Category: Philosophy 1203

Introduction

John Henry Newman was born in 1801 and died in 1890; and was an English philosopher, intellectual, academic, theologian, poet, scholar, writer, and historian, among many other titles or accomplishments. In addition, Newman happened to be the first Anglican priest who later became a Catholic cardinal. Newman was also a relevant and controversial figure at the same time in Englands religious history that was very prominent in the 19th century. In 2019, he became a canon and a Saint of the Catholic Church. Newman started his academic and religious career at Oxford University in England. The Church of England also contributed immensely to his priesthood career. According to Newman, the tradition of Anglicanism was one of the best highlights of his religious calling. Newman is one of the best personalities whose ideology was renaissance philosophy that represented medieval philosophical thoughts that were prominent in the 15th and 16 centuries. Newmans philosophical ideas that form the basis of Renaissance philosophy inform my understanding, that of my peers, and the world in general.

Defining, Analyzing, and Elaborating upon the Ideas

Newman is one personality whose ideas resonated well with faith and rationality. In this case, his primary interest was to serve in the church and also provide intellectual ideas to those who served with him or under him (Kenny 10). Newmans primary interests include liberal education, education philosophy, Christian apologetics, historical theology, and religious epistemology. His most notable ideas include arguments of conscience, the importance of conscience, and the development of doctrine. Newman represented renaissance philosophy that was very common from the 14th to 16th century. In this case, his philosophy responded well to the social needs of the people, which was a relevant element in the development of the history of Renaissance and Western Civilization. For example, as a leading personality in academics and religion, his philosophical ideas became preferable in these fields (Kenny 11). Some of the most notable areas he served include being an evangelical and a leading scholar in a university. In addition, he also served in the Anglican ministry, and the Oxford movement, among others. One of his most prominent theories has consecutive continuity that contributed immensely to the changes, growth, and doctrines over the years.

Discussing How and Why It Resonated More than the Other Ideas

Newmans Renaissance and philosophical thoughts resonated more than other ideas to choose from. In this case, renaissance philosophy provided a detailed intellectual history that most scholars found relevant. Therefore, something that scholars found helpful was also bound to be valued by other people (Kenny 16). Newmans philosophy provided a basis for understanding God and how he came to save humanity in ancient times. Therefore, Newmans philosophy helps to define how God and his people related to one another. In this case, the work of ancient philosophers provided an elaborate way of expressing divine wisdom that was very common in ancient times. The renaissance philosophy is significant because it laid the basis for an intellectual culture that was very vibrant in the early period. In addition, the renaissance philosophical thoughts provided an avenue for an enhanced interest in primary sources of Roman and Greek ideas (Kenny 10). The emergence of the new study of Skepticism and Stoicism eroded faith in the universal truth and provided a fertile ground for widening philosophical thoughts. In this case, Newmans philosophy provided an avenue from which modern philosophy and science would gradually emerge.

Reflecting on the Ways to Inform the Understanding

In this reflection, Newmans philosophical ideas provide an excellent ground to test my philosophical thoughts and those of my peers and the world. In this case, it helps to give a thinking platform for the body. The literature provides a distinct and clear understanding of the body and the mind in a religious setting. As one of the most prominent personalities of modern philosophy, Newman has a credit history of providing some of the best forms of literature on philosophical ideas. This best work informs my understanding of the world, my peers, and me. As I reflect on this academic philosophy, I think it is one of the best ways to provide knowledge to the people who deserve it (Kenny 9). This form of literature is also a scientific explanation that provides a modern model. The hyperbolic doubt that Newman provides ensures I get the unbiased truth after seeking it. Philosophical ideas provide a foundation for a person to reflect on many issues, particularly when searching for the truth. This renaissance work provides me with the foundation of epistemological ground zero that helps to search for the truth. Newman is one individual who helps me to search for issues that lie beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the renaissance philosophy, like the one demonstrated by Newman, helps provide thoughtful ideas to self, peers, and the world. As one of the leading personalities of contemporary philosophy, Newman provided the foundation for people to demonstrate their philosophical thoughts. As part of medieval philosophy, renaissance philosophical ideas like Newmans provide a basis of logic regarding metaphysics, moral philosophy, and natural philosophy. The primary intellectual areas in the renaissance provide an avenue through which logic offers a training ground for the body and soul.

Work Cited

Kenny, Anthony. An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy: 20th Anniversary Edition. Wiley Blackwell, 2019.

Reflection Paper: Wisdom and Intellectual Skills

By taking the lecture on wisdom and intellectual skills, I learned the nature of wisdom from the philosophical perspective, the traits of a wise person, and a detailed breakdown of analysis, assessment, and argument. As a result, I understood the role of wisdom in human life and how one can attain wisdom from disorganized facts and figures. In addition, I gained an insight into how the mastery of analysis, assessment, and argument skills helps in my personal and professional life.

Application

Most importantly, I learned about the process of wisdom creation, which appeared to be systematic rather than intuitive. An individual can attain wisdom from data by proceeding through the pyramid-style algorithm. Data becomes transformed into information via the application of context, meaning turns information into a basis of knowledge, which creates conditions for gaining wisdom-producing insights. Additionally, the lecture taught me the essence of analysis, assessment, and argument skills, which I believe to be vital for a nurse. Analysis and assessment allow nurses to make correct decisions and reflect on their activities, while the knowledge of argument is necessary for productive teamwork.

Integration

The lecture aided my personal and professional growth by explaining the true sense of Socrates words. As Socrates said, The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. In my opinion, the famous Greek philosopher talked about the importance of analysis and assessment. An individual does not understand the true nature of events until these procedures are performed. From the nursing perspective, a specialist is likely to make a wrong decision if they act without sufficient preparation, presuming that they know everything. In this regard, the philosophy of knowing nothing by default allows a nurse to avoid dangerous errors stemming from prideful overconfidence.

