Category: Philosophy 1203

The Archetypes of Wisdom Seventh Chapters Summary

The chapter discussed hedonism as a doctrine, a system of views and beliefs that form a system of values, according to which pleasure is the highest good and the meaning of human life. Further, few other concepts are mentioned. Stoicism, which was founded in Greece by Zeno, is the idea of a strong and active life position based on the discipline of the mind (Soccio, 2015). Stoics are referred to as individuals who attempt to live according to the same-named doctrine and striving to understand the terminology of fate and follow the structure and order as a bits of Logos.

Further, Marcus Aurelius is described, whose philosophy can be considered as the last completion of ancient Stoicism and at the same time its complete internal decay. Additionally, the chapter discusses disinterest as a concept and its applicability to relationships, the presence of destiny but open will, lack of control over certain aspects, and the value of everything. Next, the author discusses the perception of suffering and trials as a gift to the Stoics (Soccio, 2015). In the concluding part, it is mentioned that James Bond Stockdale was a philosopher who refined Epictetuss Principle of Life and brought it to a large audience.

What is the concept of Cynicism?

Cynicism is a school of thought in ancient Greek philosophy practiced by the Cynics. By reasoning about creations, people could find happiness by training hard and living their natural life, rejecting all convenient desires for power and glory. Instead, they were to lead a simple life, free from all possessions (Soccio, 2015). Currently, the concept of cynicism is interpreted differently.

What is the background of Epicureans philosophy?

The main interest for the Epicureans is the sensual world, therefore their main ethical principle is pleasure. Epictetus showed that a slave could be more optimistic than an emperor and described the ideas of asceticism and the dichotomy of power.

Reference

Soccio, D. J. (2015). Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy. Cengage Learning.

Experiences shared by society have different effects on individuals and, in some cases, provide a reason for self-reflection. The recent and not fully resolved COVID-19 pandemic can be used as an example where billions of people worldwide were affected, but the outcomes were unique for each person. The uniting feeling that the majority of people went through was stress  a mental strain and tension that one feels when the situation seems too challenging to handle. I went through the last few years in a similar way to others  I had to stay inside most of the time, and I was cut off from the world except for connecting with people online. Reflecting on this set of events through the philosophical concepts I have learned allows me to process how society has changed.

The first concept that can be applied to the experiences of restrictions and changes introduced during the pandemic is Descartes ideas about withdrawal and separation of senses from ones pure intellect. In his work on meditation, Descartes argues that withdrawal from the senses was a necessary part of moving toward the understanding of objects nature (Carriero 21). Thus, the philosopher suggests that sensory images created with the help of peoples sensations muddle knowledge. Looking at the reaction of many people at the start of the pandemic, this view of the senses as unreliable in achieving a deeper understanding of the environment is confirmed. The emotions that I and many others felt due to the restrictions put on society overshadowed the negative feelings toward the disease, which led to the mixed feelings about the pandemic and possible solutions. Similar to Descartes meditation, in order to approach ending the pandemic, I should have called my initial senses into doubt and reached for the innate understanding of the issue.

Another philosophical concept that can be linked to the described events is self-consciousness, introduced by Hegel. In particular, I want to apply the term sublation, which can be explained as a negation of a certain idea without losing it, synthesizing the original into the new instead (Hegel). As Hegel shows, sublation is not the process of disappearing completely, being replaced by another object, but a type of change. As such, the daily life during the pandemic changed completely, being put under new rules of self-distancing, wearing masks, taking precautions, and working or studying remotely. At the same time, however, the main parts of ones old activities were brought into the new routine, as the lives of people did not disappear completely  they were reshaped to fit the new reality. In my personal experience, I did not suddenly forget about my friends, family, hobbies, and duties. Instead, I synthesized the new external influences with my needs and wants, which led to a routine that did not resemble my usual life but could not be considered completely separate from it.

