Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - Essay Example

A – 3 Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes are considered to be two fundamental thinkers, opposite in their approaches to epistemology and the philosophy of science. Bacon’s empirical method is based on perception and experiments, which knowledge is more reliable than the one proposed by Descartes, based on rational deductive reasoning. First of all, these two methods are totally different, because empiricism and rationalism are based on fundamentally different beginnings. Bacon’s Empirical method claims that getting any truthful knowledge is only possible by applying sciences, which acquire information only experimentally. The point is that Bacon considered the reality as perceptional, empirical thing, that’s why the only knowledge that can be reliable for humans is the perceptional one. Rational thinking only processes the empirical information (Hochberg, 317-318). Descartes’ method or rational analysis of deduction is about thinking only. Descartes claims that any knowledge that we get must be questioned by doubt not to take wrong and mistaken information for truth (Garber, 226). By deduction Descartes means analyzing the reality by finding the most elementary truth, which lately will lead to some bigger truth and this consistent order of research must reveal the origins of everything. But the main rule in this inquiry is to be skeptical, because only skeptical approach can discern wrong and truthful knowledge and select the appropriate one to move on in exploration (Bermúdez, 744-746). Bacon’s and Descartes’ methods are obviously totally different, because the fundamentals the thinkers use in their approaches are considered to be opposite. Descartes uses rational thinking and doubt-based analysis, while Bacon claims that the only thing researcher can rely on is empirical knowledge. Works Cited: Bermúdez, José Luis. “Scepticism and Science in Descartes”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.57(1997): 743-772. Garber, Daniel. “Descartes and Method in 1637”. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science.1988 (1988): 225-236. Hochberg, Herbert. “The Empirical Philosophy of Roger and Francis Bacon”. Philosophy of Science. 20(1953): 313-326. B – 2 Both Locke’s and Hobbes’ political theories are based on the concept of social agreement (contract). But the main essential difference between the roles of government in these theories is in their opposite views on basis of society: Hobbes claims that society is based on feud of people with each other, when Locke says that it is equality what makes people to conclude social agreement. First of all, it is important to emphasize on the definition of social contract. The most general definition says that social contract is “the concept of macro-social hypothetical agreements, whereby rational people would structure society” (Thompson, Hart, 229). In fact every state is a kind of social agreement, where government plays different role according to the sort of agreement concluded between the people of the society. Hobbes claims that people agree to co-exist with each other because they understand that without any agreement they would be enemies. That’s why the role of government in such society is to keep discipline within the state. Its functions are: to observe the law and punish disobedient citizens, to render justice, which in fact means to embark necessary measures of enforcement to keep the agreement of co-existence. (Nyquist, 27) Locke’s theory is based on people’s equality, which means that government’s role is to keep this equality within such society. Government isn’t absolute in its power, it has to protect people’s rights and partly control social discipline (Maloy, 239). Even though these two theories describe the same thing – social agreement, the main point is that Hobbes’ and Locke’s views on social basis are different. That’s why Locke’s government is democratic, and Hobbes’ one is totalitarian. Works Cited: Maloy, J.S. “The Aristotelianism of Lockes Politics”. Journal of the History of Ideas. 70(2009): 235-257. Nyquist, Mary. “Hobbes, Slavery, and Despotical Rule”. Representations. 106(2009): 1- 33. Thompson, Jeffery A., and Hart, David W. “Psychological Contracts: A Nano-Level Perspective on Social Contract Theory”. Journal of Business Ethics. 68(2006): 229-241. C – 4 Darwin’s theory of natural selection is based on his argument that all the species of living creatures that exist are the results of their ancestors’ million-year struggle for survival. Natural environmental conditions are changing all the time, so organisms which inhabit certain environment should always adapt to new changes in it. Physical changes which go together with environmental changes make certain species either more or less strong adaptable to the newest conditions, so the weaker ones die and the strongest survive. (Reed, 62). This process allows nature to create more strong species, which are able to adapt to hardest conditions of life, actually that’s how humans (the strongest rational specie) appeared. Darwin’s theory sparked a massive political and public outcry in 19th century. First