Aquinas' third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.…
Out of the two arguments presented by Anselm and Aquinas the one that makes the most sense to me is Aquinas. I think this because, unlike Anselm, Aquinas believes that people will never be able to fully grasp an understanding of “God’s nature” through reason alone. In my opinion Anselm is a mix between Locke's Empiricism and Kant's Structuralism. On the other hand Aquinas is more along the lines of someone who practices Plato's Dualism, and Descartes' Rationalism.…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were to philosophers with opposing opinions on human nature and the state of nature. Locke saw humanity and life with optimism and community, whereas Hobbes only thought of humans as being capable of living a more violent, self-interested lifestyle which would lead to civil unrest. However, both can agree that in order for either way of life to achieve success there must be a sovereign.…
“Beauty is an integral quality of the soul and God. If God is beautiful, the entire universe has to be beautiful. There can be nothing ugly in the universe.” (Hindu Janajagruti Samiti)¬¬…
I found Descartes’ way of thinking very interesting when compared to Aristotle. Descartes doubts the existence of God when he decides to start over and completely ignore his senses. He states in his third meditation, “…and I do not yet even know for sure whether there is a God at all…I must examine whether there is a God, and if there is, whether he can be a deceiver.” (25) Descartes makes a goal for himself to find out if there is a God and who he is. According to Aquinas we will never be able to understand who or what God is. We are finite and so we cannot understand the infinity of God. We can only know He is and always will be because He has instilled that bit of knowledge within us. So when Descartes says we cannot have the idea of finite without the idea of infinite, he claims we understand what God is. But I would disagree and take Aquinas’ side because what Descartes is understanding is not who God is entirely; it is an idea of what he is like. We as human beings, can contemplate God and try to understand what makes him, him. But since we are so limited in our knowledge, we will never comprehend our God. Later on page 32, Descartes starts to say it does not matter that he does not grasp the infinite only that he understands it. In line 47 he says he sees no reason that his knowledge cannot increase to infinity and use that infinite knowledge to understand all of the other perfections of God. This idea cannot ever happen because we humans have a beginning. God is the one who made us, but no one made God. His knowledge is truly infinite because he, himself has no beginning and no end. We on the other hand were born, will die, and though are spirits will join God in heaven, he can still choose to end our spirits existence. I began to agree with Descartes as he realizes that even if his knowledge increases more and more, it will never actually be infinite because it will never reach the point where it can no longer increase. (pg 32) I liked his quote. ” God,…
Immanuel Kant is recognized as the greatest philosopher since Plato and Aristotle (Wolff). He is most widely known for his work in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology (McCormick). Kant published many works regarding his epistemological views, but his most famous work is The Critique of Pure Reason (McCormick). He noted that Descartes had “simply accepted consciousness as an…inexplicable fact” (Wolff). Kant utilized this observation to refute Descartes’ famous quote, “I think, therefore I am,” with a slightly revised premise— “I am conscious” (Wolff).…
During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be discussed will include Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. And the Aristotelian philosophers will include Locke, Berkeley and Hume.…
Kant philosophy has contributed in development of "pure" moral philosophy, a "metaphysics of morals" that is based on the concepts of reason, not on empirical observations. According to his philosophy moral obligations are applicable to all human beings as it applies not only for particular person in particular situation, but also to all rational beings in all circumstances.…
An eminent philosopher of the Enlightenment era, Immanuel Kant was born of April 22, 1724, in Konigsberg, Prussia. He was the fourth of nine children born to Anna Regina Reuter and Johann Georg Kant. He belonged to an impoverished family, his father was a harness marker, and the family offered unquestionable allegiance to the Pietism branch of the Lutheran Church. Kant was a bright child, he was placed under the tutelage of a local pastor to complete his basic education, and later he attended the Collegium Fridiricianum, a Latin school where developed a great passion for classicism. In 1740, Kant was accepted at the University of Konigsberg, he initially planned to study theology but he found his vocation in physics and mathematics.…
The first humans on earth were primative clans that stuck together. As time developed so did the mind of the human. As the minds of humans started to expand, society developed and so did its many other aspects. One of those aspects is the social contract. A social contract are theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. Two theorists that had very strong views on the social contract were Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant. Although both of these theorists believed in a social contract they both had different views on what it exactly meant.…
I believe that Immanuel Kant would see Carter Druse's action of shooting his father as moral. Kant was an ethicist that believed that morality was based on duty, that ethics is absolute, not conditional, and is based on reason, not feelings. (Pojman, Vaughn 309)…
According to the philosophers Heilbroner, Kant, and Mill ethics can be beneficiary to the human race; for in the instance that ethics can make you a better person in society. Mill believed that the things (events, material items, choices, etc.) that made the most people happy were the most morally good thing to do (par 1). Kant believed that if your intentions are good, your morals are good. Kant also had his Categorical Imperatives which is his view on how one’s maxims (subjective principles of actions) become a universal law (i.e. MURDER) (par 3). Heilbroner goes on to discuss about the future, the environment, and what we do now could benefit the future people (pg 1 par. 1). In this essay I will discuss Heilbroner’s point about the limits…
“Optimism is the hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something” This is the cry of the enlightenment period. This was the hope that Kant and Voltaire so strongly desired for the future.…
Then, offer your own perspective. If you agree with Kant, consider and respond to an objection to his view. If you disagree with Kant, explain why.…
The world revolves around right, wrong, and the basic belief of morals but what if these morals were simply a figment of imagination created by a single human and simply accepted? People around the world make decisions according to their beliefs and morals every day. Philosophers since the beginning of time have attempted to prove or disprove the existence of natural law which is what morals are based on. Some of the most significant philosophers to the topic are Aquinas and Nietzsche who specify the two sides of the argument. Although this is a topic discussed by mostly philosophers it also applies to the public because natural law is what dictates our every action. Natural law imposes rights and wrongs on the world but if it didn't exist then the only thing left would be the will of the strong to impose their power on the weak. This is not a new thing and we can see instances throughout history where people who agree with either side make an impact on the world. Natural law has always been assumed to exist regardless of recognition; despite its common acceptance natural law and morality are just an opinion which is enforced by the powerful to make the…