He continues to disregard anything that “admits the least doubt” – including all that is perceived by the senses – since anything that is tainted with doubt might as well be considered totally false. (24) However, once an element of truth is discovered and verified, it can be used as a basis for establishing other elements of truth. The first element of truth that is known for certain is that nothing can be confidently known. Such a statement has a curious sort of circular nature: how can I know that nothing is certain, if nothing can be known for certain? The answer simply contains itself in the definition. By knowing that there is nothing for certain, Descartes must abandon all that is reported to him by his senses and believed by him in his thoughts (including his body and the conception of the world around him). (24) At this point, Descartes is not prepared to accept that either himself or God exists. He cannot say that God exists, because there remains the possibility that his thoughts are in fact originating from himself (in which case there would be no need for God). Since he has abandoned all notions of existence and certainty, which includes his own body and senses, is it possible that he himself does not exist? To think a thought is bound to existence by definition; one must exist first before having the 2005-09-02T21:32:09-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Second-Meditation-I-Think-Therefore-I-Am-27867.aspx Analysis of Individual Free Will, Existentialism, Determinism Analyzing our individual free will can be very intriguing and can almost reach the point of being paradoxical. Ultimately, free will determines the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. Obviously, if outside forces determine our choices, we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if our choices are made with total freedom than certainly we must claim responsibility for our choices and actions. The readings I chose offered two quite opposite theories on individual human freedom, determinism vs. existentialism. In comparing these two theories the contrasts are quite outstanding. Evidently, some philosophers felt that human beings did not really have a free will. This view, defined as determinism held that certain casual laws rule what occurs in the universe. There are two major forms of determinism, including hard determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism taught that each of our actions is determined by factors beyond our control such as heredity and environment. From this point of view there can be no real moral responsibility for our actions if our actions were determined by factors beyond our control. There is a complete denial of personal free will in hard determinism. Soft determinism, however, appears to combine determinism and free will. It teaches that all human actions are determined by such things as early childhood experiences thus relinquishing us from total responsibility for our actions caused by such determining factors. However, if my actions were the result of my own reasoning exclusive of outside factors than I must take responsibility for my choices. In total contrast with determinism, existentialism professes the complete freedom of the human being. The particular reading I read dealt with atheistic existentialism, this view of personal freedom rejected a belief in God, feeling that it would be incompatible with the uncertainty and harsh reality of life during the time of two wars. This view shared that a person was not ruled by heredity or environment but was always free at any time to make his own choices. Due to the denial of God, this theory held that there were no existing moral laws, thus, individuals were free to determine their own human nature through choices for which they stand accountable (existentialism, in general, emphasizes what makes each life a unique personal experience as opposed to any existing moral laws). "Authentic" living involves free choices that allows the individual to 2005-08-26T06:28:22-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Individual-Free-Will,-Existentialism,-Determinism-27784.aspx What have I learned about Philosophy? To answer this or any philosophical question, I must first define the key terms in the question. Learned - 1, Acquired knowledge or skill. 2, Become informed or acquainted. Philosophy - 1, The science dealing with the general cause and principles of things. 2, Personal attitude. Now that I have a clear understanding of the key terms I am ready to answer the question at hand. The knowledge that I have acquired about the science dealing with the general cause and principles of things is that I must be clear on my terms. I believe that this is the most important part of Philosophy. If I attempt to answer this or any other question without a clear understanding of the key terms I might incorrectly analysis the question. I can not deal with the general cause and principles of things if I’m not clear on their exact meaning. I have also acquired knowledge about others personal attitude. I have learned that there are many different Philosophies one can have, and that one should not prejudge on that Philosophy. I have learned that in most people’s minds they are right. There are many different perspectives that one could take on the same topic. One instance is many women believe that it is not moral to have sex on a first date. I on the other hand as do many men do not believe that it is immoral to have sex on the first date. Is either of us wrong? No, we both just have different perspectives on the subject, and neither of us should be too quick to judge the other on their perspective. We all grew up in different areas with different friends and role models. These role models and friends have a great effect on the way we perceive things. Many little girls grow up with there moms and dads telling them how special their bodies are and that they should only share this special gift with there husband. On the other hand little boys receive praise when they get there first date, kiss, etc. Is it either of our faults that we think the way we do? No, it is just the way we have been taught. To sum 2005-08-19T07:13:08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/What-have-I-learned-about-Philosophy-27735.aspx [i:a007550c39]Description: This paper discusses Sartre's 'fundamental project' as described in his writing 'No Exit.' This paper is a critique of 'No Exit' written to identify pre-notioned themes of Sartre, in Sartre's writing. Addressed also is the ideology of Sophism.[/i:a007550c39] Jean Paul Sartre and the Fundamental Project In this paper I am addressing Jean Paul Sartre premise of the fundamental project. In my presentation I will first give a brief over view of Sartre's existentialism. Next Sartre's a notions of the spontaneous and reflective phases of consciousness will be my focus Upon discussing the reflective phase I will go into depth about the fundamental project, and why it is pursued, and I will give examples from No Exit. I will conclude by making a brief contrast and comparisson between Garcin, a character from No Exit, and myself. Of all the philosophers we have studied in our forum, I find I am most intrigued by the opinions of Jean Paul Sartre. Jean Paul Sartre is accredited with articulating the premise that "existence precedes essence." Sartre believes that man one day happened, occurred, or arrived on the scene, or in his words, man was one day "dehissed from the hole" and after this anomalous event his life took meaning. I think Sartre is bold in positing this notion which is in stark contrast of widely accepted belief. It is well regarded that life has a meaning that far transcends our short and insignificant lives. For many cultures life is and whether we ever come to terms with life is irrelevant because life will continue regardless of our of whether or not we understand it to any extent. Sartre believes quite the opposite. He believes that life could have no meaning unless we gave meaning to it. I think anyone pondering this notion to any depth would agree. How could life possibly have any meaning if we do not give any meaning to it. For some life has no meaning and they committed horrible atrocities in strict accordance to their belief. For others life has too much meaning and they spend their lives trying to reassure themselves that they have grasped this meaning. I would like to take a moment to inspect this further. There are those in our history who have established a religion. Why? As I have posited, this could well have been done in an attempt to reassure oneself that that he had come to 2005-08-18T09:34:30-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Jean-Paul-Sartre-and-Fundamental-Project_-Existentialism-27728.aspx MACHIAVELLI'S VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE In The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli presents a view of governing a state that is drastically different from that of humanists of his time. Machiavelli believes the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy which would serve his best interests. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power.1 His understanding of human nature was a complete contradiction of what humanists believed and taught. Machiavelli strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but in fact stood in the way of an effectively governed principality.2 Though in come cases Machiavelli's suggestions seem harsh and immoral one must remember that these views were derived out of concern Italy's unstable political condition.3 Though humanists of Machiavelli's time believed that an individual had much to offer to the well being of the state, Machiavelli was quick to mock human nature. Humanists believed that "An individual only 'grows to maturity- both intellectually and morally- through participation' in the life of the state."4 Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that "...in time of adversity, when the state is in need of it's citizens there are few to be found."5 Machiavelli further goes on to question the loyalty of the citizens and advises the Prince that "...because men a wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need keep your word to them."6 However, Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Prince's best interests. If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared bey the citizens within his own principality. He makes the generalization that men are, "...ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well they are yours."7 He characterizes men as being self centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,"[and when the prince] is in danger they turn against [him]."8 Machiavelli reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating: Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by 2005-08-18T09:21:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Machiavelli-s-Philosophy-on-Human-Nature-27720.aspx What is Absolute Understanding? Does Absolute Understanding Exist? [This essay was my first in Philosophy 201.] Absolute Understanding An elephant was brought to a group of blind men who had never encountered such an animal before. One felt a leg and reported that an elephant is a great living pillar. Another felt the trunk and reported that an elephant is a great snake. Another felt a tusk and reported that an elephant is like a sharp ploughshare. And so on. And then they all quarreled together, each claiming that his own account was the truth and therefore all the others false (traditional parable). None of the accounts that the blind men made about the nature of the elephant are absolute truths, nor are the accounts false. An absolute truth, or one that is true for all, can not be achieved because of the constant motion of circumstances of who said it, to whom, when, where, why, and how it was said. Instead of absolute truths, the concepts or beliefs that the blind men claim are viewpoints that each one clarifies the nature of the elephant. Everybody has learned to see things from his or her own sense of reason and logic. The many things that people experience throughout their lifetimes, help to determine the judgments toward the different issues and objects that they encounter. Because individuals has his or her own sense of reason and logic, the perceptions that people encounter are ultimately true, and not false. Life does not contain one truth for any idea or object, but truths can be found in one's perception. It is difficult to determine that anything is the absolute truth. One should not prove that any object contains a true meaning, but should develop conceptions surrounding the object. Attempting to prove anything then would be difficult, if not impossible. Our senses from smell to values to reality may differ from person to person. What may be true to one person may be different for another. Because everybody has different perceptions about life, it is difficult to weigh the content of any concept. Every account, of its own, is formed to be the truth of the one individual who assumes it. The variety of concepts may have the virtue of being considered. This is how people develop a deeper sense of understanding for all objects. Truth is achieved through the concept and not the object itself. Because many individuals hold different 2005-08-15T08:36:33-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Does-Absolute-Understanding-Exist-27670.aspx Post Modernism Multiculturalism, Tolerance, and Political Correctness In recent years, multiculturalism, tolerance and political correctness have been integrated into how American society thinks. America seems to be trying to learn more about the ingredients of her melting pot. These efforts can be best understood by examining post-modernism. Post-modernism is especially important to breaking down stereotypes such as those that exist surrounding the black family. To understand post-modernism we must first understand modernism. Modernism is the philosophy that began with the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an era when science and art flourished. European society used the Enlightenment to object to the oppression of the church. This era emphasized only those things that are observable or measurable (Smith, 1995). The scientific method developed at this time became the standard to which everything is measured. Modernism, although moving away from the confinements of religion, was limiting in its own way. Post-modernism can be viewed as an expansion of modernism. It does not limit the idea of truth to only that which can be observed. Post-modernism is all encompassing. Post-modernism does not allow for only one definition for anything. There are several explanations for phenomena. Where modernism emphasizes racial classifications, post-modernism emphasizes cultural and ethnic classifications. Post-modernism sanctions differences from family to family and person to person within the parameters of one culture. This multiculturalism is being used to educate from primary education through higher education. In Percival and Black’s study with sixth-graders and multiculturalism, they realized that, although they were examining a specific Native American tribe, stereotypes of that tribe or people can develop (2000). For example, all African Americans from the South eat collard greens and corn bread. So, educating oneself about other cultures cannot be used to generalize to the entire group. Post-modernism is, thus, very important to understanding the concept of a black family. Post-modernism reveals that circumstances cannot be explained in one way. Modernism has clear procedures and criteria for defining phenomena. The question of truth is determined by science. Scientists control the worldview or meta-narrative of the dominant group (Western society). Much of the way current societies view the world is dominated by Western culture. The meta-narrative for the black family is defined by the Western standards: income and education and any other quantifiable unit. The history of the black family is difficult to research according to Barnetta McGhee White because there are few written documents to substantiate the 2005-08-01T07:55:44-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Post-Modernism-Multiculturalism-Tolerance-and-Political-Correctness-27515.aspx The Current Crisis in American Morality: How Big Business Has Contributed to, and Ought to Address, the Crisis In this paper, I argue that several features of Big Business in the United States, and its influence on our society, have caused far too many Americans to stop thinking about what is morally right as they choose their actions. An ethical vacuum has been created that Big Business has been only too glad to fill with questionable values that Americans have absorbed without consciously embracing. The time is right, and the stakes have never been higher, for us to reflect on our values and change our thinking and behavior. Big Business and Philosophy each have important roles to play — one because of the power it now has and the other because of the power it ought to have — if we are to improve the moral climate in this country. ____ A large number of Americans have stopped being concerned about what is morally right as they choose their actions. This is a disturbing trend. It demonstrates that many Americans are attempting to escape taking responsibility for their actions in a fundamental way, and in a way that is not really possible because actions that affect others’ lives cannot be entirely value-free. Whether people realize it or not, their actions do reveal underlying values, even if they have not been explicitly embraced. The task of choosing the values by which one lives cannot be escaped and it is more important than people realize, because our values are closely linked to our identity as individuals and as a society. As I have argued in a recent paper, in a significant sense “We Are Our Values.”1 Our choice of values, which affects our actions, determines who we are. They are what we stand for. To attempt to escape thinking about what is morally right amounts to attempting to escape standing for anything. In this paper, I shall discuss how the philosophy and practices of Big Business have contributed to this crisis in American morality and how business executives, as well as philosophers, ought to address the crisis in order to improve the moral climate in this country. There are eight features of Big Business that I would cite as being causal factors in creating our current moral crisis. The first has to do with how its philosophical foundations have been distorted. The American business climate rests on 2005-07-31T00:48:01-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-Big-Business-Contributed-to-Crisis-in-American-Morality-27454.aspx Does life have a meaning? Life, it might be argued, is the distinguishing feature of all organisms and may most usefully be thought of as involving various kinds of complex systems of organization providing individual