|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: |
kayla |
| Blog URL: |
http://www.handshakesdemo.com/blogs/named
|
| Tags: |
since add black fall sleep very simple pound some first |
| Description: |
I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theological argument, that is, the questions of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. (Qtd in Ockman, William)
Gross experience is loaded with the tangled and complex; hence philosophy hurries away from it to search out something so simple that the mind can rest trustfully in it, knowing that it has no surprises in store, that |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hume's obvious goal was to refute Descartes, and defend Berkely. He does an admirable job, considering any statement even remotely acknowledging Descartes' theory of thought as being the only thing we cannot disprove, would in turn disprove his own theories. However, Hume misses the boat, in his defense of his own beliefs. True knowledge is gained from the thought process and experience. It is the combination of these two factors that allows us to define truth. Descartes was half right, and Berkley was half right. Truth cannot be determined until the possible results have been rationalized, and the actual results of events have been measured.
Why would not simply making use of the lands of a country (i.e. for traveling) make you subject to that country's laws because of the implicit benefits you gain (i.e. safe passage, an efficient road, etc.)? I believe that Locke himself addresses this question from this point of view in a later section of the Second Treatise.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList