In this paper I will talk about 3 main topics and describe what each one means to me as well as compare and contrast. The 3 main points will be metaphysics, epistemology, and political philosophy.
First let’s start off with metaphysics, I’ll be comparing and contrasting 2 major theories regarding to metaphysics which are materialism and idealism. First let’s start off with my theory of if the nature of reality personally I think different people have different realities, though I would disagree that a reality is a fixed thing. But, when regarding to a “fixed” reality we can think of 1 of Robert Frosts most popular poems about “two roads diverged in a yellow wood” which is where a traveler has to make a choice over which path to take, in the
…show more content…
Now that I’ve given my own opinion let’s compare and contrast materialism and idealism. First let’s start off with what each one means then go into comparing and contrasting them both. Let’s start with materialism which means according to google in regarding to philosophy means “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movement and modifications.” Now idealism according to google in regarding to philosophy means “any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.” First, let’s compare materialism and idealism from a definition point of view now we can’t really compare the 2 other saying that both have to do with the mind just. Now when contrasting the 2 from a definition point of view we can see that with materialism it says that nothing exists expect for what we see in matter and its movement and modifications whereas with idealism any system we have to just think about and the knowledge in our mind are held in a dependent way of the activity of our minds. When comparing and …show more content…
First let’s start with what political philosophy means according to google political philosophy means “the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority.” Personally I feel that the type an ideal type of government is very much on how Aquinas sees the politics and how he sees an ideal government is by protecting the common good by “keeping the peace, by organizing and harmonizing the activities of citizens, by providing for the resources to sustain life, and precluding or thwarting obstacles and hindrances to the good life” (Thomas Aquinas’, 4). This to me is an ideal government because in the end it protects everyone and there are laws that are put in place to ultimately protect the good of the people and with everyone on a common goal to protect the good of the people it would be great considering on what is going in the world today. Now that I’ve given my opinion let’s compare and contrast Aquinas and John Locke in their differences on their political views. First let’s start with contrasting the 2 we have already seen that Aquinas is all for a government that protects its citizens and keeps the peace, now with John Locke he wanted more of a government that was more of a legitimate civil government that was meant to preserve the rights of life, liberty, health, and the property
(1) Kelly, Thomas (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg.1 – 36.
Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism and subject each to critical scrutiny in detail. Compare and contrast ethical egoism with virtue theory.
In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one's self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one's own action. There are many different forms of egoism, for example, there is psychological egoism, ethical egoism, rational egoism and much more. All these different types of egoism differ in different types of ways but in of all of them it is implied that we are all self-interested and not interested in others.
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
...ernational Journal Of Applied Philosophy 21.1 (2007): 1-24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
Smith, Q., & Oaklander, L. N. (1995).Time, change, and freedom an introduction to metaphysics. London: Routledge.
If we take time and observe our surroundings, we see people are more concerned about the amount of Louis Vuttons or Michael Kors bags does one purchase than being aware of the person well being because this world today is all about objects than people. The author of the case of consumer society has presented the modern society in such a way that if we stop and think and look around how are generation today has become, making our world a world of materialism. According to karl marx, our world today is a world of objects as mentioned in the case that we have started given priotity more to our purchases than to people around us for example in a gathering of teens, half of them you will notice will be on their gadgets rather than communicating with the people around. This materialism according to marx is due to the rise of capitalism, where people are easily manipulated into making choices which benefit the economy and most of the time we do not even realize it. The whole concept of Shopping malls we see nowdays is a tool of manipulation, have been made the place of goods, acitivies and leisure for the consumers that they become entangled in the shadows of the capitalists.People nowdays go to shopping malls , hangout and do some window shopping and come back stating that it was an outing rather than having any interaction with other people , we chose to interaction with objects to fulfil our desire. Even the way producrts are arranged are not coincidental but a technique of manipulation for example if the product is arranged in a attractive way, consumers automatically get attracted to it rather then the product which is arranged in a disorganize way.This proves what Marx says that consumers in the capitalist society donot have any so...
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Hobbes’ Materialism religion is portrayed as distinctly similar to Descartes’ in the sense that there is the staunch belief of a supreme being in existence. Descartes suggested that philosophy and material substance mattered as demonstrated by motion whereby an entity’s existence was only based on motion. Descartes had the belief that the earth was formed by a supreme entity, God, who assumed his place as the creator and watched the creation thriving and running dynamically and independently without any supernatural influence (Rogers 1988).
Materialistic versus Non-Materialistic is a dimension that focuses on the hedonism of humans, for it compares the search of happiness through material items to the search of happiness internally, which these two are quite the opposites according to their definitions. Geert Hofstede proposed several other dimensions of culture and how the differed in their regards. Examples of cultures and services will be discussed within the assignment, for these two dimensions cover extreme levels of culture, while the information on these dimensions is robust, and the importance of each dimension will be discussed with the cultures and services.
Sweet, William. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Bentham, Jeremy []. N.p., 11 Apr. 2001. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Beauvoir, Simone de []. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. .
After Immanuel Kant, there was so much that went on such as the start of the Contemporary theory of science. Before all of this aroused, the big argument was idealism versus materialism. This was big because modernism had made people choose which side between the two concepts. There were a lot of disagreements between the two because a lot of people were still stuck on the concept of materialism. Materialism is the physical appearance of everything , and that everything is made out of atoms and matter instead of just being the physical appearance of the object. At this point in time Materialism was the dominant voice in science. But as time starts to go on more and more people start to turn towards the new concept of idealism, which is basically stating that instead of the physical appearance of an object is actually not made of atoms, and it is just perceived that way in our mind. For example, people who believe in Materialism would say that a cup itself is not just a solid, but it is made up of atoms and electrons. On the other hand, Idealists would say that the cup is just a solid, they wouldn’t mention anything about the atoms or electrons. Along with the disagreement between Idealism and Materialism, there were also many developments that aroused after Immanuel Kant. These developments range from non-Euclidean geometry, to several philosophers working with the quantum theory, to Werner Heisenberg discovering the uncertainty principle.
Firstly, Existentialism alone is the philosophy made around personal experience or responsibility and its consequences to one's individual actions and existence by free will and absence of moral judgement. In fact, it is a pessimistic and hopeless theory of human purpose on earth and existence for it describes human condition, his struggles, challenges and great progresses and the will to find higher purpose. Theorists and philosophers agree that it is characterized by free will, inescapable negative consequences, responsibility of decision-making, individuality and indifference of the world towards them. Moreover, Jean-Paul Sartre, an 20th century philosopher who influenced existentialism, argues this theory that the individual is eternally free. xxxBriefly, existentialism does not focus on studying human nature and how it became that way but rather how its study undermines the individual in question. The individual can make his own decisions while breaking the barrier of his so-called nature but bear the consequences of his actions alone.
One legacy of existentialist influence is perhaps the feeling that there is a native enmity between ideology and reality, between ideology and humanity. Thus,