organisms with the ability to make use of those energy sources available to them for both self maintenance and reproduction. Underlying this deceptively persuasive definition, however, lie those persistent traditional problems inherent in the search for an essential, distinctive substance characteristic of all forms of life. Additionally, as evolution theory makes clear, there is the problem of borderline instances, organisms of which it is not easy to say whether or not they may be defined as being alive. One such case is that of the virus. Viruses are the smallest, simplest living things, smaller than bacteria, and the cause of some of the deadliest diseases known to humanity. They are composed chiefly of nucleic acid wrapped in a coat of protein and are able to multiply only from within living cells. As with all other organisms, the virus depends for its ability to obtain energy and carry out the other processes necessary to sustain life, upon its stock of DNA, the hereditary material that makes up the genes, the "instructions" that determine the traits of every living organism. What is interesting about viruses, however, is that their genetic stock is very meagre indeed, so much so that reliance upon it alone cannot enable them to survive. Nonetheless, viruses do persist from one generation to the next, as if they were alive. How this is managed, as it clearly is in both plants, animals and human beings, bears importantly upon the ways in which "life", at least in the case of viruses, may legitimately be defined. Advances in molecular genetics and the consequent growth in understanding of the developmental processes of organisms have tended to lead to the consensus, among both scientists and philosophers, that no explanatory principles important to the life sciences are likely to be found anywhere but within those sciences themselves. Vitalist notions that there is some feature of living organisms that prevents their natures being entirely explained in physical or chemical terms only have, as a consequence, been increasingly eclipsed. In vitalist doctrine, this mysterious additional feature may be argued to be the presence of a further entity, such as a soul, although it may also be explained as having to do 2005-07-27T23:25:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/What-is-the-Meaning-of-Life-27414.aspx W.E.B. DUBois’s Philosophy and Outlook on Afro American Struggle 1. Basic philosophy on ways in which African-Americans could achieve equality. In a meeting, 1906 at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, W.E.B. Du Bois said "We will not be satisfied to take one jot or title less than our full manhood rights. We claim for ourselves every single right that belongs to a free-born American, political, civil and social; and until we get these rights we will never cease to protest and assail the ears of America." This quote represents one of the ways which he explained ways African- Americans could achieve equality. In a later speech Du Bois argued that Blacks should join together, apart from whiter, to start businesses and industries that would allow blacks to advance themselves economically. This is another way in which he told African Americans to achieve equality. 2. The major Problems facing African-Americans. There were many problems facing African-Americans. One of them was Disfranchisement. This is taking the right of someone, especially, the right of a citizen to vote. Du Bois would have been highly against something like this. Lynching, the hanging of someone by the action of a mob, he felt was a big problem. Also, he never would agree with any sort of thing like this. Du Bois wanted equal opportunity for everyone ,like the whites had. He felt that Blacks should also be able to get an education, and do the same things that the whites did. 3. Opinion on Booker T. Washington's speech at the Atlanta Exposition. Since Booker T. Washington gave a speech at the Atlanta Exposition Du Bois had begun to challenge the leadership of Booker T. Washington, an educator who was then the most influential and admired black in the U.S. Du Bois objected to Washington's strategy of accommodation and compromise with whites in both politics and education. Du Bois perceived the strategy as accepting the denial of black citizenship rights. He also criticized Washington's emphasis on the importance of industrial education for blacks. Which Du Bois felt came at the expense of higher education in acts and humanities. A group of black and white intellectuals who opposed the tactics of Booker T. Washington met in New York City in 1909 to discuss the formation of a new organization dedicated 2005-06-21T04:34:32-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/W_E_B_-DUBois’s-Philosophy-and-Outlook-on-Afro-Americans-27060.aspx Discuss the proposition that Waiting for Godot is an existentialist play, within the first Act. To what extent does the play offer a bleak assessment of the human condition? The play, Waiting For Godot, is centred around two men, Estragon and Vladimir, who are waiting for a Mr. Godot, of whom they know little. Estragon admits himself that he may never recognize Mr. Godot, "Personally I wouldn't know him if I ever saw him." (p.23). Estragon also remarks, "… we hardly know him." (p.23), which illustrates to an audience that the identity of Mr. Godot is irrelevant, as little information is ever given throughout the play about this indefinable Mr. X. What is an important element of the play is the act of waiting for someone or something that never arrives. Western readers may find it natural to speculate on the identity of Godot because of their inordinate need to find answers to questions. Beckett however suggests that the identity of Godot is in itself a rhetorical question. It is possible to stress the for in the waiting for …: to see the purpose of action in two men with a mission, not to be deflected from their compulsive task. "Estragon: … Let's go. Vladimir: We can't. Estragon: Why not? Vladimir: We're waiting for Godot." (p.14). The essence of existentialism concentrates on the concept of the individual's freedom of choice, as opposed to the belief that humans are controlled by a pre-existing omnipotent being, such as God. Estragon and Vladimir have made the choice of waiting, without instruction or guidance, as Vladimir says, "He didn't say for sure he'd come" (p.14), but decides to "wait till we know exactly how we stand" (p.18). Albert Camus, an existentialist writer, believed that boredom or waiting, which is essentially the breakdown of routine or habit, caused people to think seriously about their identity, as Estragon and Vladimir do. In The Plague, Camus suggests that boredom or inactivity causes the individual to think. This is also similar to the idea of meditation, an almost motionless activity, allowing the individual to think with clarity. Camus, and other existential writers, suggested that attempting to answer these rhetorical questions could drive someone to the point of insanity. The tramps continually attempt to prove that they exist, in order to keep their sanity: " We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression that we exist?" (p.69). Waiting in the play induces boredom 2005-06-16T03:40:42-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Is-Waiting-for-Godot-an-existentialist-play-26867.aspx Hummurabi's Laws One could guess that the laws enacted by Amorite King Hammurabi to Babylonians during the 1700's B.C. what the Holy Scriptures are to Christians today. Hammurabi was chosen by King Anum and Illil lord of heaven and earth to "destroy the evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak... to give light to the land." Since Hammurabi was chosen to represent their god Marduk, to establish laws in the best interest of the people, it is understandable why one would think of Moses the "law giver" from the Holy Bible in contrast. While it was originally thought that Hammurabi created the laws that became known as the "Code of Hammurabi," no such claim to power or fame is given to Moses in the Bible. Hammurabis' laws were found to have their origin from a body of long-standing Sumerian laws that he used to summarize the code of laws he enacted. The Code of Hammurabi was an "attempt to incorporate every phase of life into law, covering topics like: commerce, trade, parental and domestic relations, slavery, libel, slander, theft, marriage, adultery, divorce, property rights and ownership, and employer-employee regulations". Hammurabi like his predecessors attempted to appease the deities, while protecting the people through alliances and war. He managed to have a peaceful reign until the last decade of his life when he fought with his enemies and expanded his empire. He combined the newly acquired territory with his inherited lands to form a United Kingdom and his codes were enforced there also. Although Hammurabis' reign was conquered and declined after his death, his set of laws promulgated to unify his diverse subjects and became an enduring legacy. The code of Hammurabi was inscribed on a seven-foot stele (pillar) and glorified in the temple of Marduk. This stele survived over centuries and was rediscovered in 1901 in Iran and is on display today in the Louvre. Could it be that the code inscribed on a stele that led scholars to think the Mosaic laws were influenced by Hammurabi; or was it because the Mosaic Law (commandments) also addressed property laws, justice and other life issues to the people. The laws handed down to the people by Moses were given directly from God by divine inspiration according to the Holy Bible. While Moses wrote the Ten Commandments given to him from God on a stone similar to the one the 2005-06-15T06:20:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Hummurabi-s-Laws-26858.aspx Theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens. Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces. Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war. The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not have a place in a society. Hobbes states that if there is no common power or law “force and fraud are in 2005-05-27T07:13:01-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Theories-of-Thomas-Hobbes-and-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau-26777.aspx Human Nature and Philosophy Human beings are physical objects, according to Hobbes, sophisticated machines all of whose functions and activities can be described and explained in purely mechanistic terms. Even thought itself, therefore, must be understood as an instance of the physical operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of mechanical processes operating within the human nervous system, by means of which the sensible features of material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who perceive them. (Leviathan I 1) Human action is similarly to be explained on Hobbes's view. Specific desires and appetites arise in the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains which must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being. (Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural inclination to relieve the physical pressures that impinge upon our bodies. Human volition is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest present desire. Hobbes nevertheless supposed that human agents are free in the sense that their activities are not under constraint from anyone else. On this compatibilist view, we have no reason to complain about the strict determination of the will so long as we are not subject to interference from outside ourselves. (Leviathan II 21) As Hobbes acknowledged, this account of human nature emphasizes our animal nature, leaving each of us to live independently of everyone else, acting only in his or her own self-interest, without regard for others. This produces what he called the "state of war," a way of life that is certain to prove "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan I 13) The only escape is by entering into contracts with each other—mutually beneficial agreements to surrender our individual interests in order to achieve the advantages of security that only a social existence can provide. (Leviathan I 14) Human Society Unable to rely indefinitely on their individual powers in the effort to secure livelihood and contentment, Hobbes supposed, human beings join together in the formation of a commonwealth. Thus, the commonwealth as a whole embodies a network of associated contracts and provides for the highest form of social organization. On Hobbes's view, the formation of the commonwealth creates a new, artificial person (the Leviathan) to whom 2005-05-27T07:03:41-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Human-Nature-and-Philosophy-26776.aspx Question: Explain higher immediacy by contrasting it with the ethical and the aesthetic. Higher immediacy or religious faith is the most important achievement made by a person because only faith offers an individual to have a chance to become a "true self". Self is what is done throughout life which God judges for infinity. Consequently, humans have a huge responsibility because those decided choices in life constitute the eternal salvation or damnation. With the religious faith, the ethical and aesthetic are needed to form it, that is why they can not be the same. "Faith itself cannot be mediated into the universal, for it would thereby be destroyed." (p.69) To arrive in the position of religious faith, the ethical must first be accepted, and a commitment must be made to choose the ethical and step away from the aesthetic. The ethical, the universal, is what decides what is good and what is evil. These traits are not decided upon by society, however. They are dependent of God and God decides what is good and evil and His definition would outrank any human definition, so humans are constantly in sin. There has to be a recognition of a duty to a higher being, not to just social norms. For example, in the case of Abraham, his actions could have been very irrational and wrong if there was no belief in the religious faith. It is something that must be decided on by the individual, to believe that Abraham was legitimate in obeying God or not. That is was what must be decided as a matter of religious faith. Abraham's "ethical relation is reduced to a relative position contrast with the absolute relation to God." (p. 69). If Abraham's actions were ethically analyzed, it would seem he hated Isaac because he killed him. But since faith is not in the ethical, "by its paradoxical opposition to his love for God, made his act a sacrifice." (p71). Then you have the aesthetic, which is the lowest immediacy because there is no order and order is needed for a structured life. The aesthetic is not a way to live because there is no conscience, or moral sense, where you have that in the ethical and the religious. Living in the moment is bad, selfish and egotistic. In the aesthetic, one is always striving to transform the boring into something interesting for one's own selfish 2005-05-27T07:01:21-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Higher-immediacy-contrasted-with-ethical-and-aesthetic-26774.aspx Berkeley's Theory of Immaterialism As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though, these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual, so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of "the external world" began. As the authoritarinism of the ancients gave way to the more liberal views of the modernists, two main positions concerning epistemology and the nature of the world arose. The first view was exemplified by the empiricists, who stated that all knowledge comes from the senses. In opposition, the rationalists maintained that knowledge comes purely from deduction, and that this knowledge is processed by certain innate schema in the mind. Those that belonged to the empiricist school of thought developed quite separate and distinct ideas concerning the nature of the substratum of sensible objects. John Locke and David Hume upheld the belief that sensible things were composed of material subezce, the basic framework for the materialist position. The main figure who believed that material subezce did not exist is George Berkeley. In truth, it is the immaterialist position that seems the most logical when placed under close scrutiny. The initial groundwork for Berkeley's position is the truism that the materialist is a skeptic. In the writing of his three dialogues, Berkeley develops two characters: Hylas (the materialist) and Philonous (Berkeley himself). Philonous draws upon one central supposition of the materialist to formulate his argument of skepticism against him; this idea is that one can never perceive the real essence of anything. In short, the materialist feels that the information received through sense experience gives a representative picture of the outside world (the representative theory of perception), and one can not penetrate to the true essece of an object. This makes logical sense, for the only way to perceive this real essence would be to become the object itself! Although the idea is logical, it does contain a certain grounding for agnosticism. Let the reader consider this: if there is no way to actually sense the true material essence of anything, and all knowledge in empiricism comes from the senses, then the real material essence can not be perceived and therefore it can not be posited. This deserves careful consideration, 2005-05-27T05:14:55-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Berkeley-s-Theory-of-Immaterialism-26760.aspx The Nature of Tragedy: In the century after Sophocles, the philosopher Aristotle analyzed tragedy. His definition: Tragedy then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions. Aristotle identified six basic elements: (1) plot; (2) character; (3) diction (the choice of style, imagery, etc.); (4) thought (the character's thoughts and the author's meaning); (5) spectacle (all the visual effects; Aristotle considered this to be the least important element); (6) song. According to Aristotle, the central character of a tragedy must not be so virtuous that instead of feeling pity or fear at his or her downfall, we are simply outraged. Also the character cannot be so evil that for the sake of justice we desire his or her misfortune. Instead, best is someone"who is neither outstanding in virtue and righteousness; nor is it through badness or villainy of his own that he falls into misfortune, but rather through some flaw [hamartia]". The character should be famous or prosperous, like Oedipus or Medea. What Aristotle meant by hamartia cannot be established. In each play we read you should particularly consider the following possibilities. (1) A hamartia may be simply an intellectual mistake or an error in judgement. For example when a character has the facts wrong or doesn't know when to stop trying to get dangerous information. (2) Hamartia may be a moral weakness, especially hubris, as when a character is moral in