Human Dimension

The content of this lecture is significant both from personal and professional perspectives. As a person, I learned what constitutes a wise individual  patience, humility, discipline, the ability to listen, think critically, and learn from mistakes. Consequently, I will strive to cultivate these qualities in my personality. As a professional, I understood how a nurse could benefit from the knowledge of analysis, assessment, and argument techniques. Analysis and assessment allow a nurse to take safe, responsible actions, whereas argument skills are vital for productive professional discussions. Overall, the lecture offered an example of philosophys practical value to human lives.

Thoreaus essay called Civil Disobedience is a well known philosophical work that suggests a deeper understanding of human rights and freedoms. This work is truly progressive for the time when it was written this is why it still attracts the attention of the public nowadays. Besides, Thoreaus Civil Disobedience explores the subjects and issues that still worry the society of the present days. For example, the author speaks about the rights and privileges of the governments and their almost unlimited power within the state.

This issue is highly popular when in several counties of the world there are civil uprisings and mass protests directed against the acting political leaders and fighting for the right of the citizens that feel repressed and depowered. Besides, the contemporary world regularly faces domestic anarchist movements in various countries, these movements encourage the citizens to disobey the rules of the government and act against them, ruining the system established in the states.

Thoreaus Civil Disobedience is an encouragement to act against the system and get rid of powerful governments, it also is filled with elements of utopist thinking and even though it elaborates on the popular in the contemporary world ideas, it does not suggest rational explanation of what kind of social order should occur as a replacement of political powers and governments.

Today, Thoreau is known as the author of one of the most influential and well known tracts exploring a political topic written by an American person. Thoreau was a famous protester against the practice of slavery in the United States. He openly expressed his detesting attitude towards slavery and his disrespect towards the government that allowed it. In order to express his opinion Thoreau decided to stop paying taxes and was sent to a jail, where he spent only one day because some other person paid his taxes.

Commenting on his experience of imprisonment, the philosopher mentioned that while he was behind bars he still felt freer than most of the people that were not in jail. Thoreaus tax withdrawal was meant as a demonstration of his lack of desire to obey the unjust and unfair government.

Thoreau showed that he did not want to cooperate with the system that supported slavery in the Southern states and also generated and approved the law about fugitive slaves, which empowered the slave owners to search for their fugitive slaves, catch them and bring them back to plantations. In a way, Thoreaus personal protest that resulted in his imprisonment was a call for the other citizens to join him and to refuse to work for the unjust government and to stop supporting the abusive political system.

Thoreaus Civil Disobedience was written as a reaction to his imprisonment in 1846 (McElroy, par. 13). He created his essay to explain his personal position towards the rights of the citizens and the powers and privileges given by them to the government. He wrote, I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slaves government also (Thoreau, par. 7).

In his essay Thoreau points out that no nation was obliged to follow the rules established by the unjust government and that people had a right to rebel against the political injustice and change the system. Thoreau states that such workers as army, jailers and constables are machines that blindly serve to the government supporting and protecting the established political regimes and they have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs (par. 5).

Basically, the author identifies the people that serve the government as another kind of slaves, the willing slaves. The philosopher writes that unjust political forces are not of divine origin, and not the forces of nature, so one can resist them and count on a positive result or some change. This means that if the rain or the break of dawn cannot be stopped, the political powers, on the contrary, can be eliminated and their negative impacts can be averted.

Thoreaus statement saying, that government is best which governs not at all is the basis of his utopist ideas, because he continues stating that he believes that one day human society will be ready to have that kind of government in reality (par. 1). According to Thoreau, the root of the issue of slavery was not the unjust government and not the unfair politicians from the Southern states, but the citizens that supported that order of things.

Thoreau mentioned that a just government is not enough to establish a just society. In order for everyone to live in peace, safety and equality, all of the members of the society need to be just, fair and honest, which is practically impossible. In my opinion, the utopian ultimately fair society, where all the members are driven by the same noble ideas and principles of mutual help and unconditional generosity, is the only society that does not need a government or any kind of control from above.

Versetti noticed that the beliefs of Thoreau were very similar to the ones of Locke, who taught that people have a right to rebel against their governments as soon as even a shadow of tyranny occurs (par. 1). According to the principle of social agreement, the society shared its freedoms and willingly gave up some of them so that a single ruling power appeared and could establish and maintain order and law.

In the contemporary world many nations disagree with the work of their governments, some even initiate rebellions against them. The ultimate goal of the majority of such rebellions is to establish the rule of the people also known as democracy. Thoreau spoke about the ultimate democracy where the people of the country work out the strategy and the political course of the state. In reality, such phenomenon is likely to lead to anarchy and chaos.

In Civil Disobedience Thoreau theorizes about the needlessness of unjust governments and the utopist ideas of perfect society that does not need control. He encourages the reader to oppose the unfair political regime and rise against it, yet he never mentions what kind of disorder is likely to appear once an imperfect society loses its leaders. According to Thoreau, some day our society might be ready to live without the government, but for this to happen every member of the society has to be equally honest and generous, which is improbable.

Thoreau describes his attempt to rise against the government, he says that a better effect could have been achieved if more people joined his protest. What he does not mention is that in any society there will always be a repressed and dissatisfied minority, so no ruling power will ever be able to please absolutely everyone.

Works Cited

McElroy, Wendy. Henry Thoreau and Civil Disobedience. 2005.

Thoreau, Henry. Civil Disobedience. 1849.

Versetti, Angel. Civil Disobedience  a Threat, an Instrument or a Sacred Right?  Comparative Analysis of John Lockes Second Trestise of Government and Niccolo Machiavellis the Prince and Discourses of the Livy. 2012.

Introduction

Lament for a Son is a book by Nicholas Wolterstorff focused on the authors personal experiences of the death of his child, grasping his grief, and finding hope in the faith. The objective of this paper is to analyze how the author describes discovering joy after loss, to provide definition of meaning and significance of death in light of the Christian narrative, and to explain the role of the hope of the resurrection in Lament for a Son.

