Introduction to Philosophy FINAL!!!!!!!

Can Descartes be certain that God would not allow an evil demon or computer to systematically deceive humanity?

The hypothesis that God would or would not allow a demon to govern and the hypothesis that we exist in a computer controlled matrix would make false the arguments of Descartes in proving the existence of God. So, in my opinion, he cannot be certain. He assumes that God is good, to prove the existence of God, but he would need to prove that God is good first.

Explain, compare, and contrast the views of Anselm and Gaunilo regarding the Ontological argument.

"Ontological argument". The word ontology means "the study of the entity", which means that it is a philosophical practice that studies the ultimate substance: the one that gives shape to an entity, person, individual, matter, object, subject or determined being.St. Anselm uses the ontological argument based on the nature of being. And with this argument, he tries to prove the existence of God. He says if we have two objects in our imagination which are identical, one that exists and another that does not, it seems logical to affirm that the one that exists is more perfect than the one that does not exist. "Since God is already a perfect being, he can not be more perfect, therefore, he must exist."Gaunilo was a French monk who counter-argument Anselmo's claim. He considers that existence does not guarantee that something is more perfect. For what he considers this conclusion to be absurd. Gaunilo gives an example of the existence of a perfect island because if Anselm's statement is fulfilled for God, it should also be fulfilled for the perfect island. This is where the natural question comes out -to believe in the perfect island, makes it real? Gaunilo says itis absurd to conclude that God is necessary only because we are able to imagine it. Anselmo also says that it does not make sense to conclude that the perfect island is really only because we imagine it, but considers that in the case of God it is a different matter. Finally, this debate remained unresolved.I think that Gaunilo's ideas are closer to the truth. As we have already seen in the history every time someone tries to prove the existence or the non-existence of God, this person ends up without being able to give valid evidence.In my opinion, our lives are based on beliefs, some of them can be supported by science and others not.

Compare and contrast pragmatic theories of truth with the correspondence theory of truth.

The pragmatic theory of truth is the theory that applies to the human sciences identified with utility. If knowledge is useful and true a knowledge is helpful if it serves to solve the specifics problems of human beings. knowledge always has a practical function, Knowledge is valid if it is satisfactorily applied to reality if it allows us to act successfully and is false if it is not convincingly applicable to a fact, or if its application leads to failure. The theory of correspondence of true states that a statement is true if what it describes corresponds to the facts as they are known. For example, the belief that a chair is in the kitchen is true, if and only if there really is a chair in the kitchen.

Evaluate David Hume's view regarding art criticism.

David Hume argued that emotions are significant in both aesthetics and ethics. Therefore he considers sentiment is fundamental in a judgment. According to Hume, a critic must have good taste and good judgment. He considers the aesthetic judgment to be accompanied by knowledge, experience and passion. Then the only knowledge of the arts is not enough, but aesthetics, logic and rhetoric. For example, the theoretical knowledge of music will help us to judge a piece of music.I think David Hume is right about the appreciation of art. The important thing is the knowledge about the art which is being apreciated. For example, reading many books duringour life gives us a greater vision of what it is a good book or a good author. To know about musical instruments such as playing the piano or the guitar will give us a greater ability to know what a good musical work would be like. In this way we are more precise in defending what is a good work of art or just entertainment.

Explain the elements of any moral dilemma: the act, the consequences of the act, and the moral agent.

A person is in a moral dilemma when he needs to make a personal decision urgently and does not know with certainty if he or she is right or wrong. Many times there are decisions related to professional behavior, religious ethics, or the culture of the society that surrounds them. For example, a woman gets pregnant without before getting married and thinks about the option of abortion, since she considers that she is not ready to have children. This person is left in the dilemma of whether the abortion is moral or not. A large part of society considers immoral abortion and another part does not. Above all, religious organizations consider abortion a murder since for them the fetus is already a living person, but other organizations such as women's rights hold that women can do with their bodies what they want. In this case, this woman is in a moral dilemma.

Explain the difference between A priori and A posteriori knowledge.

A posteriori knowledge is knowledge obtained through experience. For example, from my experience, I know that if I have a a healthy nutrition, I will lose weight. A priori knowledge is a knowledge that we acquire without experience, but it is highly necessary. For example, I have not had a dog. Everything that I know about dogs come from what I have heard of read in books about them, and one the things that I have learned about these friendly animal is that they are good guardian of a house.

Explain Aristotle's 4 causes.

According to Aristotle, reason is what differentiates us from animals. Reason can help you get closer to the truth by knowing the four causes of everything we experience. This is where four questions arise, such as: "What is it?" What is it formed of? "How is it formed?" And "What is it for?" The first cause is the "material cause," which is what it is born of, suggests, or comes to be. For example, bronze is the cause of jewels and iron of weapons of war. "The form", that is, the idea on which the essence of the object or essence of being depends. Then, the efficient cause, which the principle of change or movement, as well as the cause of rest. For example, the son is the cause of his parents, and the final cause, which means the end towards which a being is directed. So it is the goal. For example, why should one do exercises? Answer: to be healthy.

Compare, contrast, and evaluate the views of George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes on the mind.

According to Thomas Hobbes, the only thing that exists are bodies in movement. Therefore, thoughts, ideas, and feelings are physical, and they are moving in the brain.Berkeley contrary to Thomas Hobbes maintains the only things that exist are ideas. And that all the objects that we see as materials are also ideas, and that in reality, they are not material but only live in our mind.Here we see the significant difference between materialism and idealism. Either of the two visions could be valid and have their reasons. In my opinion, the visionof Berkeley seems to be less realistic, but the arguments are more convincing because we perceive the objects with the five senses and we build an image of them in our mind. However, many people will agree that the materialism of Thomas Hobbes is more consistent with the truth. I believe that although materialism could also be valid, we do not have a proof of the matter since we only perceive the world with our five senses.

Explain the connections between pleasure, contemplation, and judgment in aesthetic appreciation.

Aesthetics can relate to many fields in human life. But it mainly related to art and all their respective representations in society. This has been a subject of recurrent study for the philosophy of art because it allows to understand the variability of beauty between the works and the messages they seek to express. The word aesthetic means "coming from the senses". It is a branch of axiology, which is the philosophy of making value judgments.

Explain why Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky are considered predecessors of existentialism.