every way except for being prideful enough to insult a god. (Of course you are free to decide that the tragic hero of any play, ancient or modern, does not have a hamartia at all). The terms hamartia and hubris should become basic tools of your critical apparatus. The Concept of Tragedy: The word tragedy can be applied to a genre of literature. It can mean 'any serious and dignified drama that describes a conflict between the hero (protagonist) and a superior force (destiny, chance, society, god) and reaches a sorrowful conclusion that arouses pity or fear in the audience.' From this genre comes the concept of tragedy, a concept which is based on the possibility that a person may be destroyed precisely because of attempting 2005-05-21T09:30:16-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-on-Tragedy--26701.aspx Topic: Is the existence of evil incompatible with the existence of God? If not, is it a reason to suppose that God does not exist? In a strong argument for atheism, J.L. Mackie presents the argument from evil. His logical argument for evil is comprised of showing theists’ beliefs to be inconsistent. He states that God being omnipotent and omni-benevolent is contradictory with the existence of evil. Though his argument seems to be a good one, Mackie does provide four responses, or theodicies that are possible solutions to the problem of evil. Three of these are that ‘evil is necessary as a counterpart to good’, ‘evil is a necessary means to good’, and that ‘the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil,’ which can be seen as deceptive. On the other hand, the fourth possible solution is the theodicy that ‘evil is due to human free will’, which since is not under God’s jurisdiction, can be consistent with the coexistence of God’s omni-benevolence, His omni-potency and the existence of evil. However, I believe that the success of this solution is also based upon the definition of God’s omnipotence. According to Mackie’s definition of omnipotence, I will now proceed to explore why I believe God is not omnipotent and that evil is in fact incompatible with the existence of God. The point of Mackie’s argument is not to prove that God does not exist, but to show the inconsistency of what theists believe, which could then lead to further arguments to determine if God actually exists. The definition of God according to a theist is that God is perfection, which then leads to God being omni-benevolent or all good, omniscient, or all knowing, and omnipotent or all powerful. Mackie looks into God’s omni-benevolence and omni-potency and deems these characteristics of God to be inconsistent with the fact that there is evil in the world, meaning that these three propositions cannot all be true at once. He then logically explains that since God is omni-benevolent, he would want to bring about only good. In addition to that, He being omni-potent should then be a reason that God would have the power to bring about only good. But evil does exist in this world, which means that either God is not omni-benevolent or He is not omnipotent. This is the problem of evil. The two 2005-04-20T05:22:57-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Is-evil-s-existence-incompatible-with-the-existence-of-God-26535.aspx Kantian Philosophy vs. Nietsche Kant escapes the limitations of the apparent world by viewing it through a strictly rational perspective; Neitzsche also achieves this through the will to power of his original code of ethics. Kantian philosophy escapes the apparent world through reason, void of any influence of thought of desires, inclinations and past experiences, called a priori reasoning. One who is capable of using a priori reasoning Kant calls a rational agent. Kantian ethics dictates that one ought to use a priori reasoning to determine maxims, or subjective principles of action (Groundwork 88) which must be motivated by duty. He notes, “what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may,” (Groundwork 84). Kant emphasizes that the most important factor in determining one’s maxims is that he or she uses a priori reasoning, motivated by duty. The primary tenet of Kantian philosophy is the Categorical Imperative. It asserts, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Groundwork 88). The Categorical Imperative ensures that personal maxims one creates are valid because they must be applicable to all of humanity. Furthermore, because Kant insists that each maxim and universal law is decided upon using a priori reasoning, the categorical imperative is free of sentiment and external influence. Thus Kantian ethics, whose root is the Categorical Imperative, escapes the limitations of the “apparent” world. Additionally, Neitzsche’s theory of will to power allows him to escape the apparent world. Will to power consists of many different wills but are united under the desire for autonomy. One commands a will to power and one must obey this will as well. He notes that the nature of philosophy is that the philosopher creates his moral code in his own image, as “a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir” (Nietzsche 13). It is a testament of how his innermost drives are ordered, in comparison with one another. The creation of this philosophy is the “most spiritual will to power” (16) for it establishes a fictional world in which the philosopher is completely autonomous. This fictional world is a point of comparison to the apparent world. It is therefore a world completely outside the limitations of the apparent world; it is a world solely based upon his philosophies, made in his own image. Thus, it is unlike any 2005-04-20T05:03:39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Kantian-Philosophy-vs_-Nietsche-26529.aspx Western Political Thought Midterm: Part I, Question 1 “A Kingdom Divided Cannot Stand” In Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan- Parts One and Two, he presents a commonwealth ruled by a sovereign leader that is based on the laws of nature and the kingdom of God. At the root of the commonwealth is a social contract, which is a covenant binding the individuals of the society to wills and judgments of the sovereign leader. The contract explores the asociality of the human specie and self- preservation which is fundamental to the human drive. Influenced by Hobbes’ social contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau published On the Social Contract presenting his theory of the social contract that both expanded and differed from Hobbes’ principles. Rousseau’s social contract presented the governing factor to be the general will. Although Hobbes and Rousseau have differing Social Contracts they each are represented by the phrase “A kingdom divided cannot stand;” for, the former is a reference to a monarchy and the latter is a reference to the general will. In Hobbes’ Leviathan he presents the asociality of human nature. Because, he notes, human kind is equal in both the body and the mind, men are in a constant state of war with one another. For, from equality arises the desire to attain our goals, which leads to competition between men who are seeking the same end. Thus, out of equality develops diffidence and war. In this state of war men live without any common power and thus, “every man is enemy to every man” (107). Their only security is their strength compounded with the strength of their associates. Because man has no common strength or power, there are no governing laws; hence, there are no injustices. Accordingly, there is no place in the state of war for rights and wrongs. Hobbes notes, “[F]orce and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” (108), both of these virtues are unjust. He concludes that the only motivation man has to seek peace is the fear of the consequences of war. The motivation of fear does not connote social tendencies of the human specie to aid one another; instead, it clearly notes humankind’s selfish disregard of each other. In addition to humankinds’ tendency towards asociality, Hobbes presents people as being inclined towards self-preservation above all other concerns. The theme of self-preservation is presented in what Hobbes calls the right of nature. He explains this 2005-04-20T04:52:08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Thomas-Hobbes-versus-Rousseau-on-Social-Contracts-26527.aspx Western Political Thought Midterm: Part II, Question 1 [i:325dd847f8]Is Descartes’ idea of the role of the founder/legislator types similar to those put forth by Smith and Rousseau? Indeed, are Descartes’ and Rousseau’s ideas of founders indistinguishable?[/i:325dd847f8] The sovereign’s role within a government of a state has been debated for hundreds of years. From this debate has sprouted several forms of thinking, which have been expressed in different types of governments, such as a democracy, aristocracy, or a monarchy. The general role of the sovereign is to maintain the state of peace, by creating laws that enforce the principles of justice; however, the amount of power which the sovereign is endowed differs depending on the school of thought. Upon comparing René Descartes’ Discourse on Method and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Basic Political Writings, it is evident that their methodologies differ. Unlike Descartes’ view of the sovereign as the only and ultimate power whose laws represent the monarch’s private interests, Rousseau believes that because the sovereign is composed of individuals, that the general will is represented. In Descartes’ Discourse on Method he explains his belief in monarchy. He initially came to this realization after spending a day in solitude due to snow. He describes the most important conclusion that he arrived at on this day, “it occurred to me to consider that there is often not so much perfection in works composed of many pieces and made by the hands of various master craftsmen as there is in those works on which but a single individual has work” (7). For, he notes that one man’s mind is more capable of designing an organized, stable method of governing than many men can. He cites buildings, cities and peoples as examples of that which would benefit from this approach. Thus, Descartes is supportive of a monarchy for he recognizes that, due to the one sovereign leader, all of the peoples will be working towards the same end. Accordingly, there will be little inconsistency of values between the people. Descartes explains that in such a society the citizens would form a covenant with the sovereign, promising to uphold and follow his every command and to never accuse the sovereign of wrong-doings. Although there can be no harm in a single architect designing a building or a city, one sovereign leader can, under certain circumstances, cause turmoil within that society. For a leader who creates all the rules, yet he, 2005-04-20T04:49:44-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Descartes-Views-on-Legislator-Versus-Smith-amp-Rousseau-26526.aspx Enlightened Questioners The men, who made the enlightenment happen, questioned the morals of the society they were in. The men in the concept of Truth and modern thought questioned the basics they were taught. Men from the Modern thought era, would have probably not been able to pioneer without the men from the enlightenment, but used their theories, as a playground for the ideas of the Modern Thought Era, and changed every law known to man. Philosophers such as Locke and Voltaire had the same exact same ideas as some modern thinkers, except that they applied them to society. Voltaire for example criticized the church, and the old regime. Fredrich Nietzsche also believed in how many problems there were in any structured conventionally. The only difference that they had, is that Voltaire believed in a constitutional monarchy. The times were also changing then, the government's were becoming more and more liberal, while in Nietzsche's time, and the government was still liberal and not developing much. Voltaire called the church, "The Infamous Thing", while Nietzsche said "God Is dead", showing how much each hated the church. Nietzsche was a bit more explicit in his work, covering many topics, while Voltaire basically wrote, and or fought against the church, and for the English government, as well as Aristocracy of Talent. A philosophe that Nietzsche would not like especially would be Cessare Beccaria, because he set more standards in the Police "system", but tried to make the church step down from the police judgment affairs. Someone who would get along with Cesare Becaria, even though he radicalized a different subject, would have been Charles Darwin. He also believed that the church should step down, but step down from the theory of evolution. Darwin said that "man and ape evolved from the same common ancestor" meaning that God had no hand in the development of man. While Beccaria, stated "Much of current punishment is based on original sin, and that sin would be dealt with in the afterlife, so the criminals should only serve the half of the punishment on Earth. Darwin believed that God made man into man, was a man made taboo, just like Beccaria believed that the crime equaled the absence of law which equaled a social construct. While the only way Darwin affected society, besides the shock that God had not created man, was applied by Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism applies to the 2005-02-21T03:53:19-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Enlightened-Questioners,-Philosophers-26292.aspx Confucianism, Daoism & Legalism Amidst the chaos of political instability and constant warring of the Zhou era, arose many intellectual thinkers that brought such profound impact in the field of politics, religion and philosophy. Even to the day, their influence can be espied in the many matters of China. Confucianism became the paramount school of thinking and later significant philosophies such as Daoism and Legalism gained immense recognition as well. Each party had their own proposals for creating an idealistic political society where the many problems they faced in their everyday lives could be eliminated. All three approaches were very distinct but at the same time, they contained certain similarities as well. In my reasoning, I find that Confucianism and Daoism could be paralleled in many ways to find several common grounds. On the other hand, Legalism goes on to take a more unique approach which was much different from the previous two. Kongzi (Confucius, a Latinized name) was born in 551 B.C.E., to a poor family of the lower nobility. Throughout his life, he relentlessly tried to gain an office with a prominent ruler of the time who was willing to adopt his various concepts. Unfortunately, Confucius died in 479 B.C.E., before such a change ever took place. However, he succeeded in winning over a handful of devote followers who continued his legacy and Confucianism later went on to become one of the most influential thought systems of Chinese history. Of his followers, Mencius and Xunzi became the most renown. Since Confucius did not succeed in completing a manual of his views, these followers had to derive their own interpretations of the system which now formulate, the Analects. The Analects portray an idealized gentleman, and his various duties in terms of the society, family and the rituals. Confucius explains about the way (Dao) which he believed, that if the people accepted its terms and were willing to abide, they would succeed in creating a utopian society. By the beginning of the common era, another philosophy emerges and gains wide acceptance among the commoners. Daoism, just like the predecessor and also as the name implies, puts emphasis on "the way," that a certain individual is to abide to. Even though the two systems had different concepts about the way, the common denominator of both schools was to achieve total harmony in the society. Confucianism focuses mainly on social order while Daoism puts its 2005-02-02T03:44:55-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Confucianism,-Daoism-amp-Legalism-26210.aspx Essay On Animism And The Contributions Of Thales, Anaximander, And Ana In the early times, before the beginning of human civilization and development of philosophy, people believed in the idea that Gods, who basically controlled every individual aspect of human existence, controlled the world. Some primitive people believed in the idea of Animism, or Hylozoism. (The belief that everything in the universe, especially material objects, have some kind of sole or is a living being.) These people believed that rocks, trees, and water had some kind of sole. Animism can still be seen today in Native American tribes as well as the Aboriginal people of Australia. Although the Greek culture didn't believe in Animism, an Ionian named Thales adopted this idea in his own way. Thales was born in the Greek city-state of Ionia in the mid 620's(BC.) Thales did not only study knowledge philosophy, but also practiced science, history, engineering, geography, and politics. Thales was the first of his time to propose theories of a primary substance that causes change, and supports the universe. Thales believed that water was this substance, and the essence of life. He also believed that it was made up of small Gods. Although his theories didn't prove to be right, such as spontaneous generation, or the theory that earthquakes were caused by waves, Thales is considered to be the father of philosophy. Anaximander was another Ionian who happened to be a philosopher. He knew Thales but disagreed with him in his theories. Anaximander wasn't only a philosopher, but a scientist and inventor. He is even credited for creating the first sundial. Anaximander believed in the theory of "apieron." Apieron is the unlimited, indeficit, indestructible substance out of which individual things are created with and destroyed. Although he believed apieron was real, he also believed that it was unexplainable. It would be like saying that the letter W explained the alphabet. He also believed that the formation of the world was due to the separation of opposites, and that the opposites were constantly at war. With these factors, he believed that moderation is the key to success. Although some of his theories were proved wrong, Anaximander was the first person to brush the theory of evolution and was the father of Astronomy and cosmology. Many of Anaximander's accomplishments are still regarded today. Anaximenes was another Greek philosopher who lived around the time of Anaximander. He was 2005-02-02T03:43:20-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Essay-On-Animism-And-The-Contributions-Of-Thales,-Anaximande-26209.aspx In comparing the ethical theories of the Epicureans, Aristotle, and the Stoics it’s found that they possess three separate ideas. These ideas are different in their individual beliefs; yet attempt to accomplish the same goals of creating an inner peace and sense of well being in their followers. Generally these three disciplines had distinctly separate ideas on how to set about accomplishing these goals; the Epicureans felt that the pursuit of pleasure was the correct path to enlightenment, while the Stoics had the idea that the conformation to strict laws regarding virtue was the proper path, and as for Aristotle, he held the middle ground in this debate of the minds, feeling that moderation was the key to complete happiness. Epicurus' ethics was a form of egoistic hedonism, meaning that the only thing essentially valuable is one's own pleasure. Anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to securing pleasure for oneself. Epicurus associated this theory to a refined and individual view of the nature of pleasure, which lead him to recommend a virtuous, moderately frugal life as the best means to securing pleasure. His ethical theories find a foundation in the Aristotelian commonplace that the highest good is what is valued for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else. Epicurus also agreed with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. However, he disagreed with Aristotle by identifying happiness with pleasure. Epicurus gave two reasons for this. The main reason was that pleasure is the only thing that people do having value just for its own sake; that is, Epicurus' ethical hedonism is based upon his psychological hedonism. Everything we do, he claimed, we do for the sake of ultimately gaining pleasure for ourselves. This is supposedly confirmed by observing the obvious behavior of infants, who instinctively pursue pleasure and shun pain. The truth in this is also found in the behavior of adults, but in adults it is more difficult to see that this truth, since they have much more complicated beliefs about what will bring them pleasure. This hedonism was widely denounced in the ancient world as undermining traditional morality. "The trouble with Epicureanism is its assumption that the self is a bundle of natural appetites and passions, and that the end of life is their gratification. Experience shows that such a policy consistently pursued, brings not pleasure but pain to the 2005-02-02T03:40:51-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Ethics-Of-The-Hellenistic-World-26208.aspx Reproducibility of Man When Walter Benjamin wrote The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction in 1969, I am sure he didn’t expect it to parallel the arguments of today’s discussions on the ethics of cloning. In the short shadow of the replication of Dolly the sheep, and five little piglets from Virginia comes the discussion on if this practice should really be allowed, and if so, what limits do you set? How can you look in the eyes of people who have had there family members pass away because the cloning of pigs for their organs have been outlawed. But what do you say when it comes to the question of just raising humans, lets say in a “human farm”, for exact organ and tissue matches. Where do you draw the line on the recreation of things from our past? After finding the perfectly preserved wooly mammoth in the arctic a few years in the past, researchers from several nations have been actively collecting tissue from the remains of the wooly mammoth in preparation for an attempt to bring the beast back from ten thousand years of extinction (Salsberg 1). If you let scientists do this, do you restrict them from cloning mummified Pharos from ancient Egypt, for historical purposes only right? Another issue of cloning a person is the civil rights of those cloned, do you dispose of them if something goes wrong. The practice of cloning, which oddly resembles the disaster of Frankenstein, needs to be restricted in some way, or we all will be living in some sort of odd parallel universe. According to a collaboration of public opinion polls from 1997 when Dolly was first cloned, 87% of Americans believed that the practice of cloning should be banned. Yet the scientists of the world continue to actively pursue this area of science. After doing much research on the internet I came across article after article by Doctors who where so excited about the “miracle” of cloning. Some, even more terrifying, think of the clones as being maintained as mere organ farms, manufactured for their spare parts by persons anticipating the need for transplanting hearts or kidneys, livers or lungs (Ferre 2). While it might sound ethical to recreate a pig for medical purposes you are still sacrificing the life of that animal. But is right to raise a copy of yourself just in case 2005-02-02T03:37:39-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Reproducibility-of-Man-26207.aspx Politics of Plato and Aristotle To compare the political theories of two great philosophers of politics is to first examine each theory in depth. Many experts regard Plato as the first writer of political philosophy, and Aristotle is recognized as the first political scientist. These two men were great thinkers. They each had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. It is necessary to look at several areas of each theory to seek the difference in each. The main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society, in his book “The Republic”. This blueprint was a sketch of a society in which the problems he thought were present in his society would be eased. He lived in times of Peloponnesian War, the time of sunset of Athenian democracy. In addition, he had witnessed Socrates’ trial and execution. Shocked by corruption of Athenian democracy and politics he refused to participate in political life. He believed that neither rational state nor moral individual could be obtained under the rule of democracy. In his works he mentions three dangers that he thought were present in democratic society. Plato believed that common man could not think intelligently about foreign policies, economic, and other state’s matters. He also thought that leaders in democracy were chosen by reasons such a good look, family background, and other non-essential reasons. The third danger was that too much liberty for citizens could turn a democracy to anarchy. In his utopian society Plato sought to cure the afflictions of both human society and human personality. Essentially, Plato wanted to achieve a perfect society. Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. He just wants to improve on the existing one. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, ‘The Politics’, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained. He thought that utopia is an abstract solution, a solution that has no concrete problem. There is no solid evidence that all societies are in need of such drastic reformation as Plato suggests. Aristotle discovers that the best possible has already been obtained. All that can be done is to try to improve on the existing one. Plato's utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary class systems. The highest class was Guardians. The Guardians consist of non-ruling Guardians and ruling Guardians. The non-rulers 2005-02-02T03:36:25-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Politics-of-Plato-and-Aristotle-26206.aspx Plato's Allegory of the Cave compared to the human condition The Allegory Because of how we live, true reality is not obvious to most of us. However, we mistake what we see and hear for reality and truth. This is the basic premise for Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, in which prisoners sit in a cave, chained down, watching images cast on the wall in front of them. They accept these views as reality and they are unable to grasp their overall situation: the cave and images are a ruse, a mere shadow show orchestrated for them by unseen men. At some point, a prisoner is set free and is forced to see the situation inside the cave. Initially, one does not want to give up the security of his or her familiar reality; the person has to be dragged past the fire and up the entranceway. This is a difficult and painful struggle. When individuals step into the sunshine, their eyes slowly accommodate to the light and their fundamental view of the world, of reality, is transformed. They come to see a deeper, more genuine, authentic reality: a reality marked by reason. The individual then makes the painful readjustment back into the darkness of the cave to free the prisoners. However, because he now seems mad -describing a new strange reality - they reject him to the point of threatening to kill him. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a direct representation of the human condition, the circumstances we as humans presently encounter, circumstances such as conceptual frameworks, or basic beliefs, and our typical behaviors in society. The allegory metaphorically describes our situation as human beings in the world today. In his story, Plato utilizes several key elements to portray his metaphor of the human condition. Plato’s image contains pertinent ideas about society that are relevant to my everyday life. Through his reading, I have begun to discover the ideal form, the use of reason over perception to approach, view, and judge all things. Prisoners, watching life unfold on the cave wall in front of them, accepting what they see as truth, as reality, are literally people. Every average person in this world is a prisoner, chained down. These chains that bind the prisoners to the floor are beliefs. Take clothes for instance, a person may not have very much money, so they should not spend enormous amounts on clothing, but the 2005-02-02T03:35:10-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plato-s-Allegory-of-the-Cave-compared-to-the-human-condition-26205.aspx Humanism is the philosophical idea that emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual. The term humanism is most often used to describe a literary and cultural movement that spread through Florence, Venice, Pisa, Milan, Rome and other Italian cities in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It involved a revival of study of the ancient Latin and Greek authors and trying to see what they actually meant. The time in which humanism grew was called the Renaissance, which means rebirth. Humanism expressed a confidence in humanity’s ability to exert control over nature or to shape society according to its needs and desires. There are many different forms of humanism and it exists in different parts of the world. The collection and translation of classical manuscripts became widespread, especially among the nobility and higher clergy. The invention of printing with movable type “gave a further impetus to humanism through dissemination of editions of the classics” (Encarta 1). Although in Italy humanism developed principally in the fields of literature and art, the movement extended into the fields of theology and education, and was a major underlying cause of the Reformation. Neither religion nor God was rejected by humanists. Their goal was to remove religion as a “prime dominating and obstructive force in their lives and to establish it as one of several institutions in society” (Compton’s 2). Religion was seen to have a logical civil function because it no longer pointed only toward heaven as mankind’s main goal; it opened the possibility of happiness and prosperity on Earth. This attitude toward religion helped create tolerance among humanists. Because they believed in the unity of all truth, “they regarded diverse religious points of view as expressions of that one truth” (Compton’s 2). It took several centuries of conflict and effort before the idea of general religious tolerance became widely accepted. By the late fourteenth century, the term studia humanitatis (humanistic studies) had come to mean a well-defined cycle of education, including the study of rhetoric, poetry, grammar, moral philosophy, and history. One of the most influential scholars in the development of humanism in France was the Dutch cleric Desiderius Erasmus. He also played an important part in introducing the humanism movement into England (Encarta 1). From the universities in England, humanism also spread throughout “English 2005-02-01T00:57:20-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Humanism-Research-paper--26188.aspx A man dies. His community's culture deems that he be buried in holy ground lest the community suffer some catastrophe. He, having always been at odds with his community on this point, has left a provision in his will that he be cremated and his ashes scattered into the ocean. The body waits in the hospital while the community debates the issue. What is to be done? The elders have asked for a moral opinion. What is one to say? If the belief that the man must be buried is one deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the community, then a decision to cremate him would cause an uproar. On the other hand, if there are some who sympathize with the man, either decision might cause a schism within the community. The ultimate action would have to depend on much more than the culture's belief about burial. It would have to take into account the culture's beliefs on individual rights, freedom of belief, and the validity of the man's will. It would also have to take into account the moral implications of carrying out a man's dying wish and the repercussions of violating a sacred social institution. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, but by stepping back and weighing the options carefully, one can come to a conclusion which would be the most moral given the situation. I say most moral because there really is no right choice here. Any action taken will most definitely be wrong to at least one group of people. Here no plea can be made to universal morality because neither belief in its specific sense appeals to any pure moral intuition. People on the other side of the world might have neither the belief that the man should be buried, nor the belief that his ashes should be spread. Each person's choice would be too influenced by his own cultural morality, and so nobody would really have a right to judge. Were I to be asked for an opinion on this matter, I feel I would have no authority in my response. It is really the community's choice, and I would be afraid to make a decision which affects people completely strange to me. I doubt they would ask me in the first place, but were I to be asked my opinion I would say that the man should be 2005-01-20T08:00:08-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Culture-and-Man-s-Dying-Wish-26170.aspx Cartesian Dualism Challenged In this paper, I will examine the issues of individuation and identity in Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism. I will begin by addressing the framework of Cartesian dualism. Then I will examine the problems of individuation and identity as they relate to Descartes. Hopefully, after explaining Descartes’ reasoning and subsequently offering my response, I can show with some degree of confidence that the issues of individuation and identity offer a challenge to the Cartesians’ premise of mind-body dualism. Before diving into a critical examination of these two issues, it would be wise to first discuss the basis of Descartes’ philosophy. Descartes begins his discussion of mind by first disregarding everything that he can call into doubt. After this mental cleansing, Descartes is left only with the maxim that ‘I cannot doubt that I am doubting.’ From this conclusion, Descartes states that some entity must be doing this doubting, and claims that this entity is his mind. The Cartesian mind has only one property: thinking. Consequently, Descartes establishes a distinction between mind and body. The two share no characteristics, as the body does not indulge in thinking, the mind’s solitary function. Further, mind and body are independent of each other; mind can exist even in the absence of body. At the same time, Descartes does not doubt that “the mind begins to think as soon as it is implanted in the body of an infant.” Yet the mind does not need the body to engage in introspection, the action of thinking about thinking. Only introspection is immune from illusion, confusion, or doubt. Information about the world outside of mind is prone to these hazards. We cannot conclude with certainty that other minds exist. Thus, the Cartesian is left to what I would dub a lonely existence: “Even if [a Cartesian] prefers to believe that to other human bodies there are harnessed minds not unlike his own, he cannot claim to be able to discover their individual characteristics. Absolute solitude is on this showing the ineluctable destiny of the soul. Only our bodies can meet.” Now I will critically examine Descartes’ mind-body philosophy by addressing the issues of individuation and identity. First, I need to be clear about the issues I am addressing. In order to fully understand the problem of individuation, we need to focus on what the word individuation itself means. We can derive individuation from the Latin 2005-01-20T07:57:49-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Challenge-to-Materialism--26168.aspx Socrates "The aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death." This is a statement made by Socrates in "Phaedo". To some this may seem an absurd statement, as it did to Simmias and Cebes, the men to whom Socrates is speaking. In this essay I will show how Socrates proved his statement to his listeners through a series of defenses. I will present and evaluate these defenses here. After making this bold statement, Socrates first defends himself by first defining death. He questions his listeners until they all agree that death is nothing more than the separation of the body from the soul. The true philosopher does not worry about or fear this because he is not concerned with matters of the body. The true philosopher's goal is the attainment of knowledge and truth. They believe that this can only be attained through the soul, and that the body is a major obstacle to this attainment. This is evident in the statement that Socrates makes in line 66b "...... The body keeps us busy in a thousand ways because of its need for nurture. Moreover, if certain diseases befall it, they impede our search for the truth. It fills us with wants, desires, fears, all sorts of illusions and much nonsense, so that, as it is said, in truth and in fact no thought of any kind ever comes to us from the body." Because of this, the true philosopher tries to separate the soul from the body, because that is the only way knowledge and truth can be attained. Since death is the only way for philosophers to achieve their ultimate goal of separation of soul and body, Socrates says that it would be ridiculous for a man to train himself to live in a state as close to death as possible and then resent it when it comes. He compares this at 68a to men whom at the deaths of their lovers, wives, or sons, who are willing to go to the underworld to see them and be with them. In the same way, a philosopher and true lover of wisdom would not resent going to the only place where he knew he could achieve this knowledge. In his last statements Socrates discusses men who are brave