Joy after loss in Wolterstorffs Lament for a Son

Nicholas Wolterstorffs Lament for a Son is an inspirational story of a parent dealing with the grief after he lost his young son in an accident in the mountains. The book is structured in the form of a compilation of anecdotes about the experiences that the author faced and the way he managed to reconcile his grief.

In psychology, there are five universal stages of grief. They are inherent in the psychological nature of any person and are the natural reaction to dealing with tragedy. Kübler-Ross and Kessler (2014) define them as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, although people go through these stages in their own time and in their own way (p. 14). The author of Lament for a Son faces the stage of denial right after the call that informed him about the death of his son Eric. The fact that it was very unexpected and sudden made it hard for him as a parent to accept the reality. The realization is also sudden for the author; he describes missing his son, saying that his absence [is] as present as our presence, his silence as loud as our speech (Wolterstorff, 1987, p. 14).

The stage of anger comes after the realization and is described by the author as the phase of the sharpest pain. The next stage is bargaining. It is evident how a grieving person reflects on the terms of the tragedy from the Wolterstorffs (1987) description about missing his son: a month, a year, five years  with that I could live, but not forever (p. 15). However, we do not go through the stages in the linear mode, and in tragedy, the stage of bargaining is often the one people return to (Prigerson & Maciejewski, 2008).

The stage of depression is characterized by the attention to the present moment (Kübler-Ross & Kessler, 2014). The author reflects on the solitude of his suffering. His attention is not any more focused on the attempts to imagine alternative scenarios. He realizes that there is no possible way for bargaining and that he will have to live with his tragedy. However, at the stage of depression, the very thought of living with his grief is unbearable for the author. At the end of this stage, the author seeks for an explanation of why the tragedy happened. When trying to understand the religious reasons behind it, he goes to speak to the Christian priest. He comes to realize that the most important thing about suffering and death is their uniqueness. For the author, it means that the Gods glory is realized through overcoming suffering and finding the hope and patience in the world over which we do not have control.

The meaning and significance of death in light of the Christian narrative

The concept of resurrection is one of the central notions in the context of the Christian narrative. The very idea of surviving through the suffering and tragedy underlines the significance of the patience (Austin & Lennings, 1993). In Christianity, people lack the power control over what happens to their lives, whereas God is almighty. Thus, in this perspective, the best way that humans can help themselves to deal with the grief is to admit that there are the Gods reasons for everything to happen. We may not be able to comprehend those reasons, but they form the meaningful universal principles. The uniqueness of the suffering and death, in some way, is meant as an ordeal for the sufferer. In Christian narrative, no-one suffers more than he or she can bear. Thus, the idea of resurrection after the death is a reward for surviving the ordeal of suffering and living with patience. In this light, the significance of death lies in the fact that it symbolizes the end of the ordeal and the end of suffering.

The role of the hope of the resurrection in Wolterstorffs Lament for a Son

In Wolterstorffs Lament for a Son, the hope plays the key role in the authors rediscovering faith for himself. He used to believe in God but only after going through the loss he claims to realize the role of the true hope in life. He describes the hope as not something that can only be accessed by those who belong to the Christian religion. However, the author himself can best to understand the meaningfulness of the world with the help of faith. The resurrection, for him, is the reward for the patience.

Conclusion

In Lament for a Son, the hope is the belief that there is some meaningfulness in the universe. The authors faith in the resurrection can be inspirational for those going through a similar tough period in their lives.

References

Austin, D., & Lennings, C. J. (1993). Grief and religious belief: Does belief moderate depression?. Death studies, 17(6), 487-496.

Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2014). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Prigerson, H. G., & Maciejewski, P. K. (2008). Grief and acceptance as opposite sides of the same coin: setting a research agenda to study peaceful acceptance of loss. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193(6), 435-437.

Wolterstorff, N. (1987). Lament for a Son. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Understanding cause-and-effect can be like brain cell gymnastics when reading different Philosophers perspectives on the topic. This is because their theories often conflict with one another, which, at first, makes the topic very confusing for a reader; but later pulls the reader into much deeper thinking and appreciation of this philosophical debate. The same was true for me when I first read the class materials related to Nietzsche and Hume as they both brought unique, debatable, and conflicting views about how cause-and-effect were compared.

The differences between the opinions that Nietzsche and Hume made it easy for me to forget my own beliefs and accept each of their points of view. This paper will compare the works of David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche and study their viewpoints about the nature of the cause-and-effect relationship. It will also highlight some clear differences of opinion regarding cause-and-effect relationship as well as address their relatively consistent view on how human perception and human experience creates major difficulties for linking a cause to an effect.

The idea of cause-and-effect has been studied by many philosophers, including Hume and Nietzsche, two well-known voices in the Enlightenment Era. To better understand the cause-and-effect relationship, it is important to explore what is at the core of their arguments against causation. Both Humes Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Nietzsches The Twilight of the Idols lead to a similar conclusion regarding the cause-and-effect relation, however, Nietzsche relies mainly on contradicting logic in his views around causality, whereas Hume points to subjectivity as the basis of cause-and-effect relationships.

Hume suggests that morality is complex and potentially represents a grey area to explore due to the ethical uncertainty of possible solutions. In Humes view, unlike mathematical concepts, moral ideas cannot be measured or quantified, leading to ambiguity (Hume 854 Section VI). As such, it begs the question of whether the connections that people make can be considered as real, or whether they represent their own subjective belief of morality.

Therefore, according to Hume, it is very important to make the necessary connections that explain alleged links between cause and effect from a specific perspective (Hume 855 Section VII). Also, in his argument against an objective basis for causation, Hume mentions that a large number of factors play in shaping the outcome, thus influencing the effect. Referring to it as the effect of concealing forces, Hume questions the likelihood of objective reasoning when covering the relationship between the supposed cause and the effect that follows (Hume 856 Section VII).

