Category: Belief

This paper will examine the conflict between Kant’s moral theory (his categorical imperative) and Kierkegaard’s notion of faith. It will defend Kant’s claim against Kierkegaard’s theory that faith is not a legitimate reason to disregards morality. The reason of why Kant’s ideas are preferable to me is that the categorical imperative allows to define what actions are obligatory and which ones should be forbidden and to choose the way that is more correct and not contradictory to moral norms and society.

Immanuel Kant is considered to be one of the greatest and the most famous German philosophers of the 18^th century. He created a truly widespread theory that influences society even now. His moral theory and his categorical imperative remain one of the central philosophical concepts of all the times. In 1785, this great philosopher introduced Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals.

One of the purposes of this work was to help people get a clear understanding of what moral principles are all about in order to avert possible distractions. Lots of people may say that Kant’s ideas are something that is really hard to comprehend. However, his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is not that difficult to analyze in comparison to the works of some other philosophers.

Kant’s moral theory is based on the concept of good will. Moral knowledge is something that has lots of powers and should be a prior for all humankind. Without any doubts, Kant’s moral theory is rather complex, but at the heart of this theory, the only principle may be found; it is the categorical imperative. The idea of the categorical imperative lies in the fact that one may determine someone’s duty and decide what principles are proper and which ones are not.

“The imperative thus says which action possible by me would be good, and represents a practical rule in relation to a will that does not straightaway do an action just because it is good, partly because the subject does not always know that it is good, partly because, even if he knows this, his maxims could still be opposed to the objective principles of a practical reason.” (Kant and Gregor, 1998)

According to Kant, a maxim is one of the guiding principles of any action. With the help of maxims, people get a clear understanding of what should be done, and even how these things need to be done. Immanuel Kant was one of those believers, who proved that any person has the right to make choices. Freedom and reasons of actions are the two things, which distinguish people from animals, and we should lose this characteristic.

People just have to be free in order to be ready to perform all our duties. If people do not believe that they have enough freedom, they cannot be able to complete their duties, this is why the verb “have to” may be changed into “can or cannot”. People should give promises only in cases they are absolutely sure about their words and may keep them. Otherwise, if the words are not kept, and human promises are false, human life turns out to be senseless and all the beliefs are not true.

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard is another philosopher, who offered his ideas concerning faith, duties, and responsibility. In comparison to Kant’s rationalism, Kierkegaard is regarded to be an absurd thinker, who believes in subjectivism of ethics. In fact, Kierkegaard was one of the Kant’s followers.

He used Kant’s ideas as a basis for his own inquiry of faith. Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling is one of the best examples, which demonstrate his grounding on Kant’s ideas and standpoints. This Danish philosopher and, at the same time, a devoted theologian tries to prove that faith is not a simple formula, but something that people should reach only after certain divine inquiries are satisfied.

According to Kierkegaard, faith is a kind of leap to the absurd. People should trust upon something and believe in it. However, this something cannot possible be. This is why Kierkegaard’s notion of faith may be considered as rather paradoxical.

“A paradox enters in and a humble courage is required to grasp the whole of the temporal by virtue of the absurd, and this is the courage of faith. By faith Abraham did not renounce his claim upon Isaac, but by faith he got Isaac.” (Kierkegaard, 2008)

In this story about Abraham, Kierkegaard introduces this character as someone, who does not want to accept universal ethical principles in order to demonstrate his devotion to God. Abraham’s faith makes him break all those ethical norms; and this is what create an absurd line in the story.

Of course, it is quite possible to find some points in Kierkegaard’s story to admire. However, his extremism and idea that personal promise to the divine is the only thing that may glorify God cannot be considered as the most absurd things inherent to people. Kierkegaard does not show how exactly human belief in God may be absurd. He uses the word ‘absurd’ so many times, however, does not catch its uniqueness and make it an ordinary word.

This is why the faith, presented by Kierkegaard, may be called as the paradoxical nature of faith. This philosopher does not have any reservation about dealing with the things he calls absurd. However, at the same time, faith seems to be an eminently paradox, where a person tries to isolate him/herself in the sphere that is much higher than a universe.

After I compare the ideas of two philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Søren Kierkegaard concerning human’s faith and duty, it turns out to be rather easy to take one certain position and explain the choice. People truly believe that God is absolute. He has enough powers to control any situation and be fair.

Both Kant and Kierkegaard present lots of arguments in order to prove their points of view. Their arguments also have certain drawbacks, but Kant’s position and his rational belief provides us, ordinary people, with better opportunity to understand deeper the relations between religion and ethics.

Kierkegaard’s notion of faith may be considered as a bit weak because it is based on the principle of divine revelation and the idea that clear interaction between ethics and faith may be hardly found out at all. Without any doubts, people just cannot leave without a thought that something may control their lives somehow and show the necessary ways out. However, the idea of the right of choice is crucial indeed.

