However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
We do not observe anything in this video that we can identify with causal necessity, so if causal necessity does exist at... ... middle of paper ... ...be said to be answering Hume effectively, and we cannot claim for certain that Kant has an answer or refutation for Hume. But it is possible to see Kant as offering an alternative explanation to the overall conception of causality. In conclusion, we can see Hume’s reasoning behind the theory that Humans inability to understand cause and effect must lead to scepticism. Our inability to perceive the effect that one object has on another led Hume to believe that there is no logical reason that this effect is taking place at all. This leads into the great problem of scepticism.
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.
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.
As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”.
Dogmatism is described as a "certainty that everything is demonstrable" (Pascal, p.93). This is an unacceptable belief, however, because it reduces the infinitude of the universe to a finite explanation. Lastly, blind faith is described as "submitting in all things, for lack of knowing where one must use his own judgement" (Pascal, p.93). In other words, blind faith means believing what others tell you without considering what you feel is right. In fact, there is no explanation someone could give of God or truth because these are both infinite terms, and when infinite terms are expressed in the finite, they become nothingness (Pascal, p.86).
He therefore lacks excuses. We cannot explain our actions in terms of or in reference to..."given and specific human nature." (pg 23) This rules out of the possibility of predetermination. "... ... middle of paper ... ...ialism is that one must first make a choice and then act upon the commitment, according to the formula that Sartre provides us with. For the existentialist, hope is a passion that gets him nowhere.
One of these ideas was the fact that God must exist because he is a perfect entity, and without a perfect entity existing, he would not be able to think about perfection. He argues that it is possibly to clearly perceive God because he exists, and then argues that because we clearly perceive God, he must exist. This argument is poorly thought out, and is considered a circular argument. There is no solid justification as ... ... middle of paper ... ... absence of God or something to create everything. Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation.
P4. If P3 is true, then we cannot know that there is an external world. C. Thus, we cannot know that there is an external world. He argues that with anything happening in our mind to askew our sense, we cannot rely on them to have proof of the external world, like he mentions because an evil demon could be conceiving us. Descartes conclusion from his premises give evidence to the fact that we can’t know anything about the external world, and that all we know is what is inside our minds.
And what of these laws then? How can we be... ... middle of paper ... ...f those “sensations” each and every time. At the end of his Enquiry, Hume leaves us with the tools of relations of ideas and matters of fact, but these however can not explain the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the nature of matter and other such questions. To these, Hume denies that rationalism could ever posit an answer because that answer would be founded in nothing more than reason. If we are left then in a state of immobility where we can only trust or base our knowledge on that which is empirical, how are we to wake up in the morning without feeling are lost?