Humes focuses on the idea of external forces shaping unavoidable outcomes and refers to personal volition (wish, will, desire) in his review of the nature of causality. In particular, Humes calls out the fact that the simple concept of acting on ones own accord is highly doubtful due to the inconsistency and autonomy of the many different functions of the human body (Hume 858 Section VII). He suggests that people lack control over what he defines as the immediate object of power because they cannot control it (Hume 858 Section VII).

Essentially. Hume emphasizes the dichotomy of the power of motion and that of energy. Expanding on this view, Hume concludes that being aware of cause-and-effect relationships without understanding their nature is impossible, proving an overall limited command of the mind (Hume 857 Section VII). As such, Hume draws a thick line between the idea of human volition and the force that defines an individuals choices due to the presence of a divinity.

Hume also suggests that by ignoring the external forces that define choices, a person yields to a logical fallacy (Hume 859 Section VII). Developing his concept of dichotomy in the free-will argument, Hume covers the idea of conjoined and connected events, arguing that external forces are far too strong to be comprehended. As a result, in Humes view, it is the limitation and imperfection of human understanding that explains the lack of a connection between cause and effect.

Nietzsche refers to the works of Socrates and is armed with skepticism when addressing this philosophical topic. He attempts to prove that morality is alien to human nature and provides meaningful challenges to its traditional principles and the value of life. Nietzsche introduces the concept of Agon as an idea of struggle and challenge when explaining cause-and-effect as a philosophical relation (Nietzsche 1231 Section I). According to Nietzsche, it is through this personal struggle that one can become the master of oneself and overcome the limitations of morality as a false notion that people have been forced to accept (Nietzsche 1234 Section VI).

Nietzsche believes that ones faith, spirituality, and morally positive ideas block the ability to analyze the nature of reality and create a false view of cause-and-effect as a philosophical relationship. He defines the phenomenon as causa sui (the cause of itself) meaning that causality as a concept is detached from objective reality (Nietzsche 1232 Section V). In his beliefs, the perception of self is seen as a random factor that defines the interpretation of reality.

Additionally, Nietzsche connects the development of the false notion of causation as the effect of misinterpreting the concepts I and being (Nietzsche 1233 Section VI). According to Nietzsche, once ones self is created, the person builds an entire false world around it leading to the development of new false cause-and-effect relationships. Claiming that the idea of truth is incompatible with objective reality, Nietzsche also questions an individuals ability to link separate experiences into a cause-and-effect chain. Nietzsche also rejects the concept of truth when he questions and disproves the existence of morality as a philosophical measurement.

An essential characteristic of Nietzsches argument specific to cause-and-effect is the error of false causality. Nietzsche explains that the individual who follows their internal facts and patterns that cannot be verified as a part of objective reality will fall into the trap of the error of imaginary causes (Nietzsche 1238 Section VII). Simply said, the quality of ones analysis is directly influenced by their sensations and subjective perceptions. Considering the aforementioned, Nietzsches beliefs align closely with Socrates philosophical view that truth is an idea. Nietzsche suggests that the search for a cause-and-effect relation is useless.

To further appreciate the differences between Nietzsche and Humes, it is important to address their differing perspectives and stances on the nature of causality. While Hume tends to see the lack of connectivity between events as a natural effect of low levels of awareness and knowledge among people, Nietzsche denies any presence of causation as an event, linking it directly to subjectivity. Specifically, Nietzsche states the following: Everything that is of the first rank must be causa sui [cause of itself].

Origination from something else counts as an objection that creates doubt on the value of what has so originated (Nietzsche 1232 Section VI). Nietzsche is claiming that the cause as an idea should be rejected. Hume, in contrast, concludes that the cause exists yet is unattainable to the human mind: All we know is our profound ignorance (Hume 860 Section VII). Both perspectives are seemingly different from each other in understanding the nature of cause-and-effect relations.

However, at some point, Humes and Nietzsches perspectives intersect since both view the cause-and-effect relation as an error that can be brought into a philosophical framework through compromise and incident-specific approach. Therefore, the links between the philosophies of Hume and Nietzsche are worth exploring because they both bring forward a similar set of reasonable conclusions and share the same basic line of reasoning.

Both philosophers are skeptical of the concept of causation, but there are similarities when Nietzsches metaphysics meets Humes critique of causation. Each philosopher provides different explanations, Nietzsche being strongly against morality and Hume using subjectivity as the key to his argument, yet both acknowledge that the connection between cause and effect is highly elusive and unattainable. Both Hume and Nietzsche explain the basis of the cause-and-effect connection as existing due to limitations in human perception. Therefore, while discounting the factual existence of cause-and-effect as a universal notion, both philosophers tend to agree that it needs to be included in the theoretical model as a useful idea that allows exploring the effects of external and internal factors on peoples perception.

Nietzsches argument about the four errors in human judgment is very similar to Humes position concerning the fallacy of human nature. For instance, the error of imaginary causes is comparable to Humes idea that peoples opinions are biased due to the presence of personal experiences (Nietzsche 1235 Section V). The error of false causality directly connects to Humes position regarding the blurred line between objective reality and perception, which highlights the problem of biased viewpoints affected by personal experiences. This shows that the connection between Humes and Nietzsches perceptions of causality is more likely than it might have been considered at first glance.

Although reasons can be identified suggesting that Hume and Nietzsche offer the same perspective on the concept of causality, specific details can also be identified separating their arguments. In comparison to Nietzsches belief that causality is the influence of cultural thinking and ideas, such as religious principles, Hume locks in on the personal experience. This is a clear and primary difference between the perspectives of the two philosophers.

While both arrive at the same conclusion of causality being a result of the individuals ideas of what is true, the source of the specific assumption is different in each case: Hume points to flaws in peoples perceptions, and Nietzsche focuses on the obvious existence of subjectivity in peoples judgment of objective reality.

Nonetheless, analyzing the detailed opinions shows that each standpoint is really like the other in principle. The element of subjectivity as the basis of a persons convictions and beliefs onto objective reality is similar to the idea of peoples experiences being the reason for a biased analysis and following misrepresentation of cause-and-effect connections.