Dostoevsky was a writer of novels in which he expressed his doubts and concerns about existence. His decision to believe in God was personal. In this way he could diminish the anguish when facing the existence in this world.Kierkegaard emphasized the personal choice beyond reason. Even though he was a Protestant Christian he never found evidence of God's existence that made sense. In this way the philosopher could understand that the only way to escape doubt is to choose to believe.

Compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism.

Empiricism is a method of philosophy that is based on obtaining knowledge through the use of the senses in observation, experience, and research. Rationalism is the philosophical doctrine that affirms and sustains the supremacy of reason over experience. The method of rationalism is characterized by acquiring knowledge by the explanation of science in logical terms. Of course, these two tendencies exaggerate only one aspect of the ways in which obtain the knowledge about the universe.

Explain in detail in what sense does Alyosha Karamazov realize that he is free in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov known as Alyosha is a young religious who wishes to be a Russian Orthodox Christian priest. This young man was very devoted to his beliefs, and was always very different from his brother Ivan Karamazov, who was an atheist and writer. When Alyosha reads an essay written by her brother Ivan "The Grand Inquisitor" in which Ivan describes Christ as someone who everyone follows because it is easier to follow him than to choose him. And Ivan tries to argue that it is comfortable to live in a dictatorship, in religion or under the command of a Tsar. These affirmations put Alyosha to reflect, even so, he continues herstudies and his faith. Later on, his religious teacher, Father Zosima, died, which is a serious blow to his life, since this father was considered a saint. In that moment he asks himself: How could God allow this to happen? How could God allow the existence of war and diseases? After the reflection on his faith, he realizes that a lot of doubts come to him about his beliefs. But in this way he discover that he is free to choose to believe or not to believe. And his faith was totally his decision. Therefore, Alyosha starts to choose the freedom, instead of accepting rules blindly.Here we see how the two brothers were different in their beliefs, but had something in common, and it was the freedom to choose what believe. The belief is often not directly basedon reason, but is a choice. Even so, the choice of Alyosha is good because his beliefs led him to be a kind person, and with a great love for the others. I think we are all forced to believe in something at some point in life. And I think it almost always happen, because we have no choice, nobody have an absolute truth.

Explain how ethics can be said to be always personal and often political.

Along with personal ethics there is also a political ethic. Personal conduct is regulated by personal ethics. Personal ethics deals with all the actions carried out by the individual as an individual, including those that concern political society, for example, paying taxes, not stealing, not killing, loving one's neighbor, fight for justice. Additionally, political ethics deals with the actions carried out by the political society. For example, constitutional actions and legal actions.From Aristotle until today, different moral theories have been developed which can become contradictory at times. This variety of theories leads us to the conclusion that in reality all the moral decisions and our action are ours, so the ethics is a personal thing.

Explain and evaluate the views of Anaximander regarding the nature of substance

Anaximander postulate the existence of a common principle for all things that is something undefined and that is called Apeiron. From it separates opposite things that come into contradiction. We can compare this theory with the current Big-Bang theory where the whole universe emerges from one point, and it could be considered as something that precedes this last theory.

For a moment assume that Descartes' argument works in proving God's existence, does the ultimate conclusion follow as stated in premise 6?

Rene Descartes is a philosopher known as the father of modern philosophy. It is also known for trying to justify all its arguments using epistemic theory as foundationalism, which is the theory that establishes that all knowledge must be based on true fundamental beliefs. For example, he draws the conclusion that he doubts about everything that exists. But he does not seem to doubt about the fact that he thinks, and believes with certainty that the thought is real. This is the belief which he takes as real and as proof that he exists, and this is where the phrase "First I think then I am" comes from. But he considers that he has a clear and distinct conception of God. He considers that this idea that lower being has about a superior being can only come from God himself. And this is where it is stated in premise 6 "Therefore, God exists."

Can we know if we have a soul? What about other people or animals?

Ancient traditions say that the soul is the same breath of life of God that enters a physical body. It is said at the moment of birth the first thing the child does is inhale air to breathe and cry, in that inhalation, some argue, that the soul enters the body, and when a person dies the soul leaves the body with the last breath. Others argue that the soul is a state of consciousness defined by the principles and values ​​that the person has. Actually the definition of soul is a bit complex because nobody knows it; however we can say that it is more like combinations of all values ​​and virtues that lead the human being to integrate with God, regardless of religious creed. How do I know if I have a soul or not? When a person makes a mistake or makes a bad action sometimes you feel remorse that is the expression of the soul that suffers within us and calls our attention so that we do not make more mistakes of this kind. The murderers, drug dealers, fighters, vicious, drug addicts are the ones that lose their souls more quickly and become heartless, that is to say they no longer have conscience, nor remorse of their actions and as the bible says "Living Dead", which are the people who are "dead" for God. According to my religion which is Catholic, animals do not possess a soul. Besides, we know that an animal does not have the same dignity, in terms of spiritual faculties, as a human being. This is because man is animated spirit and body, while animals are animated bodies that have not reached spiritual development. I think that all people have a soul but some people have it asleep and others more awake. I believe that the soul and consciousness are either the same or are closely related. I also think that it exists after the physical body, since, for me, it does not make sense the fact of dying and that everything becomes nothing.

Explain how aesthetics, art, and criticism are interrelated.

Art criticism is the opinion that an individual expresses about a work or a set of works of art. Criticism is the issuance of a trial. There are people who dedicate their lives to be art critics and usually have to travel a lot around their country or aroundthe world. Critics observe the impact of social and political forces on contemporary art. They can help preserve a high quality of art such as painting, sculpture, theater, music, dance and opera, and other artistic manifestations. This is the reason whythey travel a lot to find these artistic works. Theis purpose is to promote appreciation of art and facilitate a better understanding of it. An easy way to divide the arts is between what we like, what should be good and everything else. The criticism establishes the relationship between the work and the observer.

If a computer app beats you every time you play chess, is the computer smarter than you? Does your computer think? Explain why or why not in detail.

