Concepts in metaphysics

Aristotle gives two different accounts of God in his writings Physics and Metaphysics. Although the two accounts differ in purpose, the first giving proof that God is the first mover, unmoved who initiates motion in the universe and the second that God is the final cause at which all things aim. In a survey of the two doctrines, it is evident that the two accounts are not incompatible, but rather provide a more comprehensive and convincing argument for God. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle gives an argument

In order to consider “I exist because I think” or ”I think because I exist”, I would define the “I exist because I think” as “I think” is the cause of “I exist”. This implies “I think” appear before “I exist” and cause “I exist” to happen. In the other side, “I think because I exist” would be “I exist” is the cause of “I think”. This implies “I exist” appear before “I think” and cause “I think” to happen. In terms of logic, I would say “I think because I exist “ is more appropriate. It is because

During Meditations 2, Descartes establishes a version of his famous ‘cogito ergo sum’. He establishes that despite the fact that we may not know the world around us as well as we think we do, we can know the mind better and the trusting the mind can lead him to the seemingly justified conclusion that he exists. Descartes’ method of arriving at the conclusion is by starting from scratch and considering whether there could be any ground of doubt for his beliefs. He was a rational philosopher who gave

In Principles of Human Knowledge, Berkeley posits the doctrine of idealism largely in response to the theory of perception connected to representationalism. While the representationalist would agree that only sensory ideas can be immediately perceived, Berkeley 's view dramatically differs from representationalism in that he denies the existence of material objects and, consequently, the causal role they are presumed to hold in producing sensations (Heide 15 Sept). Berkeley takes this immaterialist

From here follows three arguments. The first argument proposes that conscious of our will stipulates our understanding of the “connexion” between soul and body and how these two operate with each other to create our will. Since we have no concept of the union of soul and body, there is no impression of “connexion” present through these means. The second argument raises the issue of why there are involuntary organs, such as the heart, that the will is unable to control (43). If we were truly

When asked whether there is a difference between mind and body, most people (e.g. most non-philosophers) will likely answer with an immediate “yes.” This is due to the fact that we have the inherent belief that our mental processes differ from that of the physical. This idea just “seems” right. However, if we truly believe that the mind has a nonphysical existence then how can we reconcile the relationship between mind and body – an interaction between the nonphysical and the physical? Furthermore

have idea of infinity that means we must have impression of infinite but we cannot touch or feel infinity thus infinity is not a simple idea. In order for infinity to be complex idea but we don’t have anything that is infinite so according to Hume, concept of infinity doesn’t exist. It is just pseudo idea that we have given name which has no relation to anything actual. David Hume makes another distinction regarding object of cognition, anything that is thought about. All the object of human reason

Here I hope to reflect Kant’s intentions for each premise in the order presented above. (P1): I am conscious of my experience as determined in time. P1 can be interpreted a few ways. Dicker in his first interpretation takes his second premise to mean, (P2): I am aware that I have representations in experience that occur in temporal succession (Dicker 195). In other words, I am not only conscious of my experiences; I am also in a position where I recognize the order of my experiences presented by

possible response on behalf of Kant that ties his concept of space and time existing in a form of pure intuitions. The premises in regards to Kant’s claim are; (1) “If we omit from the empirical intuitions of bodies and their alternations…everything empirical, belonging to sensation, space and time still remains.” (Prolegomena 10, pg. 25). (2) “The difference between similar and equal things which are not congruent, cannot be made intelligible by any concept, by only by the relation to the right and left

Kant believed that there are different concepts and intuitions in which intuitions are put under concepts. Kant refers these intuitions into what he calls the three-fold synthesis. Kant describes the three fold synthesis as “the capacities in the understanding to compare, connect, and unify the fragmentary manifold items in intuition” (A97). To put it in different terms, the three fold synthesis describes the necessary components for intuition of what is happening in the outside world. It allows