Hume and other Philosophers - Assignment Example

Lecturer: Hume and other Philosophers Question Explain why Kant did not end up with Humes skepticism as far as the notion of causality goes Kant notably tried to respond to what he considered to be Hume’s skeptical opinion of casualty and his relationship to Hume regarding this topic is critical to his entire philosophy (Banham, Hems and Schulting 285). Furthermore, since the famous discussion on causality and induction developed by Hume is similarly significant to his philosophy, appreciating the links between the two philosophers on this aspect is important to getting the best understanding of contemporary philosophy in a more general manner. However, when Kant offered his response to Hume, the topic became the subject of extensive controversy, consensus does not exist over whether his response is successful, and there is no more consensuses concerning what the response is supposed to be. There has been disparity in regards to Kant’s idea of causality along with Hume’s and therefore there has been controversy over if the two conceptions have considerable differences. There have also been disagreements about Hume’s conception of causality and induction and if they are skeptical. Kant supports Hume’s argument that the neither the connection of cause and effect nor the notion of necessary connection is provided in man’s sensory perceptions; from an important point of view as they are contributed through the mind of humans (Hall, Black and Sheffield 122). In Kant’s opinion, the concepts of causality and necessity develop from the operations of man’s understanding and they come up as pure concepts of the understanding. It is specifically in this manner that Kant considers himself as having an answer to the skeptical problem of induction associated with Hume, where in Kant’s terms, the issue of grounding the tradition from simply comparative to strict universality. Kant starts from a simple subjective empirical rule of constant conjunction or connection in the perceptions of humans, which are then transformed to become a necessary and universally valid regulation through addition of the a priori model of cause. Question 2: Kantian and a Nietzschean take on killing in order to stop a murder There are people, especially philosophers, who have responded against the degree of haphazardness of conservative moralities through searching for the standard of right and wrong. They may view the solution as obedience of God’s commandments or else favor a secular criterion like the principle of utility. Some of these tactics provide for numerous broadly accepted ethical beliefs, a level of amalgamating explanation, however, strictly adopted, the self-evident tactic can lead to a Martian morality through clashes with various deep human responses. It is shocking that if obeying God results in Abraham agreeing to sacrifice Isaac his son while secular principle concerning impartiality results parents having limited places in the lifeboat to state to his or her children that they are required to take their turn in the queue. The toughest issue as far as ethics are concerned is usually concerned with identifying a middle ground between indiscriminating approvals of intuitive reactions and deserting all the emotionally rooted human values in regards to some abstract principle. In some instances, people are emotionally attracted to doing things that go against the prescribed rules, whether by unreflective conservative ethics or through some hypothetical reconstruction. When considered from the rules point of view, this is a weakness that has to be eliminated, however, some of these weaknesses are components of the humanity that a huge majority can appreciate from the inside with the resulting empathy becoming a component of the humanity of an individual. Friedrich Nietzsche, an evil-skeptic of the nineteenth century supports the argument that the concept of evil is supposed to be abandoned since it is harmful. However, his motives for considering that the concept of evil is dangerous differ from those of other people associated with this topic. In Nietzsche’s view, the concept of evil is harmful since it negatively affects the potential of human beings as well as their vitality through promotion of the weak in sprit while subduing the strong. In Kant’s view, humans have a moral good will only when they decide to perform actions that are ethically correct because they are themselves morally correct (Hill 42). From his perspective, any human being who does not have a moral goodwill possesses an evil will with three grades of evil existing and can be seen as gradually more evil stages where the will is corrupted. To begin with, there is fragility and an individual associated with a frail will tries to take part in morally correct actions since these actions are morally correct. However, such an individual may be too weak to continue with his or her plans and these results in the individual taking wrong actions as a result of the weakness in his or her will. Question 3: Nietzsches distinction The moral philosophy developed Nietzsche is principally critical in orientation as he attacks morals from its promise to unsustainable evocative claims concerning human agency, together with the harmful effect of its distinctive norms and values on the burgeoning of the “higher men”. His positive ethical ideas can be best appreciated as combining merging a form of consequentialist perfectionism like the theory of good developed by Nietzsche with an idea of human perfection that involves formal and substantive attributes. To begin with, similar to Spinoza who preceded him, Nietzsche can be considered a determinist and a naturalist. Humans have no privileges over other animals since they want to become part of a casual web composed of the entire universe. In the cases where other writers consider liberty for the human will, Nietzsche writes that the will is not free of un-free, instead, it can be strong or weak (Kazantzakis 28). For the first philosopher to attempt to assimilate Darwinism, Simon Blackburn, “The Genealogy of Morals” by Nietzsche can be considered as an exercise in animal psychology that studies the physiology of evolutionary history of various organisms as well as