Artificial intelligence is the concept for machines that have the capacity of "thinking like human beings". In other words, they perform tasks such as: reasoning, planning, learning and understanding the language. The artificial intelligence is a technology called machine learning, which is designed to make our work easier and more productive. An example of computers or intelligent programs would be the applications of chess games. One of the most famous was Deep Blue, developed to evaluate 200 million plays per second, was the first computer capable of beating the chess champion Garry Kasparov. There are also currently programs and supercomputers that are capable of learning new things and even having conversations with people.Some people might think that computers are capable of thinking, other people do not think so, but the artificial intelligence is everywhere, mainly, in electronic games, search engines on the Internet, computer security, also industrial robots and home robots. I think if the machinesthink or not depends on the way we see the reality in our world. If we see the reality totally materialistic in this sense we could say that robots are capable of thinking. Because the materialism argues that the human consciousness is also come from material origin. According to my personal opinion the machines are only an extension of human intelligence. Therefore, they are not capable of thinking, only human being are the one who can do that. We can automate process in a machine that can reproduce theway our brain works, and make machines act similar to us, but the machines will never be the same as us. Although I believe that in the future we will develop some machines that can imitate humans so well that can make us believe that they are humans, but there will be always some areas where humans are going to be smarter than machines; especially in areas that have to with creativity.

Explain the meaning of being and nothingness according to Sartre.

Being and nothingness is the first philosophical work of Jean-Paul Sartre. In this work he makes people as beings capable of creating their own laws by rebelling against all types of statutes, accepting responsibility, ethics and all personal morality without the support of society, ethics or any traditional norm.

Explain the idea of analytic philosophy and contrast with other schools of philosophy.

Bertrand Russell, Gottlob Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein, were the creators of analytic philosophy. This is a philosophy with greater conceptual clarity and concise language, and rejected the complicated and dense language of previous European philosophers. According to them, clarity should not be the enemy of complexity. Bertrand Russell said that the modern analytic empiricism is different from earlier thought systems such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume. The analytic philosophy use the mathematics and logic. In this way, problems are solved by obtaining well-defined answers with methods that are very similar to those used in science.I think certain type of philosophy studies the problems in greater depth. And it provides more precise solutions since it has a method based on logic.

Is free will possible if there is such a thing as God's plan? Explain how humans can be free if a higher power knows what you are going to do before you do it.

Commonly, most human beings have the feeling of free will. Even so, there have been many philosophers who have said the opposite. For example, Determinism is a philosophical idea that holds that all events and actions are determined. There is also another philosophical idea called indeterminism which holds that not everything is determined and that there is a certain freedom in the human being. According to the philosopher Baruch Spinoza, all the universe is governed by laws and that there is only one substance from which all things are born, which is God. This system assumes that people are somehow parts of God. Another point of view is that of William James who argues that the consciousness of humans is not just of product of matter. Because of this relative independence of consciousness from the material work, he thinks that there can be a certain freedom in people.There are several beliefs about human freedom. But the two most important would be determinism andindeterminism. Apparently the vast majority of people believe in indeterminism because if you ask any common people about if they have freedom of choice, they will tell you yes. But if you ask the same question to some critical thinkers maybe they doubt that they have the free will.I think we all choose a belief or way of thinking according to our own convenience and the influence of the culture in which we are educated. In my opinion, everything is determined by a single force or substance like the philosopher Baruch Spinoza said.

Explain how critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue.

Critical thinking is the proper way of thinking if you want to get the truth about any kind of philosophical question. Critical thinking is the proper way of thinking, in my opinion, because it allows you to understand logical connections, use and evaluate arguments, detect false arguments or falacies using the tools of logic, solve problems, and evaluate the relevance of certain ideas. When you thinking critically, you should follow the rules of logic, but this does not mean that you don't have to be creative. You can explore new ideas and approaches, but you need to evaluate these ideas carefully to see how rational they are.

Explain some of the different areas of philosophy which will be discussed in this course.

Critical thinking is the validation of philosophical arguments which are a series of premises and conclusions. This premises give us the reasons to support a conclusion. Metaphysics is the science that studies the existence and from it questions such as "What is real?" That is why metaphysicians are trying to answer questions about what our world is like. Epistemology is related to metaphysics and ontology, but does not ask what is real but "how do you know?". This is based on the foundations of knowledge. Epistemologists use rationalism to create arguments that justify beliefs and knowledge. Aesthetics, a branch of philosophy related to the perception of beauty and art. Ethics studies right and wrong. Ethical theories are those that promote questions about human actions. There are several points of view on the good and the bad, as well as on what is essential. Ethics is seen morality according to the consequences of the acts. Political philosophy is what studies the nature and purpose of government. It has a great relationship with the philosophy of the law, which focuses on legal systems. Philosophy of religion, deals with the philosophical study of religion, including arguments about existence of God, the evil, and the relationship between religion and other systems such as science and ethics

Articulate the notion of 'truth' in art criticism.

Critics of art must be willing to defend art that is truly important to a society. Critics have a great passion to know in depththe work of art they are appreciating is closer to the fair opinion of what is a truly good work. And to be able to understand what is really good, we have to take into consideration, for example, what socrates says "unexamined life is not worth it". So it is not worth listening to unexamined music or dancing an unexamined dance. When we have a true knowledge of the arts we appreciate them, and our appreciations will be more true.

Explain and evaluate the problem of evil.

Evil has always been a fundamental theme in all cultures, religions, and ways of thinking. A question that humanity has been asking since ancient times is: why is there evil? If there is a God and it is infinitely good, why does He allow the existence of evil? There is a huge variety of answers and hypotheses to these questions and many others regarding evil. It is mainly the theologians and philosophers who have tried to answer all the issues related to evil. For example, the philosopher John Leslie Mackie states: if God exists, He might not know everything, might not be almighty, and might not be omnibenevolent, because He does not stop evil. Theodicy St. Augustine affirms that evil is not real, but a deprivation. Deprivation is the absence of something. In this way, it is not a bad thing for a person to be blind, since he is only deprived of his sight. Additionally, Saint Irenaeus says that evil is for a useful purpose. It provides problems so that we resolve them and in this way, we build our soul. The argument that Saint Irenaeus uses is that God made man in his image, as you see written in "Genesis," and throughout his life, the man will gradually become more and more similar to God. In this way, evil comes to be useful for spiritual development.The issue of evil is still unresolved. I do not believe that the existence of evil is a sign of thenon-existence of God. I am more inclined to think like the theologians St. Augustine and St. Irenaeus that evil is necessary and is the way in which we will know good. I believe that evil is what is unpleasant or causes us suffering. And the good is what gives us happiness and harmony. The laws of nature govern our lives and depending on how we act and how lucky we are, we will feel suffering or happiness. In my opinion, if everything produced happiness there would be no reason to fight in life. Life wouldno longer be life because we would have no reason to be in motion.

