Modern Philosophy
Letter 5
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: Hume’s Defense on Skepticism Charges
Hello, I will support the Humean skepticism and disregard the Kant’s criticism of his philosophical idea. Hume perceives an inherent flawing of people’s reasoning, hence undermining all the knowledge claims. Hume skepticism expands on the authority and self-doubt by explaining the arguments. Despite his furious attack on the entire dogma types and certainty, he had thoughtful and attractive attributes. In the philosophical field, he developed a realistic theoretical framework, which enhanced his lifestyle. He had massive ideological criticism due to the non-religious ideologies. He had rapid synergy and applied a valid skepticism.
Firstly, he projected on the reason and logical limits. The ancient Greek philosophers examined on either rationalism or empiricist ideologies. Since from the time of Descartes (one of the fundamental philosophers), there has existed conflict about the knowledge acquisition from either reasoning or sense experience methodologies. Hume, being an empiricist, examined the flaws using the rationalist model. He had a comprehensive comprehension of world mental views as developed by either thought (ideas) and the impressions, that is, feeling and excitement. Hume showcased that the human designs as the derivatives from their opinions, thus lacking independence.
Besides, multiple mental instruments transition people’s impressions into thoughts, and by doing so substantially, it makes people experience discrepancies and sensible delusions. Also, Hume suggested a tremendous doubt on the cause and effect principle. People do not detect an object resulting in an effect, and humans fall under their thoughtful reinforcing habits due to likelihood interrelation anticipations. Despite people’s reliance on the cause-effect model, he elaborated that people needed more than just reasoning and rationality. He challenged his philosophical idea through certainty derivation of human conceptual knowledge. He manifested on demerits of skepticism.
People should embrace conceptual contradiction in life. A healthy skepticism raises two questions. First, how people should live without anything assurance? And what is the all-round inquiry point? In a more excellent extend, skepticism assists at the destruction of bad ideas, thus betterment. However, skepticism work leads to common-sense ideological development. The Humes argues that “Be a philosopher, but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.” His pragmatism argues against finding fixed reality truths and its components notions and having meaningful and practical living. Therefore, he established a balance between conceptual and philosophical perceptions.
Therefore, via the utilization of the abstract reasoning (free from reality detachment) and having particular factual respect, people differentiate between wrong and right deeds, thus partnership living. More so, people need to adopt the world attention classification demands that go beyond their ideas and concepts on which they spend much time meditating. Although philosophy gives contemplating insights, people should reason beyond it. Unrelenting skepticism is self-destruction. Therefore, people should exercise modesty in everything they undertake.
Individuals should have a spectator judgmental perceptions. The philosophical domain on the valuable conception that determines living patterns regards to the ethics domain, that is, the utilitarianism approach. Passion controls human conduct rather than reason, that is, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Also, emotions and sentiments govern ethics rather than abstract moral dimensions. People need to embrace the innocent pragmatism of ethics and also showcase some righteous living. Hume empiricist perspectives elude that both sensational and feeling inputs integrate reasoning; thus, he abolished rationality claims of motivating people to have moral life. Morality roots dwell under people’s moral sentiments. Humans have congenital programmed feelings, which determines whether they have excellent or vicious acting. Therefore, people have the mandate of balancing their egotism and group identity interests, and due to the compassionate care of the groups, they act ethically. People’s perceptions and moral action relativity result from their interactions. For instance, there exists an unbiased spectator witnessing a conversation between the communication of two people, and one’s actions judgments become either vicious or virtuous, depending on the compassionate feeling of the spectator. The concept of the unbiased spectator dwells from people’s cooperation, and it eliminates selfish behaviour despite having egotism. Also, the lack of self-interest leads to individual ability suffering. But also, despite having egotism nature, people need others to support in life.
Therefore, the philosophy teaches an individual on thinking dimension, but not the living frameworks. Despite skepticism remarks, people should evaluate the reason and logical limits. People regarding whether rationalist or empiricist ideas generate personal impressions resulting in the rise of the contradiction and fallacies. People should know that thoughts have a deadline, and one of the default positions is skepticism. Also, people should embrace conceptual inconsistencies. Skepticism modifies the problematic contemplations resulting in questionable conclusions. Despite that, while undertaking the daily operations, there may arise a good enough object, although conceptual inconsistency. The human should reason and embrace the utilitarianism approach in their daily activities. Hume believed that everything people reason has an embedment on their defective mental programing. To a greater extend, people should evaluate themselves on actual claim elements before being over-confident.
