Category: Philosophy

Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Values and Principles

Before college, I had no idea what ethics was, but I often heard the word “ethical” used in daily conversation. To me, ethics was a synonym for fair/just, and I really did not know what ethics was even remotely about. Obviously, that interpretation was extremely vague and did not capture the complexity of ethics. Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, in their book, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, explain, “We tend to think of ethics as the set of values or principals held by individuals or groups,” which helps to simplify the branch of philosophy.

Within the study of ethics are ethical frameworks, which analyze how people determine what is good and bad, right or wrong, and form opinions on polarizing topics. Two ethical frameworks that I will be comparing and contrasting are deontology and utilitarianism to examine the effectiveness of each when addressing contemporary issues in society. Both frameworks analyze the relationship between intent, actions, and outcomes.

Deontological Ethics: Principles Over Outcomes

Deontology is the ethical theory that “focuses on right actions and right intentions while downplaying the importance of the goods or benefits that are produced by these actions.” Doing the right thing is a person’s responsibility, and the idea of the right thing relies on the motives behind an act. Also, deontology stresses the idea of a universal moral code to which everyone has a duty to adhere. For an action to be considered ethical, it must apply to everyone. If it does not, then the action cannot be deemed ethical.

A strength of this ethical framework is that it sets a universal standard of ethical obligations that are not contradicted when turned into a maximum. An easy example is the classic question of whether you should lie to protect someone. When one evaluates the act of lying through the lens of the deontology framework, the ethical answer would be ‘no.’ This is because if lying to help someone becomes a universally accepted principle, there would be very little truth left in the world. If one applies this theory of thinking to every ethical problem, it creates an obvious answer of whether or not the act is ethical, no matter the outcome.

Another strength of this framework is that it looks at all human beings as equal. The framework creates objective guidelines for making moral decisions that every human being is to follow, with no acceptions. That is helpful because it gives value to moral absolutes that do not change. Lastly, a strength of deontology is that it focuses on one’s own actions and intentions instead of looking at the results or “external circumstances that we cannot control”. People should not be held accountable or praised for things that are not in their control. That way of thinking puts more value on the person’s thoughts and reasoning for their action than the other person’s perception.

A weakness of deontology is that there are no set limits on what can be reasonably universalized. What is reasonable or morally okay to one person may not be the same for others. Also, not all things that are universalized could not be moral and, at the same time, not contradict the previous set of guidelines of deontological ethics. Another weakness of Kant’s approach is that it takes emotions and humanness out of morality. Morality does have some ties to personal behaviors and perceptions, so completely disregarding emotion is difficult in practice. A person whose intentions were moral had to use his or her own judgment to come to that conclusion. So, not acknowledging human emotion when considering something to be ethical is not valid.

Utilitarianism Ethics: The Pursuit of Maximum Happiness

Next, utilitarianism is the ethical framework that focuses on the happiness of people and uses that as the measurement of morality. Utilitarian ethics believes that “actions are morally better or worse depending on whether they produce pleasure or pain or, more abstractly, on how they affect human well-being and happiness. This framework is pretty straightforward compared to deontology because it is based on a single principle, happiness. Since the idea of creating a happier life is common for most people, a system that’s the sole focus is maximizing that happiness is extremely inviting.

A strength of utilitarianism is that it is a form of consequentialism which is the idea that “focuses on the consequences of actions.” This is a strength because it is natural for human beings to weigh the consequences of specific actions and make the choice to do them. Determining ethical behavior through the lens of utilitarianism is easy and somewhat natural because the thought process used is common sense to most people.

That being said, it is easy to demonstrate this framework in real life because it is human nature to believe this way of thinking is fair/ just. Another strength of this ethical framework is that it makes people think beyond their own personal point of view. It is easy to judge an action based on how it will affect you, but your actions do not solely affect your life most of the time. When making an ethical decision, “everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally. We ourselves hold no privileged place, so our own happiness counts no more than that of others.”

In contrast, utilitarianism calculates the amount of happiness an action could create using different variables like intensity or duration, which is very complex, and “no one can consider all of the variables that utilitarianism requires us to consider.” This weakness is important to think about because one can never know all the consequences of a specific action, thus meaning the choice may not always be as clear as it is presented to be. In this case, the person who is deciding between the possible actions will be inclined to choose the results that, in their opinion, would generate the most happiness.

Another weakness is that the ethical framework can be used as an excuse for unjust actions for the sake of the happiness of others. A good example from the book that was used to criticize utilitarian ethics is, “Or could we not justify on utilitarian grounds the killing of some individuals for the sake of the good of a greater number, perhaps in the name of population control.” The amount of happiness or evilness an action creates is not the only reason why it is morally wrong or right. There are certain actions that are just wrong, and utilitarianism ignores that as long as the outcome is positive for the majority of people. The end justifying the means is a dangerous way to think because it undermines rules and regulations that keep society in order.

Comparing Deontology and Utilitarianism: Contrasts and Common Ground

However, these two frameworks dramatically differ in the process used to determine whether or not an action is ethical. Deontology focuses on the intentions behind an action and the action itself to ensure it is good or proper. In other words, the framework “emphasizes the right over the good.” The good is the results that are produced by the said action. In contrast, Utilitarian ethics only focus on happiness or good that results from an action. Similarly, both deontology and utilitarian ethics look beyond the personal point of view when determining an action’s morality.

Utilitarianism believes the ethical option is the one that produces the most “happiness or pleasure of all who are affected by an action or practice that is to be considered.” So, when making an ethical decision, the person must look at things from others’ points of view. Also, deontological ethics heavily enforce duty and moral standards, which are things everyone must live by. To consider an action to be ethical,” it must be something that I can consistently will or accept that all others do.” Both frameworks, when evaluating principles and actions, do not judge them from a personal point of view and think about the greater good. Since these frameworks’ methods of determining an action or principle are ethical, they tend to differ in opinion on real-world issues.

Ethics in Real-world Scenarios: Navigating Complex Moral Challenges

Therefore, after analyzing both utilitarian and deontological ethics, I have come to the conclusion that deontological ethics is the most helpful in working through real-world issues. Deontological ethics holds every human being as equal and holds everyone accountable to the same duties and moral standards. To me, it is the easiest to work through and makes the most sense because there will always be a “justified” reason as to why someone should not follow the rules or break laws, but that does not make it right. For instance, the act of abortion is unethical from a deontology standpoint because it is wrong to end a life. Though I am Pro-Choice, I do still agree with the fact that abortion is not a moral act no matter what, but it should be a woman’s choice to deal with that decision.

Another example would be theft; a poor person stole expensive medicine in order to live. Though the company would not take a hard hit, it is still wrong to steal, no matter why or how it will affect others. It may seem harsh, but with no order of things and a universal code of moral conduct, I believe the world would fall apart. Also, it is unfair to pick and choose whose justification is better, and it is like comparing struggles; no matter who wins, both are still struggling. This ideology reminds me of the old saying, “Do unto others as you would want to be done to you.” If you do not believe it is right for someone else to do it, you should not be doing it.

References:

1. MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Cengage Learning.

Navigating Belief and Evidence: William Clifford’s Perspective on Rational Belief in ‘The Ethics of Belief’

William Clifford is one of the great mathematicians and is remembered as an intellectual and authority in science. While other scientists were worried that a collapse in religion would lead to morality and society desecration, Clifford was willing to embrace the uncertain territory that science failed to explain. While embracing certain morality codes, Clifford defended his lecture “The Ethics of Belief” that he delivered in London’s Metaphysical Society in 1876 (Christian). This was in an effort to promote discussion between religion and scientific beliefs.