Explain and evaluate the main themes found in existentialism. Does our being truly precede our essence?

Existentialism are concerns about existence such as: The fact that we are obligated to be here and now or existence precedes essence. According to the existentialists we find ourselves first existing in this world, without reason and then it is up to us to decide what to do in our existence. Also the existentialists try to look for a deep form of humanism regardless whether one believes in a superior being or not.Apparently it is true that existence precedes essence. Only by existing is that we can take decisions and act in one way or another.

Explain in detail why many existentialists such as Dostoyevsky and Sartre feel that human beings are outside determinism?

Existentialist philosophers such as Dostoevsky and Jean-Paul Sartre considered the human beings as freedom itself. They see matter as physical things and controlled by the laws of nature. But they assure that the human being is something more than a physical being, and for this reason is outside the determinism. According to Sartre we are condemned to be free.This philosophy of the existentialists Dostoevsky and Jean-Paul Sartre is a bit difficult to understand. They think that we live with material limits, we will die one day, and we didn't choose to be born when we born. Even so, because of the fact that human being is capable of choosing, then he is considered as a being that is outside determinism and is totally free.I think it must be human consciousness that could exist beyond determinism. And it is that consciousness that gives us the ability to choose.

Articulate how principles of Taoism serve as the foundation of the art of Feng Shui.

Feng Shui is an art of divination and Chinese philosophical system of Taoist origin. This art tries to influence our future and does so based on the principles of Tao. What we know about Feng Shui is little because the original sources were kept secret and were transmitted from teachers to their students. So, the information sold in books and magazines is not the most reliable. There is only a little teacher with true knowledge and according to what they say they are able to acquire certain powers such as winning wars, becoming rich, and keeping rulers in the power of a people. For this reason, only people who belonged to the nobility had this knowledge, because to have access to this wisdom they had to pay large sums of money.

Compare and contrast Foundationalism and Coherentism.

Foundationalism proposed that some propositions may contain their justification in themselves and serve as a basis for other propositions Coherentism argues that justification has to do with the coherence of propositions in a broad and relatively stable belief.

Explain, contrast, and evaluate the views of Freud and Nietzsche, on the rationality of religious belief.

Friedrich Nietzsche was the one who pronounced the famous phrase "God is dead!", Meaning that God had never existed. According to him, every person who can reason can also understand that God is a myth invented by powerful men to control the people.Sigmund Freud had asimilar claim regarding religious beliefs. According to Freud, the origin of such a belief is the satisfaction of desire: the psychological desire to protect oneself from a hostile world full of dangers. It is clear that this is one of the arguments most used by atheists to prove the nonexistence of God. I believe that these thinkers try to contradict what has been a trend of human beings since they exist. Nevertheless, the arguments developed by Friedrich Nietzsche or Sigmund Freud have not been proved yet. Even though there have existed people that have created myths about the existence of God and government that have use those myths to control people, this does not proved the non-existence of God

What are some of the implications of Gödel's Theorem?

Gödel's theorem shows that if an axiomatic system is consistent- and it means the axioms don't lead to any contradiction- then there should be a statement P such that P is not demonstrable within the theory. The validity of any demonstration based on those axioms should be algorithmically verifiable in a finite number of steps. One the implications of the Gödel's Theorem is that you cannot prove that the axiomatic of the natural numbers is not contradictory using the results of that theory. In general, you can also conclude that for any not contradictory system you can always find a true statement that cannot be proved or disproved within that theory.

Compare and contrast the main tenets of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism are Eastern religions that have much in common as well as some differences.For example, one thing that makes them similar is the aspect of enlightenment or nirvana, which is considered as an eternal state that reaches the soul of the person and is the purpose of life. Also the concept of karma or law of cause and effect, which is a law of moral causation. According to the oriental philosophers, our actions have consequences according to the type of actions they are; if they are positive, the positive things will come to us, if they are negative, then negative things will happen to us. This also applies to the reincarnation, since this is another concept according to which the person is believed to die and be reborn. Karma and reincarnation are highly related because if we do bad actions in our current life, we could suffer adverse consequences in our next life. All this process repeats until the person through spiritual practice achieves enlightenment. According to Buddhism the enlightened person no longer has to reincarnate but remains in an eternal state.The Hinduism is one of the oldest religions, and it is formed by a set of beliefs and traditions that are believed to have originated or brought to India according to some experts. It is a polytheistic religion which means that they believe in several gods. Although the list of Gods is very long, the main ones are Brahma, Shiva, Sakti, and Vishn.Buddhism is a religion or philosophical tradition that has a great relationship with Hinduism. Many of the Buddhist teachings come from the Hindu religion. But despite the fact that Hinduism has a great pantheon of gods in Buddhism, no god is worshiped. Gautama Siddhartha was the founder of Buddhism, and his philosophy is based on overcoming suffering by eliminating desire, and this is achieved through prayer, ritual, and meditation.Taoism is the religion created by its founder Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu believed that external forces influence human life, so he placed great importance on observing and trying to understand the laws of nature. According to Lao Tzu, the universe is directed by a principle -the Tao

Compare and contrast Rawls and Nozick on justice.

Hospers defended mainly that each person must have the same right of equal basic freedoms, and that is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all. Equal basic freedoms are determined by the following list: freedom of thought and freedom of conscience; political freedoms; rights and freedoms determined by the physical integrity of the person and the rights and freedoms protected by the rule of law.Also the economic and social inequalities have to satisfy two conditions: first, they have to be given in conditions of equality of opportunities. Second, inequalities must benefit the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle).Robert Nozick considers that in the state of nature described by Locke individuals enjoy full autonomy of will, with the only limits imposed by natural law, which require that no one can harm the other in his life, health, freedom and property .Apparently the two philosophers have much in common in terms of having a small government that looks after the interests of citizens. But John Hospers is committed to defend a little bit more equality and human rights, while Robert Nozick prefers a much smaller government that is to monitor the security of the people.

Maybe God has a reason or needs to teach humanity a lesson:

I believe that God always tries to teach us something in the course of our lives. In many religions, the aspects of good and evil appear in an endless struggle. I think God gives us the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and this process make us better beings.

Compare and contrast various views on a substance such as materialism, dualism, and idealism.