Finally, one of Marxs fundamental ideas is alienation  a concept that should be mentioned when discussing peoples experiences during the pandemic. The philosophers work is influenced by the hardships of the nineteenth-century textile or mine workers, but it is still relevant to modern employees (Marx). As a Hegel student, he discovered that alienation is the state of being cut off from ones essence, which has been banished to a place beyond ones reach (Marx). The outcome is living a life without the option of self-fulfillment, without the ability to become actualized, to become ones self. In my opinion, the concept of alienation can be applied to the growing popularity of remote education and work  as it is a necessity in some environments, remote communication becomes a requirement rather than a choice of laborers. While many students are workers became more fulfilled with their new ability to stay home, they also could feel a growing pressure and the blurring of the lines between personal and work time. Similarly, reflecting on the changes in my communication with others, I recall that many people in my life talked about how they did not feel as though working from home reduced their work-related stress. Additionally, they felt more disconnected from their duties and lonelier due to the lack of informal peer-to-peer interactions that they had at work.

Overall, the pandemic has led many people, including myself, to feel under pressure from many external factors. I had many problems during this time, and it made me feel stressed and separated from the world and people. The philosophical concepts outlined above demonstrate that these processes can be interpreted as a part of human existence and as a type of change that causes much emotional turmoil. Such terms as Descartes withdrawal may assist one in reflecting on the events and separating emotional responses during the search for the truth. Hegels ideas of self-consciousness and the process of sublation demonstrate that a change does not equate to the complete disappearance of the old but a synthesis of new and old concepts. Marxs description of alienation applies perfectly to my experience with online and real-life interactions with other people, education, and work.

Works Cited

Carriero, John. Descartes and the Autonomy of the Human Understanding. Routledge, 2016.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Lordship and Bondage. Marxists Internet Archive.

Marx, Karl. Estranged Labour. Marxists Internet Archive.

Introduction

The past always seems frightening and mysterious, and sometimes it is rather unpleasant to stir up past events because they make people remember. These memories may not always be pleasant, but that does not mean that the past is necessarily bad. Forgetting the path that led a people to where they are today is wrong because it negates all of their accomplishments. Antonios dictum past is prologue is as fitting as it points to the value of lived experience. Everything that has happened has led humanity to what it is now: for some, it is the secret marriage of their parents; for others, it is an unexpected move. The fantastic world of the past is invariably connected to the future, and finding that connection is the task of every person who wishes to discover the value of time.

Myths: Heroism through the Prism of Time

At least once, everyone has wondered why myths continue to be valuable in the present. The interest in tales, in the way they are told, and in the development of the heroes personalities is justified by the natural curiosity of man, who cannot resist the mystery of the past. Mythological imagery is close to society because it also substantiates the connections between the past, the present, and the future.

Among the mythological tales of the close connection between the past and the present, the myth of Prometheus stands out. Zeus distributed goods to people, but he was greedy, and people did not have enough. Prometheus took the heavy burden of ruling the world on his shoulders. He carried fire to the people, which allowed them to develop a civilization and change the world. Aeschylus tragedy is about Prometheus moral obligation, which led to his imprisonment and torment, but his conscience remained clear. Prometheus experiences two stages of the typical hero crisis: in the first, his ordinary world is shaken because Zeus has so turned away from men. He loved and pitied humans, so the second stage came smoothly  when the Titan could not tolerate Zeus outrages and gave fire to humans (The Myth of Prometheus 1). Enraged, Zeus chose a painful punishment for him, obliging Prometheus to suffer for many years.

Prometheus entire life before his imprisonment was just that; Zeus could not tolerate his humanity. The Titan tried to understand peoples problems, he respected their efforts to build civilization, and he was not afraid to go hand in hand with them (The Myth of Prometheus 1). He supported them, expressed sympathy, and dealt with earthly problems in a human way. Prometheus fate is such that he is forced to suffer for his heroic deeds because there is a classic epic evil that denies him the chance for another outcome. Past is prologue for Prometheus is the series of moments that confronted him with the wrath of Gods father.

Why People Say Great Things

Many people are searching for themselves because questions of identity are relevant in the 21st century. The past events can invariably turn the river of peoples lives. George Washington would not have become president if he had not seen with his own eyes the battles for independence, nor would Martin Luther King have given his famous speech if he had not faced social injustice himself. All past events affect the present circumstances of life, and it is a duty to remember them.

Hillary Clinton is a strong political figure who has many followers who are close to her ideas. First and foremost, Clinton is interested in achieving equality in social, health and economic services. She was First Lady for a long time, and during that time, she visited many countries, spreading her idea of human rights. In 1995, she gave a speech on womens rights, which cannot be separated from general civil and political rights (Clinton 1). Clinton first carried her idea with the election of Bill Clinton as president of the United States. It was not until 1993 that her second stage came, a quest to transform an ordinary world where injustices abounded.

