Hume On Empiricism The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that we do. We can most certainly make inferences based on causal reasoning, but these inferences have no proofs.
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.
How often do we question what is real or true? Descartes believed that doubting everything that he knew to be truthful knowledge was the only way to find out what was actually true and real. He turned doubting into a key principle for his methods of philosophy. Descartes would ask what we really knew beyond the shadow of a doubt. To do this he resolves to search within himself (Descartes 9).
Philosophy is a subject where there is no sound answer or argument for any question. Plato's beliefs were created through educated assumptions and provide a valid argument. One can continue their journey on this Earth trying to finding true perfection, however the chances are very slim according to Philosophy. Rather, one should embark in a more adventurous journey, a journey into the mind since it is the only housing of true perfection. A journey into a Philo Sophia Works Cited MLA CITATION 1.
The philosopher believed that someone's experiences to be etched on what he called a blank slate (Tabula Rasa). He did not believe that humans could hold information that is yet unlocked because he fundamentally believed that someone must learn or be taught these so-called natural ideas in order for humans to possess them. From a philosophical perspective of Locke, it can be concluded that he believed that morals and faith in God were not innate because it was evident that human's beliefs on these things differed and proved to not be a universal concept. Rationalists suppose that an innate idea is a universal concept in the sense ... ... middle of paper ... ... be of Leibniz's concept. For example, Kant's external world sides with mathematics and these concepts are not the symbols used to signify those ideas but are from a deeper source.
Philosophy in itself is an unidentifiable subject matter because of the lack of specificity in the fields it touches upon. It is “defined” as a way for humans to strive for ourselves in this reality in which we live in. No one person has the answers as to who we are and why we are living. The value of philosophy changes in character as history changes, thus the meaning of philosophy is what we as individuals perceive it to be. Though subjective, there are core ideals that unite the beliefs of all philosophy, such as the idea of the self.
Her... ... middle of paper ... ... something when it fact, we never ask ourselves why we know it. We tend to take for granted what counts the most in this world, that is, knowing ourselves. Human beings think that knowledge of things will lead them to enlightenment. But in reality, it is nothing but an illusion made by man himself to create a kind of path towards success. Those who follow this path will get nowhere close to success, rather, they bring upon suffering along the way, pulling us farther from ourselves.
This stems from his atheistic worldview, in which the rejection of a higher power leads him to accept the fact that humans are the “Creator”, the first to exist, and it is our job to give meaning to the rest of the world. Sartre’s existentialist ideas are mostly closely tied to the theory of free will. If existence precedes essence, that is if there is no purpose to why we are here, this grants humans ultimate free will (and ultimate responsibility) to create themselves, the world and fill it with meaning. I disagree with Sartre’s claim that existence precedes essence, and furthermore that free will can still exist outside these boundaries. My primary problem to existentialism stems from Sartre’s claim “We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” (Sartre) He argues that human existence came before all, that we came into being and then gave meaning to everything.
To answer these questions, one can look to two seemingly similar heroes, Beowulf and Siegfried, who differ wildly in character and temperament. Siegfried desires to establish and preserve relationships while Beowulf is out for his own glory. Though Siegfried’s modification of the definition ultimately exposes him to betrayal, his inclination to create and sustain relationships aids in solidifying his immortality on earth post-death. At first glance, the two characters presented in Beowulf and The Nibelungenlied share similar qualities of a hero: both Beowulf and Siegfried kill dragons, become kings, and are believed to be unbelievably strong and invincible by their followers. Because they are equipped wi... ... middle of paper ... ...o longer his own hero, but he is a hero for a society.
Descartes doubted the senses and believed that people only knew things through the content of their mind through human reason. Descartes used logical deductive reasoning to question the certainty of the senses. He states, “I have found that these senses sometimes deceive me, and it is a matter of prudence never to confide completely in those who have deceived us even once” (Descartes 26). His basic question that he sought to find the answer for is very complex yet seems so simple when reflecting upon it. How can we actually know things, for certain?