Idealism ensures no real objects is physical. According to the philosopher Berkeley, objects are not material but are ideas. According to this philosopher, I believe that we can only receive knowledge of our experiences. Therefore the objects that seem physical are built by our mind because we perceive them with our five senses. Dualism holds that real objects are physical or non-physical. According to Rene Descartes reality is made up of two substances: the mind and the body. The mind is immaterial, and the body is material. Our thoughts are immaterial and interact at a point with our body which exists in the material. Materialism holds that all real objects are material. Materialism gives absolute preeminence to the material world, being that always the material will precede thought. According to the philosopher David Armstrong there is only one substance, and it is material. He believes that all consciousness is material. In this case, materialism is the opposite of idealism.

Evaluate the 4 views as to the nature of universals and particulars.

The term "universals" is a way of calling the concepts that apply to various particular objects. "Particulars" would represent objects and things of our world. There are four views as to the nature of universals and particulars which are: Platonic realism: which holds that ideas have a transcendental existence apart from the particulars Exaggerated realism: the universe exists in the particulars as part of what makes then similar. Conceptualism: The ideas exist but depend upon of a mind. Extreme nominalism: The universals do not exist, that only the particular exist. My opinion is that the platonic realism and extreme nominalism are out of reality, and Exaggerated realism and Conceptualism are more near the truth.

Explain and evaluate Pascal's Wager. Would belief based on such an argument get you into heaven?

In a discussion about belief in God, Blaise Pascal made an argument in which he states that although there is no certainty of the existence of God the best bet that can be done is to believe in him. Pascal is aware that there are no solid rational arguments on which to justify the existence of God, so he decides to go for all and introduces the notion of chance. Pascal says that if we bet against the existence of God what we can lose is a lot -eternal life -and what we gain in comparison is not much -the finite sensation of independence -whereas if we bet in favor of the existence of God is much that we can earn and little that we can lose. The conclusion reached by Pascal is that the most rational thing is to believe in God.I think that Pascal's way of thinking is more beneficial for humanity. Since believing in an infinite reward in our lives gives us a good reason to be better beings. I think the sense of dependence on God makes us feel that we are also dependent on others, whether family, society, nature. So this feeling of dependence makes us worry about each other. However, the feeling of infinite independence can lead us to believe that we plan to do anything and that nothing is wrong. I believe that the human being believes in a God inevitably, can be the creator God of the universe or believe that he himself is God.

Compare and contrast induction, abduction, and deduction.

In deductive reasoning we apply what we already know as probable or possible to interpret the unknown. Before a doubtful case, we look for a rule, a principle, a group of things in which our problem can be integrated: if it is a man, it is mortal; if it is Thursday, there will be a market; if the fruit is ripe, it is a healthy food. For example, Modus tollens (that means "the path that refuses to deny") is a deductive argument structure. It is structured in the following manner. If P implies Q, and negation of Q, therefore, negation of P. Example of modus tollens is: " If the watchdog detects an intruder, the watchdog barks. The watchdog did not bark. Therefore, the watchdog did not detect any intruders." The deductive reasoning always uses valid and sound arguments. An argument is valid when is has the property that if its premises are true then the conclusion is also true. Additionally and argument is sound when the premises are true. Then as long as we use these kind arguments, we know that we are going true conclusions. The induction as opposite of deduction is a type of reasoning in which the premises are evidence of the truth of the conclusion. For example, "Gold melts with heat, silver melts with heat, so all metals melt with heat." When you use induction, you are trying to get a general pattern or law, from many different particular situations. But, in reality, the truth of the premises does not make the conclusion true, since there could be an exception. Therefore the conclusion of an induction is not always reliable but is one that people use frequently in science or even in the real life, because induction leads to unexpected discoveries that have to be verify by other means. An abductive argument is a discussion with different explanatory hypotheses of one or more events; In this context, the argument defends one of the hypotheses because it is considered the best possible. The basic form of the abductive reasoning is the following: (A) is an event or a set of facts; (B) a satisfactory explanation; no other known example of explanation of (A) is so competent. Therefore (B) is the explanation of (A). This kind of reasoning is used in science all the times. When a physicists introduce a new a equation to explain a natural phenomenon they are using abductive argument. For example, Newton introduced the so called Newton's laws and the Gravitational Law and based on them, he derived Kepler's Laws about the motion of the planets. Of course, this is not deductive because you cannot guarantee that the actual explanation of (A) is (B), and, probably, in the future a better explanation can be found.

Explain if it is possible to have an agreement about aesthetic judgments and if that is a problem.

In my opinion it is not possible to have a full agreement about aesthetic judgments. What is beautiful for one person or for many people might not be beautiful for another person. But this should not be a problem, because this implies that there is a variety of tastes and this cannot be bad for human being. This should be something that enriches the culture of all people.

Compare and contrast the logical positivist to the natural language theorist.

In the opinion of the logical positivist, only verifiable statements, either logically or empirically, are cognitively significant; anything else (mainly metaphysical) has no meaning or does not make sense.The Philosophy of Natural Language (also known as LinguisticPhilosophy or Philosophy of Ordinary Language) addresses traditional philosophical problems as rooted in the misunderstandings of a language. Advocates claim that many of the philosophical problems were addressed as a result of misuse or misunderstanding of language.

Explain and evaluate what David Hume means by saying that we have no evidence of the self.

The thought of David Hume was a radical skepticism since he doubted the possibility of the existence of an exact science. Hume states that the "ego" does not really exist as something solid, but rather it is a flow of sensations. According to him,nothing guarantees us that the sun will rise tomorrow.I think David Hume doubt everything and even his ideas and his self. Since he sees his thoughts as a flow of senses, he cannot identify his ego. For this reason, he has doubts about the fact that he has his own conscience. I believe that Hume realizes that there is no way to prove the existence of his being or his soul and in this sense, he comes to doubt all the statements and thoughts of humanity.