We should take certain actions and believe in the things, which will not hurt other people and destroy their future. People should be free and, at the same time, have something to believe in. However, all those believes should not stay on the way to clear understanding of this life and its essence. People are unique creatures, who have a wonderful opportunity to choose.

This is what Kant tells about in his work. His universalism and ethical system are clearly detached from human relations and their abilities in accordance with moral principles, which are inherent to all people. This is why interaction that happens between humans and the experience they get play a very important role and help to realize that freedom is much more significant than faith and any other concepts offered by different philosophers.

Kant’s moral theory is rather deontological: human actions may be considered as right ones only in virtue of their real motives. These motives should be derived from duties, people promise to complete. According to Kant, people should think and choose taking into consideration their faith and moral principles, which are also called maxims.

Kierkegaard has another, not less interesting position about human’s duties and faith, however, his ideas turn out to be rather absurd and face numerous drawbacks. Of course, the theories presented by either Kierkegaard or Kant are quite inadequate: they neglect the idea of interpersonal relations and do not pay too much attention that such interactions may be rather important for formulation of moral issues.

This is why Kant’s ideas are closer to society and may be fixed in accordance with new preferences and interests. People always have a chance to perform the functions of responsible agents, but it remains crucially important to consider moral principles, which are obtained by society.

Reference List

Kant, I. & Gregor, M. J. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.

Kierkegaard, S. (2008). Fear and Trembling. Wilder Publications.

Faith, according to the readings of Clifford and James is a strong belief inscribed in the mind of an individual that that what they think is right. They may be no prior evidence about the same yet the individual beliefs in their feeling. Different situations may lead to such a confidence, most of which are based on past events. Humans have a tendency of developing an attitude towards a situation or an event within their first encounters. It is therefore difficult to prove such an individual otherwise considering their first experiences. Faith may also be birthed and changed by the long-term experiences of an individual (James, 9). This basically means that the human mind is bound to change if continuous experience dictates so. This may however differ from one perspective to another. What may be seen as truth and right about one individual may be the opposite of another individual. This can hence never be a basis of dictating what is right or wrong to a bigger group of people. Every individual has a right to believe that what they prophase and do, is right even if it is viewed differently by another individual.

According to the readings, faith is a voluntary decision that can not be imposed on a person by the other. Even though different beliefs have impacts on their followers, it has not hindered men from developing their own theories. Everyone is looking out for something that will satisfy their understanding and once they get it, it becomes difficult to change their minds on the same. According to the philosophers there is basically no reliable evidence of the beliefs that are adopted by individuals. The tendency of one to trust what the other party is saying is based on their professionalism. For a person to be taken seriously and positively, then what they say should be a clear reflection of their skills and knowledge. This therefore means, however true something maybe, it will not be trusted if it is contrary to their skills and profession. This is the kind of attitude that men have developed towards each other. The desire for people to find facts has made them venture into different fields that tend to satisfy them. Such fields include science, culture and religion.

A weakness that has been displayed in the readings of Clifford and James is that there is no evidence of the beliefs that people prophase. For a person to hold on to a certain ideology especially for a considerable time, then they have some benefits which came through experience. For instance, there is basically nobody who can believe that death is bad unless they have had an experience of the same (Clifford, 6). There is practical evidence that people experience in their walks of life that makes them hold on to a certain belief. Nobody may be able to understand the essence of another person’s belief unless they have had prior experience of the same. Scientists believe in science because they have practiced it for quite some time and have seen truth in it. The same also relates to Christianity and other religions. These are totally different categories of people that cannot understand each other due to unique experiences that they have. Faith is hence a matter of the heart rather than perception. All this is also developed through interest that has to do with one’s background. This is the reason why most people tend to hold on to the practices of their forefathers rather than what they may see or experience.

Works cited

Clifford, K. William. The ethics of belief, New York: Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., 1998.

James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2006.

There are two types of faith, these are: having trust in someone and acknowledging something to be true. Faith is the ability to trust someone or something without having sufficient reasons as to why you trust that someone or something. Further faith is acknowledging that something is true without having reasons as to why that thing is true. Lack of reasons does not infer the inability of thinking. Faith does not grow or rest upon reasons.

As stated above, there are two types of faith. These are: trust in someone and acknowledging truth without valid reasons.

1. The first type of faith (trust) is expressed in the continuity of the nation which one is born in and he is a member. It is believed that God has covenanted with the nation. The community which he is born in practices a certain faith and he automatically becomes part of the members practicing this type of faith. An illustration of this is the early period of Israel. The faith which the community of Israelis practiced resulted into the faith of the nation. This means that being born in the early Israeli nation or community automatically makes a person of that faith.
2. The second type of faith (acknowledging something to be true) is expressed by conversion of faith.A human being has to acknowledge certain beliefs to be true. An example of this type of faith is the period of early Christianity. The ancient Israelis who believed in the death and resurrection of the great son (Jesus) got salvation. As a result they were converted. Conversion only occurred if they believed that the great son died and was resurrected.

There are various philosophical issues that arise from Buber’s writings. These are: trust in someone (as a type of faith) can be looked at in another way as affective faith: acknowledgement of truth can be looked at as cognitive faith.