Hume argues that there is nothing in several instances different from every single instance, which is supposed to be exactly similar, except only that after a repetition of similar instances, the mind is carried by habit (Hume 861 Section VII). In contrast to Humes perspective, Nietzsche states that we, we immoralists, are the answer here (Nietzsche 1236 Section VI). The difference between Humes and Nietzsches theories is very small and difficult to grasp, yet it is important in defining the uniqueness of each philosophers position.

Although the difference in details makes Nietzsches and Humes theories seemingly dissimilar, the philosophers share several similar viewpoints regarding the nature of cause-and-effect relationships in philosophy. Through the course readings, it is possible to declare that the primary notion of morality as an artificial construct is at the core of Nietzsches argument, whereas Hume relies primarily on his interpretation of subjectivity in moral judgments.

This difference separates one philosophical theory from another, making the opinion of each philosopher unique and incomparable. However, understanding that the details in the philosophers interpretation of the nature of causality can be considered irrelevant means that their standpoints concerning the phenomenon are similar. In conclusion, Nietzsches stance is very close to Humes in the philosophers overall claim that the nature of cause-and-effect relationships is elusive and hardly true.

Introduction

Aquinas is a famous philosopher whose work has offered an interesting point of view on human existence. In the third article of On the Voluntary and the Involuntary, the author presents his outlook on the actions people take. Most notably, he examines whether all activities are performed through a will of a man. In addition, the question of whether a choice not to act in a particular situation is considered a voluntary expression of a humans desires is researched. This paper aims to examine Aquinass work, define the terms that the author applies, and state the thesis.

Main body

The thesis of the paper written by Aquinas explores the idea of free will. Thus, the author argues that humans are free to act (voluntary) or to do nothing. It is because people are in charge of their actions (as the author states, humans are masters in regards to what they do). However, it is crucial to establish whether no activity in a specific situation is an act of will. Thus, Aquinas states that voluntariness is conducted by doing something (for instance thinking or planning). In case a person does not want to do a particular thing (for example read a book), the choice not to do it is a voluntary act as well. Through this idea, Aquinas combines performing and not performing actions as essential aspects of human will.

The author utilizes a variety of technical terms in his work. In order to understand the piece correctly, those phrases must be defined. Firstly, voluntariness is the primary theme of the paper by Aquinas, which means the free will to choose what to do. It is the opposite of involuntary actions, in which a person is forced by others (through threats or force) to do something. As Aquinas explains it, the voluntary is a result of ones will. Furthermore, it should involve an act, which is a crucial component of voluntariness.

The next essential term utilized in the paper is involuntariness, which describes a lack of desire or a choice to avoid action. In addition, Aquinas uses word combinations such as not willing and not acting to illustrate his examples throughout the piece. Not willing refers to involuntary activities, thus describing a choice of an individual not to do something. Not acting is similar as it implies no performance from a person. Therefore, not willing and not acting have a similar premise which is essential for understanding the paper.

The assumptions that Aquinas relies on are stated in the I answer that paragraph. Firstly, voluntary actions are performed through the free will of an individual. Aquinas argues that are two ways in which activities can proceed  direct and indirect. The assumption is essential, as it explains that ones lack of actions can have indirect consequences. Thus, the assumption supports the central idea of the paper as not performing an act can have outcomes. This idea connects not acting to voluntary activities through combing the indirect results with a choice to avoid doing something. Therefore, the philosopher assumes that voluntariness can be utilized to explain both activity and lack of action.

Secondly, Aquinas assumes that to have no desire can be considered an involuntary act. He examines whether not to will results in not doing something (for instance, whether stating that one does not want to read is the same as saying that one chooses not to read). The two different meanings can be used to illustrate the difference between voluntary and involuntary. Finally, Aquinas states that voluntary actions require knowledge, thus not knowing is an act of will as well.

The assumption is based on the notion that to act one must have an understanding of a situation. Whether a person will comprehend something or not is based on his or her willingness to gain insight (thus requiring a power of will, which is a voluntary action).

The argumentation should support the conclusion as Aquinas presents examples of voluntary actions that result from ones will. In addition, the author explains the opposing view of not willing and how the act may have indirect consequences. Thus, the combination of two offers an illustration of the similarities between the notions and proves that not doing something is a choice (and so is choosing to do something). The example of a helmsman in a ship showcases the idea of doing and not doing. The main argument that is utilized in work is that there consequences even in cases where a person chooses to avoid any action. This aspect implies that not doing something is a voluntary act of free will.

Conclusion

Overall, Aquinas in his work presents a critical discussion regarding the topic of human action and its connection to ones will. The central idea of the piece is that people can choose to do something or do nothing; both would be illustrations of free will. The argumentation that the author utilizes and his examples imply that both types of acts are voluntary and have consequences.

Descartes was the first philosopher to criticize the empiricists view of the process of achieving knowledge in the seventeenth century. According to Descartes, human senses cannot be trusted, as there are no reliable signs to distinguish whether a man is asleep or awake (158). There are, however, some undeniable truths, one of which is I think, therefore I am (Descartes 161). Descartes argues that it is not human senses but, rather, human intellect that perceives objects.

People make mistakes because of the duality of their nature, as they have both understanding and will. As long as humans use their understanding correctly, they will never make mistakes. The confusion appears when the will extends over the understanding, and people jump to conclusions without careful consideration and skepticism. I agree with Descartes that knowledge may be acquired only after thorough analysis and discussion.

There is no doubt that our senses are not perfect and, as such, should not be treated as the ultimate source of knowledge. People can perceive the same object differently depending on how well their senses perform. Impaired vision, hearing problems, or color-blindness can limit the ability to acquire reliable information, and can even become a source of delusion. People can also be disorientated by feelings, which can lead to incorrect conclusions and rashly trusting initial appearances. Therefore, the only way to ensure reliable information is to apply rationalism. In short, analysis and careful consideration is a more reliable source of knowledge compared to the senses.