Explain and evaluate Rousseau's criticism of both Hobbes and Locke regarding the state of nature.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that Hobbes and Locke mischaracterize the state of nature. According to Rousseau, man in his natural state is not motivated by greed, or envy, or obtaining material things, but by self-love and self-preservation. Rousseau argues that one does not see in nature any animal wearing gold jewells or acquiring properties. Therefore, Rousseau believes that a true state of nature would be humanity in peace and harmony with one another. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau pre-political man does not yet have a government, but has already been corrupted by the objectives of acquisition of property and wealth, which makes him lose the natural state, and, therefore, humanity abandons its natural state and passes to civil society. Since then humanity is motivated by greed and envy.I think Jean-Jacques Rousseau's argument about the state of nature is much more detailed and precise than that of Hobbes and Locke. But apparently what distinguishes Rousseau from Hobbes and Locke is that Rousseau calls the natural state the same state in which animals are found. I think that what Rousseau describes how human egoism developed from its animal state to what it is today, a social being.

Explain the views of Nozick and Hospers regarding legitimate laws and the role of government.

John Hospers is one of the philosophers who defends libertarian views. Libertarians argue that government should be small and limited. Hospers establishes three laws that the government promulgates: 1) laws that protect you from yourself, 2) laws that protect you from others and 3) laws that help others, only the second kind of lawsare legitimate. Robert Nozick defends other more modern views similar to that of John Hospers. Nozick defends a minimum government, which is limited to give protection to the people. According to Robert Nozick citizens only need protection against fraud,violence or breaches. He argues that the government should act as a watchman. Nozick also defends the view that people have a right to possess what has been obtained correctly and that justice consists of watching over those rights.

Explain and evaluate Karl Marx's analysis of class struggle as presented in his Communist Manifesto.

Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto encourages the working class of the whole world to unite and get involved in politics. According to Marx the history of all societies has been characterized by class struggles. A struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed. In the previous eras of the history of human kind this struggle has always existed. The time of Marx is the age of thebourgeoisie and classes are divided between two, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx describes how bourgeoisie is spread throughout the world and how it is increasingly developing new forms of exploitation. It also describes how the bourgeoisie is returning to the family because this is an economical necesity for them. Marx compares the worker with a commodity, that is exposed to the fluctuations of the market. As a kind of modern slave. Then the workers form unions against the bourgeoisie and the two groups are in a constant battle. According to Marx, the workers must be educated in politics in order to have the weapons to defend themselves against the bourgeoisie. And this is where it concludes that society can no longer live under the domain of bourgeoisie, and, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

Compare and contrast various views of Hobbes and Locke on the state of nature and natural rights.

Natural rights are rights that we have by virtue of our humanity. These natural rights are similar to what we now call human rights. There are philosophical differences among these rights, for example, that they exit independently of government and society, but Amnistia Internacional or the United Nations defend that these rights could only be maintained within a civil society. The right to life or the right to liberty are often considered natural rights. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argue that natural rights would exist even if there were no government. Therefore, these rights are different from the positive rights that are created by thegovernment of a society.For Hobbes, nature has also made all men equal. From this equality it deduces an equality of intention in men to achieve their own ends. So if two men want the same thing, and this is only consumable by one, they become enemies. Given this situation of mutual distrust, men try to protect themselves in advance in such a way that no other power is capable of threatening them. Thus we find in the state of nature three main causes of discord: competition, distrust and glory. The first encourages men to attack each other to achieve a benefit, the second to achieve security, the third to gain recognition. Hobbes argued that the main objective of the government was to protect people from their own selfishness. A ruler with absolute authority was the only one who could maintain peace.Locke's conception of the state of nature is different from that of Hobbes. For Locke, man has an uncontrollable freedom to dispose of his own person or his possessions, but nevertheless he does not have the freedom to destroy himself, or any creature of his possession. The reason for this is the natural law. This natural law is none other than "reason", reason shows that all men are equal and independent, that no one should harm another. Locke says that humanity has three natural rights: life, freedom and property. Locke argues that we can have property rights in the state of nature, but since we are not able to protect them, we must have a civil government to ensure the protection.

Critically analyze Husserl's phenomenology and how it informed existentialism?

Phenomenology is a philosophy founded by Edmund Husserl. According to Husserl this philosophy deals with thestudy of the phenomena of life as it is lived. This contains a descriptive method that made great contributions to philosophy and science. This method seeks to analyze the experience of what is peculiar or common, and especially the experience of the psychic. According to this philosopher, what our own psychic being reveals to us is the immediate types of experience. In other words, phenomenology is the science that studies the relationship between facts (phenomena) and the realm in which this reality is present (psychism, consciousness). Phenomenology aspires to the strict knowledge of phenomena. This last word can be misleading because we often use it to refer to the sensible appearances of things, appearances that do not coincide with the supposed reality that lies beneath them. The phenomenological and existentialism are related through social behaviors, as they act in each our actions. therefore, it is important to know about this topic in order to gain a greater sense of how it influences the aesthetics of our daily life, which in reality is nothing more than our way of appreciating things through different appreciations and experiences.I think that phenomenology does not seem to be a completely true method since it is mainly based on psychic experience. It is true that many of our beliefs and thoughts are based on psychological experience. But there is a great variety of psychological experiences for which there is no scientific evidence. For example, some people bet on the consumption of certain alution-inducing drugs in order to have spiritual experiences or reach enlightenment. But what is saved from many of these drugs is that they alter the mind in such a way that the person does not see reality as it is or as it should be. So also people with mental problems do not have a perception of reality according to what is considered true or correct. Therefore, psychic experiences are not completely reliable

Explain some of the benefits a student may gain by studying philosophy.

Philosophy means "the love of wisdom." This discipline is considered the mother of all sciences. One of the most influential philosophers we know today is Aristoteles. Aristotle believes that real knowledge is the one that has to do with processes. This is a fundamental principle that allows us to advance in any aspect of life. For this reason, the philosophy helps us the students to acquire new capacities of thinking, reasoning, and evaluating ideas. It also helps us to develop critical thinking and not to see the things of our world superficially. When a students learns some philosophy they start questioning many things that they assumed were true, and then they become more critical. A person who is more critical is more free and difficult to deceive and manipulate. As a philosopher René Descartes said, Philosophy "is the last degree of wisdom." I think knowing about this topic will help us a lot in our careers and throughout our lives.

Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras regarding the nature of substance

Pythagoras made the numbers the basis of all his ideology, and even came to consider that numbers are the beginning of all things and came to ensure that the whole sky is number and harmony. He was the first to affirm categorically that the earth and the celestial bodies were spherical, but he considered them to be perfect figures. Not only he did think that the celestial bodies were spherical, but surely they would have to move in circular trajectories. They also thought that the center of the Universe was occupied by a ball of fire around which the moon, the earth, the sun, the five known planets and the sky of fixed stars, 9 elements in total, and to reach 10, rotated. that for them it had magical properties, they imagined an invisible anti-earth. Simplifying: Pythagoras believed that everything (even music) was made of numbers.