because they 2005-01-08T09:06:19-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Socrates-and-his-Philosophy-26154.aspx Colin Radford, an English philosopher, published a paper in 1975 in which he outlined his “Paradox of Fiction.” A paradox is an instance where two or more statements that are by themselves true, contradict each other. Radford’s paradox is based on three premises which he claim to all be true. The first is that for one to have an emotional response to a story one must believe that that story actually exists or has existed. The second premise is that such beliefs are often lacking when we read stories, and the third is that we clearly have emotional responses to works of fiction. Because these premises contradict each other Radford came to the conclusion that emotional responses to fictional characters and events are “irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent.” Due to the fact that this appears to be a valid conclusion if the premises are true philosophers have questioned the premises the conclusion is based upon. The conclusion is in correct not because the logic is wrong but because they premises are incorrect. Emotions are unexplained and therefore it is impossible to In separate attacks against each of the premises philosophers have used logic to show how all of the premises could be untrue, therefore proving the paradox nonexistent and the conclusion invalid. Emotions aren’t understood. They are a product of our brain, something we fail to completely understand the operations of. Emotions are one of the most complex and enigmatic products of the brain. As a result of our lack of understanding of why we have certain emotions in certain situations there is no way of proving that we can only feel emotions to events we think are real. Because there is no proof either way philosophers can only attempt to find the most logical answer to this problem. Many, including R.T. Allen who wrote, “A novel…is not a presentation of facts. But true statements can be made about what happens in it and beliefs directed towards those events can be true or false. …Once we realize that truth is not confined to the factual, the problem disappears,” is an advocate of this position. I know from my own experience that I often have stronger emotional responses to characters in movies and books that I know are fake than to people I see on the evening news. The emotions we experience in response to fictional stories aren’t the same type of emotions that 2005-01-04T12:56:50-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Colin-Radford-Paradox-of-Fiction-26121.aspx Kantianism And Utilitarinism III. In Kantianism reason is the sole authority for determining what is ethical and what is ethical must be based on a principle or rule that that must apply to every human being universally, without exception. The rule is based on what Kant calls the Categorical Imperative- they base morality on universal laws or rules and not on individual interests or desires. Universal Law is any personal moral rule that can be applied to all human beings without exception. Kant feels that a person should be praised or blamed for their actions based on the intentions with which they acted. He did not believe that one should consider the morality (rightness or wrongness) of an act on the basis of the act's consequences. Therefore a person's motives are the major factor in determining whether a specific action is moral. The focus is on the act and the intention with which it was done rather than on its consequences. The basic principle of utilitarianism is that actions are right to the degree that they promote the greatest good for the greatest number. The general idea is to come up with the greatest amount of happiness among the greatest number of people. The consequences of an act is the only way for determining the moral quality of an act, that is the consequences in terms of happiness produced by an act. Every human act has as its goal happiness, which is looked at in terms of producing positive effects for oneself and loved ones. Utilitarianism differs from Kantianism in that they (utilitarians) understood that our individual actions cannot take into account every human being (as Kant's Categorical Imperative suggests) but rather those who are closest to us. Kant based much on the intentions of the person performing the act where as Utilitarianism looks at the act and judges it according to the amount of positive feeling in the largest number of people. Kant believed that the moral law must be observed and every human is to be treated with respect. Human beings are not to be viewed as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism also believe that humans are to be treated with respect but that respect must take into account the real, everyday situations in which people live. An example of Kantianism 2005-01-03T04:18:48-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Kantianism-And-Utilitarinism-III-26116.aspx Winning isn't everything it's the only thing" is a harsh reality in today's dog eat dog society. Vince Lombardi the author of this quote was a football coach who took the worst team in the league, the Green Bay Packers, and made them into a perennial powerhouse. He was and still is considered to be one of the best coaches ever to coach in the sport of football. His statement holds true in today's game because it is both the athletes and the coach's goal to be the best in their profession. Other coaches who are still coaching developed similar philosophies about sport " winning isn't all that matters. I don't care how many games you win, it's how many championships you win that counts." (Messner P46) All athletes, who play sports, play for that chance to be a champion. Not only do athletes and organizations strive to be number one, but so to do those in the 'real world' that work everyday jobs. People in the work force also strive to be the best at their jobs because with success come rewards. This may be a selfish reason to be successful but without it the world would not be as advanced as it is today. Many sources were used in order to fully understand what Vince Lombardi really stood for. A very helpful source used was ESQUIRE magazine. It included an article printed in 1997 entitled "When football mattered", by David Maraniss. This article described Lombardi's coaching style and how the players respected him and how he respected his players. Athletes who have played for Lombardi spoke on how his coaching philosophy helped them become better players and better people. The article also spoke of how Lombardi lived for football and how he thought about it constantly. This article was a key component of this essay because it expresses how the athletes felt about their coach and how the coach treated his players. The official Vince Lombardi website was another useful source. Vince Lombardi Jr. set up this site. It gave the reader a summary of the many achievements Vince Lombardi achieved throughout his coaching career. There was also a brief review of his famous speech "What it takes to be no. 1". The speech explained how Lombardi thought football should be played and the discipline, commitment, and sacrifice that was needed to be number one. The Toronto sun also 2005-01-03T03:58:44-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Coach-Vince-Lombardi-and-His-Philosophy-Is-Winning-everything-26112.aspx Fated To be Free Fate, is it fact or fiction? Do we believe that we are completely free to do what ever we want and that we alone create our destiny, or are we fated to follow some decided path and no matter what we do we are predestined to live out our life according to someone's plan? Now maybe the bigger question is how do we justify which way is right and which is wrong. I believe that each person develops their own opinion through personal encounters and experiences, and the only correct path is the one that the person believes in and lets that person live their life to its fullest. The people who truly believe in the whole concept of fate are the ones who have it easy. They can look at any situation and say that the outcome, whatever it may be, is because of fate and was meant to be. These are the people who can go skydiving with no fear because they believe that if it is their fate to live, great, if it's their fate to die, well hell it was meant to be. They take the responsibility of their life out of their own hands and put it into the hands of a mystic force called fate. Now that is one hell of a concept. Personally, if I 'm going to do something crazy and stupid, I will be sure all the proper precautions are taken and not count on fate to handle all the details. Then there are the people who believe that their life is completely in their hands and they themselves mold their destiny through their choices and actions. To me this opinion requires way too much worrying and stress on their part if they truly practice it in their daily lives. But it also provides a sense of freedom and independence to do with your life as you please and live your life how you want it. To me, these types of people generally don't take as many risks as the others because they are worried about the consequences that might damage the life they have created. It is like when you build a pyramid out of playing cards. You pick out the best looking cards, the strong and secure ones, and are always ever so careful placing each pair on so that you don't knock down the entire thing. A 2004-12-29T06:18:19-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Composition-on-Fate-26081.aspx Plato believes it is the role of a central government to determine what positions people will have in society. This belief alludes to the ideals of communism or totalitarian socialism, but Plato’s ideas have many deviations from these schools of thought. Plato’s Republic organizes labor through a government run education system that identifies proper roles for each citizen. He justifies this theory of government with his theory of justice. Plato believes justice exists when three parts of a man’s soul, reason, appetite, and spirit, are in harmony with that person’s role in society. It seems that what links most theories of government is their reliance on a theory of justice. The classical liberal theory of justice, that was the foundation for the American Republic, was one that stated that a just society was one in which everyone was treated equally in front of the law. The theory stated that men must be allowed to use whatever skills they had at their disposals to advance their personal fortunes. More collectivist theories of justice hold that a just society must be one in which all people have not only equality of opportunity but equality of the end results of an economy. They don’t feel anyone should be able to use the work of another for their own personal gain. The ideas Plato outlined in the Republic reject the freedom allowed in a liberal country but outline a system of class distinctions that is contrary to collectivist and socialist ideas. His theory is certainly closer to collectivist theories, primarily because he puts the needs of the many over the rights of the one. Some other differences arise from differing ideas about what makes people happy. Plato writes that people are happy when they are fulfilling their proper role in society. Communist theory states that people are happiest when they are working for the collective good of society. An important aspect of Platonic theory to explore is whom he puts in charge. In Plato’s society the country is run by a group called the “Philosopher Kings” who are chosen by his fair public education system. Even though this ruling class would be made up of the smartest and most able in society it would still be a tyranny. Plato felt that any democracy was fatally flawed because the public could be convinced to vote for bad proposals whereas an intellectual elite could be counted on 2004-12-28T07:40:21-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plato-s-Republic-and-Modern-Politics-26069.aspx Aristotle Refutes Plato Aristotle refutes Plato's Theory of Ideas on three basic grounds: that the existence of Ideas contradicts itself by denying the possibility of negations; that his illustrations of Ideas are merely empty metaphors; and that they theory uses impermanent abstractions to create examples of perception. Though the theory is meant to establish concrete standards for the knowledge of reality, Aristotle considers it fraught with inconsistencies and believes that the concept of reality depends upon all forms' correlations to other elements. Ideas, Plato believes, are permanent, self-contained absolutes, which answered to each item of exact knowledge attained through human thought. Also, Ideas are in Plato's view concrete standards by which all human endeavor can be judged, for the hierarchy of all ideas leads to the highest absolute - that of Good. In addition, the theory claims that states of being are contingent upon the mingling of various Forms of existence, that knowledge is objective and thus clearly more real, and that only the processes of nature were valid entities. However, Aristotle attacks this theory on the grounds that Plato's arguments are inconclusive either his assertions are not al all cogent. Aristotle says, or his arguments lead to contradictory conclusions. For example, Aristotle claims that Plato's arguments lead one to conclude that entities (such as anything man-made) and negations of concrete ideas could exist - such as "non-good" in opposition to good. This contradicts Plato's own belief that only natural objects could serve as standards of knowledge. Also, Aristotle refutes Plato's belief that Ideas are perfect entities unto themselves, independent of subjective human experience. Ideas, Aristotle claims, are not abstractions on a proverbial pedestal but mere duplicates of things witnessed in ordinary daily life. The Ideas of things, he says, are not inherent to the objects in particular but created separately and placed apart from the objects themselves. Thus, Aristotle says, Plato's idea that Ideas are perfect entities, intangible to subjective human experience, is meaningless, for all standards are based somewhere in ordinary human activity and perception. Thirdly, Aristotle assails Plato's efforts to find something common to several similar objects at once, a perfect exemplar of the quality those things share. Beauty is a perfect example; Plato considered Beauty both a notion and an ideal, isolated by abstractions and fixed permanently while its representatives fade away. Aristotle claims that abstractions like Beauty cannot be cast as absolutes, independent of temporal human 2004-12-28T06:54:26-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Aristotle-Refutes-Plato--26058.aspx [i:57d2259fd2]What Is The Relationship Between Knowledge Of The Self And Wisdom? [/i:57d2259fd2] Knowledge is information in mind, general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles. The pursuit of happiness must begin and end with self -knowledge. Presumable we must have reasonable accurate information about ourselves to deal effectively with other people and to regulate ourselves we must also know something about our deficiencies in order to grow. There is a formula which I believe in, and which I see demonstrated every day of life. That formula is: Interest leads to education; education leads to knowledge; knowledge leads to awareness; awareness leads to understanding, and understanding alters our perception and (hopefully) our behavior forever. What does all this have to do with wisdom? Wisdom means good sense. It's the knowledge and experience needed to make sensible decisions and judgements, or the good sense shown by the decisions and judgments made. True wisdom allows you to make decisions and choices based on all your learning, self-knowledge, understanding and experience. With our knowledge firmly in hand, we begin to examine situations. The more we examine, the more we learn and the more aware of alternates, options and surrounding influences we become. If we allow ourselves to become aware of all aspects of a thing, we will understand it. With understanding, we are once again forced to make a choice. When you truly understand a thing you must decide whether to accept it as it is; to change it; to eliminate it, or to ignore it. The exercise of this choice should be based in wisdom-which reflects your knowledge, and your understanding of the effects your choice will have on others. There is a strength that comes from knowing. The application of knowledge and awareness happens first. The practice of awareness turns it into knowledge. The correct and timely use of knowledge turns it into wisdom for that person. This wisdom is then imprinted upon the Soul-Mind permanently. If it is a proper application of a personality trait, one will have that personality trait forever. Whatever the situation was that was handled correctly will not occur again as it is now wisdom, and does not have to be re-experienced. Wisdom is the correct expression of the potential of the human seed and, once learned, will not have to be handled again. To quote from Don Juan 'a man of knowledge is one who 2004-12-23T05:29:24-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Relationship-Between-Knowledge-Of-The-Self-And-Wisdom-26022.aspx Q. Why should people in general be moral? A. First, we do not subscribe to the concept that anyone “should” or “should not” be anything. We believe that people can, and usually will, do anything they want to do. We do not feel that we have the right or knowledge to mandate what those actions ought to be. However, your question implies another form of the question - “Is there a benefit to people in general to be moral”? This is a question we can and will answer. To begin, it is important to revisit the difference between moral and ethical. Morals are core values and beliefs. These are things that you have, you can ‘be’ something that you have. Ethics is how you act based upon your beliefs. Thus, you can be ethical. So what are these core values? How is a moral belief different from a religious belief? Core values are the basics, the very foundation from which personal decisions and actions derive. Religious beliefs are statements concerning a condition of the unknown. For example, look at these two statements: “I believe in God.” “I believe that God is good.” The first is a religious statement or belief. It is a concept of an unknown but does not require action or imply any action. It is effective a passive concept. The second is a core value (moral) type of statement as it implies a certain standard of conduct. The key phrasing is “I believe in -“ or “I believe that there is -“ These are always religious types of belief statements. Core value belief statements (morals) will begin “I believe that -“. Ethics require morals because you cannot be ethical if you do have morals. Ethics is how you act based upon your morals: thus, unethical or ethical. So is there a reason, or benefit for people in general to have morals? We think there is. This is because people in general live in communities, or societies. By their nature, societies develop rules of conduct. Rules, however, can be interpreted in any number of ways. This is one reason why we have judges, they are rule (law) interpreters. If a society has well defined morals, and the majority of the people in that society agree to those morals, it is a lot easier to decide how rules should be interpreted. In fact, it becomes a lot easier to know how to act in that society. The more clearly a society has defined its morals, and the more consistent the morals of its individual members (people) are with those society 2004-12-20T04:06:39-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-Should-People-in-General-be-Moral-25862.aspx IB, Theory of Knowledge, 2002 [i:e5dc60c6df]How do beliefs about the world, and beliefs about what is valuable, influence the pursuit of knowledge?