Position Paper: Reader-response I read a book the other day. It was a wonderful book called The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien. I really enjoyed it; it gives the background information on the creation of Middle Earth. In it‚ Tolkien tells us of Illúvatar‚ Eä‚ the Valar and the birth of Elves‚ Dwarves and Men. But‚ you know‚ I don’t think it has anything at all to do with Elves‚ Dwarves‚ Men and some god named Illúvatar. I think Tolkien really wanted to write a Biblical allegory and a critique
Premium J. R. R. Tolkien The Lord of the Rings Literary theory
since the dawn of literature. For example‚ we have Plate and Aristotle who were concerned about audience responses and how plays generated pity and fear on them. Still‚ the audience or readers were passive. After the appearance of reader response theory‚ readers are activated. They involve themselves to elaborate the text‚ fill in the gaps and enact their experiences with the text. Most reader response critics can be divided into three groups. One of these groups is‚ as they are called‚ the structuralist
Premium Edgar Allan Poe Literary theory Literary criticism
for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that
Premium Metaphysics Universe Ontology
understand that I may believe‚ but I believe in order to understand. For this I also believe- that unless I believed‚ I should not understand”. Anselm employed his powers of reason in order to establish‚ by rational argument‚ the existence of God (Ally 2010:62). Anselm’s ontological argument When we are really thinking of something (and not merely uttering the associated verbal symbol)‚ that thinking is our understanding (2010:63). Of course‚ we need not understand that it exists‚ for we may be thinking
Premium Ontology Existence Theology
The ontological argument proposed by Anselm‚ in Anselm’s Proslogion is a priori argument‚ meaning it does not start from a feature of the world but rather a definition of God. It seeks to move from a definition of god to the reality of god by reasoning. The first line in Anselms ontological argument is “the fool says in his heart there is no god”‚ from this Anselm can deduce that the fool has an understanding of what god is .The fool has to admit that god is that than which nothing greater can
Premium Existence Ontology God
of the opposing arguments originating from the atheistic worldview contribute to the constructing of theistic truths. While using the multiple competing hypotheses method of finding the most probable cause to the universe and the existence of all mankind‚ a personal creator fits better than the probability of creation just happening by chance. This universe is very complex and the existence of the personal creator can be explained in two arguments out of the many existing arguments
Premium God Universe Existence
In his article “On Being an Atheist‚” H. J. McCloskey makes an entertaining‚ but in the end inadequate‚ explanation as to why the arguments for God’s existence fail (limiting himself to the only two he cared to deal with)‚ and why Atheism provides more comfort to the hurting person than Theism. Unfortunately his article is riddled with straw men and fails to address the question of God’s existence at the level that the Theist presents it. Twice in the article he makes reference to the theist’s
Premium Existence of God Existence Teleological argument
exists. The design from argument theory suggests that everything is relevant and was produced by something greater than us. The Argument from Design tries to prove the existence of God by asserting the claim that in order for a design to exist there must have been a designer (God). The idea that everything has a purpose and is determined fails because it doesn’t prove that the living organisms have only one designer. Hume reflects upon Paleys argument and develops a counter argument which he suggests disproves
Premium Charles Darwin Universe Intelligent design
has begged an answer since the beginning of the philosophical era. Philosophers often turn to the cosmological argument to justify the existence of God‚ and turn to the metaphysical basis to explain religious beliefs. This essay will analyze the “cosmological argument” as presented by Richard Taylor‚ in order to critically evaluate its meaning and understand its claims. To begin‚ the argument stems upon a metaphysical interpretation of creation. Despite the fact that religion may be a matter of faith
Premium Universe God Existence
Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that‚ “Nothing can move itself‚ so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another‚ and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity‚ so if every object in motion had a mover‚ there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover‚ called God.” (Aquinas‚ Question 2‚ Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence
Premium Existence Metaphysics Ontology