In his article, Clifford argues that it is wrong to believe in God without the evidence that God exists (Clifford). In the first part of the paper, Clifford gives an example of a person who believes in something without having sufficient evidence. In the example he gives, he describes a shipowner who sends out a ship that he knows and believes to be seaworthy. He, however, encounters several doubts, given that the shop was overhauled and repairing the ship would cost him. However, he put his trust in the ship, given that it had already gone through many voyages and returned safely each time. However, the ship did not make it to shore this time around, even after convincing himself the ship would be fine (Clifford).

Examining the Impact of Personal Beliefs: Clifford’s Critique on the Role of Belief and Evidence

Clifford insists that the shipowner was morally responsible for the deaths of the people on the ship. His failure is completely clear, given that he had the fact that the ship might not make it for another voyage. He let himself be guided by beliefs instead of the facts. His actions, however, were not wrong because of the results of the voyage. Even if the ship had survived the voyage, the shipowner would still be liable for his actions.

The lecture is divided into three sections, including the duty of inquiry, the weight of authority, and the limits of inference (Clifford). Each of these sections describes in detail the reasons why actions should not be based purely on beliefs, how beliefs affect other people in society, and the manner in which beliefs are passed on from one person to the community without regard for truth or evidence.

Due to this, Clifford brings up several premises of the various argument, including (Clifford):

• When one’s beliefs have a huge effect on others, it is wrong to act on insufficient evidence.
• One’s beliefs will always have an impact on others.
• It is wrong to believe in insufficient evidence.

Interconnected Beliefs: Unpacking Clifford’s Premises on the Societal Impact of Personal Beliefs

The first premise states that in a case where our beliefs affect other people, it is wrong to make decisions without evidence. Clifford’s reason for this premise is due to the social function of belief. He stated that beliefs often prompt the decisions of our will, not just for ourselves but also for humanity. Social function often binds men together, and people often rely on what other people believe in to make decisions. The passengers that boarded the ship, for example, made their decision to board the ship based on the decision that the shipowner made to set it off for sail, despite his doubts.

The second premise insists that beliefs have effects on other people. Clifford believes that there is no belief that is held by one man and that the belief of one man eventually affects the entire humankind. This has been shown to be true in institutions like religion, where the belief of one man had a domino effect on the rest of society. It does not matter how insignificant the belief might be or how ‘unimportant’ the believer seems (Christian). Beliefs have never been a private matter, and they are even handed over through generations.

Clifford is well aware of the effects of beliefs in society, as well as the collection of socially held beliefs. His second premise, however, is a bit weak, given that he does not give a reason to think that all beliefs, even insignificant ones, affect other people. He simply states this. However, in my opinion, this is not completely true.

My Argument

There are beliefs that we hold that are socially held, and any change could affect the rest of the community’s beliefs. However, there are other beliefs that an individual holds that do not particularly affect society. An example is a belief that I may have right now that I will get a certain amount of cash within a week’s time. This belief could be held by evidence, for example, the timely delivery of a certain amount of work within the weeks’ time, which is a surety. It could also be simply wishful thinking. Either way, this belief does not affect society in any way, and neither will it have an effect on humanity.

One could dream up circumstances that may show a domino effect from the belief that I am expecting pay within a week. For example, a close friend could be in severe debt and could be facing jail time due to dues owed within a significant amount of time. I, however, could tell them that I am receiving pay and that I could lend most of that pay to the friend. This could lead to a friend being kept out of jail, which could lead people to be more generous with their friends. This could lead to one belief changing the decisions of others, and in this case, it includes the decisions of both the friend and the debt collectors.

Another reason to doubt the second premise is that, at times, people keep their beliefs to themselves (Christian). If someone kept an unjustified belief to themselves, there is a chance that it may not affect anyone within the society. This, however, does not take away its surety as my own belief. This belief, however, may lead me to act in different ways that may affect another person. However, if one is careful with their actions, one person’s belief does not necessarily affect others.

Evaluating Clifford’s Call for Objective Beliefs: Balancing Evidence and Subjectivity in Knowledge and Morality

In the first premise, Clifford believes that to act, one must have sufficient evidence to support their actions. The historical beliefs in society, however, are not based on sufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence could also be incredibly subjective, and for some, it may imply sufficiently reasonable. For example, if one person trusts the other person, they are justified in believing in each other even though lies may be involved.

Knowledge is also a socially generated product, and the rules of holding beliefs become more of social rules. For example, society will treat a certain expert a certain way simply because they are experts in it. It does not matter whether they have encountered the same problem before and solved it. In today’s society, your resume and track record speak for itself. This is a far cry from Clifford’s slogan that one should not act on one’s beliefs but rather on the evidence presented.

Clifford’s essay is meant to be a moral rejection of being subjective and a concept that holds that knowledge and truth are limited to self-experience. Subjectivism holds that truth can be found within oneself, one’s experiences, or other means that are extremely personal (Christian). This could include experiences like clarity through prayer, meditation, self-reasoning, or simply self-belief. Clifford insists instead that objectivism is much more superior, and it is the only concept that can hold true. This includes concepts like scientific evidence and mathematics. Clifford was extremely fond of objectivist ethics and said that any decision based on subjectivism is immoral.

Reconsidering Clifford’s Premises: Challenges to the Notion of Insufficient Evidence as Harmful and Unquestionable Morality

The first premise is also questionable, given that Clifford insists that acting on a certain belief without sufficient self-evidence could be harmful to the people who rely on the decisions made. However, insufficient evidence is not always harmful. At times, it could be extremely helpful. Within marriage, for example, spouses trust each other to be faithful and to cover their responsibilities. This is not supported by any past evidence but rather a self-belief in the other person. Insisting that a child believes in herself or himself is also important in self-growth and self-confidence. This is often done by encouraging the child on certain issues regarding themselves, including praising them and providing them with words of affirmation. It is important to ensure limits on overpraising children. However, the results of encouraging confidence, self-belief, and trust are not always bad. Hence, the premise is false.

However, apart from the circumstances that reject the second premise, as shown above, Clifford’s perceptions have a loophole in them. Clifford has not provided sufficient evidence to verify his concept of morality. His hypotheses, therefore, are in violation of his own moral conduct by claiming that his positions are true without being verifiable. He failed to clarify the contradictions that were brought upon him and given that his arguments begin unraveling, it is only prudent that his arguments are rejected. Without rejecting his philosophy, we would be acting immorally.

In conclusion, I believe that Clifford’s argument does not establish that actions without proper and reasonable evidence are wrong. This, however, does not dismiss the fact that actions that affect others should always be weighed heavily against the resulting consequences that may occur, given the evidence that is available. His thought process may be in the right place, but his arguments do not hold.

References:

1. Clifford, W. K. (1877). The Ethics of Belief. Contemporary Review, 29(1), 289-309.

The Matrix is a film that is astounding not just in terms of action and unique effects but also in terms of philosophy. The film highlights issues famous philosophers have addressed throughout history (Grau, 2005). Everything that individuals believe to be the actual world might be a dream (Grau, 2010). For instance, John Partridge, whose research focuses on Greek philosophy, analyzes the striking similarities between The Matrix and the Cave scenario in Plato’s work (Grau, 2005). Partridge investigates the film’s fundamental coherence with Plato’s text and the numerous superficial connections between Plato’s cave-dwellers and the humans trapped in The Matrix (Grau, 2005). Both narratives highlight the significance of disciplined self-examination and the self-knowledge that can result. Hence, Neo and the cave-dwellers, as Plato may describe it, are engaged in the laborious trip from darkness to light required for true knowledge.