Affective faith is emotional and personal. This type of faith gives assurance of peace and tranquility, that there is a provider for everything. This form of trust can be expressed by action. That is, willing fully being ready to do anything for the person you have trust in. As seen in our society today’s society, extremists of a certain faith usually go out of their way to express this form of faith. For instance Jihad war by the Muslim faith.

Trust in someone (type of faith) connotes dependency on some Supreme Being. This type of faith is that of a relationship with the person you believe in.

Cognitive faith is the affirmation of truth, that certain propositions about God are true. Reasons for the affirmation are irrelevant. One can perhaps say intellectual acceptance of truth. For example belief in justice is an affirmation that justice actually exists. As asserted by one author,” some forms of “belief-in” can be reduced to “belief-that.” Belief in fairies, for instance, is just another way of affirming that fairies exist; no relationship of trust is implied in such.” (Price, p1-27) In this form of faith there is no assurance of any form of tranquility or peace. It is basically a belief that certain type of information are true.

Finally another philosophical issue that arises is that of reasons. Having trust in someone or acknowledging the truth of certain information does not require reasons. Lack of reasons does not imply inability to think. This is because faith does not emanate from reasons.

Works Cited

Price. Habberley “Belief-In and Belief-That.” Religious Studies, Vol. I, No. 1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Print.

Introduction

The book provides an insight on religious experience and examines arguments for the existence of God. Chapter 4 provides possible views of the relationship between faith and reason. It states that faith itself can be strengthened and natural and that doubt and questioning are the antitheses of faith and bitter enemies of religious life (Peterson et al 1). However, it is not easy to separate faith from reason. All religions make use of reason and, at the same time, sanction its use. Therefore, it leads to an understanding of the role of reason in the validation of religious beliefs. A satisfactory answer is considering strong rationalism for a belief system to be accepted. Indeed, rationalism means reliance on reason or intelligence. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if strong rationalism can be practical.

Body

The problem with strong rationalism is the assumption that reason exists in a man as a neutral faculty. Thus, it can be used to prove things to all people regardless of their individual views. The chapter also touches on fideism, which is a view that posits that religious belief systems are not subject to rational evaluation. Fideists believe that the most fundamental assumption is obtainable in the religious belief system itself. In addition, true Fideists have no problem with a lack of proof but rather they reveal it. It is necessary to make a conclusion that fideism and rationalism are strongly mistaken; hence, it is essential to analyze and evaluate religious belief systems in contrast with string rationalists. Thus, we should accept critical rationalism on the view that religious belief can be evaluated through conclusive proof. According to the author, like strong rationalism, critical rationalism tells us that rational capabilities are largely possible. Critical rationalism emerges automatically by rejecting both strong rationalism and fideism. The most fundamental approach considered is critical rationalism due to a good deal of emphasis placed on the open-ended nature of critical reflection advocated by it. Thus, according to the authors, those who judge the faith by objective and critical reflection would always remain that way. Therefore, religious faith is more of trust to an individual than mere acceptance of a scientific discovery. Therefore, a possible question that I may develop is whether acting irrationally may have negative implications for an individual’s faith (Peterson et al 13).

Chapter 5 of the book discusses the divine attributes of God. It states that God is a being, and He exists in the inner reality of all things (Peterson et al 16). The chapter reveals that God is imperceptible to the senses of a man, and unconditionally pervades all the reality known to man. In addition, the chapter focuses on the existence of God commonly regarded as traditional theism. This reading provides a conception of the nature of God, that is the nature of a supernatural being, and the conception of His nature. In the development of the conception of God, the chapter introduces the reader to the existence of God as an object of worship. This is the primary religious importance of God. However, it results in the understanding of what must be considered true of God in order to make unreserved devotions appropriate. God is considered to be the greatest of all things; therefore, He must be entitled to some honor and obedience due to His superiority. In addition, God is perceived as a perfect being, and cannot be equated with anything. Depending on God’s perfection, and His attributes of love and sympathy, He is capable of being subjected to suffering together with His creatures. In addition, a further consideration of God is that He represents an actual being that should meet the requirements of logical consistency.

Conclusion

However, a man can be quite ingenious by imagining that God is a marvelous character and logically inconsistent. According to the views of traditional theists, we have to consider the self-existence of God. A man depends on both self-existence and the other external influences that may have an impact on their existence. Therefore, it is challenging to reconcile the concept of God with evil and suffering. Hence, this leads me to ask whether God can subject His creatures to suffering.

Work Cited

Peterson, Michael, Hasker William, Reichenbach Bruce, and Basinger, David. Reason and Religious Belief: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Human life is the most challenging in nature despite the presence of technology and modern skills to help people solve their problems. Human beings need to think and act after making wise decisions. For that reason, people’s ability to think, believe, and make rational decisions outweighs all other aspects of animals like physical strength and lethal poisons. However, debate continues to rage between science and religion despite the countless evidence to prove opponents wrong. One of the recent arguments is based on William Kingdon Clifford and his views on the suitability of belief based on evidence.