Yours faithfully,
Students ID
Letter 3
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: Leibniz’s theodicy Concerns
Hello, at first, the Leibniz theory focuses on the justification of God’s justice. The proper method of justice explanation nad God’s goodness in the evil’s face is via reasoning and not by faith. More so, his Theodicy elaborates that some religious ideologies have a rational demonstration and do not need articles of faith recognition. Morally perfect, powerful God, and evil presence contradictions result in the problem of evil. Moral excellent attributes of God suggest wicked elimination, whereas the omnipresent characteristic of God means potential control over evil abolishment. Therefore, if God exists, evil should not exist. However, due to the crime that exists, it means that God does not exist or does not have omnipotent and moral perfect attributes (SEP, 2013). Leibniz elaborated on reasons why God allows evil. His philosophical view focuses on the principle that God selects only the best.
He differentiates the malignant classification, that is, metaphysical evil (exists between finite and perfect objects), moral evil (people freewill sin), and physical evil (sufferings). God undertakes all logically possible activities, and God cannot create a perfect world since it will get indistinguishable from God. Therefore, for pantheism elimination, a planet must have metaphysical evils. Leibniz depicts that the best world showcases escalated variety and diversification while upholding most-straightforward laws. Leibniz suggests a world controlled by the nature laws unavoidably has sentient creature suffering (SEP, 2013). Therefore, God’s intervention to creature suffering disrupts the causal laws resulting in a chaotic world. The Moral, psychological intuitions of people become affected if humans had sin incapability and lacked free will. He believed in the Mind and mind-like analogous to everything. More so, anybody has a supreme monad which controls everything.
The Conway critique on the Leibniz consists of various arguments based on the spirit and matter convertibility. Therefore, Conway connotates that matter and Mind have substance similarities and ables to change into each other. Material entities can manipulate to spiritual bodies and vice versa. Conway focuses on consistency. Conway relied on Ancient Hebrews, by depicting that soul as of one nature and substance within the frame. She disputed the Leibniz claims of harmony pre-establishment to solve dualism problem between Mind and the body. The unity between body and soul dwelt on te middle spirit existence. Like, Jesus Christ who joined the human’s soul with God. Her philosophy did not explore beyond substance categorization limits. Her mind-body problem solving though monistic resolution served as simplicity of the real reduction to the spirit idealistic classification.
There exist numerous similarities between Leibniz and Conway’s perception of time. For instance, they abolish absolutism claims, and both agree that time does not live independently of developed objects, like bodies and creatures. More so, as flexible interactions can only dwell between various states, it is valid for Leibniz that in the change avoidability, the time would exist. Both Leibniz and Conway argue that in an unchanging world, time will not survive. According to the absolutist, time will continue evolving regardless of the universe object changes. Just like Leibniz concept on the all-spirit connect with God, Conway system relied on the interlinkage of the world creatures under God forming a necessary fellowship, whereby they subsite each other mutually. She argues of having a more tenacious, and firm governing spirits to overseer other. Also, Leibzin ideology focused on a supreme monad, that unifies all the other monads. They both agree the matter creation process is through the coalition of the spiritual degenerative dull monads. After one’s death, there exists a spirit or a monad formation. Conway’s principles rhyme with the Leibniz concept that God cannot create anything to cause discrepancies as per his wisdom and goodness, or according to his moral perfect and omnipresent attributes.
Despite the similarities, there exist fundamental distinctions between Conway and Leibniz methodologies. At a greater extend, Leibniz elaborates his time metaphysics in terms of relations, unlike Conway, who does not deploy such thoughts. The methodologies analysis does not portray Conway as a relationist philosopher. Secondly, while Leibniz explains time in terms of idealities and phenomenon, Conway does not support his school of thoughts. Thirdly, there exists a strong cases analysis from the Leibnizian monad methodologies as not adhering time scheme; the Conway monads do not support such interpretations. In several occasions contrary, Conway suggests that monads occur in time, that is since from the world start the creatures have existed. They have a definite beginning and a definite ending. Therefore, she perceives time as either a motions pattern or creatures operations. Also, unlike the well-established phenomenon by Leibniz regarding mechanical laws solution offering, she did not elaborate on the bodies issues and their interactions. There also lacked empirical evidence support on the crucial vitalism components, that is, souls transmigration, middle nature concepts, and relevant virtues. Therefore, the dualistic dilemma escalated on the platform of spirit solution. The work of Conway could resolve the Leibniz problem of failing to explain the metaphysical substance via the individualistic monads. Therefore, it is clear that the vitalistic view and explanation of Leibniz did not incorporate the monad concept.
