"Descartes: Discourse on Method and Related Writings"
"Descartes: Discourse on Method and Related Writings" In the "Discourse on Method" Descartes tells us that he, in spite of the education he had been given and in spite of having read the works of the great ancient thinkers, became more and more aware of his own lack of knowledge. He came to the conclusion that all disciplines, except geometry (more specifically geometrical analysis, which takes point of departure in making the assumption that we know the result beforehand and thereafter analysing the conditions for its existence, in order to produce it step by step) and algebra, were unsuitable for his purpose, since they are all based on philosophy, which is so full of different opinions about the same issue, therefore making the results untrustworthy. He built his confidence on mathematics being the only instrument to reach sound knowledge of whatever comes before the mind. The fundamental aim of Descartes was to attain philosophical truth by the use of reason alone, as he claims in this writing, and therefore he developed a system of true statements, in which nothing would be presupposed which was not self-evident and certain. He was determined to start again from the beginning and was resolved to rely only on his own reason, not on any philosophical authority, which means that he deliberately broke with his past. Descartes proposes a method to reach this philosophical
"Different cultures have different truths." "A truth is that which can be accepted universally." What are the implications for knowledge of agreeing with these opposing statements?
"Different cultures have different truths." "A truth is that which can be accepted universally." What are the implications for knowledge of agreeing with these opposing statements? The "truth" by definition is conformity to fact or actuality. It is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. Often the truth is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. But can a statement regarding a common issue be validated as the truth universally or is the same statement regarding the same issue be questionable in one culture but not in another? The issue of discussion is "do different cultures have different truths or is truth is that which can be accepted universally? The ways of knowing the truth can be through perception, language, logic and emotion. But it can be stated that all of the mentioned methods of knowing, have problems of knowledge. Some of the problems of knowledge involved in the methods of knowing the truth are, the limits of ways of knowing, errors in the methodology and bias. In my opinion, it is true to a certain extent that truth differs from one culture to another, as different cultures promote different ideas within its society, therefore making room for variation when observed from a global point of view. This variation of ideas lead to the fact that the truthfulness of a statement may be suspect
Examine the evidence for the existence of a non-material soul.
Examine the evidence for the existence of a non-material soul. The beliefs of the soul stems from life after death, which has been categorized because hell and heaven are associated with life after death but so is the soul. There are many beliefs based on the soul, not just from the religious perspective but also from people who have developed their own beliefs and ethics based on God and life after death. There are dualists such as Plato who believe a soul is essential and a body is not required to be a full person, Materialists who believe that conscious feelings is brain activity and also religious beliefs about the soul. Rene Descartes was a Cartesian Dualist. He was a Christian but a Dualist at the same time. He believed that all the feelings and sensations were in the mind since they could be discovered physically. Something that was not physical was a part of the mind and he concluded by saying, "I think therefore I am." From this point of view the mind and body are separate but these two interact. Mental reality is not based on experience and is not in the world of space. Dualism rests on certain concepts. The mind is non-corporeal substance, which is distinct from bodily substance. Every substance has a property. For example, the property is the mind and the substance is consciousness. The mind is a substance 'whose whole essence is to think' and therefore takes
IS A LIFE THAT COULD BE LIVED FOREVER MORE MEANINGFUL THAN ONE THAT WOULD END? What is the meaning of life? . Why are we here? Why do we live only to die? These questions obtrude themselves everywhere
Diane Callaghan DIPHE. PHILOSOPHY IS A LIFE THAT COULD BE LIVED FOREVER MORE MEANINGFUL THAN ONE THAT WOULD END? What is the meaning of life? . Why are we here? Why do we live only to die? These questions obtrude themselves everywhere, with direct answers not always available. An individuals first approach to philosophy is often due to the hope of finding clear answers to such questions. Philosophy according to its original Greek meaning and common English usage, is the love or pursuit of wisdom, and wisdom means action. Hence, the philosophical motive is the will to understand ones experience as a whole and to act accordingly. However, like many other intellectual disciplines many differential theories have been offered in the hope of an answer. These theories past and present will be explored underpinning spiritual and religious beliefs. Over time, the power of religious belief has weakened. In earlier times, that religious belief was thought to give meaning to ones life and existence. Now however religious practises and traditions are more heavily criticised than before, even by the believers themselves. The discovery of modern science and its explanations as to why we exist have also had a profound effect on mans conception of himself. Science has offered the exploration that our planet is an insignificant entity in comparison to the rest of the
How does the view of modern media and literature vary to the biblical literature on the medical developments of Cloning?
How does the view of modern media and literature vary to the biblical literature on the medical developments of Cloning? This essay deals with the issues raised in the media by the rapid technological developments of cloning and in particular on the religious beliefs of the uniqueness of life. It will also touch upon the ethical and legal issues brought about through out the development of cloning. A clone is a group of genetically identical organisms. Identical twins are therefore a clone since both come form one fertilised egg that is divided into two genetically identical cells that then separate. In the process of mammalian cloning there are two processes. Nuclear Transfer is where the nucleus is removed from the unfertilised egg cell; this eliminates all its genetic information. The cell nucleus of the individual being cloned is introduced into the enucleated egg cell though cell fusion. If this is done in the right conditions, the egg cell then begins to divide and go through a process of foetal developments as if it had been fertilised normally. 2The other process is artificial twinning which is a process of splitting the embryo into two or more embryos. First an egg cell is fertilised by sperm, then left to grow into an embryo. The embryo is split into two or more embryos when it is still in the early stage of development. The split embryo are nurtured into new
When, if ever, is coercion exercised by governments and political institutions legitimate?