Descartes states that God, an infinite being, grants people the ability to perceive. According to Descartes, God is not a deceiver, and human senses are right in reporting the outside world (Descartes 176). In Meditation VI, Descartes rejects the extreme doubts he had considered in his first meditation and proclaims perception to be the basis for the scientific method (Descartes 179). As such, Descartes appears to contradict himself, as there appears to be no need for a thorough analysis, and people can trust their senses to achieve reliable knowledge. However, the Meditations on First Philosophy provide further explanation on this matter.

While senses can be trusted most of the time, there are sources of mistakes that make perception untrustworthy. Human beings are creatures with a dual nature; people have both will and understanding that should be distinguished. As God does not want to delude people, human understanding is perfect. However, will interfere with understanding and become the source of mistakes. People can be convinced only by what they can grasp clearly and distinctly (Descartes 173).

Therefore, humans must analyze and break down everything into constituent parts until there is no doubt about the findings. In brief, human senses can be trusted most of the time but people should also be aware of the sources of mistakes.

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes introduces new grounds for scientific and philosophical knowledge using the method of doubt. While the writing belongs to the seventeenth century, researchers still consider the work to be the beginnings of the modern scientific approach. While Descartess logic can be criticized for occasional inconsistencies, his process of achieving knowledge is far more reliable than that described in the works of his predecessors. While human senses can be trusted most of the time, people should also employ doubt and be careful to judge whether they report the true nature of things correctly.

Work Cited

Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. 2018. Web.

Humans in their nature hypothesize and at the same time are skeptical of everything they believe. Every human belief has the predisposition of being doubted at some point in time. Even God, in all His wisdom has been doubted. Humans are a marvelous creation, but have many imperfections. If God is so powerful, why are we flawed? Is God flawed as well? This is one of the skeptical arguments against the existence of God.

Rene Descartes pushes skepticism to its fullest extent in order to assert his own beliefs. This is achieved through doubting anything which is true in our external world. External perceptions are brought into play here. In widening the spectrum of doubt, Descartes is able to create his own argument for overcoming his own skeptical challenge. This is a process in which Descartes discovers the ideas which he is unable to doubt.

The skeptical challenge refers to the unreliability of the external world for true perception. We know that the mind can misinterpret the external world from time to time. Therefore, one must wonder how often he or she misinterprets sensory input. If perceptions are sometimes false, where can one draw the line? Descartes skeptical arguments include Dream hypothesis and the Evil Demon Hypothesis, (Descartes, 4-5) The dream argument shows that our perceptions of the external world can not be differentiated from the dream world. Are we always dreaming? The mind interprets dream information as the truth. Hence we are unable to distinguish between the two types of perceptions.

Humans are born with the knowledge Of God, with out this knowledge; we would not question his existence because the mere thought alone would never have come to be. Among my ideas, some appear to me to be innate, some adventitious, and others to be formed by myself: for, as I have the power of understanding what is called a thing, or a truth, or a thought, it appears to me that I hold this power from no other source than my own nature, (Descartes, 10).

Descartes doubting these assertions goes on to say that other ideas and beliefs are caused by the influences of man and nature. From childhood, all humans are born with the knowledge of a superior being. This idea of God can not be contradicted or even doubted. The goal of the ontological argument was to set up a Priori response. This is a response, which is found without the senses. This allowed for Descartes to declare Gods existence without the use of the senses.

Descartes goes on to say, For although the idea of substance is within me owing to the fact that I am substance, nevertheless I should not have the idea of an infinite substance  since I am finite  if it had not proceeded from some substance which was veritable infinite, (Descartes, 11). In this statement, several things are said which cannot be doubted. Humans are substance; therefore they should not have the idea of infinite substance without their innate knowledge.

The infinity proof theory tells that we would not even have the ability to understand the concept of infinity. Hence, how did we ever imagine such a concept? One can not doubt the infinity of God or the finite substance of human life therefore they cannot doubt these assertions.

Descartes is seen as a reaction against scholastic philosophy in seventeenth century. The reason for this thought is that Descartes strongly criticized the methods of scholastic philosophy in his some writings. Scholastic philosophy was based on constant dogmas that could not be changed or criticized while Descartes claims that everything, even God, should be criticized to achieve the truth. If you look at Descartes philosophy in your own perspective you can easily say that he is inconsistent with himself; however, if you can catch his idea or view in which he see the world, God, and everything you will see that he built his philosophy on unshakable bases. Actually, the given two propositions are seen inconsistent without Descartes glasses.

Descartes follows four basic ways when he philosophizes. First of all is that you should accept nothing unless its truth is obvious. The second is that subjects that will be examined should be brought into pieces as much as possible. The third is that you should follow an order way while you are thinking. And the fourth is that you should control everything not to skip any detail. By using these ways, Descartes formed his philosophy. Descartes, as other philosophers, tries to reach absolute truth.

To do this he doubts everything that contains any small piece of friction or that he sees a sign of friction. He says that because our senses do not provide us the reality and can deceive us we have to doubt everything. He uses his first basic way of his method that accepts nothing unless its truth is obvious. He tells us that because of our senses imperfection we perceive one thing differently and adds that we cannot be sure that something exists as we perceive. This is something remarkable and significant.

If we further evaluate the same facts, it transpires that at the end, he concludes that he could doubt everything except the fact that he is doubting. In Reader, he says that it is not logical to say that one who is thinking and has some thoughts does not exist. By this way, he reaches his first principle, ego cogito; I am thinking therefore I exist. As we saw, he proves his own existence by doubting everything in external world which we perceive through our senses.

After this point he seems to think above the existence of God while he is doubting everything because he does not accept something unless he sees or understands it is obviously true. He threw away his every thought that perceived by his senses. He knows that because he can even doubt himself he is imperfect so does not have ability to produce such a nation. After that he says that this imperfection in my mind should come from something which is perfect, infinite and cause of everything: God. By this way he proves the existence of God.

As conclusion, we can say that first he proves his existence through doubting everything with his first principle, and secondly he accepted the existence of the God and proves again his own existence as the creature of the God. So these two statements are not compatible but overlapped each other.