[/i:e5dc60c6df] A pursuit, by definition, requires a goal or answer to a question that the pursuer is attempting to reach. This end, towards which effort is directed, is based upon previous knowledge that says that it will be fruitful in some way. Any knowledge that is pursued is, logically, pursued for a reason. This reason must be that the knowledge could prove valuable in some way to the acquirer of the knowledge. What is believed to be valuable would thus greatly influence what knowledge is pursued. Since the beliefs about the world help define what is valuable, they too determine the type of knowledge that is searched for and acquired. This type of knowledge, that people think will be the most valuable to them, is the type of knowledge that is searched for and of course attained before the type of knowledge that is unexpected or thought unnecessary. To logically determine the extent to which the values and beliefs of humanity affect its pursuit of knowledge, all types of knowledge must be considered. Empirical knowledge significantly affects the further pursuit of knowledge; as the type of knowledge that is acquired through experiences, future pursuits of knowledge are frequently based on it. Rational knowledge is applicable because knowledge that is found through experimentation is looked for with a preconceived objective in mind. Metaphysical knowledge must be considered because beliefs about the world and the realm of metaphysics both affect what is deemed valuable. Even the effects of intuitive knowledge must be examined because they are the basis of humanity’s search for knowledge for reasons of preservation. The examples of the pursuit of knowledge based on what people believe to be valuable are almost infinite. In the 15th century, Christopher Columbus hoped to find a path to the Indies and to prove that the world was round. He did so in hopes of achieving the dual blessings of wealth and fame. The queen of Spain decided to finance his expedition because of her metaphysical beliefs in the world and her own interests. She believed that Christianity was the rightful religion and wanted to spread its message. What she believed was her duty towards the natives made her decide to give Columbus three ships so that he would be able to tell the "natives" of Christianity. 2004-12-20T03:40:42-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Pursuit-of-Knowledge-25853.aspx TOK Essay for Theory of Knowledge Class [i:23414d89c4]Science does not as yet have a full understanding of the universe. However, it is suggested that with increased technology and theoretical advance, it may be only decades before this is achieved. Do you agree this is possible? What might be the consequences?[/i:23414d89c4] Science is, at its heart, a quest; a quest whose goal is to create an understanding of the universe. In effect, science attempts to quantify reality. It does this in many ways; through experimentation and observation, through theorizing and testing. This quest has been undergoing since the birth of mankind and yet the further we go the further away the end of the quest seems to be. Despite this, it has been theorized that man will eventually understand the universe through science and its relentless quest for knowledge. Not only has it been said that this is likely, but it has been said that this understanding lies mere decades away from the present. Is this possible, not only mere decades from the present, but is it possible, at all, to achieve an understanding of the universe? In short, no. The extended answer, however, takes a little more time. First, to begin the answer to this question, it is necessary to understand what is meant by understanding the universe. First of all, the word "understanding", according to Funk and Wagnalls standard desk dictionary (Deluxe edition, 1964), means "the act of one who comes to know the meaning or import of; who apprehends". Well, in the realm of science (1), understanding the universe would probably entail the creation of a TOE (Theory of Everything). The TOE is to the theoretical physicist as the holy grail was to King Arthur; it is the most desirable peak of achievement. To the uninitiated, a TOE is a theorem that explains, literally, everything, from the motion of subatomic particles to the existence of black holes and the motion of galaxies. The TOE would, in effect, explain the behaviour and nature of everything in the universe. It could, in effect be a way through which we could understand the universe and it has been theorized that such a theory is not far away. Does this theory, however, if it is created, indicate that we do understand, in full, the nature of the universe. The answer is, simply put, no; not in any regards at all. First of all, the creation of 2004-12-01T05:32:50-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-Can-Science-Ever-have-Full-Understanding-of-the-Universe-25789.aspx How does logic help us clarify or solve problems? Everyday people employ the use of logic to help them clarify or solve problems. Logic may only provide validity or highly probable ideas, but the correct answer, if any, is left for one to decide. The science of thinking and rationalizing, logic is like a double-edge sword. When logic is utilized it may become an efficient tool, capable of discovering correct ideas and understandings. Yet, it can also become an unsolvable maze, causing more confusion than clarity. There are certain methods of logic to determine possible solutions for a problem and to verify them. Induction and deduction are arguments that may give a solution, which is not considered absolutely true but rather having correct reasoning. For logic can only determine “the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning” (Copi, p.5) of a problem. Well these methods can be useful; it still can make a problem more confusing such as with the case of paradoxes. It is up to one to make the leap of faith to decide if the conclusions of the methods are acceptable in practice or not. The argument of induction is based upon the idea of having a set of given general information called the premise. From the premise, one then can formulate a conclusion that supercedes the information, from the problem. A simple example of this is: There was one apple missing from the basket that was in the house. John was seen leaving the house with an apple. Therefore John must have taken the apple. The conclusion made from this argument seems right, but an inductive argument can only produce a probable answer and therefore is not absolutely true. So when induction is used, there is still a chance that the conclusion might be wrong. Hence any inductive conclusion must be thought as highly probable but having a chance that it might be wrong. It is up to one to judge for themselves if they have solved the problem or not. “In induction our reasoning takes us beyond what we already know, it widens our knowledge.” (Dilman, p.29) Induction is used in scientific problems for the reason that with given knowledge on can “provide conclusions whose content exceeds that of their premises.” (Salmon, p.87) Although one must still face the fact that the conclusions of 2004-11-30T02:56:06-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Theory-of-Knowledge-Essay-25784.aspx The dialogue Crito recounts the last days of Socrates of Socrates before his execution was to take place in Athens. In the dialogue Socrates’ friend, Crito, proposes a plan for Socrates to escape from prison. Through the dialogue, Socrates considers the proposal, trying to decide is escaping would be just and morally justified. Both Socrates and Crito present arguments as to whether or not he should escape and the reasons behind each respective decision. After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority of the people of Athens would think of him. Socrates immediately rebuts Crito’s argument by saying, “why should we care so much for what the majority think?” He goes on to refute the argument by using the analogy of the physical trainer to prove his point. In matters concerning the body, the trainer’s opinion has more weight than that of the group. Socrates says in matters concerning the mind, particularly justice and injustice, things should be no different than in matters concerning the body. “We should not then think of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understand justice and injustice, the on, that is, and the truth itself.” (Grude, Pg 50) The argument is an important one because Socrates feels strongly about his response, not only concerning his own situation, but also concerning all matters of justice and injustice. According to Socrates justice and truth go hand in hand. He reaffirms his beliefs from the Apology that one must never do wrong. He argues that breaking a commitment and disobeying the state is always doing a wrong. He compares his relationship to the State to relationship with a parent. He argues that the sate looked for his best interest, care d for him and his children, and made him the person 2004-11-29T18:41:27-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Socratic-Dialogue-Crito-25782.aspx Seeing Conditions What We Believe; Believing Conditions What We See. Theory of Knowledge Seeing conditions what we believe; believing conditions what we see. Seeing conditions what we believe; believing conditions what we see. This is a true statement, although on the surface it appears paradoxical. How can one’s beliefs be affected by physical evidence if the beliefs in question affect how one sees the physical evidence? To best discuss this statement, it is necessary to examine different cases in which either side of the statement might be true. Having done this, it will become easier to resolve the aforementioned paradox. The first statement, “Seeing conditions what we believe,” is quite true. This has been the case for thousands of years and seeing has affected beliefs spanning across the world. To better understand this concept, I shall use the word “seeing” to represent all sensory perceptions. When the ancient Norseman saw a lightning bolt, he hypothesized that it must have been thrown by an angry god. Today when we see it, we regard it merely as an atmospheric discharge. Regardless of the levels of scientific advancement in either culture, it can easily be seen that sensory perception of the lightning bolt triggers a certain response, or belief. For the ancient Norseman, it was that Thor threw it. For the Scientific Rationalist, it is being caused by electromagnetic forces. The converse of the statement, “believing conditions what we see, 8; also works into this example; the Norseman, a rather scientifically unadvanced person, had a polytheistic belief system which made it easy for him to accept Thor and his lightning bolts. A Scientific Rationalist, more scientifically advanced than the Norseman, demands a godless explanation for lightning and thus rationalizes it with a scientific theory. Nonetheless, is quite clear that our sensory perceptions, or “seeing,” as it were, has a conditioning impact upon what we believe. By “seeing” or experiencing different sensory phenomena, we shape our fundamental beliefs. Therefore, “seeing conditions what we believe.” The converse of the statement is equally as true: believing conditions what we see. To illustrate this point of belief conditioning seeing (as well as reaffirming that seeing conditions belief), imagine that two archaeologists in Israel had found what was rumored to be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us further suppose that one ar chaeologist is a Christian whereas the other is an atheist. Upon entering, they find no body. The Christian 2004-11-28T20:46:23-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Paper-on-Seeing-Conditions-What-We-Believe-25773.aspx Natural versus Social Sciences: "An Eye to Designing the Future?" or Concentration on Present Forms? Although the term ‘body of knowledge’ is widely used to describe the cumulative body of all knowledge known by all mankind, this phrase demonstrates a hasty generalization. In fact, this statement is misleading, if not completely erroneous. There are, in essence, two distinct types of knowing with two opposite focuses. The first way of knowing, experimental science, concerns itself with how various objects and phenomenon ‘are’ in their present forms. Social science, however, engages itself in a process where one attempts to discern how things should ‘be’. These two types of knowledge feed from one another’s methods, however they remain two distinct areas of knowing with two distinct focuses. The experimental (or natural) sciences involve Bertrand Russell’s concept of knowledge by acquisition. This knowledge is acquired through direct observation of phenomenon, such as the scientist utilizing controlled experiments in order to support their basic assumptions. This process is that of induction, where the scientists use results accumulated throughout various applications of their experiment to draw buttressed conclusions. The inductive method creates a type of knowledge concerned with the observable forms of its subjects. Conclusions drawn from observation then provide the scientist with the information to attempt to create axioms which can be correctly applied to the natural world. The study of the physical realm does not concentrate on the Platonian ‘ideal form’ of an object or of the phenomenon; rather it concentrates on what it has been and how it has evolved into its present form. It is irrational to say that the natural scientist is concerned with changing his subjects. A chemist is only interested in discovering how his compounds work and their composition, not improving their existence. Natural scientists are only interested in how the natural world operates and how its applications can possibly benefit human society. Although veterinarians and biologists are sometimes interested in improving the lot of animals, these scientists are guilty of anthropomorphism, where as Jeffrey Masson states "not only are the emotions of animals not a respectable field of study, the words associated with emotions are not supposed to be applied to them." Anthropomorphism, or the projection of human emotion and qualities onto animals, is considered scientific blasphemy, since these emotions cannot be proven by induction. The anthropomorphization of animals therefore is an extension of the social sciences, attributing the imperfection of 2004-11-28T20:44:43-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Natural-versus-Social-Sciences-25772.aspx “OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS ARE LIKE A ROAD MAP WHICH HELPS US AVOID WRONG TURNS, BUT WHICH NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED WHENEVER IT IS CONTRADICTED BY OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD” Discuss this simile from the point of view of three of the fields you have examined during your TOK course, and of your experience of the TOK course itself. ---------------------------------------------------- Since the dawn of mankind, Man has striven first to understand, and later to control, the World that surrounds him. Patterns have been noticed, connections inferred, questions asked and answers proposed. "Why are the stars always in the same place when the Nile floods?" That’s the way our brains work, we are nothing less -and nothing more- than symbolic computers. We see things, we draw conclusions, we build up simplified versions of reality, models, that we can understand. And, more often that we’d like to admit, we get it wrong. Having some form or the other of "failsafe" is, therefore, vital if we are to stay on track... The distinction between reality and model, between Truth and metaphor, however, is all too often blurred, or ignored entirely. Often we consider Models, mere derivations, and Reality itself, to be one and the same. ‘Tis not so: the map is not the territory! All our knowledge amounts to is a simplified, digested, approximate, accessible bastardisation of reality. It is our map, marking out the straight and narrow. Of the "path less trodden" it says nothing. From the moment we first open our eyes to the moment we breath our last, we are immersed in a flood of sensory information; and we do more than passively wallow in this sea of input. We (subconsciously, more often than not) select, edit, and subtly modify the data that our senses feed us; we simply cannot deal with it all, not in detail, at least. Thus, perception is very much an active affair: we build our vision of the world. We spot relationships, pick out familiar features; associate the sweet scent of roses with the red flowers we see before us. We choose what features to draw on our map. Homo Sapiens Sapiens, however, is a creature wrought by merciless Nature to fulfil a task, and that task alone: to survive in the Savannah. That the skills evolved for outwitting various predators and prey are any use for anything but hunting/gathering is one of the 2004-11-28T20:44:08-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Theory-of-Knowledge-Essay-on-Choices-in-the-World-25771.aspx Theory of Knowledge Paper for TOK Class 'Don't give me any more facts! I need to make a decision right now!' Although one can question knowledge endlessly, one cannot forever suspend judgement while researching and reflecting. What would it mean to act responsibly in a situation where one cannot possess certainty? How would one justify the decision? The question of decisions which must be made without the support of a full array of facts is an interesting one. Such a decision requires an adherence to a moral code, but also an understanding of probability. Also, the consequences of any action taken must be fully understood before one can make the judgement whether or not it is better to go through with the action or not to pursue it at all. Most people are of the inclination that "lack of certainty is due to lack of knowledge and that if we knew the whole situation . . . we should be able to predict the future with certainty." (Emmet 208), but absolute