Clintons speech is new for the times, calling for things that now seem perfectly ordinary. Clinton drew attention to what women are like and why they still lack rights. Perhaps the critical point of her speech is the phrase, Wasnt it after the womens conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world first turned its attention to the crisis of domestic violence? (Clinton 2). There is silence in the room because Clinton has managed to bring a grain of sanity to the minds of men unable to recognize womens issues. She said &I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the opportunity to&, simply because they are women (Clinton 4). This phrase is her Past is prologue moment because she personifies herself with all women who have no rights.

The Wisdom of the Ancestors

Sooner or later, everyone has a desire to learn more about their ancestors and analyze their family history. The mothers or fathers side of the story will be different, and people are interested in digging through the archives of databases and looking for information about their ancestors. Celebrities are often concerned about this, including Jim Parson, who wanted to pay tribute to his father and trace his ancestors from his side.

Jim Parson deeply appreciates and loves his father because he taught him to treat family and friends with kindness. He embarks on his journey from NYC, wherein a dialogue with his mother, he discovers that his fathers ancestors lived in New Orleans. There he meets genealogy experts, who give him brand-new knowledge  his ancestor Dr Hacker was one of those who caught yellow fever in 1953 (TLC 01:54-02:10). His first critical moment changed Jims thoughts about his family. He travelled to France, where Dr Hackers ancestors were found, and confirmed records of the royal architect Alexandre Louie. Perhaps this is the second stage of Jims awareness of the value of historical events and their connection to the timeline.

As Jim explores his history, he visits places that make him rethink his view of his family. His past is prologue moment becomes the realization that he is standing in a church in Versailles that his ancestor built (TLC 05:11-05:20). He realizes that his 6-times-grandfather was a great architect whom King Louis the 15th honored with a special badge of honor. At the end of the story, Jim says, that is what is behind me for generations: it encapsulates his relationship with his family (TLC 05:40-05:46). Jims story explores his ancestors, whose experiences have led him to the kind of man he has become.

Conclusion

The value of time is learned in journey to know about the world around them and compare it to the past. Finding the past and making sense of it is an adventure people embark on to realize themselves as part of history. Prometheus gave people to fire, for which he was punished, but he kept his conscience pure because he did the right thing at a particular time. Hillary Clinton, in her speech, relives the experience of every woman suffering from patriarchy because no one but women can appreciate their role in history. Jim Parson stood in a church built by his ancestor and felt the generational connection. The value of a historical moment may not be immediately realized, but ancestors will remember every experience they have had in the future.

Works Cited

Jim Parsons Gets Enlightened About His Ancestors | Who Do You Think You Are? YouTube, uploaded by TLC, 2014.

Clinton, Hillary. Remarks to the U.N. 4th world conference on women plenary session. The United Nations 4th World Congress on Women, 1995.

The Myth of Prometheus.

Introduction

People are different, and each has unique qualities, yet it seems common for many individuals to wish to be someone else. I aspire to become a finer person than I am now, and the proposals of such historical figures as Plato, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hegel can assist in determining how to enhance my character. In his Allegory of the Cave, Plato suggests how people perceive the world and discusses the matters of intelligence and education. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), in his The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life, concerns the essence of existence based on the concepts of length, height, and breadth. Georg Hegels dialectic of the master and the slave debates the relationship between the two and ones conscious. By combining practical conclusions from MLK, Plato, and Hegel, I can construct a precise image of the self that I strive to become in order to make a difference in the world.

Anticipatory Perception: How to Make a Difference

One can argue that Hegels dialectic can be interpreted in many ways, whether viewing the master and the slave as two different persons or as two inner identities of a distinct individual. In the latter case, the enslaver would represent someones current character, which is rather unfavorable, and the captured would reflect the desired personality. Although many people wish to change and advance, the majority have certain features that prevent them from developing. Each individuals internal master does not want the interior slave to obtain freedom and overshadow the one in power, thus leaving people with their negative qualities and unaccomplished desires. Consequently, the first aspect of the self I aspire to become is the ability to challenge myself not to live in conformity with such traits as laziness, impatience, or pessimistic thinking.