Yours faithfully,
Student ID
Letter 4
Dear Madam/Sir,
RE: Cavendish Objection to Berkeley’s God’s Existence Doctrine
Firstly, Berkeley’s fails to have a logical justification of individual mind existence, beliefs, knowledge, substance of human Mind as well as spiritual substance. More so, the principles make the explanations impossible, making inconsistency and irrational beliefs. Neglecting the perception that the physical components do not form direct awareness from people emotions, sensations, feelings, thoughts, among others renders his immaterialistic ideology irrelevant. The individual instincts perceive spiritual, soul, and mind substances, thus producing ideas. He argues that Mind is not a substantial reality but a diverse perception collection integrated via positive relations leads to extreme skepticism. Therefore, he does not develop a justifiable human certitude on God, and spiritual existence from reality sense quality consideration. Also, he does not provide proof on extramental presence in the physical world, thus contradicting himself.
Berkeley’s methodology embraces the wrong occasionalism doctrine. For instance, it elaborates that there exist no cause-effect of the physical world. Therefore, he manifests the planet as a dimension of ideas in symbolistic and occasional activities developed by God and finite spirits. Thirdly, we can detect a prompt of forming a human certitude through the contention that the actual necessity and as such knower implications fail. He does not account for the long existence of the Divine, and the finite spirits. The lack of independent establishment of the Mind is false, given that people mind can interpret all finite objects due to its creative and intelligence nature. The idea originality imposed on a person spirit of which he/she does not produce comes from the free will of other souls. It is because it has multiple agents who engage in the production of ideas. Also, there exist ideas not produced by a person, or any finite spirits, like natural phenomena. The theory does not provide any justification regarding the natural wonder as defined by Berkeley. Lastly, Berkeley showcases that each reality falls under either Mind (knowing) idea (mind-dependent). Therefore, we detect unsatisfactory justification regarding mind knowledge than the idea nature explanation. The phenomenist idealism perceives human minds as the symbolic awareness objects rather than focusing on further human consciousness when interpreting the human mind capability in idea generation.
Yours faithfully,
Student ID
Dear Madam/Sir
RE: Defense on Berkeley’s Views
Berkeley holds on the existence of the finite spirits and God. The elimination of the concept of the visible objects is through an elaboration a non-human mind creation of the ideas perceived by the finite Mind. God produces designs and places them on the human Mind as thoughts. The ignorance of the material world and knowledge phenomenon reduction relies on the proving of subjective spirit existence from the ideas available, and therefore, only spirits can produce the designs. The spirit nature composes of the active, idea manufacturing, passive, and idea receptacle features. The spirit activity revelation is via thoughts and memory conception, whereby people produce or recall ideas, necessarily by idea cooperation. On the passivity, spirit embraces ideas it has not manufactured. For instance, it is not within one’s authority to detect or not detect objects in his/her presence. The spirit passivity led to the proving of only independent spirit and God’s existence. The idea originality imposed on a person spirit of which he/she does not produce comes from the free will of other senses. It is because it has multiple agents who engage in the production of ideas. Also, there exist ideas not produced by a person, or any finite spirits, like natural phenomena. Therefore, only God provides such insights into the harmony and natural phenomena constancy.
The demonstration of God’s existence resulted in the solving of challenges about idealistic phenomenalism. The objects presence affirmatory dwells on the finite spirit and God perception. For instance, in cases of real and painted fire distinction burning situation, it showcases that God as the idea supreme commander, unites the actual fire, burning idea, and ignores the shaded light. Therefore, despite many people perception of the doctrines of the natural phenomenon as the by-product of the material universe or physical situations, God’s power eliminates materialistic ideologies. Only God reveals the corresponding ideas of the material objects. Therefore, in our souls, God tells the impressing ideas to us. The laws of nature develop mutual connection whereby God assesses our spirit ideas. Berkeley proved his theism ideologies against doubtful materialist attacks. Therefore, proper immaterialism strategy execution in preventing atheism and materialism ideologies, adoption of inherence principles, and ignoring thoughtful reality sensible humans, led to the proving of God’s existence. The ideological perspective relies on the cause-effect framework from strategic actual practical objects in the universe. Therefore, people should focus on the moral and logical contradiction conceptualization in determining reality. The empirical evidence led to the idea of development from only the finite spirits and God.
Yours faithfully,
Student ID
Reference
SEP. (2013). Leibniz on the Problem of Evil. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/