I agree that sensory knowledge is subjective and inadequately practical. For instance, Plato’s allegory’s shadows illustrate a false sense of reality, an illusion about the world. Prisoners are shackled and forced to face a wall within the cave (Plato, 2010). The prisoners believe only shadows exist since they have never seen anything else. Plato’s classic allegory compares the universal truth of the Forms, represented by the Sun, with the illusions of daily existence depicted by the shadows (Plato, 2010). Logical thinking is the method to understand what lies underneath the surface of everything in the universe. The Matrix resembles Plato’s allegory in that people are stuck in an illusionary world. Neo decides to uncover the reality by taking the red pill (Wachowski & Wachowski, 1999). Therefore, people in The Matrix do not see reality, just like the cave-dwellers in Plato’s allegory.

To conclude, The Matrix does not differ from Plato’s allegory because it demonstrates the same concept. Neo and the freed cave-dwellers understand that the reality they have previously encountered is different. Plato, I believe, would agree with The Matrix’s concept. Perceptions may deceive us, as they did the prisoners who could only see shadows and those in The Matrix who could see virtual reality. As a result, reasoning and self-examination are the only ways to determine the truth.

References

Grau, C. (Ed.). (2005). Philosophers explore the matrix. Oxford University Press.

Grau, C. M. (2010). Bad dreams, evil demons, and the experience machine: Philosophy and The Matrix. Imagine, 17(4).

Plato, B. (2010). The allegory of the cave. P & L Publication.

Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, L. (1999). The Matrix [Film]. Warner Bros.

Paul M Gould and James K Dew explore the problem of evil. They tackle it philosophically and from a Christian viewpoint covering four major philosophical aspects: metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, and epistemology. The two scholars recognize two prominent forms of the problem of evil: the evidential and logical. The evident problem of evil recognizes the logical compatibility of God and Evil (James and Paul). However, owing to the distribution, amount, and intensity of evil present in the world, it still avows that probably God is nonexistent. As far as the logical compatibility of God and Evil is concerned, this is grounded on the idea that the certainty of God is discordant with the fact that evil exists.

Dew & Gould’s answers in support of Pruitt’s arguments

Pruitt based his answers to the problem of evil on theodicy, which explains why an impeccably good, all-knowing, and almighty God allows evil. Compared with Dew & Gould’s, Pruitt’s view is supported by the evidential problem of evil. Their similarities are realized in that they both support the presence of evil to exist simultaneously with a Perfect God. From Pruitt’s view, in his article, God, Evil and the Human Good, it is evident that he recognizes evil. This is seen when he defines evil as the loss of good.

He proceeds to examine Christianity’s view of evil and the parasitic nature of evil on good, where Augustine’s insights are helpful in his view that all of God’s creations are good. “God is the creator of the world and all that is in it, and for this reason, the world should function. Man should always enjoy God, however, when a man becomes selfish in his quest for love, evil follows (Jonathan).” Pruitt’s recognition of the existence of both Evil and God is further evident in his example of how, when asked about the legality of divorce, Jesus appealed on how God made humans have a justifiable answer.

Dew & Gould’s evidential problem of evil, though it rejects theism, supports Pruitt’s argument. It recognizes the presence of suffering and evil with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. In their book “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness.” One can deduce that evil is present, which is logically consistent with God’s reality. This is seen in how the evidential problem of evil is formulated. That Pointless Evil cannot co-exist with God, and there may be a possibility that pointless evil is nonexistent. The fact that it stated pointless evil means it recognizes that it concedes the logical compatibility of God and Evil, in this case, a ‘pointful’ sin. This concession is the exemplification of its support of Pruitt’s argument.

The strongest and most intriguing argument that Dumsday offers on Divine Hiddenness

Like the problem of evil, another major argument that the modern philosophy of religion utilizes in support of atheism is the problem of divine hiddenness. This refers to arguments that try to validate the point that if the existence of God is true, how most likely this would have made a more obvious truth of his existence. The article C. S. Lewis on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness by Travis Dumsday. Travis Dumsday offers two major arguments on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. In the first argument, he avows that a loving God would ensure that his presence is ostensible to us in a rationally certain manner (Travis). This would be the case as love is of the nature that the lover pursues an open relationship with the love object. Second, this would be the case as most traditional faiths claim that eventual well-being necessitates a positive association with God.

However, still, a majority of individuals fail to believe in God’s reality. The first is the strongest and most intriguing due to its simple nature. It requires the simple discerning ability to note that love is physical. Another more compelling reason, and with a more philosophical underpinning, is that it leaves people wondering. The wonder is on the possibility of a perfectly loving God. To perform an action that would cause non-resistant nonbelief in people with the capability to relate with God in a loving manner personally. This type of wonder has exemplifications; for example, imagine a non-believer who could not have a personal relationship with God but still is not resistant to God. Such an individual might be at their capacity’s dawn of personally relating with God. The individual is thus a believer who, though fails to experience God physically, still feels a personal touch with him and, therefore, still believes, this is intriguing.

Dumsday’s arguments support Dew & Gould’s divine hiddenness

Dew & Gould views divine hiddenness in a fairly general way. Their views are founded on five premises that draw their reasoning from the bible and other sources. These two scholars commence by exploring divine hiddenness by viewing it from an Atheists lens. According to them, this lens points to a convergence where atheists and believers agree that God’s existence is not apparent to everyone. However, atheists use this to elucidate their non-believer nature.

They assert that if Christians claim a perfectly loving God and that if the greatest need of humanity is to love and know God, then the existence of God should be apparent to everyone. According to Dew & Gould, God ought to ensure that he is maximally apparent to prevent rational unbelief. If this were the case, it would follow that it would not be reasonable to be a non-believer, and therefore all unbelievers in their unbelief would be guilty ethically. It is then based on five premises with various reasoning, including drawing from the bible.

Dumsday arguments support Dew & Gould, his view questions theism based on the non-existence nature of God. He questions the existence of a non-obvious God who can be rationally doubted. He draws his premises on the fact that this reasoning has existed for a long time since the patristic period in Christian theology. In the modern day, according to Dumsday, the problem of divine hiddenness continues and is based on clear-framed theism.

He proceeds to express God’s love to humans; he asserts that in it, is a desire for a reciprocal and explicit love for God, and the nature of love necessitates such a relationship in which eventual well-being will require an apparent form (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). However, unless humans start believing that God exists, then it is impossible to have such a relationship. However, the lack of an obvious existence leads to many failing to believe. Dumsday is advancing arguments on divine hiddenness, which agree with those of Dew & Gould on the absence of an obvious existence in the Love for God.

In conclusion, from the discussion of the problem of evil, I have gained important insights regarding the epistemic question of the existence of evil in the reality of God’s presence. It is clear that all the arguments revolve around the question of an omnipotent, morally perfect, and Omniscient God. From this, they seek to look for supporting arguments from the bible, literature, and Christianity. My conclusion is that God exists as the curiosity drawn from the three main premises brings further debate, which is not fully conclusive. Such further curiosity can only exist when a supernatural being is in control, and thus God exists.

Works Cited

James, K. Dew and M. Gould Paul. Philosophy: A christian Introduction. Baker Academic, 2019. Web.

Jonathan, Pruitt. “God, evil, and the human good.” Moral Apologetics (2014): 1-5. Web.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hiddenness of God. Web.

