My research of Darwinian evolution has led me to believe that there is little room for spirituality of any kind in a truly rigorous scientific theory of the origin of life. This is disconcerting, to say the least. Obviously we have outgrown a strictly creationist lens, but has religion become completely obsolete? Does spirituality have a real place amongst the scientific tenets of evolutionary theory, or is it merely a crutch that we lean on? Can God and Darwin co-exist?
Kiekegaard is saying that we are going through the astetic, ethical, and religious steps in order to better society by being that which God wants us to be. Kiekegaard is saying that his attempt will lead us to a life of despair, because we will never match up to the goal set in front of us. But that this is good because in the midst of this we have in fact become the best we can, and we have become what God wants us to be.
Yet only seventy-one years ago did one of the world’s notable thinkers Jean-Paul Sarte come to the idea of defining ‘existentialism’-the act of learning that we are human because we decide to be, and until that decision becomes necessary, we are nothing. Each human is who they decide to be and yet who we decide to be has direct bearing on the rest of mankind. This is something not fully accepted and even those who do subscribe to it struggle with clarifying some of inconsistencies. We still have much to learn about the human universe as well as the universe in general. While there are flaws in Sarte’s thinking that I will address later, I contend that his theory is enough to spare human life and observe us from a distance, rather than to
Comparing Kant and Mill Works Cited Missing Kant and Mill both articulate thoughts that praise the use of reason as the ultimate good, that which leads to enlightenment (in Kant’s terms) and a general understanding and certainty, as Mill would put it. The two political philosophers, while both striving to reach the same goal, ultimately achieve their goals in a different sense, and even demonstrate a slight discrepancy in what they ultimately mean to attain. Mill’s path toward certainty and understanding is dependent on dissenting opinion, and is asymptotic to truth; one never achieves the complete enlightenment that Kant describes so vividly as the individual’s end on a linear path of reason. Kant’s description of enlightenment describes the escape from one’s “self-imposed immaturity.” This immaturity, according to Kant, is “self imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in a lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another.” (Kant 41). Kant is clearly attempting to break the chains of laziness and cowardice that hold a man back, preventing him from ultimate understanding.
Throughout his journeys, Candide maintained the ideas of the teachings of his tutor, Pangloss. Candide and Pangloss believed in the idea that “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds...” (Voltaire 4). This belief is what Voltaire pointed out to be an irrational way of thinking during the Age of Enlightenment. Voltaire’s main criticism of philosophical Optimism consisted on the illogical extent to which they would justify the presence of evil in their lives. According to Voltaire, many of the reasons Candide and Pangloss gave to justify their misfortunes were simply exaggerated and ridiculous.Though he considered the belief of Optimism to be ignorant, Voltaire didn’t considered himself to be a pessimist.
In Aristotelian ethics, the end game for an individual is to achieve eudaimonia, the highest form of morality in which one has achieved true happiness, by completely actualizing their potential and living a virtuous life. n I found the concept of eudaimonia interesting, and I noticed that many moral theories focused on happiness as a measure of morality yet Kantianism did not so I wanted to take a deeper look at the fundamental differences between the two theories and determine if there was a superior theorist. In my paper I look to see if there is a Kantian equivalent of eudaimonia, or a desired end result to Kantianism and in the process compare and contrast the two theories to determine which one offers a more realistic solution to the question of what defines virtue. Aristotle and Kant have profoundly differing ethical viewpoints, specifically on what exactly defines virtue. Immediately I noticed a profound difference between the somewhat more modern take on ethics that Kant provides as compared to the possibly somewhat antiquated views of Aristotle.
Kant believes that if you follow his Principle of Universalizablity and Principle of Humanity you will succeed in leading a moral life (Mortensen lecture, March 27). In this paper I will argue that Mill’s argument for Utilitarianism fails because I believe morality should be determined by more than just the outcome of an action. Mill’s belief of Utilitarianism states that in a situation, the correct moral action would be the action that causes the greatest sum total of pleasure and least amount of pain for all sentient beings involved. Mill would rank the morality of actions based on their consequences. Mill holds this position because he believes that happiness is the greatest human good and benevolence is a person’s central moral virtue (Mortensen lecture, March 22).
We can now finally argue against Carl Sagan, who stated that” we cannot even fathom the universe”. Through our mental comprehension, Sagan is correct, but through our increase in technological advancements, we can understand the universe in a more “humanly” manner. First things first, I believe that humans are no longer physically evolving. As Sir David Attenborough wrote, humans are the only species to put a halt on natural selection based on free will (Sir David Attenborough 1). The necessity of natural selection is to ensure that the generations that do survive, will produce offspring with more advantageous genes.
In the field of epistemology no body surpasses philosopher Immanuel Kant, even in modern philosophy nobody has come close to further explaining his views. His viewpoint affects most every other kind of philosophy. The empiricists tried to begin understanding epistemology through knowing and understanding the external world, Kant believed that it was the human that creates or imposes itself on the external world when pertaining to certain things and knowledge. Where Descartes understood the relationship between the mind and the world and how we process information. Kant thought this interaction was impossible, he went on to expose the logical error Descartes was never able to fully appreciate, in particular that no matter where or what is happening to a person at any given time that same person cannot say that what is happening is really existing .
Reason can only be used in areas that will allow it to be accepted, such as in science and politics. As seen in Kant’s essay, Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment, through certain conditions, individuals are able to enlighten themselves. Enlightenment is defined as man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another” (Kant, 5... ... middle of paper ... ...have aided in defining society and human nature. Enlightenment poses a threat to individuals, because through the replacement of faith, individuals also disregard intuition.