When, if ever, is coercion exercised by governments and political institutions legitimate? To question the necessity and validity of coercion in today's society would fundamentally be to question the basis of our state, as political institutions have been democratically given authority over us for centuries. Coercion, practiced by those in authority, would best be defined as a government using the means of force and restraint to ensure cooperation, such as punishment through fines and jail if one does not pay their taxes, for example. The problem here is that the force used to coerce a community may be unnecessarily overbearing, as it may restrict lives, urges and needs. So we should in fact question, which of the situations allowing coercion to occur are legitimate or not. How can this legitimacy be established? Or when should an individual let a political institution coerce him. My aim, to quote Estienne de la Boëtie in his work La servitude volontaire, 'is to discover how it can happen that a vast number of individuals, of towns, cities and nations can allow one man to tyrannize them, a man who has no power except the power they themselves give him.'1 A view held in past centuries that had given unquestionable power to monarchs, clergy, and masters, was the divine authority theory. Those in power and their inferiors believed that G_d2 had given them power and authority
Women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and since the foetus is part of the womans body, abortion is justified.
Abortion "Women have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and since the foetus is part of the woman's body, abortion is justified." "God is the only one who knows how many children we should have and we should be ready to accept them. One can't decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn't. That decision doesn't belong to us."1 Mel Gibson has a very valid point which is shared by many people. It's true, we can't decide who should live and who should die. As Mel Gibson says the decision does not belong to us, it belongs to God as God is the one who gave us life. The bible says: "Do you not know your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit ..... You are not your own, you were bought at a price"2 Women cannot therefore decide for themselves who should die because it isn't their decision. God creates everything, even a baby in the womb is molded by him. Killing a child in the womb is killing part of the family of God. Abortion is defined as the: "Intentional destruction of a foetus or a premature expulsion from the womb to cause death."3 Two methods of abortion are Vacuum Aspiration and Salt Saline Solution. Vacuum Aspiration is when the baby is broken up in the womb by a vacuum and sucked into a glass jar. This is seen in the video The Silent Scream. The head is crushed by forceps as it is too big to suck out whole. Vacuum Aspiration
RS CourseworkMARK OF THE BEAST The Beast
RS Coursework MARK OF THE BEAST The Beast The description of a beast is given in the New Testament book of Revelation chapter 13:14-18. "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Identifying the Beast Now that we have read the quote we need to identify the beast, but before we talk about the Beast we need to understand the back-ground and history preceding the Beast. The best place to begin is in the book of Daniel, which deals greatly with prophecy, from the 6th century B.C. down to the end of time. The interpretation of the symbols used in Bible prophecy has not been
Nonviolence: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Tich Nhat Hanh
Tim Flynn 4/22/07 THL-4690-X17 Paper Three Upon engaging the text of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s anti-war speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence," one recognizes an undeniable continuity between King's thinking and that of his contemporary Thich Nhat Hanh. It is important to note, however, that King's reflections in this discourse are not entirely beholden to his Buddhist counterpart. The overarching concepts of "interbeing" and interrelation which drive the speech were evident in King's work and philosophy well before his correspondence with Nhat Hahn. The similarities regarding each man's approach to these notions should be expected given their respective spiritual vocations. Therefore, although King's reflections in this address - which encompass the broader considerations of nonviolence and exhibit a direct rebuke of the war effort - mirror almost identically those made in writings by Nhat Hanh, it is unclear how directly the latter may have influenced the former. Regardless, this speech does reflect elements of Nhat Hanh's nonviolent vision and does so specifically through considering the concept of mutuality in relation to addressing the roots of war, its effects and how to end it. In his address, King makes clear that humanity's failures and the origins of violence stem from the propagation of illusions and artificial perceptions. In particular, King asserts
Descartes vs Hume - " I am certain that I am a thinking thing. Do I not therefore also know what is requiredfor my being certain about anything?
DESCARTES V.S. HUME " I am certain that I am a thinking thing. Do I not therefore also know what is required for my being certain about anything? In this first item of knowledge there is simply a clear and distinct perception of what I am asserting... So I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true." (R. Descartes. "Third Meditation" p.24) "How can I know that something is certain, what is the origin of our ideas?" Descartes and Hume are the philosophers who tried to answer these questions. Descartes believes that he can know the certainty but Hume asserts that we should doubt everything because the knowledge is probable not certain. However, when we look at these two philosophers, we realize that Hume has more point than Descartes about the way of understanding certainty and origin of ideas. First of all, Descartes claims that basis of our knowledge is our reason and to some extent our memory. What Descartes means by the reason is that the reason attempts what is universal and what is necessary. Moreover, Descartes believes that in the jungle of unreliable knowledge, we have to create a " First Philosophy" to know foundations and principles under it . Thus, everything has a single ground and single foundation. This reasoning leads Descartes to think that he should reject all his opinions and he
