Cleanthes is trying to argue, using the analogy of the Watch and the Watchmaker, that an intelligent designer must be assumed for the purpose-revealing watch, so an intelligent Grand Designer may be inferred in explaining the purpose-revealing world. Both products, the world and watch, reveal an intricate and positive design; thus, each has to have its own intelligent designer. Also, because the universe is like a watch, we can infer it has an intelligent designer by the fact that it may be proved to be mechanical through mathematical concepts. In a watch several parts are put together for a purpose. The parts are together in a particular formation, so there must be reasons for its placement, giving away its cause of existence. Given that the watch has a purpose, this obvious design would force one to conclude the watch must have had a maker. Perfection, like that in a watch, needs a creator because the coincidence or chance of being made without a creator is highly unlikely. The belief that a watchmaker will always exists, even if the individual does or know a watchmaker or has seen a watch made, no other explanation of a watch’s existence could be feasible or logical without believing that there was once a watchmaker. Whether the contraption works or not is not the focus; the focus is on whether a plan has been made for the instrument to reveal that a design was intended.
In very complex machines, missing or undiscovered parts are more likely to arise; yet, such disorder would no doubt make an individual more curious as to the objects purpose. Although in some cases, a part may seem useless, the individual would continue to question and wonder what purpose that part serves. No one could believe that the watch was assembled together with sheer luck; therefore, an intelligent designer exists. The watch is definitely not made by the principle of order and it is not believable to say or think that the watch was not invented. Design cannot exist without the designer. Every appearance of design, which exists in the watch, exists in the works of nature. While the world is far more complex than a simplistic instrument, like a watch, it is no different when compared at the base levels, especially when seeing that both are so mechanical, showing elements of order.
Hume sets out the argument from design to prove that the universe is like a watch.
Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”
The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.
We will discuss on the article of Intentional System Theory by a philosopher Daniel Dennett. The argument that we are going to use from this theory is about the intentional theory where Daniel Dennett thinks that both human and objects have beliefs and desires and from that the behaviors can be interpreted. From the article itself, Intentional System Theory is defined as an analysis of the meanings where people use the terms such as ‘believe’, ‘desire’, ‘expect’, ‘decide’, and ‘intend’ or in the terms of ‘folk psychology’ that we use to interpret, explain, and predict the behavior of other human beings including ourselves, animals and some artifacts such as robots and computers (Daniel, 2009).
Russell, Paul. “Hume on Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 14 December 2007.
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
Together, David Hume and Emanuel Kant, have a very crucial influence to modern philosophy. Hume challenges conventional philosophical views with his skepticism as well as his new take on what is metaphysics. His views and ideas where influential to many, including Kant, however they lead to his philosophical reasoning and empiricism to be viewed lead to negatively and atheistically. Kant, whose philosophy was so strongly influenced by Hume that in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics wrote “I openly confess that my remembering of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave me new investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction” (Kant, Preference) defends and overcomes Hume by advancing philosophy in a revolutionary way. Kant’s philosophy has its foundation on Hume’s work, specifically his skeptical view on causality.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
Hume’s first reflection focuses on worldly bodies. Assuming that a “necessary connexion” exists between cause and effect, this effect could be determined, without prior experience, through reasoning, upon observation of the cause alone. We, however, observe the body and we observe the effect on the body or system but “the power or force, which actuates the whole machine [universe or chain of effects] is entirely concealed from us, and never discovers itself in any of the sensible qualities of body” (42). Hence, this situation demonstrates no impression of, and therefore no idea of, “necessary connexion” in “single instances of their (bodies) operation” (42).
Many of us know that a watch indeed does have a designer, but what if we had never seen a watch made before or known of anyone capable of such design? Lacking this knowledge, Paley argues, should raise no doubt in our mind that the object must have a designer. Even if the watch told the wrong time most of the time, Paley says that the intended purpose of the watch to tell time is still obvious. Paley says we should still conclude that the watch ...
...onversation among three individuals who have different beliefs. The aspect of the argument of design is an important one because it sheds light on Hume’s belief once Philo and Demea prove that the argument is weak. Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument of design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in the universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosopher holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
Sometimes it is hard to be sure what conclusion to draw from a Humean analysis, and he is easy to misrepresent. This is partly because one argument he is engaged in may raise a number of related issues that he has dealt with elsewhere, and some of his points seem contradictory. My wish is to consider some of the possible readings of David Hume’s critique of causation, as it appears in Section VII of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “On Necessary Connexion”, and their relation to the propositions of Section II, “Of the Origin of Ideas”, and Section X, “On Miracles”. I will offer criticisms and alternatives to Hume’s account(s) and conclude by picking which interpretation of Section VII best works for Hume, given certain arguments elsewhere in the Enquiry.
In this paper, I will discuss Hume’s “problem of induction,” his solution to the problem, and whether or not his solution to the problem is correct. In David Hume 's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ', Hume states that no actual proof exists to suggest that future occurrences will happen the way previous occurrences did. His solution to this “problem of induction” is that our beliefs about cause and effect are based out of pure habit of thought that we have become accustomed to. It is my belief that his solution is correct even if it does bring into question how we seemingly “reason” things with experience in our everyday lives.
Hume's writing posed an interesting starting off point for Kant's theories. As said before, Kant attributes Hume's writing with waking him from his "dogmatic slumber." He recognizes both Hume's intelligence and the validity of his statements. However, he does n...