Epistemology, Reality, Freedom, Self, and Ethics - Essay Example

The fact is, real is genuine, or what someone can lean on safely, or rather reliable. Its opposite is that which cannot be reliable, fake, or untrustworthy.

On the other hand, the philosophy of freedom precedes existence. This is according to Berdyaev, who further asserts that since freedom precedes existence, this concept is placed on the highest metaphysical level. In his religious belief, where his freedom is tired, Berdyaev believes that God is present only in freedom. In summary, this is an act or ability to actually think and act independently, about the possibility of modern consciousness.

Considering ethics, philosopher Berdyaev affirms that ethics is the backbone of philosophy since it is concerned with sin, which is the origin of morality and evil. He generalizes this issue by saying ethics is a philosophy of freedom.

Considering Epistemology, it makes sense to note that it is a philosophy that deals with knowledge. Its main concern is the definition of knowledge, its source the process of getting or rather acquiring it, and its limitations. According to experts, they affirm that the philosophy of epistemology can be obtained via reasons or experience.

Finally, self in philosophy concerns knowledge, of people’s or one’s particular mental states, including one’s desires, beliefs as well as sensations. That is why, Descartes, one of the known philosophers affirms that knowledge of self is pertinent from the realm of knowledge.

Now having outlined the above category,  the philosophy of self is what describes me as a philosopher since it deals with or rather it touches the essential qualities that a person distinguishes himself from another one. In other words, it narrates a unified being, which also is a source of consciousness. According to me as a philosopher, it is of no offense if I say knowledge modes are purified separately from the object matter. Moreover, with this, one can identify another imaginable person who casts out human consciousness into certain specific epistemological premises. In this regard, I assert that the first knowledge task is the knowledge of premises or rather to know one criterion. The same phenomenon is illustrated by Hillman.

On the hand, I am also of the idea that the soul is a substance and that my soul is distinct from my body. With that, I argue that this soul can survive or rather exist without the body. I therefore acknowledge the pertinence of God, in my soul. By so doing, I think that the body can perish, however, the mind is immortal by nature. I further admit that I or anyone else cannot create God, and so understanding that God is the creator, I admit that God did put thoughts into my head. With that, I value the fact that God exists and so, I rely on the philosophy of trusting and believing in God (Solomon 12). To grow it all, I can say I believe in, and at the same time, I believe that my existence indicates or rather proves the existence of God. In the end, with all the above, God being my creator, and who gave me the power to think, I submit that I got all this understanding from God. With that, I acknowledge healing fiction. These are the two philosophers, who are more the same as me, and so we are related philosophically. “The truth of the matter when it comes to the philosophical thinking of God is that, according to Descartes and Hillman, we are God’s representation or the image of God”. With that, I second them.

Now, having analyzed the above philosophical concept it is worth evaluating the pertinence of each chosen philosopher. First, Descartes as a philosopher plays an important role in outlining the importance of God in our lives. In other words, he acknowledges that God exists and so, human beings are his representation. He affirmed that he believes in God, and so, our appearance represents the availability or rather the appearance of God himself. Therefore, the basis of considering this philosopher in this evaluation is that he believes or acknowledges God. On the other side, Hillman puts consideration on the philosophy of self. It is true that if one cannot understand himself, then he or she will not understand the ways of God. Moreover, with that, they both relate in a way. Hillman affirms that in alliterating his statement above, “And with this, one can identify another imaginable person who actually casts out human consciousness into certain specific epistemological premises.” For everyone who is a believer, it is believed that the origin of humankind is God, who is our creator, with that; it makes sense to assert that the two philosophers had the same belief. In addition, since the aim of this essay is to derive certain categories of philosophy, then it makes sense to talk about them concurrently.