Western philosophy has been for the most part in serious error for the last three centuries. The book the Ten Philosophical Mistakes by Mortimer J. Adler sets out to explain where most of modern philosophical mistakes where made by the philosophers of the seventeenth century. Adler was considered to be one of the most well spoken philosophers of the 20th century and he proves that, throughout his book, when he disputes the flawed reasoning’s and introduces us to the correct reasoning’s. Adler was referred to as “the philosopher for the everyman”, because he recognized the massive importance of correct philosophical ideas in everyday life and tried to state the complex idea in terms that someone who is not a philosophy major can easily understand. Although he puts things in simple to understand ways he still uses precise words. When Adler gives examples he uses the most down to earth everyday examples so readers can relate to …show more content…
This error has to do with the philosophy of language. The error has to due with the fact that ideas are meanings and the failure to realize that we can acquire meanings from words. Locke argued that words are useless in communicating ideas and Hobbes and Russell stated that words could only be spoken about real things. Adler explains that the correct view consists in seeing that our ideas are the formal signs we can never come to understand. They enable us to apprehend all the objects we do apprehend. Adler says that we need stop wasting time trying to figure out why we call things certain things, but instead spend time figuring out how to use words. “Don’t look for the meaning; look for the use.” Adler unlike Kant and Hagel looks past why we use words because he says we can use a word without first understanding its meaning. He concludes with saying that language does not control thought, as other philosophers appear to believe. It is the other way
Frost, S. E. Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers: a Survey of Their Basic Ideas.
Michael Sandel is a distinguished political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University. Sandel is best known for his best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. While he is an acclaimed professor if government, he has also delved deeply into the ethics of biotechnology. At Harvard, Sandel has taught a course called "Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature" and from 2002 to 2005 he served on the President’s Council on Bioethics (Harvard University Department of Government, 2013). In 2007, Sandel published his book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, in which he explains unethical implications biotechnology has and may have in the near future regarding genetic engineering.
In Louis H. Sullivan’s article, “Thought,” he claims that our thoughts aren’t our own, but that they’re thoughts that other people have had. Sullivan’s article hits many points such as how the mind thinks, the written or spoken language, forms of communication etc. From discussing if we think in images or with words. He believes that people only need words as a spoken language but there are other ways to express yourself as well. He uses the example of music, painting and sculpture that are other ways of expressing yourself also by gestures or facial expression. How can our thoughts belong to someone else? Sometimes we do think alike with other people but our mind developed it on its own. Throughout his writing he claims that the things we
Jared Diamond makes the argument that when humans decided 10,000 years ago to no longer be hunter-gatherers and made the decision to become sedentary and start domesticating their animals and crops, the result is that the human race has experienced a steady downfall. Diamond makes the point that “with agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism that curse our existence,” (Diamond). While the present system certainly is far from being perfected, Diamond’s various complaints and solutions certainly would not be of much use in the present time either.
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume begins by contrasting two aspects of human reasoning, which falls under moral philosophy, or the science of human nature (Hume 1). One aspect focuses on shaping human actions while the other focuses on reason. The first is easy and obvious and the other is abstruse and accurate. Hume shows that the easy and obvious philosophy appears more in common life; it allows humans to become more of what is considered virtuous and encourages sentiments. People who prefer the easy philosophy often think that it is more useful and acceptable than abstruse philosophy. In Section 1, he says that if the advocates for easy and obvious philosophy would cease to belittle abstruse and accurate philosophy, he would have no agreement and would leave it up to people to choose according to their personal desires. However, it is not the case and some advocates suggest that abstruse philosophy also referred to as “metaphysics,” be banished, and so Hume attempts to defend the abstruse philosophy.