Travis, Dumsday. “C. S. lewis on the problem of divine hiddenness.” SAGE (2a015): 1-5. Web.

Introduction

The critical theory was proposed almost a century ago, and since then it has been revived,¹ revised,² and revisited.³ Nowadays, it is not uncommon for modern political, social,⁴ and religious⁵ initiatives and approaches to be based on it. This popularity and the remarkable ability to withstand even the criticism of its foundations⁶ make the critical theory and interesting topic for research. In this paper, the critical theory is briefly characterised from the historical and ideological perspective, after which its impact on the contemporary political philosophy and the relationships of mutual influence between the two are discussed. It is concluded that the theory’s remarkable longevity may be the consequence of the methodology created within its framework, that is now being applied to diverse⁷ aspects⁸ of human activities.

Critical Theory: History and Definition

A product of Frankfurt School, the critical theory was established in the 1920s, later reviewed in the 1950s, and returned to throughout the post-war history of political philosophy.⁹ The theory is concerned with improving society through emancipation. Its core basis is the “Hegelian turn” in Marxism, and it focuses on the development of a reasonable society through critical thinking.¹⁰ The Kantian concern of the possibility of reason and knowledge was also explored by the School, and the influence of Kantian philosophy is visible in its apologists’ ideas.¹¹ Apart from that, the idea of reflective thinking was combined with “intellectual and moral responsibility.”¹²

In other words, the apologists of the theory aimed at making thinking less detached and explanatory and more socially oriented. Ideology, in this case, was regarded as an obstacle to human freedom, the contradictions and “masking” ideas of which could be exposed with the help of critical thinking.¹³ Naturally, the theory criticised the positivist view that denied the critical aspect of knowledge: for the critical theory, reflective thinking is of supreme,¹⁴ central¹⁵ significance.

The positivist philosophy, in this respect, was regarded as not just faulty, but a downright dangerous way of thinking with the potential of turning knowledge and enlightenment in another ideology tool. The ideal of the critical theory was a “civil society inhabited by rational autonomous individuals and unaffected by the impact of class power”.¹⁶ However, they sought to avoid utopism and focus on a practical application of their work: basically, in the field of social justice.

As such, the idea of enlightenment was already discussed by Marxism, but the combination of the theoretical antecedents mentioned above produced the unique critical theory that considered its aim to free individuals and their groups of the coercion enforced by ideology.¹⁷ Such was the primary form of the critical theory developed in the 1920s, but it was subject to numerous revisions and developments. One of them that is particularly remarkable was defined by the work the Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. It indicated the pessimistic turn in the critical theory, which could be explained in part by the unlucky developments of the XX century. An example of such developments was the turn of the Russian Revolution that had been one of the major inspirations of the theory into the Stalinist dictatorship.¹⁸

Created during the World War II, the work contained an attempt at defining the reasons for the issues of the XX century (including revolutions, wars, communism, fascism, and rising consumerism) that the authors had defined as “degradation,” “regression,” “tireless self-destruction of enlightenment,” and “enlightenment’s relapse into mythology”.¹⁹ The authors insisted that enlightenment is the only path to freedom, but as a result of “curse of irresistible progress” that is “irresistible regression,” the society has gotten into a vicious circle of the illusion of disillusionment.²⁰

The authors insist that the rational, reason-based and enlightened society needs critical thinking that is different from the current thinking that has become “an instrument of power”.²¹ An aspect that is of especial concern to the authors consists in the industrialisation of culture that turned the natural means of stimulating critical thinking into the “deception” of enlightenment, the tool for ideology creation, which is demonstrated through the example of fascism and advertising.²² The work illustrates the pessimism of Frankfurt School, but apart from that, it is one of the first critical works on the critical theory. This tendency to revise and rethink the ideas of the theory with the help of its methodology is what appears to have ensured its longevity and persistence in the contemporary political philosophy.

Contemporary Political Philosophy

The modern political philosophy is pluralistic, multidimensional, and incorporative, which makes describing it a challenging task. Still, the varied points of view that it includes may be united in three general dimensions, two of which trace back to the ancient Greek philosophy, and the third one is a relatively new endeavour at globalisation. The two “classic” approaches either regard politics as something “superficial” or vice versa a “constitutive dimension of the human condition.”²³

Apart from that, nowadays the tendency is evident for political philosophy to focus on humankind-generated issues such as geopolitical conflicts, social and economic inequality, and environmental damage. This focus corresponds to the idea of humankind being its own worst enemy, and struggling with these issues is considered to be the primary task of the modern governments. Also, it is noteworthy that the specifics of political philosophy consist of the need for its practical applicability.²⁴

As a result, contemporary political thinking is fighting to find a balance between sociological and philosophical aspects, that is, to avoid both practical and ideological reductionism and stay “contemplative and reflexive, yet practical and prescriptive.”²⁵ The issues that are being discussed within the multiple frameworks of CPP are numerous, but the relatively general tendency consists in the adjustment of the relatively modern concepts (liberalism, social justice, democracy) to the practice of politics and the detection and elimination of the inconsistencies within the current theories and ideologies.²⁶

Critical Theory and Contemporary Political Philosophy

The Impact of the Critical Theory on Contemporary Political Philosophy

It cannot be denied that the critical theory has had an impact on the political philosophy as we know it now. The ideas of empowerment, including self-reflection and improvement, advocacy for social change,²⁷ rejection of ideological coercion for the sake of understanding what an individual or a group wants or needs are the pillars of the critical theory. They are of significance for modern trends in the political philosophy and the relatively modern concepts of democracy, liberalism, and emancipation. It should be amended that the critical theory is, in turn, a product of varied Marxism-inspired theories, which indicates that not every liberation and the emancipation-related idea is the result of its influence: at the very least, not only the critical theory might have contributed to its development.

However, the contribution of this “well-integrated interpretative and explanatory framework” should not be underestimated, and its influence should not be limited to the pure critical society-oriented thinking.²⁸ Still, critical thinking is the specific contribution of the theory, and it cannot be denied that this contribution has influenced contemporary political philosophy and promoted the development of new theories and frameworks.

Á Vita, for example, discusses a critical view of social justice that he terms as the “critical theory of justice” or “critical social justice.”²⁹ In short, it criticises the focus on political and social institutions and emphasises the importance of societal norms and values as the foundation of the former.³⁰

An obvious application area for this proposal is feminism. It may be concluded that feminism has been aiming at this exact change even though it might not have used the terminology of the critical theory. Feminism has been promoting criticism of the existing ideologies and change in the political philosophy and most other relevant fields, including religion, one of the most difficult doctrines to challenge.³¹ The feminist critical theory is a vivid example of the critical theory being used for theory and practice. It is concerned with the critical review of political and cultural norms as well as self-development and reflection, which corresponds to the initial aims of the critical theory.³²

Moreover, the same can be essentially said about the advocacy for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights.³³ The development of such movements and especially political philosophy underpinning them requires a critical assessment of the existing ideologies and norms and the rejection of ideological coercion in the favour of the social justice and the satisfaction of the needs of the society. As a result, the movements that are concerned with these and other similar aspects of the life of the human society illustrate the impact of the critical theory on the political philosophy and the public opinion in general. What is more, these movements, initiatives, and resulting changes are developing and advancing the critical theory by providing new contexts of its application and interpretation.

