Philosophy 101 Study Guide Essay

     It is Cleanthes who gets the ball rolling in Part II of Hume by laying out his “argument from design.” Cleanthes believes that there is ample evidence in the nature that surrounds us to draw conclusions

I believe that education is the key in developing today’s students into tomorrow’s leaders. Education is the basis on which individuals develop their self-concept and the desire to become more knowledgeable. I want to become an educator because I am interested in helping elementary students become active learners and also to assist with their social skills. I believe I can make a difference to many students as they start their educational foundation. I feel that all teachers should possess the desire to devote their hard work and efforts to their students’ educational success. I view teaching as not only one of the most respected careers, but also as one in which the rewards are great and many

The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.

2. Bubble in your last name, skip a space, and then your first name on the scantron.

The first thing you need to do is save a copy of this document, either onto your computer or a USB drive

Philosophy is defined by Webster as "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" or "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." This essay is a general look at those who pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes.

This has to do with faith. Faith means believing in the existence of something without having any physical proof. Therefore, it could very well be a test of faith put into place by an all powerful and all knowing being to have people toy with the notion of its’ existence. As a result, Hume’s idea that we would be able to understand God’s plan is flawed. While we all can suggest that God would like for us to behave in a way conducive to showing we have love for all other human beings simply because this would allow for a peaceful universe, one can’t assume that this is God’s plan. Moreover, one definitely can’t assume that this enables us to understand God’s purpose for the world. Additionally, one can’t automatically assume that because our world is filled with various evils, an all powerful God does not exist. In fact, one could argue the exact opposite. Simply because our world is filled with evil acts and people committing these acts, there must be an all powerful God that exists in order to reward all those that manage to resist engaging in evil acts. Hume argues that we can’t infer that an all powerful being exists because of the tremendous amounts of evil that go on in our world. However, this could be an all powerful God’s way to get rid of all those he feels is not worthy of achieving eternal life in his heavenly kingdom. Therefore, this world could merely be a testing stage for humans to prove they

In his first argument, Hume addresses the tendency of humans to deceive. In his view “…there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men…” (34). He believes

he stated that "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish" ([2]). This statement describes that miracles are not justified by reports or statements and there are no testimonials for miracles. For example, Jesus resurrection [3], the original witness may be wrong whether they saw Jesus or may be the report with the Paul may be wrong. He also believed that miracle reports are illogical. He stated that people have faith on miracles due to holy belief but without reasons. Hume also said that There must be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event cannot be taken into consideration. For example, miracle of Jesus walks on water. If Jesus can walk on water then why can’t other people experience it. We can see that the above two examples are against the laws of nature. According to him miracles would satisfy some certain criteria’s. Those events should have Witness, evidence, logic, experience. He also told that miracles are reported by ignorant people. Finally, he concluded that miracles are impossible. Miracles are logical obstacles to humans which cannot be proved for

This is the assumption underlying all our ideas of causality. If the future does not resemble the past, then all our reason based on cause and effect will crumble. When Hume proposed questions such as “Is there any more intelligible proposition then to affirm that all trees will flourish in December and January, and will decay in May and June?” (49), Hume demonstrates that it is not a relation of ideas that future will resemble the past; it is possible that the course of nature will change. Therefore, what happens in the future is neither a relation of ideas, nor a matter of fact. “It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of past to future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.”(51)

On the other hand , Hume does not believe in absolute truth. His principles are based on relative truth which comes

I do believe that Hume’s argument is valid because the premises entail the conclusion. However, I do not think his argument is sound due to issues I find with the premises. My objection below specifically challenges his sixth premise:

In other words he is saying that no matter how good or reliable a testimony may be, it can never as it were on the basis of experience be justified to accept that testimony over and against what stands as testimony against the miracle happening. The testimony happens to be the laws of nature themselves. In this sense it is clear that Hume is giving us a priori argument in Part 1 in that he is saying that miracles are contrary to reason. However I think it would be easier to accept this view if Hume had not previously discussed his Induction theory. In regard that he thought that for example that just because the sun has risen every day so far, it does not necessarily follow that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have no rational basis in believing it will. However in regard to miracles he tells us to base our decisions on past experiences, if it is unlikely it is less likely to be true. So in that sense we should also be able to say that based on our past experiences the sun will definitely rise tomorrow? Also if the sun was not to rise, surely that would be a miracle in the sense that it would be a violation of the laws of nature? And what is exactly a violation of natural laws? Dorothy Coleman points out “past experience shows that what are at one time considered violations of natural laws are frequently found

Hume is a philosopher who believes in the Copy Principle. That all ideas derive from vivid

     Hume is an empiricist and a skeptic. He develops a philosophy that is generally approached in a manner as that of a scientist and therefore he thinks that he can come up with a law for human understanding. Hume investigates the understanding as an empiricist to try and understand the origins of human ideas. Empiricism is the notion that all knowledge comes from experience. Skepticism is the practice of not believing things in nature a priori, but instead investigating things to discover what is really true. Hume does not believe that all a posteriori knowledge is useful, too. He believes “all experience is useless unless predictive knowledge is possible.” There are various types of skepticism that Hume