Furthermore, considering that Hegels master-slave controversy can be regarded as a connection between two separate individuals, the dialectic can signify how those in leading positions should and should not treat their disciples. Despite holding power, the enslaver depends on the servants existence and work, thus making the former dependent on the latter. Moreover, the enslaved has the freedom to recognize the masters authority or deny it. Another characteristic of my desired self is the ability to lead people, and although I am not trying to compare my possible followers to those in captivity, Hegels dialectic suggests how I should direct. I understand that individuals to whom I may be superior are important and have the power to acknowledge my management and perform according to whether they accept me or not. Therefore, I strive to be a leader who has trustworthy and respectful relationships with subordinates.

While Hegel presents the perceptions of the master and the slave, Plato proposes how the world is viewed by those who come out of the dark cave to see sunlight for the first time. The philosopher states that people who live in the darkness see nothing but shadows and compares a persons journey out of the cage to the ascent toward intelligence. Plato implies that such a climb is not easy, as the process of evolving can be painful, and one is likely to be inclined to return to what is familiar. However, Plato suggests that each soul has the capacity to learn, but education should be gradual. Accordingly, another aspect of the self I wish to become is remembering that knowledge reveals new perspectives, so I must always endeavor to obtain information about the world in order to evolve.

As I aspire to make a difference, I anticipate that my efforts may impact a considerable number of people. Therefore, the desire to seek intelligence can hopefully benefit me and those around me. Nonetheless, Plato proposes that individuals who have ascended to see the sun must eventually return to the cave and share labors and honors with persons who remain in the darkness. Someone with education and authority must spread happiness to all people rather than concentrating on making one group happier than the rest. Plato proclaims that everyone must benefit from each other and that society must prosper as a unit. Thus, instead of separating from the masses, those who have power should join the public in overcoming struggles. Accordingly, I wish to be a person who helps others succeed by connecting people and guiding them towards advancement.

Out of the three aforementioned historical figures, Martin Luther King Jr. suggests what actions one should take to evolve into a better version of themselves. In particular, MLK states that the concept of length represents an individuals healthy and rational self-interest that concerns the development of ones inner powers. MLK proposes that people must accept who they are, their strengths, and their weaknesses to beneficially utilize every quality. Consequently, those who acknowledge their personalities can discover their purposes and begin striving for finer results by learning that all labor, whether influential or not, has dignity. Accordingly, I aspire to know and remember who I am and what my objectives are to move forward during difficult times. I suppose that the longing to accept myself may seem contradictory to the above discussion of challenging myself. However, I wish to be able to recognize my potencies and shortcomings, so I can employ the former and contain the latter from preventing the pursuit of my goals.

Someone who acknowledges their identity becomes capable of caring for others. In addition to length, MLK presents the concept of breadth that reflects ones concern for the welfare of humanity. MLK states that people must help each other as everyone is connected, and if an individual has something, it is because someone else has provided it. Therefore, when making a decision, a person must think of what would happen to those around them as a result of that choice. Thus, another aspect of the self I strive to become is being mindful and considering how my behavior and actions may affect people.

In his sermon, MLK claims that the concept of height is associated with the belief in God. MLK suggests that regardless of being religious or not, people often forget about the presence of God due to being too involved in such materialistic things as having a beautiful house or a car. Accordingly, such individuals are likely to be concerned with their comfort rather than regarding diverse aspects of perceiving the world. I wish to be a person who can truly enjoy life by being interested in something above mere material possessions.

Conclusion

To summarize, the analysis of the discussions of MLK, Plato, and Hegel helped me formulate who I should aspire to become to make a difference. In the future, I imagine myself pursuing a precise goal due to knowing and accepting my strengths and weaknesses. I hope that I will be capable of utilizing my potencies and challenging my inner master responsible for my shortcomings. I anticipate that my actions will place me in a leading position, and as a superior, I will strive to be trustworthy and respectful of my followers. I wish to remain mindful of those around me and remember my interdependence with them. The self I desire to become is an educated and conscious individual who joins society in opposing hardships and acts on behalf of all people.

Introduction

The issue of free will has been discussed in philosophy since Aristotle. A tremendous literature has been devoted to it, perhaps more extensive than that dedicated to any other philosophical question. There is no wonder that the fate of higher values and sanctities is closely connected with a beginning as freedom. Thus, some philosophers are passionately opposed to the doctrine of free will because, in their view, liberty is incompatible with the conditions of scientific possibility. The approaches are varied, and the positive answer to the question of free will can be given only based on a whole definite worldview with a complex system of notions.