The Interpretation of the Critical Theory in Contemporary Political Philosophy. The Future of the Critical Theory

Nowadays, the critical theory is being developed,³⁴ critically discussed,³⁵ revised,³⁶ revisited,³⁷ and adjusted to the needs of the modern world.³⁸ It is even used to ground the advocacy for animal rights,³⁹ which offers a new perspective on the initial aim and ideal of the theory. It can be concluded that the critical theory is being affected by modern political philosophy and is advanced and developed by it. What also appears to be of importance, though, is that all the researchers and theorists who revise the theory proceed to treat it the way Horkheimer and Adorno did: as a subject to critical review. In other words, the critical theory’s framework and methodology are being used to perfect the theory and framework themselves.⁴⁰

Apart from being in line with the spirit of the theory, such metacritique seems to indicate that it has a potential for further development: in other words, it has the chance for a future.⁴¹ Moreover, it is noteworthy that the critical theory methodology is being used to criticise other ideas, including Marxism-based ones.⁴² Such a development, ironical as it may be, indicates that the methodology applies to political philosophy and theory. As a result, it appears that the theory has the potential of proceeding to contribute to the development of political thought in the future.

Conclusion

As another significant step in the development of political philosophy, critical theory has contributed to the evolution of modern political thinking in several ways. Its key features and ideas include the focus on social transformation, the practical application of theory, the emancipation from ideological coercion, and the enlightenment and critical thinking as the tools for these changes. The impact of the theory on the contemporary political philosophy is noticeable both in its contribution to emancipatory trends and especially in the form of critical thinking promotion. The latter can be regarded as a most significant development: it has given rise to a methodology that appears to apply to the theory itself and varied other social, political, and cultural ideas.

While the roots of critical theory can be traced to Marxism and Hegelianism, it is this theory that has managed to unite them and apply the mixture to the social change promotion. The methodology framework of critical theory methodology can be regarded as a tool that is likely to outlive several ideologies and theories due to its near-universal character. The critical theory appears to have the potential for future change, and it is being developed in the context of modern politics, which indicates that the relationship between the theory and the contemporary political philosophy is mutual.

Bibliography

Braidotti, R, ‘In Spite of the Times: The Postsecular Turn in Feminism’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 25, no. 6, 2008, pp. 1-24.

Brookfield, S, ‘Foundations of Critical Theory’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 16, no. 4, 2014, pp. 417-428.

Eagan, J, ‘Foreclosure and dispossession: The case for a feminist critical theory for public administration’, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, pp. 37-64.

Frega, R, ‘Between pragmatism and critical theory: Social philosophy today’, Human Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2014, pp. 57-82.

Gilani-Williams, F, ‘Islamic critical theory: A tool for emancipatory education’, International Journal of Islamic Thought, vol. 5, 2014, pp. 16-27.

Goodin, R, P Pettit, & T Pogge, A companion to contemporary political philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2012.

Haber, S, ‘Emancipation from Capitalism?’, Critical Horizons, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 194-205.

Horkheimer, M, T Adorno, & G Schmid Noerr, trans. E. Jephcott, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2002.

Kollman, K, & M Waites, ‘The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: an introduction’, Contemporary Politics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-17.

Kompridis, N, ‘Re-Envisioning Critical Theory’, Critical Horizons, vol. 15, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-13.

Koopman, C, ‘The direction of contemporary critical theory: A response to Amy Allen’s The Politics of Our Selves’, The Diversity of Social Theories, vol. 29, 2015, pp. 37-64.

Leca, J, ‘Political philosophy in political science: sixty years on Part II: current features of contemporary political philosophy’, International Political Science Review, vol. 32, no. 1, 2011, pp. 95-113.

Maurizi, M, ‘Critical theory and animal liberation’, Society & Animals, vol. 21, no. 5, 2013, pp. 489-493.

Rees, R, ‘Systematic theology and the future of feminism’, Pacifica: Journal of the Melbourne College of Divinity, vol. 24, no. 3, 2011, pp. 300-304.

Steinvorth, U, ‘On critical theory’, Analyse & Kritik, vol. 30, no. 2, 2008, pp. 399-423.

Strydom, P, Contemporary critical theory and methodology, Abingdon, Routledge, Abingdon, 2011.

Tormey, S, & J Townshend, Key thinkers from critical theory to post-Marxism, SAGE Publications, London, 2006.

Vita, Á, ‘Critical theory and social justice’, Brazilian Political Science Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2014, pp. 109-126.

Wellmer, N, ‘On critical theory’, Social Research, vol. 81, no. 3, 2014, pp. 705-711.

Zambrana, J, ‘Paradoxes of neoliberalism and the tasks of critical theory’, Critical Horizons, vol. 14, no. 1, 2013, pp. 93-119.

Footnotes

1. R Goodin, P Pettit & T Pogge, A companion to contemporary political philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2012, p. 389.
2. N Kompridis, ‘Re-Envisioning Critical Theory’, Critical Horizons, vol. 15, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-13.
3. S Brookfield, ‘Foundations of Critical Theory’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 16, no. 4, 2014, pp. 417-428.
4. K Kollman & M Waites, ‘The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights: an introduction’, Contemporary Politics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-17, p. 12.
5. Gilani-Williams, F, ‘Islamic critical theory: A tool for emancipatory education’, International Journal of Islamic Thought, vol. 5, 2014, pp. 16-27.
6. S Haber, ‘Emancipation from Capitalism?’, Critical Horizons, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 194-205, pp. 195-199.
7. P Strydom, Contemporary critical theory and methodology, Abingdon, Routledge, Abingdon, 2011, p. 109.
8. J Zambrana, ‘Paradoxes of neoliberalism and the tasks of critical theory’, Critical Horizons, vol. 14, no. 1, 2013, pp. 93-119, p. 116.
9. Goodin, Pettit & Pogge, loc. cit.
10. S Tormey & J Townshend, Key thinkers from critical theory to post-Marxism, SAGE Publications, London, 2006, p. 168.
11. Goodin, Pettit & Pogge, loc. cit.
12. Tormey & Townshend, loc. cit.
13. Ibid.
14. R Frega, ‘Between pragmatism and critical theory: Social philosophy today’, Human Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2014, pp. 57-82, p. 58.
15. Goodin, Pettit & Pogge, loc. cit.
16. Ibid, p. 388.
17. Ibid, p. 389.
18. S Tormey & J Townshend, p. 169.
19. M Horkheimer, T Adorno & G Schmid Noerr, trans. E. Jephcott, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2002, pp. xiv-xv.
20. Ibid, p. 28.
21. Ibid, p. 31.
22. Ibid, pp. 129-136.
23. J Leca, ‘Political philosophy in political science: sixty years on Part II: current features of contemporary political philosophy’, International Political Science Review, vol. 32, no. 1, 2011, pp. 95-113, pp. 98-99.
24. Zambrana, p. 117.
25. Leca, p. 100.
26. Ibid.
27. N Wellmer, ‘On critical theory’, Social Research, vol. 81, no. 3, 2014, pp. 705-711, pp. 705-706.
28. Tormey & Townshend, loc. cit.
29. Á Vita, ‘Critical theory and social justice’, Brazilian Political Science Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2014, pp. 109-126, p. 109.
30. Ibid, pp. 122-124.
31. R Braidotti, ‘In Spite of the Times: The Postsecular Turn in Feminism’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 25, no. 6, 2008, pp. 1-24.
32. Eagan, ‘Foreclosure and dispossession: The case for a feminist critical theory for public administration’, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, pp. 37-64, p. 98.
33. Kollman & Waites, loc. cit.
34. U Steinvorth, ‘On critical theory’, Analyse & Kritik, vol. 30, no. 2, 2008, pp. 399-423.
35. C Koopman, ‘‘The direction of contemporary critical theory: A response to Amy Allen’s The Politics of Our Selves’, The Diversity of Social Theories, vol. 29, 2015, pp. 37-64.
36. Kompridis, pp. 1-13.
37. Brookfield, pp. 417-428.
38. Zambrana, loc. cit.
39. M Maurizi, ‘Critical theory and animal liberation’, Society & Animals, vol. 21, no. 5, 2013, pp. 489-493.
40. Strydom, p. 109.
41. Rees, R, ‘Systematic theology and the future of feminism’, Pacifica: Journal of the Melbourne College of Divinity, vol. 24, no. 3, 2011, pp. 300-304.
42. Haber, loc. cit.