Clifford points out one controversial issue that human beings should not base their beliefs and faith on things that do not have evidence. However, this argument is, without doubt, one of the endless debates that will continue to dominate learning institutions and scholars’ organizations. It is evident that human beings base more than half their lives on hope and faith. For instance, when people leave their offices in the evening they are sure to get home safe and meet their family members. They dine and go to bed expecting to wake up early and prepare for the following day’s duties. However, none of these people has evidence that the following day they will be okay. Therefore, they base their hopes on the belief that all will be well with them, and they will wake up to continue with their daily activities.

Secondly, science and technology have led to the production of drugs meant to cure diseases all over the world. When people fall sick and go to healthcare facilities they hope to get well after treatment. Even though doctors’ efforts and drugs may be evidence that patients will recover, this depends on various issues. Some patients die as a result of common ailments that have vaccines and drugs to cure them. Therefore, it surprises that even though there is evidence to prove that these drugs have prevented and cured the disease. No one can explain why people die yet they get quality treatment and healthcare services.

Moreover, science is based on research and evidence as crucial ways of understanding phenomena and not belief in the existence of super natural powers. However, the same researchers and laboratories produce conflicting results with regard to an occurrence. Scientists have varying approaches to events and even if they use same research methods they are bound to come up with different answers. One basic factor that evidence based beliefs fail to uncover is the origin of human beings. Even though, scientists have sufficient evidence to prove the origin of human beings it is surprising how they fail to uncover the origin of life on earth. Therefore, scientific and common knowledge is suspicious and thus unreliable to offer solutions or foretell events.

In addition, belief is based on personal assumptions with regard to past experiences or future expectations. Clifford argues that people must have evidence before believing in anything. However, it is evident that some people will believe his arguments by simply reading what he wrote or listening to people talking about his arguments. They will have no evidence to support Clifford’s arguments, but by believing in his arguments, they develop their personal opinions towards various aspects in the society.

One of the illustrations Clifford offers to dispute belief without evidence is The Sailor’s events. He argues that the sailor put the life of his crew in danger by navigating the waters without confidence that his ship will make it to the other end. Contrary to his arguments life is full of accidents and incidences that change the sequence of events. Sometimes motorists take their vehicles to garages and ensure they are tested and approved as roadworthy. However, along the way a motorist can hit a pedestrian or drive into a ditch due to poor visibility. Therefore, faith plays crucial roles in promoting a belief that nothing terrible will happen along the way. As a result, people do all they can to make sure their lives are safe but at the same time base their belief on their instincts that all will be well.

Clifford has strong convictions that human beings must have sufficient evidence before believing in anything. However, there are occasions where emergencies occur; therefore, this does not give them time to reason on what they should do next. Even though, people secure their homesteads against burglars and fit alarms, keep dogs and recruit qualified guards they still keep other weapons like short guns in their drawers. This means that even though they have physical assurance that their homes are safe their emotions and psychologies betray them. There is no need of keeping a short gun in the house if anyone believes they have adequate security against robbers and burglars.

Clifford’s arguments are without doubt based on few isolated cases of human lives. However, human beliefs play vital roles in determining their future lives. People cannot afford to live happily if they do not have faith and belief in various events.

Different religious sociologists and religious philosophers formulate various approaches to religion and the church. In this paper, several authors’ works on religious topics will be analyzed. To begin with, we will consider the second edition of Reason and faith for philosophy of religion based on the ideas of the nature of faith by Richard Swinburne. The central concept of this work is an extended discussion of the idea of religion and a more profound exposition of the Christian and Buddhist ways of salvation. Swinburne concludes that extra-worldly realities are possible and that there is a reasonable degree of epistemic justification for their appropriate consent on the part of the religious person (2005). From an epistemological perspective, the propositional Christian faith is seen by the author as a mental state in which one piece of information is contrasted with another.

Following, Can it be rational to have faith by Lara Burchak will be analyzed. The central concept of the paper is to argue that faith can be rational in some specific cases. The epistemology of Burchack’s work may well be interpreted as an argument as to whether or not epistemology extends to religious belief or whether we should adopt a less rigorous epistemology. Evidentialism is the inherently plausible proposition that faith is only justified if it is commensurate with the evidence (Pritchard, 2017). The author concludes that “belief will be rational to the extent that potential counter-evidence is not very persuasive of the position in question, or to the extent that decisions usually have the costs of deferral” (Burchak, 2012, 225). Having analyzed this work, one can note an interesting approach to rationalizing belief based on the available evidence for its truth.

Another interesting work is an article by Daniel Howard-Snyder called Propositional faith what it is and what it is not. The main idea of this work is to look at religion in general and faith in particular from the perspective of a propositional attitude. In terms of epistemology, Snyder’s work reduces it to structuring the hypothesis of a propositional relation to faith and proving this hypothesis. Regarding the conclusions, Snyder arrives at the more or less unambiguous definition of the criteria for a propositional relation to religion (2013). Analyzing this work, one can conclude that propositional theses of this work correlate in many ways with other approaches to interpreting religious views and are pretty comprehensive.