of all, it happened because the theory broke down the common notion of human’s creation by God or some other force. The point is that Darwin didn’t include anything but the chance of nature in his evolutionary theory (Beatty, 185). So the public opinion was contradictory. For example, Catholic Church and different religious figures considered the theory as heresy; scientists argued that natural selection is something incomplete and doesn’t explain bunch of natural phenomena (Neander, 422-426). Darwin’s natural selection has become a fundamental scientific theory of evolution. The strongest survives – its main principle. As far as this principle doesn’t explain many details of natural phenomena of this world, it caused a lot of disputes on the topic. And they are still going on in scientific circles. Works Cited: Beatty, John. “Chance and Natural Selection”. Philosophy of Science. 51(1984): 183-211. Neander, Karen. “What Does Natural Selection Explain? Correction to Sober”. Philosophy of Science. 55(1988): 422-426. Reed, Edward S. “The Lawfulness of Natural Selection”. The American Naturalist. 118(1981): 61-71. D – 3 Art Nouveau (or Modern Style) movement is an art style of late 18th – early 19th century. The most evidential characteristics of Art Nouveau are: development and predominance of decorative arts, new technologies used in art installations, rejection of strict lines, transition to smooth, curved lines. Art Nouveau is quite diverse art movement; historically it was a kind of response of artists to fast-paced industrialization era. Art Nouveau mostly is the style of architecture or house décor elements. The most typical characteristics of the style are curly lines and floral forms (Howard, 5). Considering architecture, one of the most famous art nouveau buildings is Casa Batlló by Antony Gaudi, which is located in the city center of Barcelona, Spain. Organic forms and smooth lines make the building look like a house of fairies from some fairytale. Art Nouveau is obviously may be characterized as extremely sophisticated kind of art. One more important feature of Art Nouveau movement is usage of natural materials in all kinds of artworks, including painting. For example, a famous painting “The Kiss” by Gustav Klimt can be considered as absolutely original and non-typical for painting genre, because of usage of real gold among the materials of the painting. Art theorists’ researches about the movement show, that the distinctive feature of the style is these decorative art elements and materials used in art nouveau paintings (Jacobus, 392). In addition, it is easy to notice that the lines of the painting are vague, blended by diversity of colors and small details. Art Nouveau is the style characterized by its organic natural materials, and also elegant forms and lines. It is definitely may be called one of the most sophisticated art movements. Works Cited: Howard, Jeremy. Art Nouveau: International and National Styles in Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Jacobus, John M. “Art Nouveau in New York”. The Burlington Magazine. 102(1960): 390-397. Klimt, Gustav. The Kiss. 1907-08. Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, Vienna. Österreichische Galerie Belvedere. Web. 19 June 2014. E – 1 Friedrich Nietzsche is widely famous of his criticism of values and Christianity. The main point of his philosophical theory is that morality is something that comes from human nature, and religion (or church) is the institution that limits people’s freedom to behave the way that is natural for their essence. Nietzsche’s view on religion is considered to be nihilistic. The most famous phrase of the philosopher that God is dead from his book “The Gay Science” evidently shows his position. Many theorists interpreted the phrase too literally, but in fact the philosopher wanted to say that the religious God is something that people created to control other people. The point is that religious God “dictates” people a lot of rules, that aren’t actually from Him (Moore, 2). One of these rules is religious morality and values, parked on people by those who created them to get power (Leiter, 255). One more thing Nietzsche didn’t like about religion was its concentration on some afterworld, which existence force people to be obedient to acquire a resolution to get there after their death. Nietzsche proposes people to abandon their attempts to please God by being obedient to the rules of religion and morality and start being rational and behave according to the rule “do as you would be done by” (Hazelton, 63). Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity and morality caused the appearance of his most famous concept of superman (“Thus Spoke Zarathustra”). The man, who doesn’t listen to common opinion and acts the way as it is natural for moral rational human being. Works Cited: Hazelton, Roger. “Was Nietzsche an Anti-Christian?”. The Journal of Religion. 22(1942): 63-88. Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche and the Morality Critics”. Ethics. 107(1997): 250-285. Moore, Gregory. “Nietzsche, Degeneration, and the Critique of Christianity”. Journal of Nietzsche Studies. 19(2000): 1-18. Read More