Introduction

The word philosophy comes from two Greek words: Philo, which means love, and Sophos, which means knowledge. The Greek words form a complete definition of philosophy when combined (McMurrin and Sterling 60). Therefore, philosophy is knowledge combined with a love of the natural world. Education philosophy studies the fundamentals of reality, existence, and understanding. Philosophy is knowledgeable about the various branches, including axiology, epistemology, and metaphysics, and how they relate to educational theory and practice (Akhwanudin 26). By happing proper understanding of the various aspect of philosophy, an individual may find it easier to relate the different aspects entailed.

The term metaphysics has a straightforward literal and technical meaning. It is a subfield of philosophy that studies the difficulties of life. It makes an effort to address these problems. For instance, the nature of the Ultimate World, the source and purpose of energy, the foundation, and basis of all existence (Kauka 43). The world in which man lives, whether or not he has a soul, how his soul works, and what will happen to his soul when he dies. However, Aristotle referred to metaphysics as the first philosophy—the study of theories that go beyond the laws of nature.

Axiology is the study of value, which refers to the origin of something’s worth. Axiology poses queries, and these values-related queries explore ideas of what a person or group deems desirable or preferable (Sie et al.). It is compared to metaphysics and epistemology, which are the cornerstones of educational endeavors. A subfield of epistemology studies the origins, environments, methods, and constraints of human experience. Epistemology describes how individuals believe that choosing a reliable way of evaluation is essential to distinguish between the fact and false (McMurrin and Sterling 60). Utilizing and achieving knowledge of the environment is crucial. The degree to which a person could understand the facts serves as a gauge for how accurate their epistemology is. In this article, we will analyze the relationship between three branches of philosophy in terms of Education, curriculum components, duties of teachers, and administration.

Education

The border of human existence, the ideology of the natural meaning and reason of the world, and the cause for man’s being in the world are all suggested by metaphysics in Education (Kauka 43). Philosophers think about these difficulties and how they affect Education. The Athenians were the first to recognize that studying man was more important than learning about the sun, moon, trees, and other inanimate objects. Man, thus, becomes the focus of philosophical inquiry (McMurrin and Sterling 60). These metaphysical problems impact man, who must find the answers on his own to elevate him to the position of the ruler on earth.

Within the Education division, Axiology components attempt to evaluate the various standards of beauty that serve as people’s justifications for favoring particular artistic endeavors over others (Noll and David 288). The nature of learning, in large part, gives people an appreciation of, say, an activity of art or ethics (Kauka 43). However, there has recently been a corresponding amount of effort put into operations of art and ethics to restore Africa’s luster.

The progressive sub-department of education philosophy is the foundation for education epistemology. In terms of internal consistency, philosophy significantly influences the task of choosing and identifying a coherent learning aim. It enables the accurate description of an educational condition to be sent to the observers (Alanoğlu et al.). The difficulties in locating the sources of knowledge are the subject of epistemology. The goal is to understand the body of knowledge in education science as it relates to learning as education epistemology. The final significant factor explored in education epistemology is the definition and understanding of specific types and strategies for accepting the unique reality of Education and aspects associated with personal knowledge sources (McMurrin and Sterling 60). Despite the distinctive characteristics of the different types and sources of knowledge in learning, their applications in scientific studies can be analyzed.

Curriculum Components

Cosmology is one of the components of the metaphysics philosophy curriculum that deals with the origins of nature. The two main theories on the origins of temperament are that it can be seen as having started when God first created it or, on the other extreme, that everything in nature happened accidentally, which is how it is typically understood. In axiology, it has been demonstrated that curriculum design should consider pertinent factors to prioritize knowledge acquisition while also allowing for a return to the circumstances that provide individual events of greater human significance (Beatty 543). Because they believe that the values-based courses are mature, the curriculum is a remnant from the past and has no real purpose via other fundamental curriculum subjects.

Rationalism is one of the key concepts in the epistemology curriculum since it emphasizes the importance of human purpose in acquiring knowledge. According to rationalism, learning is achieved independently of sensory abilities through logic (Okpara and George). The problem lies in determining the foundational sources of human knowledge and the appropriate procedures for confirming what people believe they know between the two schools of thought (Ahmad 79). This idea, related to epistemology, seeks to understand how propositions and beliefs can change.

Role of Teachers and Administrators

The goal of educational philosophers is to assist teachers in explaining their views on teaching as a whole. Teachers have been introduced to reflecting on their training beliefs and how they manifest in learning institution activities through certain pre-service coursework (Alemdar et al. 284). However, through their design of classroom procedures, teachers impact these fundamental aspects of children’s social development (Beatty et al. 543). Teachers largely see philosophy as an activity that includes the metaphysical ideologization of abstract ideas that have little to do with the injustices in modern classrooms.

A school administrator who adheres to realism’s ideals typically thinks that one may comprehend the true natural and social world for what it is. As a result, the observer can create a duplicate of the environment. No matter who is watching, the real world is there. Realist administrators may believe in implementing manageably mentioned aims in teaching and learning because the real world can be known as it is (Ahmad 79). As a result, existence can be determined and managed rather precisely. Science and math content, particularly literature, geography, history, and even morality, have target content that has endured over time and is well regarded. A school administrator who emphasizes realism in Education may also subscribe to the management by objectives theory (McMurrin and Sterling 60). Administrators and teachers then decide on measurable goals. The endings are agreed upon at the beginning of the new school year. Administrators and teachers must evaluate if enough progress is being made toward the planned goals as the school year progresses.

Conclusion

It is obvious that teaching the three branches of philosophy as a subject and philosophical injury is difficult to work in the sphere of Education, but it is nevertheless helpful to people. The knowledge gained from these inquiries is crucial for daily life and should be welcomed. The truth is that philosophy is entwined with analysis and narration, suggesting that it is not a topic distinct from other subjects but rather an essential component of all disciplines. The three branches intertwine as they struggle to come up with answers to the challenging philosoquisite concerns. Epistemology is a method of formulating knowledge about how nature works. The philosophers’ famous formulation is the belief in the senses and ability; they are referred to as empiricists. The challenge for both rationalism and empiricists are to achieve beyond the appearance of the issues to the actuality behind them.

Lastly, the investigation discovered that there are psychologies that scale the motivations of administrators and other personnel of educational organizations. The features emphasize positive enforcement. The use of gifts to reward desired behavior is then possible. Target’s top management has focused a lot of attention on the value of clearly stated goals created by administrators and other school staff members. Humans are aware of their responsibilities and expectations due to the implementation and approval of quantifiable targets, whereas motivations increase as intent and rationale become more obvious. It is necessary for administrators to study, investigate, and develop workable, secure motivational theories. To obtain effectively, people must be motivated to get objectives of the school and curriculum more comprehensively than would be true if not encouraged.