knowledge is impossible, so decisions can rely only on existing facts. The facts which exist can not be disputed, but they must be in a sufficient number if a decision is to be made. In essence, one must respond to the question of what this sufficient number might be, and this number must be determined in a manner such that the likelihood that the facts are a good approximation of the whole picture is high compared to the potential consequences of one being wrong. In some cases where certainty does not exist, one can employ a simple mathematical probability. For instance, if one were asked the question 'Is it going to rain today?' and the conditions were such that they indicated there would be no rain (ie: not a cloud in the sky), and the weather services had predicted only a 5% chance of rain, it would be a fair and justifiable statement to make to say that it would not rain that day. Of course, this is a statement and not an action, but the action of leading someone to believe that it would not rain of the same conditions existed would also be justifiable. One must take note, though, that in such a case the potential consequences of a wrong decision made (ie: if it did, in fact, rain that very day), are minimal. The consequences must decrease in severity 2004-11-28T20:43:06-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Don-t-give-me-any-more-facts-Justify-this-Decision-25770.aspx This was an essay for my Theory of Knowledge (TOK) IB class. I think it's pretty good. "Our idea of anything is our idea of its sensible effects" – Charles Sanders Pierce. How reliable is our "idea of anything" according to this view? Charles Sanders Pierce states that "Our idea of anything is our idea of its sensible effects." In this paper, an attempt will be made to show the validity of this statement and to justify the exclusion of the imperceptible part of the outside world from our conception of it. For our purposes, we will set a person's mind and ideas apart form everything that goes on in the real world around it. The two that we've just separated, can actually be argued to be within each other, but in this paper, they will be discussed separately, connected through our senses and actions. This is consistent to the current idea of how the brain is believed to work, and it does not have an effect on the result of this paper except in the radical case that one may believe all reality to be an illusion of the mind. Within our current view, the outside world causes stimuli to our senses and these stimuli are transferred to our brain through an intricate network of nerves. Some stimuli invoke automated responses of which we may not even be aware, but others are combined with stimuli from our other senses to help form an idea, or an image in the brain. The brain processes the idea and responds in a pattern built through experience. Throughout this paper, we will mainly concentrate on the first part of this process, the reception of stimuli and the formation of ideas. The only input to our brains are the signals from our senses. Groups and certain patterns of these signals are associated to real world objects or phenomena by experience. These associations are our ideas. When all or part of these signals are induced by stimuli, our brains call the appropriate idea. Given enough stimuli, we conclude the presence of the associated object or phenomenon. Whatever properties or effects of an object we cannot sense, we cannot include in our idea of the object. For example, we do not have a direct sense of radio waves, so looking at a radio broadcast antenna, we can tell what it is but we cannot tell if it 2004-11-28T20:41:39-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-How-Reliable-is-our-Idea-of-Anything-25769.aspx IB Theory of Knowledge Essay: On What Basis Is It Possible to Justify a Hierarchy of Disciplines? Human beings constantly create hierarchies by arranging all things known to them in order of rank. Hierarchies are abound in man's life: our laws, for example, have differing degrees of punishment depending on the severity of the crime. Yet, the ultimate question becomes whether human beings would be justified in creating a hierarchy for the different disciplines of knowledge. If the presence of a clearly observable universal principle governing the discipline is used as a ranking criterion, then the creation of a hierarchy of disciplines is justified. In order to assess the validity of this premise it is necessary to understand exactly what the disciplines are and how they will be classified. By definition, a discipline is a branch of knowledge; consequently, a dissection of knowledge yields eight different disciplines: mathematics, logic, language, natural science, social science, history, moral judgment, and aesthetics. The disciplines will be ranked on the basis of how far the knowledge they contain can be classified under a clearly observable universal principle. Language occupies the very top of the hierarchy. Defined simply as a means of communication, language is as old as humanity itself. In every human culture men have found some means of communicating thoughts and ideas to each other, thereby making language universal. Of course, there are many who would call such a proposition ludicrous. All one has to do is look around to see how much trouble humans have when it comes to bridging the gap created by different languages. Language is not universal simply because people who speak different languages can not communicate with each other. Yet, this view is incorrect because it fails to acknowledge the essential nature of language, which includes assigning symbols and sounds to specific objects. Just because an apple might be called la manzana, jabuka, or la pomme in different languages does not mean that we are talking about a different object. The fact that an object is assigned a name through a clearly observable process proves the presence of a universal principle in language. Language, therefore, serves as the necessary component of all other disciplines, and receives the top notch on the hierarchy. Second from the top lie mathematics and logic. Both of these disciplines are almost completely governed by clearly observable universal laws. For example, two plus two equals four; rain makes 2004-11-28T20:40:27-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/When-is-it-Possible-to-Justify-a-Hierarchy-of-Disciplines-25768.aspx Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay How does the mathematician’s knowledge differ from that of the scientist? This question implies discussing how the knowledge acquired by mathematicians differs from that acquired by scientists. Defining mathematics is never easy. Some claim it is an art, others that it is a science, yet others that it is a tool. Mathematics is also hard to place on the map of human endeavors. Should it be placed by the natural sciences, or does it belong together with philosophy among the human sciences? These questions arise from other, more foundational questions: What sort of knowledge does mathematics contain? What distinguishes the knowledge concerned with mathematics? And How does the mathematician’s knowledge differ from that of the scientist? I am not intending to answer all these questions, but am leaving the former questions open to concentrate on the latter, on how the mathematical knowledge differs from scientific knowledge. The most immediate answer that first pops into your mind is the fact that, while all the sciences are desperately trying to describe what already is in the factual world, mathematics is only concerned with itself and the rather small world built up around it. We only stuff into it what makes sense, thwarting all obscure and incorrect knowledge as erroneous, as non-mathematics. The scientists can not do this. However mysterious and sometimes irrational and insane the recent observations within quantum physics may seem, we cannot simply ignore them. Until better explanations are presented we have to stick to the ones we have because it makes most sense. Mathematicians rarely deal with what makes sense and what does not. A mathematical theory is either correct or is not. Either the theory is proven to work, or it is quickly discarded. Mathematics has no room for doubts. Even if all mathematicians stand up and say "We do not understand this." if it is possible to prove it, it is a fact. Which leads us to the process of acquiring knowledge. Scientists usually work by means of observation. They observe, and draw conclusions from what occurred. For the knowledge is already there, waiting to be harvested. Mathematicians, on the contrary, obtain knowledge by making it up as they go. Mathematics is never there until we make it up. With sciences, if there is nothing to observe, no new knowledge can be obtained. In mathematics, however, if there is nothing to start with, it is quite easy 2004-11-28T02:51:45-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Mathematician-s-Knowledge-Versus-Scientist-s-Knowledge-25764.aspx Humans are not aware of their assumptions or basic beliefs, much as fish are unaware of the water in which they live. In the never-ending human quest of knowledge and truth, there is one certainty which serves as the foundation for all intellectual growth and progress. This certainty is that in life, and therefore in the intellectual outpourings of mankind, there lies a certain degree of bias. Although one who professes to be conscious of this bias attempts to remove it, this can never be done. The reason is very simple. Any new knowledge gained by an individual is gained usually through logical proof of a fact. The logical proof must follow certain steps in order for it to be considered true, and these steps are definitely pre-established by the society in which this man lives. The society makes these basic rules and pre-assumptions for the logical proof to follow because the people within society are the ones who must accept the conclusions of the proof. The problem arises in this situation when the society and the man who proves a "fact" to the society becomes completely oblivious to any assumptions, especially those that are incorrect, and use them to "prove their fact." Although one at first asks how anyone can have a wrong assumption, then prove a fact based upon this assumption, it really is quite simple, and people have been doing it for hundreds of years. For example, in the world view of geography during the 1300's and 1400's, there was a basic assumption made about the shape of the earth. Most people at that time thought that the earth was a flat area, and had an end to it. Understandably, these people could only see as far as the horizon, so they made this assumption. Although modern geographers have proven that the earth is indeed round instead of flat, this did not stop earlier societies from subscribing to the flat earth theory. From this basic assumption, these people went on to develop theories telling what would happen to those unfortunate souls who reached the "end" of the earth. Those who dared to venture into the unknown territory were sure to fall clear off the face of the planet, never to be heard from again. In fact, the explorer credited for discovering the New World, Christopher Columbus, did not have many followers or believers. Many people who heard of his 2004-11-28T02:49:59-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Humans-Are-Unaware-25763.aspx How is the pursuit of scientific knowledge adulterated by the influences of economics, morality and political beliefs? Quite often we think of the pursuit of scientific knowledge as an exploration through which information is gathered solely from experimentation, but experimentation is only one among a variety of ways in which scientists gather information to be formulated into knowledge. Along with experiments, scientists may conduct surveys, or build on pre-existing information using assumptions and theories in order to obtain knowledge in any particular scientific medium. That which the scientists determine as knowledge, however, does not always mirror that which the public receives as new scientific knowledge. Along the path of distribution, the influences of economics, morality and political beliefs can adulterate pure scientific knowledge. Almost all scientists seeking to gain knowledge in a new area have to overcome financial insufficiencies. Whether they need the money for lab equipment or field research or other such projects, sufficient funding is almost always unattainable. Because so little is known about this new field, few are willing to support it. Once more information is discovered and scientists acknowledge the importance of that field, more funding is gradually provided. As seen in the movie And the Band Played On, the AIDS researchers were not able to obtain adequate funding until the seriousness of the AIDS epidemic was thoroughly stressed. Even today, the amount of funding supporting AIDS research remains deficient. Typically, the same is true of any scientific study; the required funding is only provided after the scientists present data compelling enough to promote further studies in that particular area. Next to interfere with the pursuit of scientific knowledge is political beliefs. In a society especially like the one in which we live today where everyone is striving to be "politically correct", it is in the scientists best interest to abide by such standards. Scientists would not want to release any unnecessarily controversial information for the simple reason that such information would not reach an entire spectrum of people. Certain groups of people would be avoided so that the members of these groups would not be offended or shocked by any of the information found by a scientist. For this reason, most of what we know as scientific knowledge has been "watered down" so that it would be tolerated and understood by the general public. In And the Band Played On, the team of scientists used 2004-11-28T02:49:01-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Effect-of-Scientific-Pursuit-on-Economics-and-Morality-25762.aspx IB Essay: Is seeing believing? Or is believing seeing? The concept of belief can be drawn from two distinct sources: what enters the body externally through the senses and what already resides internally in the individual. All five senses, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting, are important in developing thoughts and ideas, but the sense of sight typically sets itself above the others in its effectiveness at creating strong and lasting beliefs. Many times in life, the sense of sight is used to give evidence that will determine what is believed. Logically, believing what you see makes sense. The knowledge is experienced first hand or, as Bertrand Russell would define the term, knowledge by acquaintance. However, at times when a person assumes that they are basing their belief on sight, they are really allowing themselves to see what they already internally believe. The mind can be made to see something in a certain way simply because the belief that it is so is present. Therefore, while seeing conditions what we believe, in the same sense believing also conditions what we see. The natural sciences, for example biology, rely heavily on sight to lend evidence concerning what to believe. When watching cell division through a microscope, a biologist is able to physically see the cells divide and pass through the various stages of prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase. Therefore, the biologist then believes that when cells are moving about in the manner observed in the microscope, they are dividing. After actually seeing cell division, the biologist believes in the observed fashion of division. Through the sense of sight, external information has been taken in and transformed into a belief. However, at times scientists believe that they are seeing cell division when could be seeing something else. The biologist could be seeing a mutated cell, a small, moving cell, or simply something other than a cell. In this case, the biologist would be allowing his or her previously acquired internal beliefs to interfere with what is actually happening. As a result of believing that if cells are moving in a certain format, they are dividing, the biologist sees cell division. Although the process being observed may not be cell division, the biologist sees cell division because he or she believes it to be cell division. In mathematics, the dilemma between seeing and believing is also present. If a series of steps designed to solve 2004-11-28T02:46:40-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Paper-on-Is-seeing-believing-Or-is-believing-seeing-25760.aspx IB Theory of Knowledge TOK Essay: Language as the Ultimate Tool of Control In spoken or written language, words are used to express thoughts. Words provide humans with an effective way of transferring and communicating thoughts. But can thoughts exist without words? If there are no words to convey thoughts, do thoughts really exist? Can language be used to manipulate other disciplines? After a careful analysis it becomes clear that thoughts can not exist without language, making language the ultimate tool for controlling all other disciplines of knowledge. In order to assess the validity of this premise one must first refer to the definition of language as a means of transferring thoughts; a means of communication by assigning to thoughts specific symbols or names -- words. Furthermore, one must define thought as the power to think and imagine. With these main terms defined, it is possible to understand why language is essential for thought. The power of thought, the power to think and imagine, is present only if there are symbols or words to transfer it. If no language exists to transfer thoughts, then thoughts lose all their value and pass into the realm of non-existence. For example, one can not effectively describe a picture without using words. If I try to explain the beauty of Raphael's painting "School of Athens," I must somehow use the words color, appearance, and reality in order succeed. Even if I was only thinking about the painting, I would still have to use the words color, appearance, and reality. Yet, there are those who attack this premise and profess that thoughts are independent of language. They argue that while a person may not be able to communicate without using a language, that same person can think without using a language. However, this approach is false because there is no way that a person can know that he is indeed thinking of a picture without using the word picture. A person can not know that he is thinking of a picture and not a bus or an egg without calling a picture picture, a bus bus, and an egg egg. By using language to assign different words to different objects we draw clear differences between pictures, buses, and eggs -- otherwise, without language, our mind would equate pictures to buses and buses to eggs. Therefore, seeing that thoughts can not exist without language, one must turn to the use 2004-11-28T02:44:09-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Language-as-the-Ultimate-Tool-of-Control-25758.aspx Can Knowledge in Itself be Good or Evil? A discussion of the Duality of Knowledge and the Way in which Human Interpretation Skews its Perception Theory of Knowledge Paper Since the dawn of human civilization, knowledge had always been a controlling force of humanity. The greatest of men and the bloodiest of all tyrants have both used knowledge as a tool to secure control over thousands and to ensure their place in history. Similarly religion, a force that has been around since prehistoric man, continues to manipulate the minds of millions in an effort to control the masses and spread its faith. To this very day the governments of nations feel it is necessary to keep secrets from their people and to censor certain information. In light of these facts, one must ask why countless groups and organization spend millions of dollars in an attempt to gain control of our minds. Has mankind decided that knowledge is inherently evil? That perhaps there are certain things we simply should not know? Conceivably our fear of knowledge lies in its misunderstanding. Knowledge has in the past proven to be both a blessing and a burden, and it is this duality of knowledge that has created a dilemma for human beings for countless centuries. We are often too quick to put the blame on knowledge, yet knowledge without interpretation is ineffectual, only in the mind of a human being can it grow to be a menace or a savior. For one to understand the true nature of knowledge, both the objective and subjective aspects of knowledge must be considered. Knowledge in its purest form, that is before it has been analyzed or thought about by anyone, is objective in nature. For example, at the exact instant a baby is born the parents and a few doctors that were present in the room all gain the objective knowledge that a new life has begun. However, almost immediately after the event the subjective mind takes over this newly acquired knowledge and begins to analyze and interpret it. The mother of the new born child may begin to think of the greatness that her new child will achieve and that perhaps it will discover a new cure for cancer. On the other hand a doctor in the room may take that same knowledge and begin to ponder how this baby is adding to the population explosion and is bringing the 2004-11-28T02:42:56-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Duality-of-Knowledge-Good-vs-Evil-25757.aspx Theory of Knowledge Essay Topic "When you look for truth, do not use your eyes, but look inside yourself, for their lies truth." Discuss this advice from the point of view of the scientist and the artist, and from your own personal experience. Throughout our life, we are often given advice from countless numbers of people and organizations such as friends, relatives, co-workers, governments, and businesses. The advice which they give us can be anything. Some examples are, "You should see this movie. The special effects are great!" and "I think that it would be wise if you put some of your money into the bank instead of spending all of it." The implementation of advice like this, even though it might affect our lives in some way, does not dramatically alter who we are. There are however some pieces of advice that can change much more than what we do. These ones challenge us to look at ourselves and at our world in a new or different way. One such piece of advice is the following: "When you look for truth, do not use your eyes, but look inside yourself, for there lies truth." This statement has the possibility of changing ones view of the world, affecting what one considers to be truth and knowledge, and how they are acquired. There are, obviously, different opinions about this advice, and during the course of this essay I will discuss it from the point of view of the scientist, from the point of view of the artist, and from my personal experiences.. Scientists are those who investigate the world in which we live. They question it, investigate it, and analyze it the hope of understanding more about it and how it works. To the scientist, truth is reality. It is summed up in a statement or a series of statements that accurately describe and explain some aspect of the world. However, the statement is not one that comes from somebody's mind and nowhere else and is instantly truth. The scientist might propose something that could be the truth. The statement must be supported by evidence, and it must hold true investigation after investigation, experiment after experiment. Scientists in all disciplines ask a question, propose a solution, investigate it, and see if it what they propose holds. One might say now, "Since a scientist proposes a solution to a question, and that proposal might be 2004-11-28T02:40:55-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/TOK-Essay-on-Truth-25756.aspx Two hundred years ago, to question the absolute worth of human life was an unforgivable offense. Individuals who attempted suicide were often punished in courts, and even sent to work camps. Those who were successful were often buried with stakes in their hearts, and the state confiscated their property rather than dispersing it to their relatives. If taking one’s own life were so serious, asking a doctor to help one commit suicide would have been unthinkable. Although our society is certainly more liberal today, physician assisted suicide remains a perplexing question, both legally and morally. In this paper, I will argue for the moral permissibility of euthanasia. First, I will deal with the moral permissibility of assisted suicide as a principle, and then I shall explore the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Finally, I will conclude with a short discussion of the legality of assisted suicide. In the interests of brevity, I shall consider voluntary euthanasia only for individuals who are terminally ill and suffering from unmanageable pain. All arguments will be evaluated from a utilitarian and deontological perspective. The first argument for euthanasia is a utilitarian one. “Actions,” according to the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, “are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce pain or the reverse of happiness.” If we were to apply a hedonistic calculus to the case of a terminally ill patient suffering from severe, untreatable pain, we would see that the happiness is maximized and pain minimized by euthanasia. The sort of pain caused by an advanced, terminal illness would clearly score a negative value, perhaps a negative seven. The level of pain and the progression of the disease would also render the person unable to enjoy the activities that made his life pleasurable, so there could be no higher intellectual or emotional pleasures to balance the physical pain. At best, the person continues to suffer at the negative seven; if his illness has not reached its climax, his suffering may increase. In contrast, his death will create a value of zero, and thus misery is reduced. Moreover, his family and friends will be spared the pain of watching him suffer through a prolonged illness. Hospital space and resources will be free for patients with more treatable conditions. (Lest such concerns sound callous, it is important to recognize that utilitarianism requires us to evaluate all possible 2004-10-29T22:20:14-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Euthanasia-Comparing-Kantian-And-Utilitarian-Ideas-25608.aspx Applying the views of Epictetus to Everyday Living The human condition is in a constant state of evolution. Through experiences that are usually thrusted into a category of either positive or negative depending on their direct effect on us, we are always changing. Early on in life we become aware of this certainty and learn to accept it on some levels. But as human nature would have it we are determined to be in full control of our environment and ourselves at all times. This is the nature of the beast and a human characteristic that both limits and enslaves us all in relation to our own mental and emotional levels. Life is given to us as a gift. What we do with it from there is for the most part in our control, in addition to our own actions and judgments. Other than that, there is little that is in our direct control. But as nature must have it human beings refuse to accept this and spend the majority of their time in this gift of life at a constant battle with that with which they have absolutely no control over. Thus there levels of joy and sorrow, honor and pleasure all become based primarily on what else, but that which is un-controllable. This is a fact that many would both deny and cast aside upon first approach, but with honesty and true insight into ones own actions and thoughts it would quickly become apparent. Although this is in fact human nature, that in no way means that it is irreversible. The Handbook of Epictetus presents the views of the stoic Epictetus. Through his advice we immediately become aware of the faults of many men. It becomes apparent how we all seem to make our own lives that much more difficult. Through a careful presentation of Epictetus views I will attempt to summarize his thoughts in a way that will give an explicit view on how one should live their life. I will then interpret these views into modern day living so that through its application ones life will become simplified and therefore enhanced. The most succinct statement on Epictetus view of the best possible condition for a human being to be in is: “ Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want 2004-10-29T22:17:12-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Handbook-of-Epictetus-25607.aspx In my life on this planet I have come to question many things that many take on as blind faith. We all know that someday we will 'physically' die, Yet, we continuously deny the forces working inside ourselves which want to search out the true outcome of what may or may not come after death. It's far easier for humanity to accept that they will go on to a safe haven and be forgiven for all, rather than to question the existence of a super omnipotent being. Fortunately, there are some of us who tend to question the why's and how's that come before us. We question the creation of humanity and the religious teachings received from our parents, our church and our society. This paper examines the many rational arguments for and against the existence of God. It is based on the views of some of the great philosophers and scientists of our world. I will show that there is no sufficient proof or comprehensive arguments for the existence of God. Some people search for eternal peace through the beliefs in God; but this is an impossible belief because of the chances, the plausibility, and because of science. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS God generally refers to one supreme, holy, personal being,. The divine unity of ultimate good-ness and of ultimate reality. St. Anselm of Canterbury developed what we have learned to be the ontological argument. He began his argument by saying that even a fool can grasp or understand the concept of "a being than of which nothing greater can be conceived." He continues to state that a fool would say that the concept of this being's existence is only in his mind and in the mind of others but not in reality. However he also admits to the possibility of this being existing in reality. Whatever is understood by the fool is argued that than which nothing is greater can be conceived cannot solely exist in the mind but also in reality, hence, God exists. (Angelfire) This personally sounds like a salesperson's pitch to confuse and conquer for a sale. Gaunilo felt the same. He frequently debated with St. Anselm on behalf of the fool. He stated that it was not possible to visualize the concept of this perfect being because one can only imagine an image when one has an idea of what that image is suppose to resemble. 2004-09-25T05:49:01-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Is-there-a-God--25565.aspx David Hume Theories Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his family's second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his family's estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers, business and law. Occasionally, he served on diplomatic missions in France and other countries. Hume's major work, A Treatise of Human Nature, was not well understood when first published, and received much criticism. The first two volumes were published in 1739, and the third in 1740. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers did notice his work and began respecting Hume for his reasoning. Later, he republished the first and third volumes as An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, and An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals in 1748 and 1751 respectively. The second volume was used as Part 2 of Four Dissertations in 1757. During his lifetime Hume's reputation derived from the publication of his Political Discourses (1751) and six-volume History of England (1754-1762)," (Langley 415). David Hume discovered he was literary celebrity when visiting France in 1763. He retired to Edinburgh in 1769 and lived a happy life. He passed away August 25, 1776 and left in his will that he only wanted his name and date on his gravestone, "leaving it to posterity to add the rest," (Langley 415). Skepticism is the belief that people can not know the nature of things because perception reveals things not as they are, but as we experience them. In other words, knowledge is never known in truth, and humans should always question it. David Hume advanced skepticism to what he called mitigated skepticism. Mitigated skepticism was his approach to try to rid skepticism of the thoughts of human origin, and only include questions that people may begin to understand. Hume's goal was to limit 2004-06-10T06:12:04-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Dave-Hume-Theory-Analysis-Discussion-25138.aspx A Comparison of Classic And Contemporary Philosophers Why is it so important that young children in our society receive a good education? The answer to that question is very simple; because they are our future. The old saying “the youth of today are the leaders off tomorrow” holds more truth than many people realize. By giving children a good start at an early age we are only helping ourselves as well as the children. A good example of this is can be seen in our society. By the time a teacher in our society retires from his or her position their students will have made it out into the real world and taken jobs. This new generation will be the ones to make the decisions about laws such as Social Security, and Medicaid. The students will be able to turn these programs around and make them more beneficial to their recipients. These teachers who are now retired will be the ones who are collecting Social Security and reaping the benefits of the children’s solid education. The idea of educating the youth is not even close to a new idea. Philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau in the seventeen hundreds and even farther back than that to the time of Plato in three hundred eighty six B.C. and after. Both of these great men shared similar ideas on how children should be taught so that they can get the most out of their education. Though educational philosophy dates back thousands of years, there are still many great thinkers who are revolutionizing teaching with their philosophies today. In the later part of the twentieth century there was also Paulo Friere who is considered by some to be the greatest thinker of his time and also Maxine Greene who has also greatly changed education in today’s society. Thanks to these great minds along with many others, modern day education was revolutionized. Many of the teaching techniques and ideals that are practiced in the classroom today originated from these philosophers. These four philosophers though from two very different time periods had some very similar ideas about education. Jean Jacques Rousseau said that children are born innocent and pure, and become contaminated by the world, as they grow older. “Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the 2004-03-20T12:45:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/A-Comparison-of-Classic-And-Contemporary-Philosophers-68.aspx I. Introduction In the year 1098, the monk/arch-bishop/philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) began work on his third text the Prosologium. Though he had written at length before, primarily on interpretative doctrines of religious theology, in the Prosologium he attempted a bold new task. His attempt was to prove the existence of god, through the means just of reason. His efforts produced “the ontological argument” (sometimes referred to as the “argument from perfection” or the “argument from reason”), debated not just during his time, but also for literally a full millennium after. For this noble effort, he is often credited as being “the father of medieval scholastic thought” To better acquaint the reader with the circumstances of the authorship of the Ontological Argument, it may be worthwhile to engage in a thought experiment. Imagine you are a monk living in the middle of the middle ages. The church is extremely strong, and rarely does anyone publicly state beliefs other then those of orthodox religion. Nevertheless, times are not well and more and more people are losing faith. Besides just debating the intricacies of religious interpretation, a puzzle enters your mind. Perhaps you could construct an argument that would be powerful enough to convince even those damned heretics of the truth of your faith. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Ah but how could one achieve that feat? The first thought might be to simply read a passage in the Bible that states that god exists. But if somebody is questioning the existence of god, they probably aren’t going to buy that one. What common ground do you then have with them? Well, the heretics claim to be using reason to support their claims. Hmmm, what if you could use their weapon – reason – and fight them on their own turf? This might have been along the lines of what Anselm was thinking in constructing his argument. In this paper, the author will look first at the properties of Anselm’s Ontological Argument (that it is deductive and a-priori), reflect on the simple historical form and expand that into the full modern form. Then the author will conduct a review by premise, including objections to the soundness of each premise. The links between premises and validity will then be examined. The author will than consider external objections (of which Guanilo’s perfect island argument is an excellent example). Finally, the argument will not be accepted for reasons to be 2004-02-23T00:43:38-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Ontological-Argument-51.aspx