Determinism

Philosophers are divided into two opposing camps on this question: compatibilists, who think it is possible to combine free will with determinism, and incompatibilists, who deny this possibility. For a better understanding of these concepts, one can turn to the philosophical thoughts of Stace, who was a compatibilist. According to his vision, everything that happens in human life is the direct result of past actions, and therefore free will is necessarily associated with the theory of determinism (Stace 252). Moreover, this category is directly related to moral objectivity and the consequences for the individual.

Compatibilism

The fact that many people do not believe in free will is contrary to reality because actual actions always prove otherwise. Free activities are caused by desires, motives, or inner psychological states present in a persons mind. In contrast, non-free actions are driven by physical forces or conditions present outside a person (Stace 252). Thus, free will correlates with determinism because human behavior and actions are always conditioned by desires and have caused.

On the other hand, if the occasion itself is not an unrestricted motion and no free movement is conducted to the affair, one could declare that it is not up to the agent whether the matter happens. For example, Rove considers that if one occasion defines another, it is not up to anyone whether the other event will occur if the first has ensued. If it does not rely on the agent to cause a particular event, then it does not depend on the agent to do that action (Rowe 19). With this principle in mind, one would have to admit that some decisions considered by proponents of indeterminism theories to be accessible to deliberate are independent of those who make those decisions.

Rationality of Concepts

The situation of freedom of choice contains an obviousness that proves to be stronger than any deterministic schemes. At least as far as practical thinking is concerned, the subjectivist justification for causal determinism fails. Meanwhile, if there are insufficient objective reasons to accept the doctrine of causal determinism, it subjectively has no place in a choice situation (Vaughn 232). Again, what difference does it make it compatible with? The question of compatibility loses the existential significance it has in the case of blindly accepting the dogma of causal determinism, and the questioner gains a more detached perspective. Conquering such a perspective seems to be the most essential and justified.

Conclusion

Thus, free will is the ability to influence events, make choices, to act independently of constraints. The notion of free will lies at the foundation of morals, law, and religion since it is believed that a person makes all decisions consciously. Despite this, there are situations in everyones life in which the possibilities for action are limited, thus calling into question the absoluteness of free choice. Nevertheless, everyone influences his destiny, and it is impossible to deny this completely.

Works Cited

Rowe, William L. Two Concepts of Freedom. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 61, no. 1. American Philosophical Association, 1987, pp. 1-22.

Stace, Walter Terence. Religion and the modern mind. Macmillan, 1953.

Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Sartres theory argues against placing meaning in human existence and believes it to be meaningless. Sartre believes that existence preceded essence, which means that we are born and then define ourselves over time through our own free will choices. Whoever we are, according to Sartre, is a result of the free choices that we make, and everyone is radically free. Sartres theory is defined as existentialism, and according to this theory, there is no meaning to life apart from what we choose to do with our free choices. Our existence can be manifested through our actions, and ones future is in our own hands.

Unlike Sartre, I do not harbor the opinion that life is meaningless. My line of reasoning is because I feel that this theory denies absolutes and undermines ethics through its emphasis on supreme freedom at the individual level. I feel that being of the opinion that life is meaningless will promote recklessness and an anything-goes mentality which may have adverse effects. Existentialism, which Sartre propagates, is also a way in which nihilism comes into effect through the principle of rejecting moral and religious principles. In my opinion, Sartres theory that life is meaningless leads to people lacking ambition and purpose in their lives. It is also a way to promote destruction as attachments to things are non-existent. Absolute freedom, as envisioned in Sartres existentialist theory, leads to people doing wrongful acts as displays of freedom and free will. Abiding by Sartres principles will make people less productive by questioning norms such as work ethic which it believes may not be necessary. I, therefore, believe that there is much more to human life and life is not meaningless.

Embracing historical instances of global injustice, one must admit that of all the evils that the humankind has ever created, the Holocaust as the persecution and extermination of Jews and slavery as the failure to recognize the humanity of African American people in the U.S. represent by far the worst. However, whereas Germany has managed to face the evils of the past and reconcile with them, thus, creating an opportunity to redeem itself and using it successfully, the U.S. still strives to grapple with the dark legacy of its past, particularly, the history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination of African American people. In her book, Susan Neiman explores the subject matter as a Jewish woman who has lived in the U.S. for a substantial portion of her life. Although Neimans idealistic view of GDR could be seen as questionable, the general sentiment of apologizing for the evils of the past so that long-lasting conflicts between the African American community and the white one could finally be reconciled is a reasonable idea worth considering.