Works Cited

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy, I, II III in The Philosophical Works of Descartes, vol. 1, trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (updated by D.C. Abel) Cambridge University Press, 1911. 1-19.

Steven M. Cahn ed. Descartes, Rene Meditations on First Philosophy, in Classics of Western Philosophy, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), 460.

It can be argued that each person has a unique worldview, and that ones beliefs affect their thoughts, judgments, and actions. A worldview develops based on ones understanding of spirituality, pluralism, scientism, and postmodernism, as these are some of the key philosophical concepts related to knowledge and perception. My personal worldview was influenced by many factors, including family traditions and academic career. The present paper will seek to introduce my worldview based on its main components.

First of all, I believe that God is the prime reality. I was born into a religious family, and thus religion and spirituality are important to me. I try to attend the church as often as I can. However, I do not think that it defines my spirituality. Personally, I believe that ones spirituality reflects their commitment to live by Gods rules, although some people might view spirituality as an innate quality that distinguishes a person from the others. Secondly, I believe that the world around me is ever-changing. In accordance with my religion, I think that our world was created by God. However, I also feel like peoples actions have been affecting it ever since. For example, the climate change is attributable to human activity rather than Gods work.

Therefore, human beings, although created by God, are independent entities who can make choices and act based on their personal values and beliefs. I also think that people are capable of changing, adapting, and growing emotionally and spiritually. In the modern day, these changes are primarily driven by our external environment. For instance, globalization has influenced the development of pluralism, and now more and more people accept that there are different opinions on the same issue (What is pluralism?, 2017). Although human growth and development occur independent of God, they can be supported by religion. For example, a person might turn to religion for answers at any point in their life, and the study of religion will affect their nature and beliefs.

When one discusses worldviews, spirituality, and science, a particular question that comes to mind is What happens to a person at death?. From the scientific point of view, the answer to this is clear: a persons body disintegrates, and this person no longer exists. However, if we are to consider a possibility that a person is more than just their body, it becomes much difficult to answer this question. If every person has a soul, does it die when the body dies, or is it infinite? And if the soul is infinite, does this mean that a person never really dies? I think that every person has a soul that continues to exist after the bodily death, and that there is an afterlife. Nevertheless, we may never know for sure what the afterlife is until we (or our bodies) die.

The question of knowledge and whether or not it is possible to know anything at all also allows for the plurality of opinions. For instance, according to scientism, knowledge is possible because of science and its contribution to our understanding of the world (Burnett, 2018). However, from a postmodernist perspective, there is no certain knowledge, as all information is subject to views and opinions (Postmodernism, n.d.). Similarly, pluralism suggests that there are multiple truths, and none of them is truer than the others. Even though we might say that we have ten fingers, people from some other countries would say that we have 20 fingers, as the word fingers in their language applies both to fingers and toes.

In the same manner, the question of How do people know what is right or wrong? can be answered from multiple perspectives. However, as a religious person, I believe that we can distinguish between right or wrong actions based on our religious doctrine. Killing is ultimately wrong as it is against the fundamental rules of Christianity. Benevolent actions, such as donating to charities, are ultimately right, as they help those in need and support Gods ways.

Lastly, the meaning of human history can also be understood in different ways. To me, human history, if told to future generations and studied, can prevent people from making the same mistakes. For example, studying history can help us in preventing another world war or stop genocide before it occurs. In addition, I think that history shows the impact of people on the world, thus supporting the idea that the world around us changes in response to our actions. History can thus allow us to trace how the world has changed after critical scientific discoveries or inventions.

Overall, my worldview is primarily influenced by my religion, as well as the ideas about scientism, pluralism, and postmodernism, which I acquired throughout my studies. I would also like to note that the essential belief that influences my actions and opinions is that we can change the world around us. This belief affects my life, as it makes me consider the consequences of my actions for other people and the world as a whole. I think that my worldview enables me to grow and develop emotionally while also informing my judgment on what is right and what is wrong.

References

Burnett, T. (2018). What is scientism?

What is pluralism? (2017). The Economist.

Postmodernism. (n.d.).

Introduction

Rene Descartess form of skepticism, which is referred to as Cartesian Doubt, represents a manifestation of methodological skepticism. It implies a systematic process of doubting the validity of peoples personal beliefs, which has become a key characteristic of philosophy. For many who studied the topic, methodological doubt is considered to be the fundamental component of the scientific method used in research.

Doubting the truth of ones beliefs is necessary for testing which of them are real and which have no basis in reality. Thus, Descartess statement, I think, therefore I am defines the nature of scientific skepticism and encourages those involved in research to be wary of personal biases. As all studies on a variety of topics currently require the low presence bias on the part of those conducting them, Descartess philosophy has full application in real life.

Background of Descartess Skepticism

The method of doubt proposed by Descartes establishes a framework upon which an individual can build lasting knowledge in the sciences. The philosopher observed that everything people know and think relies on the assumption that the senses represent reliable sources of information about the surrounding world. For instance, whenever a person believes that a dog is sitting in front of them, the assumption is made simply because they seem to see the dog with their eyes.

Equally, when a person comes to believe that something exists on the basis of someones testimony, one assumes that what is heard is coming from a reliable source of information. Therefore, upon reflecting on these situations, it is hard to consider any substantive beliefs around the world that have not been acquired through the help of ones senses. This leads to the conclusion that it is hard to think of any opinions that do not depend on justifications that the senses view as generally reliable.

That is, Descartes suggested that all of the peoples sensory experiences have content and thus have a basis in reality, as they represent the world around people being a certain way. The most appropriate way of understanding the notion of the content of experiences is imagining oneself in situations, in which senses can present as unreliable. An interesting example of this is imagining oneself being surrounded by distorting mirrors. While a person sees himself or herself being distorted, they believe what they see. However, they consider their environment and understand that the deformed person one sees in the mirror is not an accurate representation.

