The Traversal Of The Infinite

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

What is the mind-body problem? The mind-body problem asks the question, are the mind and body separate substances of elements of the same substance? In this paper I wish to propose, and try to provide support for Descartes notion of the immaterial mind, by critically discussing the view of substance dualism, pertaining to the relationship between the mind and body. The two arguments of which I will provide in this paper to support this view are divisibility and disembodied existence. There are two fundamentally different substances in this universe, physical and mental properties, this paper will explore both of these substances (8).

Aquinas sets up this argument in his discussion of whether or not God exists. His five proofs set up the framework for much of his later writings in the Summa

In Parmenides’ poem “On Nature”, he argues that all things must meet three criteria to be classified as possessing ‘isness’, or having qualities that constitute existence. In order for anything to exist, the object must have no genesis or perishing, no change, and no qualitative distinction. In this paper, I will argue that Anaxagoras provides the best objection to Parmenides’ argument compared to both Empedocles and Democritus because he addresses more of the criteria put forth by Parmenides.

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

Infinite in Between is a book by Printz Honor author Carolyn Mackler. The book follows 5 teens through their highschool years, including family struggles, heartbreaks, falling in love, and much more. There are 5 teenagers that the author portrays, Jake, Whitney, Mia, Gregor, and Zoe. At first all of the teens start off at their freshman orientation, there they are put into groups Jake, Gregor, Whitney, Mia, and Zoe are all put into the same group. They are forced to do a project, none of them are really friends, and they don’t want to have a conversation, but finally they decide to write letters to their future selves and hide them. They agreed they would write a letter, put it in and envelope, hide it, and on graduation day they would all

Throughout Meditation III of Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes illustrates the existence of a perfect God through his Cosmological Argument. I will begin with a description of Descartes’s Cosmological Argument, followed by an evaluation of the invalidity of the argument rooted in the limitations of the pre-containment principle. I will then offer various interpretations of the principle in an attempt to construct a premise that would allow Descartes to validly prove the existence of God. I will conclude by examining the potential of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in proving the existence of a Creator.

To begin we must show what Peter Unger’s logical statements were: (1) I exist (2) If I exist, then I consist of many cells (atoms), but a finite number (3) If I exist (and consist of many cells, but a finite number), then the net removal of one cell, or only a few, in a way which is most innocuous and favorable, will not mean the difference as to whether I

Besides, it does not necessarily exist, but merely just something one can think of, then if that was the case, isn’t it likely to be something still greater than that a thing which would be just like it? In addition, in this particular instance, would it not be conceivable to be something one able to see or exist in real life which contradicted the initial assumption. we are supposed to think of something that was at the limit of greatness, which nothing greater can be conceived, but then we thought something still greater than some of the thing that actually existed. In my view, one must reject the assumption of the thing which nothing greater can be conceived which also necessarily exists, not just something in the mind, but also exist in reality. That’s pretty much the entire argument he was trying to make.

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.

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

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)

c) The possibility of scientific knowledge: science strictly talking cannot deal with things which are continuously changing; the sensible world is continuously changing, so science cannot study it; it has to study an immutable world. The second premise shows a clear affinity with Parmenides of Elea and Heraclitus of Ephesus: what is given to our senses is a world ruled by continuous change, by mutation. As far as the first premise, we have to think about something permanent in those objects we want to have knowledge about if we want this knowledge to be true. Is there any knowledge that is always true and not just sometimes true?  If there is, then we have to think there are things

I will now discuss Zeno’s paradox of motion. Zeno argues that motion does not exist through this argument: 1) there is an object at point A that is moving to a point B; 2) in order to reach point B, the object must pass the halfway point of points A and B; 3) we continue halving the remain distance and point B, all the way up to infinity; 4) this means that the object is taking an infinite distance to cross, and therefore, motion cannot exist, as an object cannot move an infinite

The implications of infinity (co) are actualiy not that old. The Greeks were some of the first mathematicians recorded to have imagined the concept of infinity. However, they did not actuaily delve into the entirety of this number. The Greeks used the term “potentially infinite," for the concept of an actual limitless value was beyond their comprehension. The actual term “infinity” was defined by Georg Cantor, a renowned German mathematician, in the late nineteenth century. It was originally used in his Set Theory, which is a very important theory to the mathematical world. The value of infinity can get a bit confusing, as there are different types of infinity. Many claim that infinity is not a number. This is true, but it does have a value. So, infinity may be used in mathematical equations as the greatest possible value. i The value of infinity Infinity (00) is the greatest possibleivalue that can exist. However, there are different infinities that, by logic, are greater than other forms of itself. Here is one example: to the set of ait Naturai numbers Z43, 2, 3, 4,...}, there are an infinite amount of members. This is usualiy noted by Ko, which is the cardinality of the set of alt natural numbers,