One of the main lessons that Neimans book provides concerns the necessity to embrace the past and acknowledge its mistakes. Using the crimes of Nazi Germany, particularly, the Holocaust, as the main example, Neiman asserts that recognizing ones fault is a critical part of making progress in advancing social relationships and resolving a long-lasting conflict. The specified argument represents the focal point of the book, with multiple examples drawn from the experience of Germany under the Third Reich: The Holocaust Memorial is the size of two football fields, and it occupies one of the most central and expensive pieces of real estate in Germanys capital (Neiman 108). Therefore, Neiman articulates the need for an apology made to victims and the affected population, in general, expressively clearly, though she also mentions GDR as a worthy example briefly.

Despite the presence of several questionable ideas, including the one of viewing GDR as the idealized version of Germany, Neimans book represents a sensible idea of the U.S. making an example of Germany and apologizing for the evils of its past. Specifically, the idea of paying moral retribution for the evils of slavery, segregation, and racism is considered as a solution to the current tensions between African Americans and White Americans in the U.S. social setting is discussed. The books sympathetic exploration of the issue makes Neimans Learning from the Germans an important addition to the discourse.

The ideas represented in the book, particularly, the importance of acknowledging the errors of the past and the decision to commit to avoiding them in the future, can be seen as a viable and effective solution of some of the present-day issues, particularly, the presence of racial tension in the U.S. However, while Neiman does admit that the conflicts in question, namely, slavery in the U.S. and the holocaust in Germany, are incomparable, distinctive reasons why they cannot be equated are largely ignored. Specifically, even though both confrontations imply drastic injustice toward people of a different race, the ideologies that produced them are entirely different. Therefore, the path to reconciliation between African Americans and White Americans is likely to be significantly different than that one between Germans and Jewish people.

Furthermore, the issue of nationalism needs to be considered when talking about the subject matter. In contrast to Germany, where nationalism prevailed during the Third Reich, in the U.S., nationalism in its pure form could barely be applicable given the fact that White Americans do not represent the native population. Therefore, the power dynamics between the specified groups is significantly different from the one between German and Jewish people during the Third Reich. Nevertheless, learning to acknowledge the past mistakes and show remorse is vital to the further management of the racial tensions within the U.S.

Work Cited

Neiman, Susan. Learning from the Germans: Confronting Race and the Memory of Evil. Penguin, 2020.

I agree with the statement that humans are products of their choices. According to existential theory, people have responsibility for their actions and incorporate meaning by creating their world (Glowiak, 2017). According to research, people are more inclined to seek counseling and self-help when they maintain belief in their ability to voluntarily determine their lives (Glowiak, 2017). However, since the question of free choice is mostly a philosophical question, most research is not able to provide scientific confirmation. In my opinion, people are not the direct result of circumstances and possess freedom of choice.

Unconditional positive regard is a major part of humanistic theory. To achieve a positive attitude towards a client, I will incorporate certain beliefs into my practice. For example, I will review the issues of the client from a neutral perspective. In addition, I will maintain a positive environment that will promote sincerity, trust, and transparency (Glowiak, 2017). If the clients beliefs are not congruent with my own, I will not criticize their opinions and knowledge. On the contrary, I will attempt to compare the differences from a humanistic perspective and provide counseling according to professional standards and the clients needs.

The empty chair is a technique used in Gestalt therapy. According to Gestalt theory, a person is a product of their environment, so being aware of their external interactions is essential (Glowiak, 2017). To understand the effect of a patients environment, therapists position a patient near an empty chair in a counseling session. Then specialists ask patients to imagine another person sitting on an empty chair. The imaginary person can be someone important for the therapy session. The empty chair is used as a tool to extract thoughts and emotions from a person and understand the influence and nature of their social interactions.

Reference

Glowiak. M. V. (2017). Individual counseling: Traditional and brief approaches. In D. Capuzzi & D. R. Gross (Eds.), Introduction to the Counseling Profession (7th ed., pp. 168-191). Routledge.