Works Cited

Ahmad, A. N. A. S., and Indonesia Ahmad Zayadi. “Fundamentals of The Science Philosophy: From Ancient Greece to Islamic Philosophy.” Emergency Remote Teaching in Quarantine Time. Views of Primary Education Teachers, vol. 6, no. 7, 2021, p. 79. Web.

Akhwanudin, Afith. “Sains Modern Dan Urgensi Centralities Nilai Transenden Dalam Engelmann Ilmu Pengetahuan.” Farabi, vo1. 6, no. 2, 2019, pp. 105–26. Web.

Alanoğlu, M., Aslan, S. & Karabatak, S. “Do Teachers’ Educational Philosophies Affect their Digital Literacy? The Mediating Effect of Resistance to Change.” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 3, 2021, pp. 3447-3466. Web.

Alemdar, Melek, and Alper Aytaç. “The impact of teachers’ educational philosophy tendencies on their curriculum autonomy.” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022, pp. 270-284. Web.

Beatty, Joy E., Jennifer SA Leigh, and Kathy Lund Dean. “Republication of: Philosophy Rediscovered: Exploring the Connections between Teaching Philosophies, Educational Philosophies and Philosophy.” Journal of Management Education, vol. 44, no. 5, 2020, pp. 543-559. Web.

Kauka, Elvis Omondi. “Analysis of the Implications of Ubuntu Metaphysics on Educational Praxes.” International Journal of Novel Research in Education and Learning, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018, pp. 43-52. Web.

McMurrin, Sterling M. “On the Meaning of the Philosophy of Education.” The Monist, 2019, pp. 60-69. Web.

Noll, Samantha. “David Kaplan. Food Philosophy: An Introduction.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 43, no. 3, 2021, pp. 287-288. Web.

Okpara, George Chizoba. “Correlational Review on Core Branches of Philosophy and Education.” Interdisciplinary Journal of African & Asian Studies (Ijaas), vol. 7, no. 1, 2021,

Sie, Maureen, and Bart Engelen. “Second Thoughts: First Introductions to Philosophy,” 2021,. Web.

For many years, one of the main topics of concern to many researchers has been the existence of a connection between body and soul. Previously, there was an opinion that the main aspect of perception was materialism, which stipulated that everything in the world has a physical explanation and justification. However, Frank Jackson presented the opposite longing of view, which proved the need for emotional experience in perception. Thus, this essay examines The Knowledge Argument formed from Jackson’s research and its importance for philosophy.

Frank Jackson presented an unusual study, the main purpose of which was to refute the opinion that everything that exists in the world is purely physical. Thus, the basis of his research was the provision of an imaginary subject Mary, a girl who grew up in unusual conditions for the modern world, where everything was black and white, and she received experience regarding emotional sensations only in theory. This education has affected the appearance of the opinion that a person’s emotional state is in no way connected with the physical and cannot influence it. However, when confronted with real colors, she gets qualia, the ‘feely’ aspects of experience. At the same time, the materialists who dominated at that time proclaimed that everything depends on the functioning of the brain and can be conditioned by neuropsychology. Thus, Frank Jackson’s research makes a valuable contribution to the awareness of the important role of the emotional component in the perception of the world.

The work carried out by Frank Jackson became one of the main confrontations of materialists which presented an alternative opinion regarding the interaction of the body and mind. Thus, it “is a comprehensive view about the nature of the world to the effect that every phenomenon whatever is, or is at bottom, physical” (Melnyk para. 1). Hence, this aspect is dominant in this philosophy; however, it raises the question of the attitude to the emotional and mental. In particular, consciousness plays an important role in this complex process (TED). Thus, materialism does not deny the existence of something that may initially seem not physical; however, upon careful consideration, it is still physical or has attributes to it.

Further, the study of the experience of the fictional woman Marie was the impetus for the formation of the phenomenon of The Knowledge Argument. Thus, it implies that qualia cannot be explained by physical components and is the mind’s ability. Moreover, people’s consciousness implies the use of non-physical properties. Furthermore, using Marie’s example, the girl knows about many things, including how a tomato looks and that it is red; however, she does not have any sensory, visual, or taste experiences regarding this vegetable. That is, her entire experience is based on a materialistic view of the world. When she sees a tomato for the first time, she completely fills in the physical and emotional perception of things. Concerning everyday life, it can be seen in the contrast between what people study about animals and what they feel when they see them and feel them. It is on this process that The Knowledge Argument is based, which has an important contribution to the further study of the interaction of mind and body.

In conclusion, this work examined the interaction between the body and mind, which was revealed by the Frank Jackson study. In contrast to the dominant views of materialism, it argued that for a full perception of the world and things, a person uses both physical and emotional experience. Later, these conclusions developed into the Knowledge Argument, a phenomenon that contributed to the development of philosophical thought regarding the connection between body and mind. The main limitation of the assessment was an excessive amount of information about the phenomenon under study, which caused the finding of non-useful data.

Works Cited

“How do you explain consciousness?” YouTube, uploaded by TED, 2015, Web.

Melnyk, Andrew. “Physicalism.” Oxford Bibliography, 2019, Web.

The article “Turn off the white noise to fully experience life” by Mike Milke (2012) reviews the modern world of consumption and how reducing the abundance in life creates more opportunities to enjoy. The author emphasizes that missed opportunities for developing talents and inner abilities are due to continuous distractions that can happen because of social media, the Internet, and other possible resources. Overall, all goals and ideas were met throughout the text, as well they were provided with a substantial amount of support. The renunciation can lead to a happier life through denial and control of cheap opportunities in which people are surrounded.

The concept of self-control is a large topic that takes different mental and physical approaches to a human being. Still, there are different considerations to take into account. Firstly, there is a necessity to create a solid-center (Milke, 2012). The author of the article mentioned the solid center as a way of achieving renunciation in life, and it can be fully agreed that this concept is the right approach to take. Still, a solid center can be achieved through different means and balances since it is a complicated issue. How can one even able to deny the world of abundance with the presence of the Internet and cheap opportunities? The question can be answered from the perspective of mentality and habits. Organized habits, like healthy eating or walking every day can create routine life that enables one to enjoy precious moments of life.

The author mentions that if Glenn Gould had lived in the era of Internet, he could have missed the stage of mastering his talents due to continuous distraction. There can be different arguments to disagree with this point. First of all, the age of Internet did not make humanity lose its sense of art. Vice versa, the number of masterpieces increased dramatically with Internet, as people got more access to the art itself. As abundance was a privilege of the rich, similarly, mastering arts and skills was also largely an activity of elites. In the modern world, almost everyone can achieve meaningful results with the help of media resources. It is indeed controversial to put an analogy of Glenn Gould, since he could have created more masterpieces if he had been born in the age of Internet. Subjection to global resources of art only enhances and fosters this sense of creativity among people. Similarly as Quentin Tarantino became talented by watching thousands of low-rated movies, other individuals were able to find their talents through large resources that the modern era provides.

The author also implies the sense of meaningless social media posts on Twitter and Facebook in comparison with meaningful discourse. However, this argument is also controversial in a sense, that small and invaluable Twitter or Facebook discussions led to the creation of large forums and discourses for people of different kinds. It can be the creation of scientists’ associations on the Internet, active participation in tech forums or any other “valuable” activity that author ignores. Still, it is evident that large amount of ideas and discussions brought on social media are meaningless. The author successfully proves the point that by paying attention to these distractions, people fail to recognize beautiful moments in life, such as simple river sounds or bird voices. The idea of missed moments is correlated with the modern world of people paying attention to phone activities more than to real world interactions. This comparison tries to identify the failure of humanity in an attempt to reduce short-term dopamine providers. This can be music in earphones that can be easily replaced for the sake of experiencing surrounding sounds, like the river call mentioned previously.

