Cambridge UP 2000. Dryer, P. D.: Kant’s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics. Allen & Unwin, London 1966. Gardner, Sebastian: Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. Routledge, London 1999.
One, however, ought to look at Nietzsche’s philosophical “truths” not in a metaphysical manner but as, when taken collectively, the best way to live one’s life in the absence of an absolute truth. By looking at one of Nietzsche’s specific postulations of perspectivism, we can get a better idea of precisely how this term applies to his philosophy and how it relates to the “tru... ... middle of paper ... ...’s lack of a direct response to this apparent contradiction ensures that this matter will continue to be hotly debated well into the future. For this seemingly simple contradiction of positing truths when one has denied all absolute truths, Nietzsche gives a very complex and personal answer. Bibliography PRIMARY TEXTS Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1990).
McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument.
However, he does n... ... middle of paper ... ...th much like Hume stood by skepticism. He relies blindly on faith to explain a large part of what he is trying to discredit Hume for. It is almost as if he is not making a definitive statement on the existence of metaphysics. Rather, he is caught in the middle, claiming that it may be true in one instance, but not in another. Kant directly deals with the problems presented in Hume's analysis of metaphysics.
Edwards, Paul (1965), The Logic of Moral Discourse, New York: The Free Press. Gorovitz, Williams (1967), Philosophical Analysis, An Introduction to Its Language & Techniques, New York: Random House. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971), The Sophists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamlyn, D. W. (1983), The Theory of Knowledge, London: Macmillan Press. Harris, Errol (1969), Fundamentals of Philosophy - A Study of Classical Texts, U.S.A.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Harrison, J.
Not everything which is true of intentionality of action is true of intentionality of other phenomena, such as beliefs. I shall discuss the question, ‘What is the intentionality of action?’ More specifically, I shall discuss one partial answer to this question: that a necessary condition of an agent performing a certain intentional action is that the agent is conscious of performing that action. This answer is fairly unpopular in contemporary philosophy. In this paper, I shall try to say something about the ground for the rather wide-spread philosophical resistance to the answer, and I shall also outline the kind of considerations that I think are required to judge whether a wedge can or cannot be driven between consciousness and intentionality of action. One much discussed issue in contemporary philosophy is the relation between consciousness and intentionality.
Jameson, Fredric. The Seeds of Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Explained.
Do humans truly have free will or are their lives completely predetermined? This question of free will has and will always remain to be a place for argument in philosophy. Many of the great philosophers attempted to answer this question, but none did as well of a job as Immanuel Kant. He lays the basis of his argument in his Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. Kant writes this prolegomena in response to David Hume’s of skepticism, and therefore, Kant is attempting to more firmly ground metaphysics.
Even if they are logical, they must be doubted under Descartes own methodic doubt structure. Without them, he cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore in the book Meditations of First Philosophy by Rene Descartes we cam look at his thought process in the first two meditations, where he looks at the existence of himself and the use of methodic doubt we can get a feel on his position of ideas. This then allows us to search out the various problems with Descartes reasoning for the existence of God. However, in conclusion to this argument I would like to make it clear that this is not saying that God does not exist, it is simply a critic on Descartes reasoning.
This is because in reconstructing his body of knowledge, Descartes made use of many assumptions that he had not shown to have escaped the fires of the Method of Doubt. 'It uses all sorts of scholastic maxims... No reason is given for acc... ... middle of paper ... ...ding Kant and Husserl. However, by uncritically holding the causal model of perception as true, Descartes did not apply his Method of Doubt as fully as he could have done. By accepting the causal model of perception, Descartes held on to an unhelpful presupposition of what is meant by the external and internal worlds. This presupposition leads, through the malicious demon argument, to solipsism.