Understanding certain philosophical concepts can have many positive aspects for an individual. This scientific work aims to examine Descartess worldview and compare it with the concepts of skepticism. Descartes main contribution is to initiate significant changes in philosophy. Moreover, the philosopher started by questioning everything in order to gain an understanding of whether there are entirely explicable and inexplicable things. What passed according to all the research criteria of the philosopher was automatically considered a foundation of knowledge going forward.

Skepticism is one of the spheres of philosophy and is an exciting aspect of science. The most convincing argument that was given by the philosopher was based on doubt. Thus, people independently start thinking and finding practical solutions to problems rather than blindly trusting the opinion of the crowd (Fogelin 12). Moreover, such thoughts can confirm in more detail and concretely the truthfulness or unreliability of knowledge. In addition, there is another reason why skepticism may not always have positive outcomes. This is due to the fact that with an inadequate amount of knowledge on the topic, it only causes the situation to worsen. Thus, some critics of skepticism argue that this is an untenable point of view, both from a logical and human point of view.

The argument for the importance of doubt in proving the truthfulness of a factor resonated with me the most. This is due to the fact that skepticism is a direct reaction to new information. Because of this, it calls to resort to doubts about the nature of specific data. However, shortcomings may occur, which may also have a negative connotation. Thus, the withdrawal of hasty skeptical relationships can also significantly worsen peoples relationships.

Work Cited

Fogelin, Robert J. Humes skepticism in the treatise of human nature. Routledge, 2019.

When it comes to the philosophical aspects of life, many people support the idea of free will. This idea is deeply ingrained in their actual experiences to the extent that it is nearly hard to consider the possibility that their perspectives are incorrect. For example, when individuals contemplate various actions and make decisions, it can be assumed that there are several options available to them and that people may execute multiple courses of action. Consequently, when individuals reflect on a poor decision or criticize themselves for bad decision-making, it is often believed that they could have decided to act differently in the given situation. Nevertheless, many many philosophers and schools of thinking assume that the argument of free will is false and that human life is governed by determinism, implying that all human actions are the result of extraneous causes.

When it comes to a deeper understanding of determinism, it is seen as a broad argument about the existence that states that every event that occurs, particularly what an individual chooses and does, is predetermined by historical events and principles. Determinism is not a sensible concept, and it is difficult to believe that it may be real, which established two perspectives, compatibilist and incompatibilist (McKenna, 2019). Incompatibilism is the belief that a predetermined reality is incompatible with the concept of free will, which is described as the ability of aware actors to select a future direction from among multiple physical choices (McKenna, 2017). Meanwhile, the compatibilists doubt that determinisms validity would have such a significant effect (McKenna, 2019). From a compatibilists point of view, the reality of determinism is consistent with the veracity of the human version of free will (McKenna, 2019). Consequently, the metaphysical issue of free will and determinism lies within trying to ascertain which school of thought holds an accurate version: compatibilists or incompatibilists.

In order to understand the perspectives of incompatibilists with regard to free will and determinism, it is vital to observe the types of this group. Hard determinists and libertarians are two types of incompatibilists who argue for determinism (McKenna, 2017). The former can be considered incompatibilists who claim that determinism is absolute or, instead, that such a concept is relatively strong to be regarded as valid in relevance to free will, implying that humans do not possess it.

Meanwhile, the latter can be considered incompatibilists who argue that humans do have free will and that this implies that determinism is untrue. Generally, libertarians have claimed that acting in a sensible way necessitates individuals possessing a unique and enigmatic causal capacity not possessed by any other entity in nature (McKenna, 2017). This can be rendered as a divine ability to be an abstract entity of world shifts (McKenna, 2017). Libertarians who share this viewpoint appear to believe that free will is only conceivable in universes that are at least somewhat uncontrolled and lack any laws. However, there are libertarians who reject such dangerous philosophical assertions, arguing that free will is viable in unpredictable settings (McKenna, 2017). Incompatibilists are hardly strong determinists or libertarians since they are skeptical about the validity or falsehood of determinisms concept (McKenna, 2017). There are incompatibilists who do not believe in free will, and there are individuals who choose to be hopeful when it comes to the potential of developing a viable explanation of free will.

