Blaise Pascal, A 17Th Century Philosopher Known For His

At some point in time we have all wondered what it means to human, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Throughout the centuries, there have been gradual changes in what it means to be human. Through Pico della Mirandola we will how man became the measure and took the place of God, through Charles Darwin we will see how nature and science began to take the place of man, and through the art of Friedrich we can visually see all of these changes.

For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between Nothing and Everything. Since he is infinitely removed from

In Meditation Two of René Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy, he notes the sight of “men crossing the square.” This observation is important as Descartes states, “But what do I see aside from hats and clothes, which could easily hide automata? Yet I judge them to be men.” This is an important realization as Descartes argues that instead of purely noticing the men through sight, it is actually “solely with the faculty of judgement,” the mind, that perceives and concludes that the thing wearing a hat and clothes are men. I argue that this view of the outside world by Descartes is incomplete as his idea of “I” is faulty, as well as having a misunderstanding on the importance of the senses.

To say we are insignificant is not to say we do not have unique qualities, but rather gives perspective to our design. Creation provides a space for human intellectual growth but cannot be mastered by humanity. He continues into the next sub-chapter, how one can “measure” him or herself within Creation. By acceptance of our place in the universe, we are whole.

The level of consciousness of humanity can best be divided into two components, the enlightened and the unenlightened, those who are enlightened understand how to cease suffering and therefore end it to find bliss. The unenlightened do not comprehend how to can escape misery and are therefore doomed to frustration. The clarification on a new age of awareness is apparent in Shakespeare’s heart-rending Hamlet and similarly with Yann Martel courageous narrative Life of Pi, both protagonists have intertwined

I grew silent, wondering about the life around me… Could I ever learn about life and people? To me, with my vast ignorance…it seemed a task impossible of achievement…I had learned to live with hate. But to feel that there were feelings denied me, that the very breath of life itself was beyond my reach, that more than anything else hurt, wounded me…I felt trapped and occasionally, for a few days, I would stop reading. But a vague hunger would come over me for books, books that opened up new avenues of feeling and seeing… Again I would read and wonder as only the naïve and unlettered can read and wonder." (250-252)

In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.

“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.

By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which one expresses an eternal and infinite essence (1def6)

How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy known as the wax passage shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed.

The works of two philosophers Machiavelli’s The Prince and Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy were revolutionary in terms of setting knowledge on new foundations. In the literary work The Prince Machiavelli details the guidelines that leaders should adhere to in order to maintain stability in their controlled lands by accurately summarizing the nature of humans as being ungrateful, vain, and selfish individuals. While Descartes in his work Meditations on First Philosophy ventures on a journey to decipher the relationship between his body and mind and what in actuality exists. Both philosophers embark on a journey to comprehend and uncover the truth.

“The relationship between the energies of the inquiring mind that an intelligent reader brings to the poem and the poem’s refusal to yield a single comprehensive interpretation enacts vividly the everlasting intercourse between the human mind, with its instinct to organise and harmonise, and the baffling powers of the universe about it.”

We as a culture have become entirely numb to the beauty that comes with living a simple and observant life. The saying that ignorance is bliss does come from very real sentiment, some of which our dynamic society could benefit from. Since the birth of capitalism and enlightenment, which were well enough intentioned at the start, mankind has isolated itself from life as much as it has tried to control and understand it. In a superficial mission to become closer to the earth and better enjoy life, we have lost its true meaning. Instead of simply taking delight in the wonders of the world, we have mathematized its essence and extracted the mystery that makes the human experience so rewarding. Although the knowledge gained over the past 400 years has been profitable and constructive, with all the progress comes a greater evil. Congruent to Vico’s concerns with this new found urgency for advancement, I find that the knowledge that we hold dear and fight so passionately for brings such pain and anger. One must wonder if we are better off living peacefully in the dark than scrambling through chaos grasping for fleeting

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.

Descartes and Augustine, in their respective examinations of the mind and God, come to the conclusion that the true understanding of all things derives from the withdrawal of the self from foreign influence and the necessity to look inward. Although each thinker’s journey or course of understanding was different, and at times rather contrasting, their ultimate realizations about knowledge are very coherent.