Consider and explain the evidence for reincarnation and the experience of other levels of reality presented in the chapter.

Reincarnation is a topic that has begun to become popular in the West, but most Westerners see it with skepticism since in Christianity it is believed that there is only one life and that when we die we have to go to heaven or hell. Reincarnation is the idea that we have this life, and once we die, we are reborn in this world in a new body. The goal of reincarnation is for the soul to go through different states and after having experienced several lifetimes, achieve the final goal, which is enlightenment. Once the person is enlightened, he will not have to reincarnate again, and he will exist in eternity. It is said that there are scientific proofs about reincarnation. Mainly these tests are found in studies done by doctors and psychologists which document thousands of supposed cases of past lives. There are also examples of people who have remembered their previous life and this has helped them to make archeological discoveries.The hypothesis of reincarnation is very interesting and makes a lot of sense. Although I do not believe that the evidence that has been obtained is enough to validate this hypothesis. However, I think it is very useful forthe human being to believe that he will have a second or several opportunities of existence and that according to his actions in the current life, he could have a better life in the next life.

Compare, contrast, and evaluate the views of John Searle and Rene Descartes on dualism.

René Descartes has a vision of dualism which is known as substance dualism. He affirms that all reality is made up of two essential substances, which are body and mind. The mind is immaterial, and the body is material. Descartes think that these two substances are different properties, and the senses perceive the body, therefore, is not entirely sure of the existence of the body. Also, he cannot doubt the presence of the mind because here occurs thought and reason.John Searle asserts that there are no mental phenomena above the physical. Although he believes that there is the mental and the physical, the two can be different aspects of a single substance. In this sense, his vision of dualism contradicts the Descartes vision, which sees the body and mind as distinct. John does not make these statements like those of Descartes but thinks that consciousness comes from the physical.I think that in the dualistic vision of John Searle, the physical is more important than the mind since it sees the conscience and the mind as a product of the physical. I think that Searle believes that the mind and thoughts exist but that these have a material origin. In this way, the mind would be something similar to what we know today as artificial intelligence.However, Descartes believes in the mind because he cannot deny his thoughts and emotions. He believes in the existence of the body because he perceives it in his mind, but he has no certainty that it exists as real. But he thinks that the body is a different object to the mind with different properties. I believe his affirmations are more compatible with the faith in God, a material world, and spiritual life.

Discuss the practical and logical problems with Aquinas' Natural Law moral theory.

Saint Thomas Aquinas builds a moral philosophy which is called Natural Law and does so from the metaphysics of Aristotle. Although many philosophers do not take this theory seriously, it is well influential in the public imagination. According to Saint Thomas, what is not natural is bad and what is natural is good. For example, a death by cancer does not matter since this is considered to be a natural way dying. But taking medications or pills to alleviate a disease would be considered an unnatural act, since the theory of natural law holds that we must "let nature take its course."It is clear that the moral philosophy of natural law has its logical and practical problems. Although currently the Catholic Church continues to defend some points about this philosophy as for example: The church is not in favor of the use of condoms, abortion and homosexuality which is still a matter of debate today. This example and others very much raise the question, "Is there a natural way of doing things?" According to my personal opinion, the theory of natural law has its pros and cons. For example, to consider that is wrong to take medication when this can be the cure of an illness is out of all logic. I think that this kind of moral philosophy is a form of ethics based on the ancient or medieval world. And in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, science was not as advanced as it is today. Therefore this theory worked better at that time since it was the way society was structured. Even so, I believe that this philosophy has universal points which can be used some times. For example, when it defends the importance of the family as the base of society.

Critically analyze the false starts in moral philosophy including relativism and Divine Command.

Since antiquity there are philosophies such as relativismand divine command. Both have already been discredited in the field of philosophy as moral codes, even though they are currently very popular in the modern world.Although cultural relativism favors the understanding of other cultures, this does not imply that we should value positively or justify all their attitudes. If so, we should accept behaviors such as slavery, racism, sexism or cannibalism. From the current of cultural relativism, it is not allowed to argue about what is good or what is bad, rightor wrong, even when from the cultural perceptive itself, the bad of the other culture is evident.The Divine Command, is the position that an action is good or bad based on whether it is or not, ordered by God. Therefore, doing what is good is doing what God commands. This position presents the problem that an action is good simply because God establishes that it is good, and bad, because God establishes that it is bad. The problem would then be that God could say, arbitrarily, that killing is good, and that honesty is bad; which, in turn, would mean that nothing is real and intrinsically good or bad. So, morality would be purely subjective and relative based on the arbitrary declarations of God.

Explain and evaluate the views of Sogyal Rinpoche regarding death and human activity in the modern world ( from the readings at the end of chapter 6).

Sogyal Rinpoche is one of the great masters of Buddhism in Tibet. This teacher has been recognized as theteacher of the Dalai Lama and founder of several religious centers in America and Europe. He is also recognized for writing the book "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying" in which he teaches the philosophy of Buddhism to the western world. He exposes theideas of the vision of the Western world with respect to death. He details how westerners do not have a real understanding of death and what happens after death. According to Sogyal Rinpoche in the West, people deny death or see it as annihilation or total loss. For this reason, talking about death is uncomfortable, because generally in the West you have the belief that if you talk a lot about it, then you end up wishing it. Rinpoche also found that other western people downplay it by saying that death is not a big deal but that it is natural and therefore should not worry anyone.However, Sogyal Rinpoche affirms if people believe in a life after death, their lives will be different, and they will have a greater sense of personal and moral responsibility.Ithink that the fact that in all the religions of the world there is the belief in life after death, and this belief is essential to give the human being a feeling of eternity. If the man becomes entirely materialistic and only lives for the search of pleasures of the world because he takes the risk of doing anything to obtain those pleasures. It is true that people have no evidence of life after death, but neither there is no evidence that it does not exist. However, I think that certain uncertainty helps man to advance and develop because if the person had the guarantee of life after death, then he or she would not have to fight in their lives. Therefore, in my opinion, faith here is necessary for people to have a moral and respectable life.