The most crucial thing is that peoples senses constantly make claims about the external world, and in an ordinary course of events, when there is no evidence to conclude that the feelings are misguiding, people usually believe what their senses tend to say.

The Dream Argument and the Evil Demon

Because peoples senses show the world being a specific way, one usually believes what they tell and show. Therefore, one thinks, I have a particular experience of the world in which something happens. The visual experience I have is reliable. Therefore, I live in a world in which something happens. However, Descartes intends to cast doubt on the mentioned inferences by showing that visual experiences are unreliable. This applies to the phenomenon of a mirage, which is an optical illusion caused by the atmospheric conditions and resulting in the appearance of water from the refraction of light from the sky from heated air.

While a person sees water on the ground, the sense of vision is unreliable because the water is not there. Sensory illusions show that one should not believe ones senses at all times because their reliability is under question. Descartes, thus, suggests that the only thing that one should take seriously is the hypothesis that there may be an illusion taking place in terms of the visual representation being affected by external factors.

Thus, doubting ones perception of the world is imperative for maintain the spirit of inquiry and eliminating any biases that may be involved in distorting the view of the world. As the philosopher writes, How often has it happened to me that in the I night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, while in reality I was lying undressed in bed (Descartes, 1997, p. 135). Therefore, people are justified to believe anything about the world around as based on their sensory experiences. This conclusion stems from the following logical chain:

1. It seems to a person that he is seated by the fireplace.
2. He is either sitting by the fireplace or he is asleep and dreaming.
3. The person is justified in believing to be seated by the fireplace only in the case that the dreaming hypothesis can be eliminated.
4. Internal indications that can differentiate between dreaming and waking are absent.
5. It is impossible to rule out the premise of dreaming.
6. The person has no justification to believe that he is seated by the fireplace.

Descartess form is skepticism is therefore correct if to look at the dream argument. Since the contents of peoples dreams can often be lifelike, the philosopher hypothesized that people could only think that they are not dreaming in order to make assumptions about reality. As long there is no evidence to suggest that one is not dreaming, it is always necessary to believe that one does and thus should not believe the senses.

The Evil Demon is another explanation that the philosopher gave to support the approach to skepticism. Descartes suggested that an absolute evil power may control the personal experiences that people have. This power is cunning and deceitful and could have created a superficial world, the events in which should not be trusted. Following the logic nature of doubt, the proposal of the Malicious Demon Hypothesis furthers the argument that people cannot trust even the simplest perceptions of the senses.

Therefore, the philosopher argued that peoples senses could easily fool them, with this idea being embedded into the framework of scientific inquiry. When people doubt everything they see as if a powerful being is controlling their existence, they have reason to further their exploration of the world and reflecting upon ones knowledge.

Opposing Methodological Skepticism

Philosophical, or Pyrrhonian, skepticism undermines the fundamentals of Descartess skepticism because it questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge. Philosophers adhering to this school of thought either deny the possibility of all knowledge or aim to suspend the judgment because of evidences inadequacy. Therefore, while Descartes, the representative of academic skepticism, is skeptical about trusting ones own perceptions and basing the understanding of the world on evidence, philosophical skepticism questions the reliability of evidence.

The philosophy of skepticism thus asserts that no truth is knowable and, at best, is only probable. Such an argument challenges the nature of scientific inquiry, and doubt is treated as a problem that should be solved. Pyrrhonian skepticism, keeps the questions regarding the possibility of knowledge open, with the process of an inquiry being furthered without any conclusions being reached.

As suggested by Pyrrho of Elis, wise people are only those who suspend judgment and take no part in controversy associated with the possibility of specific knowledge (Vogt, 2018). This view thus encourages us to take a neutral position regarding accepting knowledge without facilitating further analysis. However, Descartess approach to doubt is methodological and facilitates efforts for the inquiry to reach conclusions regarding the existence of knowledge.

The arguments that Descartes make in Meditations reinforce the ongoing issue that perfect knowledge cannot appropriately encompass external judgment. Instead, judgment can arise from a system of inferences about the reasons because of which sensations take place. When closing his Sixth Meditation, the philosopher revisits the example of dreaming, thus claiming that it is possible to reach perfect knowledge that one is presently awake. The solution offered by the philosopher implies a naturalistic perspective on the issue in the form of a test for continuity. Descartes suggests that since continuity with past experiences only works with waking, checking for continuity can offer a trial for ascertaining that one is not dreaming.

The philosopher writes, In now notice that there is a vast difference between the two, in that dreams are never linked by memory with all the other actions of life as waling experiences are. [&] But when I distinctly see where things come from and where and when they come to me, and when I can connect my perceptions of them with the whole of the rest of my life without a break, then I am quite certain that when I encounter these things I am not asleep but awake (Descartes, 1988, p. 122).

Thus, Descartes connects the present experiences with the one that preceded them and used intellect to examine the causes of error. In many ways, the conclusion goes against the dream argument. Moreover, the philosopher concludes that one should not be afraid to reflect on the falsity of senses that appear every day. Upon a closer look, the philosopher allows having a theistic solution on concluding whether knowledge is possible. The following truth rule is being evoked: I am not in error in cases in which I have a natural propensity to believe, and God provided me no faculty by which to correct a false such belief (Corringham, 1987, p. 10). Because of this, a person should set aside preconceived opinions about the world.

Concluding Thoughts

In summary, Descartess approach to skepticism provides significant grounds for believing that one should not trust ones own senses when making conclusions about the external world. Since methodological doubt has a logical nature, one should not consider knowledge as impossible for applying the approach to ones inquiry of the world. The attempt of Descartes to question human existence in all of its realms, stating that a person exists because he or she thinks. Such a way of looking at life is a continuous adventure of inquiry.

References

Corringham, R. (1987). Descartes on the errors of the senses. Web.

Descartes, R. (1988). Descartes: Selected philosophical writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Descartes, R. (1997). Key philosophical writings. Ware, UK: Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Vogt, K. (2018). Ancient skepticism. Web.