Philosophy- Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant

Posted: November 14, 2016

Leibniz could defend the claim that the actual world is the best possible world as contingently true by stating that their existence doesn’t follow their essence. This argument came from his assertion that the truths that are contingent can’t be contradicted and if they could their contingency could cease to exist. In other words, truth is relative and in certain circumstances may be deemed false. Absolute truth almost non-existence and that justifies Leibniz position on the contingent truth.

In showing that not all parts of space are qualitatively indiscernible an absolutist about space can make his defense against Leibniz’s refutation of the existence of absolute space in that he will have countered Leibniz’s argument that space and time exist analogously. He further goes ahead to state that space exists on its own and objects can exist without it. The overriding distinction and independence between the two are in support of any criticism towards Leibniz claims.

According to Berkeley, if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody around to hear it, then there is no sound made. This is in line with his arguments that he could believe the existence of things which he could touch with his hands or sense with other body parts. He further goes ahead to state that he denies the existence of what the philosophers call corporeal substance. The issue of concern in this argument is perception and stimuli response. The existence of sound is subject to physical presence near the tree such that one can explicitly see the tree fall and hear the sound. In essence, the position of Berkeley in this experience is relatively true.

Berkeley's asserts that there is the existence of spirits which can make one aware of their existence through their effort and not through the effort of man. He uses an example of the apple by stating that the color, shape and taste of the apple are primarily perceived by man only through the assistance of God who makes our spirit to be are of it. This assertion is true in the case of the falling tree as the secondary which is the spirit of God has not yet revealed to one the act of the tree falling and hence it does not exist. The comparative assessment of the spiritual existence and perception of other objects forms the core of Berkeley’s argument.

By stating that primary and secondary qualities cannot be attributed to an object, Berkeley was effectively defending idealism as the only way which one could perceive what was in existence and give it the necessary attributes. It is only through revelation that one could get the true depiction of an object as it was not subject to the limitations which existed in Locke’s philosophy. The concept of idealism is critical in making identification of objects and accepting their entity as observed.

The principle of meaningfulness states that the mind is made of perceptions or mentally present objects which can be divided into two, which are impressions and ideas. In using this principle, Hume intends to show that all that is being disputed in the metaphysics is caused by the variations in the perceptions of each and not necessarily the real existence of those objects. In other words, an object with one feature can be interpreted differently in respect of the observer's perception.

The missing shade of blue has been used by Hume as an example of how the mind can perceive something which the sensory organs has not been exposed to in the first place. In this case, it has been found that one can have in his mind the image of a color or something without having necessarily the physical experience through the sensory organs. Such a theoretical advancement is a common occurrence among people and hence shed significant truth towards daily experiences of people.

The problem of induction is relevant for our reasoning concerning matters of fact in that one can make the same conclusions with or without experience. Therefore, distinguishing facts from fiction can be quite difficult. The problem of induction has been defined as the ability to come to the same conclusion with or without the experience. Matters of fact, on the other hand, are issues which have evidence beyond what one is aware of. In essence, making a judgment based on no evidence constitute inductive logic which significantly overlook premises hence detrimental to sound reasoning.

Induction, as justified by philosophers, can create room for improvement as it can enable one to make conclusions for the thing they have no knowledge about. It has also been asserted that it is better than just a mere imagination. In fact, contemporary inventions are products of imagination. Besides, inductive logic may boost the defense of an argument and open up its alternative interpretation. Induction, therefore, forms the core of creative and critical thinking in as far as actions of people are concerned in the society.

According to Humes, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is the preferred text to that need to be committed to the flames. The text put philosophical and historical facts in context and draws a clear timeline of events to support presented arguments. Although other texts are applicable, the appropriateness of this text is seen in the manner in which it elicits debate on the concept of skepticism and its appeal. Besides, the idea of free will and logical reasoning that is deficient in religious doctrines dominates in this text. Commitment is core as it explores the underlying factual flaws that need to be rectified towards logic.

Kant’s position is in reaction to the concept of metaphysics. In fact, Kant questions the premise on which each conclusion is made for every argument presented. While it is common knowledge that synthetic a priori judgment is possible unless a critical assessment of each alternative reason is completed. It is worth to note that judgment is subject to common observations and personal experiences. In that regard, diversity of humanity provokes such argument.

The issue, in this case, is what conforms to what. The assertion of Kant on unintelligibility of synthetic judgment a priori focusses on whether "all our cognition must conform to objects" or otherwise. Either way, cognition, and objects closely relate to each other and almost compliments. It is worth to note that cognition is in respect to the specific object. The latter is wrong as it explains an inverse relationship that is irrelevant to philosophy and human experience. Argument of Kant on unintelligibility is important in exploring logic when it comes to the cause-effect relationship. In that regard, the first statement order is right.

Ultimate discount!

Check the discount here

Order now
Chat Now