It seems that Augustine's view of grace versus free will reacts in a similar fashion. Grace is that act of god by which our souls can turn from a carnal and sinful existence to look toward the world a...
| Notification [x] |

| Author | Feedback | Action |
|
09/03/2010 It seems however, that the intrinsic sense of justice that members of the kallipolis naturally have is useful only in terms of "following the laws," not for anything more abstract or permanent, as Socrates argues in Book 1 of The Republic. I can see the beginning of the western conception of the state and its relationship to the individual in Hobbes' Leviathan. I do, however, question many of his conclusions. This is to be expected since Hobbes is best read as a piece of historical political philosophy, demonstrating the development of the western conception of the state. |
||
|
09/03/2010 Descartes was a rationalist. Like many philosophers, novelists, and poets of his time, he questioned his own existence, and his reason for being, man's purpose in the scheme of the universe. Descartes set forth a number of philosophical trends. The questions he asks is where do I fit? Decartes was concerned with how we come to ourselves, our identity. He wished to discover truths where there could be no doubt. He believed in a dualism of mind and body, that they were two separate parts. This allowed him to uncover the only truth he could not deny "I think, therefore I am." In Philosophy Now, Paula Rothenberg Struhl and Karsten J. Struhl claim: However, Descartes argues that there is one thing that is absolutely certain. I cannot doubt the existence of the self that has these doubts. Thus, for Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" is the fundamental axiom from which all philosophy must begin. The "I" that thinks is defined simply as a thinking thing, and from this, it follows that the essential nature of the self is the mind, as distinct from the body. (Struhl, Paula Rothenberg, and Struhl Karsten J., editors, Philosophy Now. Random House: 1980, P. 87) Going from a molecular to an atomic level, we can describe much more of what exactly water "is." In the final analysis, however, we find that the electrons which account, at least partially, for every characteristic of water fail to find definition, or a form. The only way to describe the multidimensional orbitals of electrons in water is through probability theory. History has seen the failure of the plum-pudding model, Bohr's orbital model, and every other definite model for the circulation of electrons. The only theory which adequately accounts for electron circulation in water, and thus, as a result, for all its more broadly recognized properties, is probability theory. Probability theory is, by the way, a method of saying, "We don't know!?" |