As for the considerations for incompatibilism, the arguments of these philosophers can be divided into two categories. The first involves claims for the idea that the essence of determinism makes it extremely difficult for humans to properly create and govern their behaviors and actions (McKenna, 2017). The second involves claims for the idea that determinism would take away the possibility of individuals to act or choose freely. The first type of reasoning focuses on the concepts of self, cause, and accountability (McKenna, 2017). The fear is that determinism eliminates the kind of causality individuals evoke when they ascribe acts to people and pass moral accountability judgments (McKenna, 2017). The second type of reasoning focuses on the concept of freedom. It appears that having control means having true possible alternatives and methods of acting (McKenna, 2017). The concern is that determinism implies that whatever individuals do is constantly the single option they can have (McKenna, 2017). As a result, it is believed that people never truly have a choice, rather than being under the possibly unavoidable delusion that they do.

One of the most significant points of view in regard to determinism was introduced by Peter van Inwagen, an American philosopher, more specifically, his Consequence Argument played a pivotal role. The Consequence Argument was presented by Peter van Inwagen as a justification for the notion of incompatibilism and was popularized as a counter-argument to compatibilism. The given theory is based on what van Inwagen refers to as the no choice principle (OConnor, 2018). This notion appears quite reasonable and involves the question of how an individual can make a decision about something that is an inevitable outcome of something a person has no control over.

The argument of the philosopher and the like-minded individuals is that nobody has control over historical facts or natural laws. Nobody can change the reality that the events of the past and the laws of the universe imply all future realities (OConnor, 2018). As a result, many philosophers argued that nobody has control over future events (OConnor, 2018). If determinism is accurate, per the Consequence Argument, nobody really seems to have any control over how their own destiny unfolds. The reasoning of van Inwagen alarmed compatibilists for a legitimate reason (OConnor, 2018). The traditional compatibilists inability to evaluate claims about an individuals capacities on the grounds of hypothetical conditionals left them with no obvious rebuttal to the Classical Incompatibilist Arguments fundamental assumption (OConnor, 2018). Moreover, as per the reasoning of the Consequence Argument, determinism indicates that, based on the past and laws of nature, the future will develop in one direction solely, and nobody has the capacity to change that outcome, it appears that nobody ever can do anything.

In order to delve peer into the essence of van Inwagens opinion, if determinism is real, then human actions are the result of natural rules and distant occurrences. However, individuals have no control over what happened before they were born, nor do they have control over the laws of nature (OConnor, 2018). According to the American philosopher, since actors have no influence over previous events, then they have no influence over the effects of those circumstances. The accompanying is a syllogistic interpretation of the statement that claims that no entity has control over historical facts or natural laws (OConnor, 2018). Consequently, individuals have no control over the reality that the events of the past and the forces of nature necessitate every future occurrence, which means that determinism is valid. Moreover, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the events, primarily their current actions.

Therefore, the argument of the mentioned philosopher allows one to comprehend the concept that the future is available in a way that the past is not. Thus, it can be rendered as a part of the human shared perception system of assumptions about themselves as choosers and actors. This also represents a belief that the laws of nature restrict peoples capabilities and powers. The reasoning made by Peter van Inwagen is an effort to offer support for the incompatibilists interpretation of these rational assumptions. The given argument established that the debate over free will and determinist is a philosophical matter, with underlying concerns involving issues related to human skills and capabilities, including more common questions about causality, hypotheticals, and natural laws.

Consequently, the main question raised by the perspective of van Inwagen is whether choosers and individuals powers or capabilities can be thought of as a natural ability or demeanor. Moreover, it raises the question of whether there is an incompatibilist option that is feasible and whether there is a way how humans should think about hypothetical scenarios in terms of actors alternate decisions and thoughts in predetermined realms.

Hence, numerous philosophers and schools of thought believe that free choice is a fallacy and that human existence is regulated by determinism. In this sense, incompatibilism claims that free will and determinism are incompatible, which led to two schools of thought emerging, more specifically, libertarianism and hard determinism. However, one of the most influential perspectives was provided by Peter van Inwagen who developed the Consequence Argument, also known as the no choice principle, to bolster the claims of incompatibilists. It is based on the assumption that no one can alter reality and that previous occurrences and laws of nature infer all future occurrences. Thus it is possible to claim that no one has influence over future events. As a result, because no human being has power over previous occurrences or natural forces, it appears that no one has control over present actions, implying determinism and the nonexistence of free will in its common perception.

References

McKenna, M. (2017). Arguments for incompatibilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

McKenna, M. (2019). Compatibilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

OConnor, T. (2018). Free will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.