Now empirical method is the only method which can do justice to this inclusive integrity of "experience." It alone takes this integrated unity as the starting point for philosophic thought. Other meth...
| Notification [x] |

| Author | Feedback | Action |
|
03/03/2010 . . .no man can serve both Locke and Hegel. Nobody can claim to offer an "empirical" account of something called "the inclusive integrity of 'experience,'" nor take this "integrated unity as the starting point of philosophic thought," if he also agrees with Hegel that the starting point of philosophic thought is bound to be the dialectical situation in which one finds oneself caught in one's own time. (Rorty, Richard, Qtd. in Cahn, New Studies in the Philosophy of John Dewey. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1977, P. 81) Mill notes that it may be further objected that a person may set a bad example for others by his actions and in that way do harm to others (75). Therefore, we should be concerned with everyone's actions for the good of society. A man who is a drunkard or gambler hurts his family and those that depend on him for services, therefore shouldn't we also be concerned with his actions (75)? A person may be so self degrading that he is doing harm to himself and deserves the help of others even if he does not want their help or advice (76). |
||
|
10/03/2010 Machiavelli's idea of virtu' is not of moral character then, but of what is best or the utilitarian needs of the country. For Machiavelli virtu' out weighs virtue in times of need while Plato believes a just ruler must behave the same all the time. Salmon says: Machiavelli critically analyzes the crucial characteristics of successful rulers, distinguishing, for example, between standards of discipline appropriate for military campaigns and for rulers when they are not commanding armies. Similarly, when Machiavelli discusses the concepts of cruelty and mercy, he presents examples to show that actions which might seem at first glance to be cruel are merciful in the circumstances, and vice versa. Descartes has a clear distinct picture of God, which he cannot, and will not doubt. He believes all other truths can be doubted, but not God. |
||
|
11/03/2010 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) The exact nature of what love is has been debated since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers. The Greek's debate is described in Plato's "Symposium." Plato's "Symposium" recreates a philosophic discussion amongst ancient Greece's top philosophers. The men gathered to discuss the meaning of love. The abstract nature of Love makes it difficult to define. The Greeks believed there were two types of love, Common Love and the Love driven by virtue, Noble Love. |