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the ability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” (Kant pg.54) Perhaps these sentences are amongst the finest representation of the modern time and its rationality. Modernity is believed to be the transition from a traditional folk society to urban industrial societies, a transition that alters all parts of society in a certain way. Modernism was a response to industrialization, and the influence industrialization had on humanity. Society had a tremendous change over the 19th century, and by WWI it must have seemed as if the world was a horrifying and hopeless place. One evident example can be seen in the book “All Quiet on the Western Front”, which is a
There are thousands of credible philosophers for people to study today, therefore the choice of who to study becomes a burdening task. Each single one has amazing knowledge and insight that we could all learn something from. There are people who don’t call themselves philosophers but bring philosophical thought to us, and then there are those who dedicate their lives to the love of wisdom. Philosophers have existed for thousands of years, and as long as the sun comes up, there will be philosophers in the future. The human mind is made for philosophizing. So as we young, blossoming philosophers try and make sense of the world in general and the philosophical world specifically, we must find people to enlighten us and share with us their knowledge and theories. These people can range from ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius, to early Greek philosophers such as Plato, to more modern philosophers such as Descartes or Locke. Each philosopher brings a different aspect to our learning in their differences in time, culture, knowledge and personality. Many philosophers have a great and withstanding reputation attached to their name, therefore gaining worldwide respect and inquiry. Two of those philosophers are Plato and Confucius. They are perhaps two of the most recognized names in philosophy, and rightly so because of their contributions to the world. All the knowledge that is spoon-fed to us today was not available to these early philosophers, so it makes their ideas even more commendable. Both of these men dedicated their lives to philosophy, and because of that, they have everlasting places in the philosophical world. They are widely followed even today because of their breakthrough theories. Plato an...
In the course of developing his own philosophy, Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) has thoroughly and incisively analyzed much of classical philosophy. Zubiri ultimately parts company with Aristotle and classical philosophy because he believes that despite its successes and insights, it suffers from fundamental errors with respect to both point of departure and the answers given to certain critical questions. In many cases, these errors have been set into high relief by developments in modern science; in others, they have been made visible by the critique of philosophers not in the classical tradition.
In Erich Fromm’s quote, it's hard agreeing towards one option when a person can come up with millions of scenarios for it. Take for example, while typing this a sibling of mine argued against the idea. Ten minutes later, an argument that was filled with a ton of “what if’s” lead to two keywords, can only. “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel ( not a revolutionary).” Meaning that is the only thing they are able to do. If the man had the option, that would be a totally different story, but they can only obey what is being said, not the opposite of what the quote states. A man usually has an option towards everything, but when limiting the choice down to what they must do,
Locke writes, “The greatest part of disputes were more about the signification of words than a real difference in the conception of things” (Bizzell and Herzberg, 822). The issue for Locke was the perception of language imperfectly represents things. Moreover, this highlights Locke’s concept of imperfection. Locke states, “The imperfection of words is the doubtfulness…which is caused by the sort of ideas they stand for” (Bizzell and Herzberg,
Said, Edward W. “The Clash of Ignorance”. The Nation. 22 October 2001. Web. 7 May 2018
Adler first looks in chapter one at the idea of "enough." Several examples help bring this concept to light: the speed limit is often just right, not too fast and not too slow; the number of pills a doctor prescribes would be said to be not too little or too much. One may even pay more
Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappan, NJ: F.H. Revell, 1976. Print.
Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy is indeed a historical, philosophical, and remarkably literary treasure. It provides valuable insight into the minds of men that were instrumental to the philosophical realm and, perhaps more imperatively, assisted in the shaping of humanity as it is today in terms of morals and basic foundations of thought. This piece of historiography truly finalized my studies for the past three years in a marvelous and proper way as Durant’s works have been such a pivotal keystone in my academic maturation; to leaf through one of this eminent historian’s crucial masterworks was immeasurably rewarding, as I could, from time to time, detect hints of his natural and charismatic writing style that bears an often humorous and distinctly human, rather than mechanical, character despite its undeniable objectivity.
Bertrand Russell explains in his article that the value of philosophy is not in the definite answers, but in the questions and possibilities that it raises. He states that “The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.” This can relate to the Milesians, the answers they came up with weren’t important, but the process used to get them. He says that the more we practice philosophy the more we begin to question everyday things in our life, and we come to find that the answers are only bigger questions. These questions lead to limitless possibilities, broadened horizons, and freedom from what we “know”. Russell hints that philosophy can help you see things in a different light, in a sense taking off the rose colored glasses and seeing the world for what it is.