Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbies views about human nature
Hobbies views about human nature
Hobbies views about human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbies views about human nature
p. 86, questions 2, 4, 5, 7
2. In Descartes Evil Demon Conjecture he questions and doubts certain propositions until it is impossible for him to doubt them any further, thus extracting the absolute truth. For Descartes, any proposition that passed his Evil Demon Conjecture along with his Dream Conjecture would be certain. These two conjectures even though they are extremely strange, if put to the test they could reveal the truth. For example, let’s say that the wall of the philosophy class is white, but could it not be that some evil demon has already arranged it for me to “see” the wall white? What if the wall is not white? What if the evil demon just set it up like that to trick me? All these doubts will eventually discard what is not true and rule out what is. Considering how odd The Evil Demon Conjecture is, it is very useful because it can help sort out the truth and eliminate what is false even in the strangest case.
4. I do not
Hobbe’s idea that everything reduces to matter in motion breaks down to perception. He explained that the world around us in motion had an impact in us. It’s the way we perceive things; if anything that we perceive is wrongly perceived there is an error in all of our mental states.
p. 115, question 4
4. Whether the future resembles the past or not depends on the individual’s decisions and it also depends on external forces and events. I cannot know the future will resemble the past nor can I assume that it will because it is not certain or absolute. Since I am still in the present I cannot know what will happen in the future. Human beings do tend to make similar mistakes as in the past but this can vary from individual to individual, not everyone is bound to make the same choice they did in the past.
p. 153, questions 1, 2, 3
1. “Philosophical analysis resolves complex propositions or concepts into simpler ones. It simplifies a proposition and makes it more understandable. Consider this example and see how it was
The past most definitely affects the future, from one word to an action can change
Overall, memories does not provide certainty because what we see or remember may not be reality. Also, the way we remember something can be changed throughout time and that memory will eventually fade away. Although certainty is blessing because it provides us warmth, comfort and secure, it is more of a great danger because it gives out false information and tricks our mind into believing something that is not real or true. Therefore, I am fully convinced by Gould’s essay because I completely doubt what people observe or remember since memories does not provide certainty.
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
Hobbes’ basic view of nature can be described as cynicism towards how a human is naturally composed. The very nature of his argument is that humans in the state of nature live in a constant state of fear and unhealthy competition. Hobbes goes as far as to use the word anarchic to describe the state of nature, implying that human beings were naturally worried about themselves, so there was no state of order to check this natural desire. A driving reason behind the nature of Hobbes’ contract is because he believed that humans naturally had a “perpetual and restless desire for power after power, that ceaseth only in death”. He claims that part of this perpetual desire is “love of Contention from Competition”, the nature of humans to compare powers and then war over this competitive nature. Another reason he believes his social contract is ideal is that he believes that due to human beings natural want to live the easiest life possible, civil obedience would come naturally. Aside from that reason he believes that the natural and continual insecurity of each man from harm of another man would be a strong enough motive for man to buy into the contract. He states that the egotism from competition leads man in the state of a nature into a war of all men against all men. He called those lives in the state of nature short and barbaric and consisted of little else other than self-sustaining. He then postulated that this state was so horrible and that man y...
In the first meditation, Descartes makes a conscious decision to search for “in each of them [his opinions] at least some reason for doubt”(12). Descartes rejects anything and everything that can be doubted and quests for something that is undeniably certain. The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses, yet “from time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(12). First, Descartes establishes that error is possible, employing the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water, as mentioned in the Sixth Replies (64-65). Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that “some malicious demon … has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (15). The malicious demon not only causes Descartes to doubt God, but also sends him “unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom or swim on the top”(16). Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty.
He claims “cogito, ergo sum,” meaning I think, therefore I am. By saying this Descartes shows that in order to be thinking you must exist and therefore are not the puppet of an Evil Demon. As said by Keith Crome in his essay on the Evil Demon, “as Descartes observes, for all that there is an all-powerful and cunning deceiver dedicated to constantly deceiving he cannot bring it about that I am nothing, because it is indubitable that if I am deceived, I exist.” This just points to the fact that in order to be controlled and realize the fact you must actually have to be real. And to that point if there were to be an evil demon controlling all our actions, why would he allow for the doubt that we are in charge that gives rise to the theory itself? If it was truly in control, wouldn’t we go about life never questioning whether or not we are real? In relation to my initial answer, the evil demon does not change much, because either he is or he isn’t, and there is no certain way to know. All we have for certain is “I think, therefore I am” to prove that we are thinking beings and that is enough to contradict the Evil
This first paragraph will outline Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature, a necessary starting point to understand the philosopher’s view. In fact, his account of human nature is revealed thanks to the reasons he provides for believing that the state of nature is a state of war. Hobbes describes the state of nature as a place without any form of civil
While English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed in a state of nature, his observations of the human condition
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
...n ‘a priori’ aspects. Therefore, the future will resemble the past, because we make it resemble the past.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
...ests. Hobbes forgets to see the depth that the subjective nature can achieve, the same depth he himself enacted through his books.
Hobbes’s exclusive focus in on political power. He believed that the principle of human self-motion was desire. Essentially, he argues that there are two basic principles of voluntary action. The fist he called appetites. Hobbes