Still, it stands important to focus on mastering skills and talents as it leads to fulfilling and happy life. Although there are different opportunities, it is evident that enjoyment received from hard work has a long-lasting effect rather than the impact of a watched video or show on TV. There are different analogies and comparisons that can be made in the question of distractions, but it is still important to consider the present abundance from two perspectives – advantageous and disadvantageous.

Overall, the topic of distractions and renunciation has a complex philosophical basis. The author tried to show one of the perspectives of this question in which he successfully proved his point by using analogies and comparisons. Still, another viewpoint – valuable opportunities received by abundance is a large topic that cannot be ignored. Still, renunciation leads to fulfilling life experience in which an individual is able to experience precious moments. For further considerations, it is important to review renunciation from both perspectives.

Reference

Milke M. (2012). Turn off the white noise to fully experience life. Province opinion. Web.

For a society to function properly, its members should endeavor to engage in the right conduct at all times. However, for this to happen people must have a way of determining what the right conduct is in a given situation. To help answer this question, philosophers have over the years developed some moral theories that can be applied to determine right and wrong behavior. One philosopher who has made a contribution to the field of moral philosophy is Adam Smith. A major argument made in his moral theory is that we can only make objective moral judgments by detaching ourselves from our emotions. I think that Smith is right in making this argument.

To begin with, emotions do not always guarantee that a person will make a judgment that is beneficial to the entire society. When under the influence of emotions, a person might make a decision that is driven by fear, anger, or euphoria. Such a judgment will be in reaction to the feelings that the person has at the particular instance. It will be a subjective moral decision that is likely to be detrimental to most members of the society. If the person is able to detach himself/herself from his/her emotions, he/she can avoid making the subjective judgment. Instead, the person will make use of logic and this will ensure that his/her judgment will take into consideration the good of the entire society.

I think that Smith is right because his approach gives people an opportunity to rely on the well-established general rules of morality. Such rules have been established over time and their soundness can be guaranteed as they have been used by the society successfully for a long time. When a person allows his/her emotions to drive his/her moral decision making, he/she can ignore the well-established general rules of morality.

The judgment made will therefore fail to benefit from the input of past experiences. Considering how personal behavior is driven by personal gain and selfishness, the decision made using emotions will not foster harmony in the society. Following Adam Smith’s theory of detaching ourselves from our emotions, the individual will make use of the well-grounded moral values of the society. This rational approach will yield moral judgments that contribute to individual welfare and social harmony.

Finally, Smith’s argument considers that for a decision to be moral, it must be just. This justice can only be achieved if a person adopts an impartial stance when making the judgment. Achieving impartiality is especially hard when one is dealing with emotions. The emotions distract a person from critically reviewing the issue at hand. For this reason, people tend to make biased decisions when they are experiencing intense emotions about something or somebody.

Such kind of decisions will not be just since they are subjective in nature. Smith’s morality requires the person to detach himself/herself from his/her emotions. This isolation assists in making unbiased decisions. The individual will be more likely to give consideration to the morality of choice which, in turn, leads to a moral judgment.

The ability to make moral decisions is crucial to the wellbeing of the society. In my opinion, the moral theory developed by Adam Smith can play a major role in promoting social harmony. Emotions have a negative impact on our ability to make moral judgments. Detachment from emotions is, therefore, the only way to guarantee objective moral judgments that foster harmony in the communities.

The legitimacy of one’s actions was a prevalent subject in human philosophy since the dawn of time. It is in nature of human beings to justify their actions, especially when the consequences of such actions walk a narrow margin between right and wrong. To tackle these slippery and controversial issues, many philosophers have done their best to create moral frameworks upon which every event and situation could be judged. The tradition of looking for the ultimate moral code transitioned through many schools of thought from Aristotle to thinkers of the Renaissance and modern philosophers.

The fact that there are so many definitions of justice and freedom means that all of the available answers are inconclusive and wrong. The book Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? was written by Michael J. Sandel and published in 2009. It was written to accompany the man’s course on the concepts of justice written for the students of Harvard University. It does not have the pretense of providing an answer to this dilemma. Instead, it offers an overview of the defining approaches towards it that exist in philosophy, with examples of how they could be applied to real-life scenarios.

The book is separated into ten parts, each addressing a specific subject pertaining the morals and philosophy. The major topics addressed are utilitarian, egalitarian, libertarian, and ethical philosophies. The author does not claim either to be superior. After providing ample examples that validate every point of view, he deconstructs every single theory by offering situations where the right choice is not very obvious. The reader is made to jump from one view to another.

As a result, not finding solace or any solid ground to stand on, no framework to act as a ground point. I think this indicates what Michael Sandel wanted to achieve with his book – he raises questions and offers several answers for them, but none of them are conclusive. Through that, the author illustrates the flaws of every conventional system of worldviews. They are inflexible and do not accommodate for every situation. The author encourages his readers to embark on a journey of creating one’s philosophy by seeking answers to questions he poses throughout his book (Sandel 10).

The book offers a persuasive argument. It illustrates its point by asking textbook ethical problems and presenting real-life cases that could help relate to the subject (Sandel 16). The author presents every point of view from different sides, without being subjective in its analysis. It is compelling and exciting to read about. The writing of the text is easy to read and understand, and it is not overfilled with unnecessary words. If you look at it that way, Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? is an excellent book.

However, what I disliked was the message that the author seemed to be sending us. By going out of his way to prove everybody wrong, he encourages the readers to find the answer for themselves, instead of providing his own. While the search for truth is a noble goal, many readers may interpret this message as a call for inaction. A friend of mine, who read this book with me, concluded that there is no point in trying to establish what is right and what is wrong since no matter what choice you make you would be wrong anyway. His opinion represents the thoughts of an average reader. I believe that inaction and indecisiveness are more dangerous than a wrong action in the long run, as most evils nowadays are committed not through a wrong choice, but because of the inaction of the majority of the people who are aware of it.

Still, I believe that the book could be used in many good ways, particularly in promoting critical thinking. The dissonance my friend and I felt after reading it was likely caused by adherence to a particular code which, when confronted with numerous challenges presented in the example situations, was not able to provide non-controversial answers. I think the actual message that Michael Sandal wanted to send to us is that no system can answer all the questions all the time. Instead, to figure out the right way in any conflicting situation, one should use the model that suits it the most. There are several of them – from the utilitarian model of Jeremy Bentham to the libertarian model of Kant and the virtuous model of Aristotle.

The author uses very powerful scenes that could affect even the staunchest believers in a particular doctrine. The story about the four men trapped in the boat filled me both with pity and with disgust at the same time (Sandel 22). Such examples would help them see that the world is not entirely black and white – that there are many shades of gray. It is useful to cultivate a certain degree of self-doubt in person, as it generates acceptance to other peoples’ viewpoints and ideas. A person without self-doubt usually turns into an inflexible conservator at best and an extremist at worst. The view of this book depends on what a reader is expecting to receive from it. Most want answers to questions they have. This book is different, as it offers answers that raise even more questions.

Works Cited

Sandel, Michael. Justice. What’s the Right thing to Do? New York: Farrah, Straus and Giroux, 2009.