The last paper to consider is Louis Pojman’s work on Faith, hope, and doubt. The main idea of this article is to identify the differences between the concepts of faith and hope in the context of religion. Pojman argues that religious faith can be based on hope rather than a firm belief in the existence of the object of faith (2015). The epistemology in this work is not based on avid socialism but a specific definition of concepts and their application to religion. This work implies that one does not have to have an unquestionable belief in God to believe. In the meantime, one can live a devotional and worshipful moral life based on the hope that God exists. Analyzing this work, one can conclude that even if the hopeful believer considers the existence of God to be unlikely, the very fact that he hopes for the truth of that existence gives him faith.

References

Burchak, L. (2012). Can it be rational to have faith? In Chandler, J., & Harrison, V. (Eds.). Probability in the philosophy of religion. Oxford University Press.

Howard-Snyder, D. (2013). Propositional faith: what it is and what it is not. American Philosophical Quarterly, 50(4), 1-46.

Pojman, L. P, & Rea, M. (2015). Philosophy of religion: An anthology. Cengage Learning.

Pritchard, D. (2017). Faith and reason: Religious epistemology. Philosophy, 81(1), 101-118.

Swinburne, R. (2005). Faith and reason. Clarendon Press.

In his book, A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs Mary Rowlandson, the author reproduces his own story of the captivity of the Wampanoag Indians during their attack on the town of Lancaster in 1676. Throughout her captivity, Mary Rowlandson faced many trials, both physical and emotional. Despite the difficulties, the heroine drew strength from her faith in God. Her strong faith helped her to endure her captivity and ultimately be restored to her family. This paper will examine how Mary Rowlandson’s strong faith helped her through a difficult time of captivity.

Mary Rowlandson was born in England in 1637 and immigrated to Massachusetts with her family in 1643. Rowlandson grew up in a Puritan family and received a decent education for a woman of her time. In 1656, she married the minister of her town, Mr. Joseph Rowlandson. They had three children together before he died in 1669. In 1678, Mary Rowlandson married Captain Benjamin Whitman. The couple had one child together before Captain Whitman also passed away.

Rowlandson’s faith was evident from the beginning of her difficult situation. When she was first taken captive, she was separated from her three young children. Rowlandson was understandably distraught at this separation, but she turned to God for comfort. She narrates her imprisonment: “Oh, the sorrows of a gentle mother when she is forced to leave her dear children in the hands of the enemy! The Lord sustained me with His strength so that I would not drown under my burden” (Rowlandson 38). Rowlandson’s faith in God gave her the strength to endure this difficult situation.

She was constantly reminded of the power of God, even amid her suffering. For example, she writes of a time when her captors were considering whether or not to kill her. She writes, “I thought now my end came… But it was not the will of God that I should yet die, for the Lord had work for me to do” (Rowlandson 70). Once again, Rowlandson’s faith helped her to overcome a difficult situation.

Rowlandson’s strong faith was evident in her words and actions, showing compassion and forgiveness toward her captors throughout her imprisonment. For example, she cared for a sick child, even though the child’s mother had been cruel to her. She also showed forgiveness when she was finally released from captivity. In her narrative, she writes, “I forgave them [my captors] all that was past, and was willing to live peaceably with them” (Rowlandson 107). Rowlandson’s actions show that her faith was more than just words; it was a way of life.

Her physical hardships also tested Rowlandson’s faith in captivity. She was forced to walk long distances, sometimes barefoot, and she slept in the cold and rain with only a thin blanket for warmth. She was constantly hungry, as the Indians only gave her enough food to keep her alive (Brooks 273). Despite all these difficulties, Rowlandson never lost faith in God’s ability to protect and provide for her.

The psychological trials she faced were perhaps the most difficult to bear. Rowlandson was constantly afraid that the Indians would kill her or torture her. She was also burdened with the guilt of knowing that her captors had killed her husband and children. Despite all this, Rowlandson found comfort in her faith (Moots 123). She believed God was using her ordeal to teach her patience and fortitude.

Rowlandson’s belief that God used her captivity for a higher purpose is also apparent throughout her narrative. Rowlandson often reflects on how her captivity has changed her and has led her to a greater understanding of God. Rowlandson also believes that her captivity has given her a greater appreciation for her family and community. Rowlandson’s eventual return to her family and community is a testament to her strong belief (Newman 28). After spending more than eleven weeks in captivity, Rowlandson is finally released and can return to her family. The heroine’s return to the community proves her strong hope as she can share the story of her imprisonment with her community and help them understand how God can protect and comfort them.

