Can absurd logic be used as a tool to scrutinize western philosophical texts without missing the point? Using absurd logic, I will demonstrate how two western philosophers differ in relation to the absurd. My case study will examine Socrates and David Hume. It will be demonstrated that Socrates’ actions in Plato’s Phaedo and Apology constitute philosophical suicide by finding sanctuary, giving hope, and appealing to a god. Alternatively, Hume’s actions/claims in the Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Of Miracles conform with Camus’ absurd logic because of his constant skepticism and denial of an escape. My aim is to demonstrate that although Socrates’ actions are deemed as philosophical suicide and Hume’s actions comply with absurd logic, one is still able to comprehend the philosophical issues that both these philosophers raise, while still doing a close reading of the texts through an absurd paradigm.
I. Introduction Albert Camus introduced his description of the absurd to the world in 1942, in the text Le Mythe de Sisyphe. He claims that man has a desire to seek meaning in an irrational world. When an individual desires rationality from an irrational world the absurd is created. This becomes a struggle for the individual that is aware of the absurd and Camus believes that there is an absurd logic that must be followed to not negate the absurd. In relation to literature and philosophy, it is a task to use Camus’ absurd
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.
The core idea of Albert Camus’ philosophy of absurdity centralizes upon the idea that humans exist in a meaningless universe, and follows that humans must simply accept this fact to live life to the fullest. In addition to this absurdist notion, Albert Camus also uses The Stranger to show how humans still strive to create superficial meaning to fulfill their own personal needs. Through the experiences and interactions in Meursault’s life, Camus illustrates that in spite of how events in life follow no rational order, society attempts to futilely create meaning to explain human existence.
Breaking the law might or might not be morally permissible in special situations. It is not clear whether it is morally correct to always follow laws. Two points of view were examined: Martin Luther King in the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” and Socrates in “Crito”. King, (1991) says that breaking the law can be excused for good reasons. However, Socrates says that breaking the law is never permissible (Gallop, 1997). Breaking the law is not moral because it breaks the conditions to be a citizen.
The works of Socrates and Machiavelli are as polarized as the phrases “the unexamined life is not worth living” and “the ends justify the means.” The Prince by Machiavelli and The Last Days of Socrates by Plato are both crucial texts to the discussion of what makes a good political leader. Well, what makes a good political leader? Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s ideation of the Prince because of the immorality that he allows this model to have in the public sphere. However, Socrates would find that Machiavelli’s Prince would lead to a political system that he would favor, because it would be one ruled by a qualified and expert leader, unlike in a democracy.
Socrates, in his early works, maintained a steadfast distance from involvement in politics, making a comparison or evaluation of a political system in his persona technically impossible.
Two of the most prominent figures in social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke established many of the founding ideals that contemporary Liberalism is based on. While the shared many similar positions, there are some key distinctions to be made between the arguments Hobbes and Locke make in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Civil Government, respectively. In this paper I will argue the differences between how each of them viewed the right of the subjects to revolt from the sovereign.
Even though “big data” is very valuable and has made many great gains for society in both efficiency and knowledge, with the increase in data collection and analytics there are many ethical concerns of how the data is being used because evidence based decision making within the analytics is often done solely on quantitative information, this creates digital inequity. Comparing and examining the works of Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr., we can develop our own ethical belief regarding some of the analytics used with “big data”.
Socrates; the founder of Western Philosophy, the first user of the Socratic method and Socratic irony, contributor to the field of ethics, and martyr for teaching what he thought was right. Indeed, Socrates is a household name, yet the picture many hold of Socrates may not be true to who Socrates actually was. Socrates considered himself a teacher and a thinker, not a writer, thus he wrote none of his teachings or thoughts down. As a consequence, the only surviving accounts of Socrates come second hand from his pupils, Plato and Xenophon, and from the playwright Aristophanes. However, it is difficult to tell how much of the Socrates depicted in the works of those men is embellishment or outright fabrication, and how much is truth. This problem, the Socratic Problem, has been troubling historians and philosophers for centuries, and will go on doing so. While the real Socrates may never be known, Socrates the character may be studied extensively through the works of his pupils. Plato’s Symposium depicts Socrates in an informal setting, getting drunk with friends, and offers an opportunity to see Socrates’ character and personality more clearly. While Symposium is set at a party, Socrates is still shown to be a larger-than-life, idealized character, who may have been too brilliant and perfect to be true.
The theme of absurdity can be seen through three different lenses in The Stranger, by Albert Camus: life, decisions, and reflection. The first lens in which the reader can see absurdity in the novel is when the protagonist lives for the sensual pleasures of the present moment. The second lens in which the reader can see absurdity in the novel is when the protagonist absurdity of the protagonists decisions on how he does or doesn’t decide to kill the Arab. The third lens in which the reader can see absurdity in the novel is when the protagonist how he reflects back on his decisions and life and concludes that life means nothing between birth and death. The changes in the lenses of Meursault ‘s absurdum are projected through the author’s choice of different language.
Camus explanations of the Myth of Sisyphus, presented the concept of the absurd by outlining the beliefs that an individuals life has worth but only his live in a world that denies such worth to survive. Therefore, the absurdity in the statement, explains the fact of a clash between the orders through which an individuals mind hard for, likewise the lack of order that we as humans find in the world.
Although both are considered some of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of their respective times, Socrates and Niccoló Machiavelli had very different methods and beliefs of how a political system should be run. The mindset of Socrates can be seen in the works Apology and Crito by Plato. Socrates, who values wisdom and justice over power and prestige, would view Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince very contradicting to how he believes a good life should be lived. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli details how a prince should rule and maintain power. Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli and his Prince’s political system because it is rooted in unethical behaviors. Machiavelli views these actions as virtues
In the 5th meditation, he believes that science is based on Corporeal, bodily or material things, and they are distinguished from mathematical sciences by their essence-existence correspondence. In mathematics the core of an object entails its existence. However , not for corporeal objects which essence and existence does not correlate. If we separate the corporeal subjective from its objective qualities one may find that an essence of material object is its extension. Concluding that corporeal sciences can be treated mathematically , which mathematics is based on the absolute truth , due to the fact it cannot be unchangeable.
Separated by more than 8500 kilometers but only 52 years, two seminal thinkers have shaped the moral philosophy of their respective cultures. While Western ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Plato’s Republic, Eastern ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Confucius’s Analects. David Haberman describes the Republic as ‘one of the most influential books of all time’ (86). And Bryan Van Norden compares (with considerable fervor) the Analects to ‘the combined influence of Jesus and Socrates’ (3).
In Camus’s major works, ‘absurdism’ was a frequent subject. The term ‘absurdism’ refers to a feud or conflict between our expectations or ideals and reality. Among his widely praised works, the “The Stranger” and “The myth of Sisyphus” can be read as an example of the absurdism. “The Stranger” is a story of an insensitive individual man, who lives for the