This research paper will aim to examine the veracity of the claim that humans are invariably motivated by self interest. In the philosophy there have been numerous debates concerning whether this theory is true. Intellectuals who propose this theory are known as psychological egoists. Psychological egoism argues that we are driven to pursue our own self interests by nature and we cannot do otherwise (Chaffee 443). Many opponents of psychological egoism believe in psychological altruism which states that sometimes humans can have truly altruistic motives, altruism being the selfless principle of the concern of the welfare for others (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Transcendental arguments are therefore all but common sense. They are in no respect "realistic" or ontologically dependent. (2) Whoever wants to get familiar with transcendentalism — perhaps just in order to criticize one or several of its representatives — must overcome the threshold of open or covert realism and ordinary experience. One also has to avoid the common misunderstanding that transcendental reconstruction represents a form of idealism. So this kind of philosophy seems to be a fortiori charged to give a good deal of pedagogical help for its own sake.
This means that any knowledge about reality must be based on a posteriori judgments. These judgments are made by Hume because he believes there is no way to have a true reality through knowledge because you only gain knowledge through experience. In conclusion, Hume states that many empiricists discovered that reality is an impossible goal to understand. Overall, Empiricists believe that there is no knowledge without experience. While their individual views may differ, their fundamental ideas are used to make conclusions about theories in the world.
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.
The founders of existentialism such as Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Camus exemplify the philosophy of existentialism in their writings because they focus on absurdity in life and lack of definite meaning. Throughout history some people see themselves as just someone who is put on Earth just for “no reason” these people believe that there is no meaning to them. What is right could mean that it is wrong in society. What they might think is wrong might mean it is right in society. There is no meaning to Existentialism other than that those people do what they want whenever they want.
He emphasizes throughout the essay that philosophy develops one’s mind and changes the way they think. Rather than accepting popular opinion, he stresses that thinking deeply about everything in life can only benefit each person. The beauty of philosophy is that it contains no sure answer, which challenges one to think more intellectually and deeper about everything in
Locke on the other hand believes that our main source of knowledge is sensory experience. Locke provides strong evidence of his theory but his theory is known as one of the most confusing in his work. He views that without experience or reason, we have to question our reality and the external world we live in. Through experience comes sensation and reflection and that is how we know what is real because all ideas to form complex ideas come from those two
A final problem with Nietzsche’s views in their application is they treat the individual as a completely autonomous being driven by only a “will to power”. This idea seems to run contrary to the very conditions which make life possible. People are not created as autonomous beings from conception. Existential existence is only possible through the assistance of other individuals, and any ethical system, even if it is only an implied ethical system, which ignores others is deeply flawed.
Plato and Aristotle suggested that the most important part of human nature is reason because it takes precedent over the yearnings and assertiveness of humans. Even though the Freud and Thomas Hobbes did not exactly agreed on Plato and Aristotle theory on human behavior, they all disagreed on the theory that Jean-Paul Sartre had to offer to philosophy. As for as Sartre theory he believed that human do not have a purpose on this earth unless they decide to create a purpose for themselves. Sartre is a firm believer that we have the abilities to create our own self which in turn will make us humans. Sartre believes ... ... middle of paper ... ...spired to cause a distribution to be question as whether it is fair or not.
Many philosophers criticized the theories of Sartre for its contradictory nature. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartre.27s_philosophy. They argue that Sartre's theories are based on metaphysical views as opposed to his counter claim of same. Sartre's theory that "existence precedes essence" is one of the areas of his work that I admire and fully agree with. I say this with very solid personal conviction because man must first acknowledge his existence before he recognizes or appreciates other qualities that would bring meaning to his existence.