In her book, Mary Rowlandson describes how her faith helped her to endure her captivity. Rowlandson writes about how she turned to God for strength when feeling weak. The author describes the power of her inner faith to overcome her fear of death, forgive her captors, and return to her family because of God. Mary Rowlandson’s strong faith helped her to endure her eleven weeks in captivity. Her faith was evident in her words, actions, and attitude. Despite the hardships she faced, Rowlandson maintained a strong faith in God. This faith helped her endure captivity and make peace with her captors. The heroine is an inspiring example to all who face difficult life situations. Her story reminds us that no matter how difficult our circumstances are, everyone can always turn to God for strength and help. The author’s narrative is quite informative and engaging for the reader, and it allows, through the prism of personal example, to look at the inner spiritual values of everyone.

Works Cited

Brooks, Lisa. “The Captive’s Lament: Reinterpreting Rowlandson’s Narrative.” Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Philip’s War, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 253–298. JSTOR.

Moots, Glenn. Anglican and Episcopal History, vol. 87, no. 1, 2018, pp. 121–126. JSTOR, Web.

Newman, Andrew. “Rowlandson’s Captivity, Interpreted by God.” Allegories of Encounter: Colonial Literacy and Indian Captivities, University of North Carolina Press, 2019, pp. 19–49. JSTOR, Web.

Rowlandson, Mary. A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. Open Road Media, 2016.

Introduction

The history of humankind is riddled with myths and legends, original to each culture and coming from different times. In modern times, there are many refutations of most of them, and the term myth itself is associated with fiction and untruth. However, suppose one understands the meaning and the reasons for their creation, which in most cases are similar regardless of the area of origin of the legend. In that case, sincere belief is not necessary for an educated person. Since the purpose of such stories and tales is mainly to set moral or ethical standards, examples to follow, or goals to achieve, there is no longer a need for blind faith in ancient myths in a conscious society.

Evidence

From the perspective of human psychology, one can easily explain the fascination for epic stories in the past, when the level of information saturation of space was minimal, and the aim of most people was mainly to survive. According to Shynkaruk et al., fairy tales and myths are one way of interpreting and making sense of the world around today (2018, p. 19). One can agree with this because the heritage of one’s own culture contained in legends carries a large part of the cultural code that can shape the identity of a member of a nation. However, belief in details or the veracity of what is happening is irrelevant. According to Aron, the factuality of most such legends is virtually impossible to prove (2000). Other researchers note the critical relation of myths to cultural history and emphasize the need to investigate them not to prove their veracity but to preserve their value (Dégh and Vázsonyi 93). In addition, refutation or the search for evidence is mostly meaningless because of the distortion of minutiae in the legends and their age.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the basic confirmation of the paper’s thesis is highlighted: there should not exist a need to believe or not to believe in ancient stories. Their purpose for modern humans is to comprehend a pattern of thinking, everyday life, and culture of their own or other people’s ancestors, which has survived to our times. The awareness of the norms of behavior and morality embedded in most of them should be understood by every rational person without attempting a pointless search for evidence of the existence of myths.

Works Cited

Aron, Paul. Unsolved Mysteries of History: An Eye-opening Investigation Into the Most Baffling Events of All Time. Wiley, 2000.

Dégh, Linda, and Andrew Vázsonyi. “6. Legend and Belief.” Folklore Genres (eBook), University of Texas Press, 2021, pp. 93–124, Web.

Shynkaruk, Vasyl, et al. “Myth as a Phenomenon of Culture.” National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, vol. 1, no. 4, 2018, pp. 17–22, Web.

Jean-Baptiste Moliere is one of the most famous French playwrights whose works are still popular and up-to-date in the modern world. Moliere’s comedies are characterized by a brilliant satire on the major vices of the French society of the seventeenth century. In Tartuffe, Moliere draws people’s attention to several issues with such central themes as hypocrisy, religion, morality, females’ role in society, and folly. At that, the comedy was regarded as excessively controversial by its many contemporaries as many viewers saw satire on religion. However, the playwright did not make fun of religion or even the clergy but pinpointed some individuals’ hypocrisy and some people’s foolishness showing the issues that may arise.

Tartuffe is the personification of the hypocrisy (including religion-based pretense) and vice that can cause considerable harm to good families. With the help of his image of a virtuous and rightful man, he manages to gain complete power. All the members of the family see that “it’s all a ruse” and “this street bum… plays the master” (Moliere 140). The man is an experienced criminal who knows how to take control of the property. He takes control of the mind of the master of his house and his mother. Notably, he uses religion as the major instrument of his influence as it is easy to become a mentor and guide through the hazards of the world. Soon, such guidance turns into complete control over all aspects of life. The master of the house is quite naïve, which is the trait making him vulnerable to such hypocrites as Tartuffe.

Importantly, Moliere does not question religious principles and norms. On the contrary, the playwright shows many virtuous people such as Mariane, Dorine, Elmire, as well as Madame Pernelle, and Orgon. The author emphasizes that being religious and living a good life is not confined to citing the Bible and preaching about good behavior. Being a truly virtuous person is being sincere, not harming anyone, and trying to help those in need. All these behaviors and moral mindsets are displayed in the play. For instance, Elmire is dressed like “a princess”, which evokes doubts as to her fidelity and is seen as a sign of being less virtuous than needed for a good wife (Moliere 139). At that, Elmire remains faithful to her husband she truly loves and respect. She even engages in an unpleasant situation to reveal Tartuffe’s true intentions to make her husband aware of his guest’s vicious nature.

