Spinoza’S Inferential Gap In The Ethics. A1: Spinoza’S

The first premise has some major issues if we refer back to our objections to the argument from essence. We came to the conclusion that

The three documents Calf-Path, Moral Theory, and Miscellaneous Quotations, all point out how the society is easy to manipulate by the government. People have a tendency to follow the leader without asking questions, believing the leader knows what is best for everyone. The words said by Adolf Hitler, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think” are very accurate when it comes to how people react in certain situations. People, of other countries than Germany, said that what happened doing the Nazi’s could not happen in their society. However, as Milgram proved, when people follow an authority figure they do not think about their actions since they disavowal all the responsibilities associated with the event. Not

This argues that everything in this world has possibility to be and not to be.

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas’s presumed necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems impossible. This research disproves Aquinas 's third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God. Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all. The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an infinite universal cycle.

If someone understands 'that which nothing greater can be conceived', then 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's understanding. (from 1 and 2)

that it is caused to exist by B, why may not B be caused to exist by

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

Furthermore, Spinoza refers to modes/affections as additional properties dependent on the presence of a substance, for it is not possible to have a property of something if something is nothing. Equally important, Spinoza is considering substance to be a first cause and self-caused thing and does not ascribe ‘substance’ to any particular thing but God, only once, at the beginning of Ethics I— “[by] God I mean an absolutely infinite being; that is substance consisting of infinite attributes… [expressing] eternal and infinite essence” (I def.6). This, in fact, demonstrates Spinoza’s approach regarding substance by not using God as an example of substance in propositions one through seven. With that in mind, in

While the above steps demonstrate Spinoza’s substance monism, they also show that the overarching factor in his philosophy is the argument for the existence of God and God’s attributes which necessarily follow.

Immanuel Kant was without doubt one of the most influential Philosophers of his time. He was born in Koinsberg, Prussia on the 22nd of April 1724, and died on the 12th of February 1804 at the age of 79. Throughout his life Kant contributed his ideas to many major fields of Philosophy; however his biggest contribution was to the realm of ethics, when he developed the concept of the categorical imperative. He first introduced this idea in 1785 in a book he titled Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The categorical imperative was a revolutionary idea that contrary to the spirit of its time focused on how the morality of an action was not dependant on its consequences or the intentions of its undertaker, rather solely on the intrinsic moral worth of the action itself. This concept has been challenged since its birth and been often regarded as a rather impractical and often contradicting facet of moral philosophy. Although the previous allegation is true, the ideas behind the categorical imperative give a significant and much needed challenge our modern day notions of morality.

there is only one [immanent] cause, and…this influences practice. Spinoza didn 't entitle his book Ontology, he 's too shrewd for that, he entitles it Ethics. Which is a way of saying that, whatever the importance of my speculative propositions may be, you can only judge them at the level of

The Key Contributions of Intuitionism to an Understanding of Ethics The ethical theory of intuitionism basically states that what is morally right is already known to us. Intuitionism says that "good" is an indefinable notion. The basic moral truths are objective; they hold independently of what anyone may think or feel. Therefore we should pick out our moral principles by following our basic moral intuitions.

The stance that Spinoza has on substance is that there is only one substance, out of which all else is somehow constituated. Substance for the Stoics, is also seen as a monist philosophy. Because Stoics think of “the world as a unitary system that contains all beings” they should be considered substance monism. This is often cited as the clearest example of how Spinoza was most influenced by Stoic philosophy. However, Spinoza states that there is only one substance, but further from that, he unambiguously signals that understanding it is a prerequisite to understanding the epistemological, psychological, and moral issues where as for the Stoics this is not completely obvious; nor it is obvious that they place substance at the basis of all philosophical investigation. From the Stoic view, they do make philosophical investigation being with nature: we must first learn about it before we can advance to logic and ethics. So upon initial thought, one might think although they may not call it substance, the Stoics do have nature and its conceptual and argumentative status seems similar to that of Spinozistic substance. Therefore, because the Stoics have a concept that is equivalent in key respects to Spinoza’s substance, the differences that I stated above may appear not so great after all.

To conclude, “I think” cannot exist without “I exist”. It should be “I exist” first then “I think” “I exist”. As the following diagram shows: