Descartes has doubt that we can see the difference between being awake and asleep, this comes from a deeper and exaggerated amount of doubt. He makes claims that there is nothing that can prove that we are either awake or asleep. He says that he often does similar things when he is awake and asleep. Hobbes has a different view, he feels like when he is asleep he doesn 't think of the same things nor does he have coherent thoughts. He also doesn 't think that he is asleep while awake or vise versa. Descartes argument holds little backing when he continues to claim his argument, though Hobbes has created a clear and arguable argument claiming his belief in when he is awake he is awake and when he is dreaming he is clearly dreaming. Neither Hobbes nor Descartes actually go into concrete reasons to why they are right. I will then try to argue my own reasoning on why I side with Hobbes. By creating thing that can give us reason to believe that we can actually know …show more content…
I believe he would start out with talking about being deceived, that regardless of Hobbes’s belief that he knows when we are awake, there could be an evil demon that be deceiving Hobbes. Descartes would probably discredit Hobbes’s statement that he is able to have more concrete, recurring thoughts while he is awake, unlike when he is asleep. But Descartes says that he has had dreams where he is doing the exact same thing asleep as he does while he is “awake”. Even Hobbes has experienced this, but some cannot relate to this. Even so where are Hobbes concrete lacks fact that make him certain that he knows when he is awake and asleep, he claims that he has “faith” that he is satisfied with this. But Descartes doesn 't seem like he really has thought threw all the opposing ideas and he disregards his own evidence of a perfect being. Descartes rebuttal is becoming less and less
Just because the person is so engulfed in a dream that it is impossible for that individual to recognize disparities between these 2 experiences, these same person can nevertheless tell the difference once he or she has awakened. Moreover, a sensation as clear as pain cannot feel the same as the pain we feel when awaken, some argue. After all, Descartes premise is based on the idea that there is nothing in reality that a dream cannot replicate so vividly that we are unable to tell the difference. But he also said that dreams borrow, in a sense, some but not all things from reality so these may not be but somewhat plausible events made up by our
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's. Locke drew his ideas from a time where Hobbes did not have the chance to observe the, glorious revolution. In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted the existence of continual war with "every man, against every man." On this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.
One of Rene Descartes’s most famous arguments, from his not only from his first meditation but all of the meditations, is his Dream Argument. Descartes believes that there is no way to be able to distinguish being in awake from being in a state of dreaming. In fact you could actually be in a dream right now. Rene Descartes’s theory that one is unable distinguish being awake from dreaming, as interesting as it is, can be at times a little farfetched, along with a few contradictions to himself, Descartes’s dream argument does not entitle himself to any sort of claim.
Socrates and Thomas Hobbes, two independent philosophers of two independent eras, both had divergent beliefs of government and citizen. Socrates’ whole life was persuading and disagreeing with common beliefs and questioning everything and everyone - except his own death since he had no comprehension of “self-preservation.” Hobbes, however, believed people had to give up the right to question in order for the sovereign to protect the commonwealth. The life and death of Socrates contradicts Thomas Hobbes’s view of self-preservation because ultimately, Socrates defied protecting himself and died in the hands of his own government. Although Socrates might argue that his death was justified because he failed to persuade the Athenian government for
In the first meditation, Descartes makes a conscious decision to search for “in each of them [his opinions] at least some reason for doubt”(12). Descartes rejects anything and everything that can be doubted and quests for something that is undeniably certain. The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses, yet “from time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(12). First, Descartes establishes that error is possible, employing the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water, as mentioned in the Sixth Replies (64-65). Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that “some malicious demon … has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (15). The malicious demon not only causes Descartes to doubt God, but also sends him “unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom or swim on the top”(16). Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty.
Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on what is good, which results in contrasting moral theories. These philosophers both have different views on what is good, how to act, and how to be. The way in which Aristotle defines happiness, is opposed in the views and beliefs of Hobbes. Aristotle believed that there was a final good and opposing him was the belief that Hobbes had which was that there was no final good. They both believed that being moral wasn’t only good for you but also good for others. Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ.
He quickly releases that this is the foundation of most of his beliefs. He first acknowledges that sometime our senses can deceive us, but say that our senses is mostly sturdy. It is after this that Descartes realizes that there has been times where he has been sleeping and in his dream he was certain that he was awake and sensing real objects. Though his current senses may have be dream senses, he suggests that even dream senses are drawn from our experience of us awake. He then discovers that there are times in which he cannot distinguish whether he is in his waking state and his dream state.
In “Bad Dreams, Evil Demons, and the Experience Machine: Philosophy and the Matrix”, Christopher Grau explains Rene Descartes argument in Meditation. What one may interpret as reality may not be more than a figment of one’s imagination. One argument that Grau points out in Descartes essay is how one knows that what one think is an everyday experience awake is not all a part of a hallucination. He uses the example of dreams to draw a conclusion about is claim based on experiences one would experience with dreaming. He asserts that there are times when one wake up from a dream that seems to be “vivid and realistic” however soon finds that it was not. The experience of reality in the dream was all a part of the mind. If dreams seem to be reality and one would not have any concept that one is dreaming how does one know that one is not dreaming now? Descartes point is that one cannot justify reality in the sense that one could be dreaming right at this moment and not know therefore one cannot trust the brain as an indicator of what is reality.
With humans being naturally violent, it takes a strong common power and set of laws to be able to balance violence and not let it destroy society. In today’s society, Girard believes judicial systems are the law and help make it so breaking the law with violence is regretted and won’t allow you to do it again. Hobbes believes in the common power and set of laws to be able to let an industry obtain the society. Girard and Hobbes go hand in hand, one can’t work without the other. Laws are set by the common power, if the laws are broken the judicial system takes over and brings justice. Hobbes lacks the theory to decide what happens after the violence takes place against the common power and laws, while Girard doesn’t include anything about how
...re than detections made by the body of particular bodies going about their particular motions. Descartes attempts to draw things away from the body; Descartes’ focus on certainty lead him toward dualism, as he argues that senses are deceiving. For Cartesian Dualism, this is perfectly operable; the deception of the senses to the mind may occur because of some disconnect. Additionally, Hobbes and materialism could be correct in this case, as all thought relates back to sense. In the sixteen hundreds, dualism may have been the more viable theory; however, in today’s day and age, materialism offers a simpler explanation regarding the problems of mind-body interaction and thought. Hobbes clearly outlines a very basic idea of materialism before modern materialist theories such as functionalism come to be.
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
The pursuit of knowledge has led many a philosopher to wonder what the purpose of life truly is, and how the material and immaterial are connected. The simple fact is, we can never know for certain. Arguments can be made, words can be thrown around, and rationale can be supported, but we as mere humans are not capable of arriving at the perfect understanding of life. Nonetheless, in the war against our own ignorance, we seek possible explanations to explain that which science and math cannot. Philosopher 's such as Plato and Aristotle have made notable contributions to our idea of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life, while some, such as Descartes, have taken a more metaphysical view by pondering the impact one 's mind has on
Descartes and Locke both share similar views in their philosophies. They both provide strong evidence to help show what is most real and the secrets of our reality. Locke provides a stronger point of view than Descartes because the evidence in his philosophy goes so far out of his own understanding. Locke has reached deep in the meaning of reality and complexion that with more research we could unlock to true meaning of our ultimate reality. So in comparison between Descartes and Locke, Locke helps explain how we get knowledge, understanding reality, and what is most real.