Arthur Schopenhauer argues that the overall value of life is negative at all times. This stems from the notion that humans live in an internal realty governed by a universal will which drives constant desire from all things in existence. Desires are the products of suffering from the lack of something. While happiness is only a neutral relief from life’s torment. However, an objection stems from Schopenhauer’s reluctance to endorse suicide as a means of escaping this fate of pain. It argues that
baffling arguments for the existence of God is the ontological argument. It was developed by St Anselm in the 11th century, and the reason said argument is considered unique is because it is an a priori argument rather than an a posteriori argument , which most other arguments for the existence of God tend to take form. It attempts to prove the existence of God, not through any physical evidence, but rather by claiming that the very definition of God is proof enough of his existence; that he is an underlying
Is it better to exist than to never have come into existence? Bad things happen to all of us. It is an unavoidable feature of humanity. When we are born, we are born to suffer. So what if we had never been born? What if we had never been introduced into this world of inevitable hardship? Would we be better off? Such thoughts are entertained by David Benatar in his essay ‘Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence’ (Benatar, 1997)- who, rather unsettlingly for his readers, argues that it is rational
with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain
“problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts. In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
questions in philosophy is that of the existence of God. While many address whether God actually exists or not, Blaise Pascal takes a different approach. Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher. He is most known for his foundational contributions to physics and math, and the creation of the first mechanical calculator. In addition, Pascal also established an important application to the theory of God’s existence. This application, known as Pascal’s Wager
nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. The central branch of metaphysics is known as ontology. This dives into the kinds of things that exist in the world and relations these things bear on one another. However, other areas that a metaphysician attempts to clarify may be how people understand the world, including existence, object hood, space and time to name a few. A more delicacy view is that a metaphysical statement is not
The Search for the Meaning of Existence Daffodil bulbs instead of balls Stared from the sockets of the eyes! from Whispers of Immortality We live and then we die. Its scary, the death part, and the living part is quite amazing. There is a great dichotomy surrounding our existence. One minute we are here, another we are gone. What is existence? What is the purpose of existence? The big metaphysical question has my interest. We grasp to understand it all but it evades us. This magnificent
states that the existence of God is the only foundation of objective morality. My purpose of this paper is to argue against Craig’s argument. My thesis is objective morality does exist in society to both theists and atheist, and the foundation of the moral value to individuals does not have to be God. For an atheist, God is also an abstract and not reliable foundation. Social harmony is the general foundation of moral value in modern society, and it is objective without the existence of God. In §1
Descartes employs what is known as an ontological argument to prove the existence of God. Saint Anselm who lived during the 11th century first formulated this type of argument. Since then it has proved popular with many philosophers including Rene` Descartes. Even though ontological arguments have lost popularity with modern philosophers there has been some recent attempts to revive them. Descartes formulation is regarded as being one of the best because it is straight forward and relatively easy
In “The Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Dostoevsky made a famous claim that establishes the link between the existence of God and morality. Apart from the controversy related to the scope of the quotation, the discussion on the proper translation and interpretation of the words of Ivan Karamazov. For instance, in his article “Dostoevsky did not say it” D.Cortesi claims that Dostoevsky did not make such claim (Cortesi 1). However, the research by Russian-speaking authors shows that the original text
obvious that they do not relate to facts. They are not a true statement. A question can be posed: do they lack truth because they do not relate to a fact or are the two facts disjointed? How are Truth and Fact interrelated? One answer is that Truth value is a shorthand to describe the possibility that an event will occur. If true – it must occur and if false – it cannot occur. This is a binary world of extreme conditions of being. Should all possible events occur? Of course not. If they do not occur
Due to the ideas of David Hume, some may believe that one cannot support the existence of God, as Hume belief was that one cannot assume that the earthly parallels the universe, in other words, that which humans believe can happen on Earth, may not necessarily be able to be applied to the whole universe. “However, we may flatter ourselves that we are guided, in every step which we take, by a kind of verisimilitude and experience, we may be assured that this fancied experience has no authority when
have actual being; to be real"; "(5) to be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place," and "to occur." Living, on the other hand, means "(5) to conduct one's life in a particular manner"; "(6) to pursue a positive, satisfying existence; to enjoy life." Men and women must be able to do certain things to exist as well as to live, but because they are endowed with the ability to reason, their individual choices ultimately determine whether they are truly living or merely existing
within philosophy. However, an unmistakable concern with the role of religion and values penetrates much of his work. Contrary to the tradition before him, Nietzsche launches vicious diatribes against Christianity and the dualistic philosophies he finds essentially life denying. Despite his early tutelage under the influence of Schopenhauer's philosophy, Nietzsche later philosophy indicates a refusal to cast existence as embroiled in pessimism but, instead, as that which should be affirmed, even
especially if there are other topics that could be studied in place of the one you are discussing. In this case, the discussion is on Saint Anselm and his Ontological Argument. There have been other arguments made before Saint Anselm on God's existence, and the first paragraph will show why it is important to study this particular argument. Then the argument itself is given and discussed. And just like most arguments in the field of philosophy, the Ontological Argument has an objection. This
Love and Freedom What is love? Is it something we do or something we can know? Some classify love as something that you feel for some people sometimes. It is often linked or used interchangeably with lust. Others feel that it is something that is constant and untouched by judgement and feeling. The only common denominator for love is that it is something that is desirable; it is something that we want. So what do people want? Many philosophies pose answers; but those answers frequently
To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a... ... middle of paper ... ...he Soul and the existence of God are not only unreliable but weak and inconsistent. Descartes fell victim to a circular argument concerning where
Summary What is a Humanist? The book, Humanism: A Very Short Introduction, most definitely gives a clear and precise understanding of what exactly Humanism is and consists of. There are several different meanings behind the term and it means more than a person’s opinion on whether or not God truly exists. Humanists are very open-minded and believe that science and reasoning are tools that should be used to evaluate the human lifestyle. The history of humanism dates back to Ancient Greece and the
The Existence of Evil Six years ago a little girl from my church approached me and asked why the devil existed, and why bad things happen. At the moment I was a little perplexed and did not know what to say. All that came to my mind was that humankind needed a scapegoat to blame for the occurrence of unfavorable incidents. Blaming adverse conditions on the devil is the easy and obvious way out of any situation. All one has to do is to say that the devil was the cause of the situation and wash