concepts. In various other central works, Nietzsche adopts science in order to provide access to what he views as the actual world of nature, while the religious, ethical and aesthetic sentimentalities of humans belongs to merely to the surface of things. From the human need to view the universe as being in existence for the sake of humans, an apparent world is created and Nietzsche considers this value-laden world as an error. In some instances, Nietzsche commends the value of art specifically as that which safeguards humans from reality while going further to dare humans to be posturing. However, it is a rather central intention in his work specifically to strip humans of their illusions especially the basic illusion that humans are rational beings. For example, Nietzsche does not agree that humans can deliberate rationally in the manner demanded by philosophers like Kant. Kant considers humans as choosing to take actions founded on reasons, but since he is a determinist who considers human nature differently, Nietzsche does not have truck with Kant’s views. For the most part, humans cannot deliberate consciously since the biggest component of the activities of the human spirit maintains unconsciousness and a situation of being unfelt (Nietzsche and Nietzsche 333). On the other hand, Knob and Leiter prefer considering to what level the recent experimental findings particularly in psychology support the views of either Kant or Nietzsche. They easily demonstrate that Nietzsche is predominantly justified as humans mainly act un-rationally since they choose their actions from a deliberative detachment perspective that appears to be a myth for Kantian principles. There seems to be no overall harmony existing between the attitudes and values of human beings and the actions they take part in as they state one thing and do a different thing. Instead of acting based on reasons, humans are inclined to take actions and come up with reasons after their actions. Question 4: Sartre’s understanding of existence preceding essence Sartre’s claim can be best appreciated in contrast to a recognized standard of metaphysics that states that essence precedes existence in that human nature exists and is influenced by the cosmic order, determined by religious traditions or enacted by political or social authorities. Usually, the claim for the traditional thesis is that human beings are fundamentally selfish or are a practical beings. In Sartre’s opinion, the notion that existence precedes essence implies that a personality is not created over a model that was previously designed or a certain purpose since it is the human being who makes the choice to take part in these forms of enterprises. Even though he does not deny the constricting conditions associated with the existence of human beings, he responds to Spinoza who made the affirmation that man is influenced by the factors that exist around him. Thus, to Sartre an oppressive circumstance can be tolerated but when it is regarded as so by those who are oppressed the circumstance is not tolerable. The notion that man defines himself is usually taken as stating that man can hope to become anything and then fulfill this wish. Sartre considers this as a form of bad faith and what this statement therefore means is that man can only be defined according to his conduct and is responsible for his own actions. it may be concluded that a person who acts in a cruel manner towards other people is considered as a cruel man based in the act and is considered as being responsible for becoming the cruel man. Unquestionably, the more positive therapeutic attribute of this is also inferred: a person can decide to act in a different way and to become a good person rather than a cruel individual. In this sense, it also becomes obvious that since an individual can decide to be either cruel or good, he is fundamentally none of these things. Claiming that existence precedes essence is equal to asserting that there is no predetermined essence that can be found in humans and that the essence of individuals can be defined by him or her by the manner in which he or she creates and lives life. In “Existence is a Humanism”, Sartre explains that first of all, man exists, then he encounters himself and surges up in the world before he can define himself. Existentialism usually focuses on the issue of how humans exist as well as conditions, which affect this way of life (Tymieniecka 4). In this case, existence refers to the concrete life of every individual along with their concrete ways in which they live in the world. Although this concrete existence of individuals must be the main source of information in studying people, particular conditions are normally considered to be endemic to the existence of human beings. These conditions are normally connected to the intrinsic insignificance or irrationality of the earth along with its superficial contrast with the pre-reflective lived lives of human beings that usually present themselves as being meaningful. The main theme is that since the world is absurd and not fair, then a significant life can lose its meaning at any point. The main causes of this are numerous and vary from tragedy that tears an individual apart to the outcome of honest inquiries into the existence of human beings. This form of encounter can make an individual become mentality unstable and the avoidance of such instability through giving people an awareness of their conditions so that they can be ready to handle is among the core themes of existentialism. Works cited Banham, Gary, Nigel Hems, and Dennis Schulting. The Continuum Companion To Kant. London: Continuum, 2012. Print. Hall, Bryan, Mark Black, and Matt Sheffield. The Arguments Of Kants Critique Of Pure Reason. Lanham [Md.]: Lexington Books, 2011. Print. Hill, Thomas E. Human Welfare And Moral Worth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Print. Kazantzakis, Nikos. Friedrich Nietzsche On The Philosophy Of Right And The State. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. The Gay Science. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 2006. Print. Tymieniecka, Anna-Teresa. Education In Human Creative Existential Planning. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. Print. Read More