Instead of criticizing the church or Christian norms and beliefs, Moliere shows how religious people should act using their morality and wisdom without being too naïve. Madame Pernelle and Orgon are characters serving as an illustration of true virtue. The master of the house is fooled by Tartuffe’s humbleness, who gave away half of the given presents to the poor. Tartuffe talks about saving and freeing souls to make Orgon blind. Orgon is constantly repeating the stance regarding the liberation of their souls and protection from sins (Moliere 146). The man shares his mother’s concerns regarding his wife’s behavior, so Tartuffe has another instrument for manipulating the master of the house. Orgon is naïve and sees the good side of people, even if this is an illusion. Only exact facts witnessed by Orgon and Madame Pernelle make them see the world more realistically. Moliere tries to convince viewers that thinking about the soul is one of the priorities in Christianity, but being wise and realistic are also important moral laws for Christians.

However, many clergypeople found the comedy disrespectful towards the church and religion at large due to their fears that people may start seeing the hypocrisy of thousands of the representatives of the Church. Many French people of that time who saw themselves as devout Christians also saw disrespect rather than a call for being cautious. The destiny of this play, however, shows that the majority of French society was wise enough to understand the author’s major claims. The play has been extremely popular, and many refer to this literary work as a good deductive material to show the nature of the true virtue of a modern person.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that religion is one of the central themes in Moliere’s Tartuffe, showing the hazards of being too naïve. The playwright does not question Christian norms or principles but shows that even the most sacred beliefs can be used by hypocrites as a powerful weapon. Moliere stresses that true virtue is based on morality and wisdom. It is critical to see the real world as it is with possible vices and truly virtuous behavior. People need to see what is good and what is bad to be good Christians. The play is still up-to-date as some individuals may use other people’s religious beliefs to achieve their personal goals. Modern people are still vulnerable and need to remain cautious, similar to the French who lived in the seventeenth century.

Work Cited

Moliere, Jean-Baptiste. “Tartuffe.” The Norton Anthology of World Literature, edited by Martin Puchner, W. W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp. 138-191.

Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher in English and is today known for his political philosophical work. His most popular book which created political philosophy foundation for him in the West was Leviathan– published in the year 1651. Hobbes main perspective in the book was social contract theory.

Hobbes lived from1588 to 1679 and during his lifetime created a great impact on people with his political philosophy and views. This paper mainly compares the relationship between Thomas Hobbes as an individual, faith and the society apparent in his two major works from the early 17^th century-Human Nature (1650) and Leviathan (1651).

The nature of the individual

Thomas Hobbes was born in a poor family with no riches, supremacy or influence. He was the son of village vicar who was disgraced by the world. Hobbes however was lucky enough to go to school by the help of his wealthy uncle who funded his education. Hobbes intellectual abilities were developed and recognized after going through systematic teaching in Latin and Greek classics.

His intellectual talents managed to see him through to Oxford University and later on through the use of common sense and mature personality, Hobbes got the chance to tutor Cavendishes a young man from a noble family in England. Hobbes managed to come close to power because of his practical and intellectual abilities showing clearly the nature of person he was as an individual.

We can say that he was a persistent man who never gave up easily and that is why he managed to reach far. Later on, his hard work enabled him to become a math tutor to King Charles II. This however did not make Hobbes a dominant person, it destined that he was definitely susceptible and aware of power.

Hobbes managed to overcome all the political and social havocs that affected his life and which were the major things that shaped the way he was thinking. These factors did not hinder his intellectual growth. This shows how ordinary Hobbes was, he did not allow the surrounding affect his growth despite the fact that it affected his thoughts.

Being a tutor shaped his writing and reading scope which finally enabled him to become the best publisher in Europe. While he was a tutor, he managed to get in contact with great and noble English intellectuals of his time like Francis Bacon. He also managed to learn a lot in France while he was in exile something he imposed after political and social havocs became great.

Hobbes rising reputation as a scholar and as a scientist gave him the chance to also meet chief scholarly figures in Europe during his time such as Gassendi, Mersenne and Descartes. Hobbes managed to find himself in a debate with these notable figures in Europe discussing mathematics, science and sometimes arguing on philosophy. His arguments with these people sometimes cost his intellectual reputation in Europe but that did not worry him.

Hobbes had liberal thoughts whereby he believed that everyone has equal rights; he believed in natural equality for all people. His liberal thoughts later on brought a distinction between the state and civil society (Dietz 1990). This means that Hobbes had a political order character with a justifiable political power view of representative based on the people’s consent. His liberal elucidation of the law was living in a free world whereby everyone had the right to do whatever they liked or wished as long as the law did not forbid it.

Hobbes understood humans as beings with motion and matter (Sorrell & Rogers 2000). He believed that humans obeyed similar physical laws as that of motion and matter. This is why he viewed humans in the same direction. However, he believed that humans could be influenced.

Hobbes description of the nature of human was based on self-interest and social contract. These were his major political philosophy topics that he addressed to the people. In his book Leviathan, he stated that humans were not capable of ruling themselves because they were full of themselves and they are naturally self-centered and petulant. Hobbes therefore believed that a leader should be someone strong at heart not self-centered and petulant.

The nature of Hobbes was also depicted in his writings which were undaunted by poor health and old age. This were however the major occurrences throughout his era. The only thing which brought Hobbes down was his health which failed him.

In his eighties, Hobbes was still strong and passionate about life as he continued to express his secretarial thoughts and his philosophical thoughts; many times, he was controversially defending his quarters. This shows how strong and determined Hobbes was, only death managed to silence him but still he died a hero.

The nature of society

Hobbes was born during the year when Spanish Armada had ill-fates of invading England. He lived during the period when there was heavy havoc and upheaval in England something the nation has never seen before since then. This mayhem faced by England had several facets and sources, fiscal and martial and lastly devout and political roots. During this period, England was at odds with itself in different ways.

There was a great division between the rich, poor and powerful people. Each group had different opinions and support for the king specifically regarding taxation that was implemented by the monarch. There was also a division in the parliament regarding its own supremacy and authority in relation to the King.

The people were at odds both religiously and financially. There was huge inequality in possessions and wealth. There was also Civil wars cataclysm in England which led to the development of splendidly drastic political and religious wings in the nation. A good example is the equality that existed between the levelers in terms of political rights and wealth. The diggers were more drastic and battled for wage labor eradication.

The civil wars in England led to a great division in the military for example Cromwell which is the republican challenger army was the residing place for the levelers (Dietz 1990). Nevertheless, Cromwell destroyed the control and power that they had within different ranks in the army.

King Charles I’s efforts to enforce uniformity in religious acts were almost annihilated by the brittle condition between England and Scotland merger. These are some of the reasons why Hobbes feared England and went on exile in France: he feared political and social chaos. He had the opportunity to observe the pandemonium and at the same time suffer from its effects before he flew to France and came back to England when the political and economic turmoil had reduced.

How Hobbes relates to the society

Hobbes related to the society in different ways both directly and indirectly. He was the father and the initiator of contemporary political philosophy. He encouraged political science and empiricism in England. He confronted religious power and preferred authoritarian state.

His political ideology was mainly based on secularism, science and empiricism whose influence is still experienced in America today specifically in the state and also in the church. Today, many people are still living in the world that Hobbes created, a world of humanity and human authority. There is justification in human authority today. However there are people who do not accept and believe on human authority a world created by Hobbes. However, Hobbes was against political and social disparity and a religious turmoil.

Hobbes fought for humanity; his thoughts were that all humans should be given equal rights, a moral claim which demanded human basic interest protection. He wanted this human authority to be enforced by the parliament and political powers in England.

Hobbes also related with the society through his literature works. He was a mathematician, a scientist, classic literature translator, law writer and lastly he was notorious of writing and raising religious questions especially disputes that existed in the church. Hobbes also wrote political and moral books such as Leviathan, the Elements of Law, Natural and Politic and Treatise on Human Nature among many others. He was one of those interesting intellectuals that existed in the world during the seventeenth century.

The Role of faith in the relationship between Hobbes and society

In the seventeenths century, a period when Hobbes lived, the people considered themselves equals and that is why they competed against each other for the scarce resources. The main notion for the people in England society was all against all and that is what they believed in (Sorrell & Rogers 2000).

However, Hobbes did not like the faith that the society had and that is why he was determined to change the people’s perspective and belief. His believed that if people have trust and view each other as equals it would promote peace and understanding. He therefore demanded and expected everyone to follow his faith on social relations since that was the only way that they could do away with civil war in England.

The state had the responsibility of promoting fairness among the people by first ensuring that judicial and executive powers together with lawmaking bodies join together to become a single body to form the monarch or parliament. This body will have the authority over religious beliefs and doctrines. The parliament can also breach rebels because the King work was to create peace whereby he has no right to commit evil or act unlawful.

How the structure of the selected literary works shapes themes of Hobbes, society and faith

Hobbes wrote many books and the major one popular ones being Leviathan and Treatise on Human Nature which he used mechanistic and scientific principles to address his political thoughts and views (Sorrell & Rogers 2000).

The major theme associated with Hobbes, the society and faith shape the literary works in different ways: it brings out the uniqueness of Hobbes work, his desire to change the world and his good motives towards the society he lived in. Hobbes choice to write in mechanistic principles enabled people to understand what he was addressing. His works were not plan work since he compared humans to the universe and explained them using mechanical processes something visible for all to see and understand.

References

Dietz, M. (1990). Thomas Hobbes and Political Theory. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Sorrell, T. & Rogers, G. (2000). Hobbes and History. London: Routledge.