Explain, compare, and evaluate the views of Tolstoy and Kierkegaard, on the rationality of religious belief.

Søren Kierkegaard affirms that the belief in God and Jesus is beyond human reason. According to Kierkegaard God exists beyond time and space but Jesus became part of the time part of the area, which makes it a contradiction since Jesus is part of the holiness of the Trinity and one with the father and the holy spirit. Kierkegaard believes that truth is subjective and relative. And that beliefs in God are contradictory and irrational, but even so, they arepossible.Leon Tolstoy has a similar vision to Kierkegaard when he points out that the knowledge of what is irrational always existed in philosophy and the separation between faith and reason is ancient. It is here where Tolstoy told himself that he couldnot find answers to his questions by reason. It is here where he concludes that "life is more important than rational belief."As much as Kierkegaard and Tolstoy made it clear that faith cannot be demonstrated by reason. Kierkegaard is unable to explain the Trinity because he sees it as contradictory and beyond reason. And Tolstoy considers that there has always been a separation between faith and reason since the beginning of philosophy. According to my opinion, I believe that faith is infinite without limits and the reason it does have limits. So both are necessary for human life, because when the reason reaches a certain point then we go forward through faith.

Explain the role of the "Vienna Circle" in the history of analytic philosophy.

The "Circle of Vienna"are a group of philosophical people who founded a school of thought called empirical or logical positivism. It is one of the most recognized schools of thought in philosophy. "Circle of Vienna" work in the union of philosophy with the new sciences.These philosophers would like evaluate the truth in terms of empirical verification or the logic of language.

Discuss the concept of absurdity in the philosophy of Albert Camus.

The philosophy of absurdism holds that the human being is in a permanent search to find meaning in life but will fail to find that there is no meaning for his existence. The term does not hold that it is impossible in a logical way, only impossible in a human way. It does not focus on the meaning of the Universe, simply on the destiny and meaning of life. The absurdism ensures that all man's attempts to find meaning in life will fail because of the amount of information available and because the unknown is too much, and, therefore, it is absurd to carry out this search. However, Albert Camus, one of the main exponents of the movement, ensures that the human must realize that this search is absurd but, despite this, man should not stop exploring and trying to make sense. According to Camus life it is absurd since we live wondering about the different reasons of what happens in the world, however the world does not respond and remains silent. In this sense Albert Camus consider that we are alone in this world and we have two options, suicide or be happy. Albert Camus' decision seems to me wise because happiness is what gives us a greater meaning in our lives. And in the case of suicide it would not be the most logical thing we could do, because if I we are here, it is for some reason, even if we do not understand why.

Explain the Socratic Method of Teaching. Is this a useful way for students to learn?

The Socratic Method is an ancient method of teaching in which the philosopher presents himself before his interlocutor as an ignorant. This method provokes critical thinking, in which many questions are given to the students but no the answers with the objective of finding precise answers. That promotes research, review, and development of new ideas about any fundamental questions about life or the universe. By this method of questioning and probing, Socrates and his interlocutor get closer and closer to the truth. Through this method of critical thinking the students can develop a deep capacity of learning any knowledge in any area of their life, so that they can achieve higher levels of self realisation.

Explain in detail the connection between the Tao, Ying, and Yang.

The Tao divides two opposing principles which are known as yin and yang. Yin and yang represent all the opposite principles in the universe. For example life and death; night and day; sky and earth; Darkness and light; cold and hot; positive and negative, etc.

Explain the difference between the labor theory of property and labor theory of value.

The labor theory of property created by John Locke argues that if you work for something and it is not owned by someone, you acquire what you worked for as property. According to Locke, humanity has three natural rights: life, liberty and property. He considers that in the natural state, we can acquire property rights.Labor theory is different from Karl Marx's theory of surplus value or also called the labor theory of value. In this theory, the harder you work for something, the more value it has. In Marx's opinion, the owners of the means of production reap the greatest rewards, and Marx proposes that those who do the work should be the ones who benefit most.

Explain and evaluate the paradox of Buridan's donkey and what Spinoza's view and use of this paradox.

The paradox of Buridan's ass: an ass stands in front of two haystacks, that look exactly the same and at the same distance. He is not able to decide for either of them and as a consequence of his doubt, he stays still, dying of hunger. The paradox is that, being able to eat, he does not eat because he can not decide which haystacks is more convenient.The paradox shows that ifthere is no motive that directs the decision, some preferences over others, there will be no action. Jean Buridan makes use of the hypothetical example of donkey to argue that humanity has no free will. And the Baruch Spinoza says that humans are like the donkey. According to him, our desire is not enough to produce action. Spinoza maintains that if we understand the nature of the world, we can free ourselves from the repentance of our actions since everything that happens is totally necessary.From what we can see here we have arguments that try to validate the affirmation that everything is determined. In this case, freedom is seen in another way, like getting rid of the illusion that we have our own will. According to Baruch Spinoza, everything that happens is necessary and that we must free ourselves from repentance. But practically, Spinoza invites us not to accept responsibility for our human actions. Which possibly for a philosopher like him it may right, but if we tell regula average people thatthey are not responsible for anything in their lives this could bring serious problems to society.I think that although this two philosophers could be right, their thinking is not good for people who have not had access to study and education. I think that the human being must maintain the belief that he is the one who takes the decisions and that his actions will have consequences.Everyone must have remorse and repent of the wrong done, otherwise society would become a chaos.

How is Hume's view of the mind related to that of the Tibetan Master Milarepa's on this subject?

The vision Tibetan teacher Milarepa about the self-has a lot to do with David Hume's thinking about it. According to the Tibetan teacher, one learns to be more aware of how thoughts flow by themselves through meditation. In this case, he says that "what characterizes the mind is to cling to the notion of oneself." But through meditation, we can realize that there is no "I" and that there is nothing. And once the person realizes that there is nothing, then he will find something.I confess that this experience that the Tibetan master Milarepa tries to explain to us is very complex to understand because it is based on the spiritual, and I believe that spiritual things are impossible to explain. When he says that we can find something, then it should be what they call "enlightenment," but I think the only way to understand enlightenment, is by experience it.

Explain and evaluate William Paley's version of the design argument. Does the argument provide a rational basis for belief in some sort of creative intelligence behind the universe and life?

William Paley asks us to imagine that we walk on the beach and a clock in the sand. According to him, we would ask ourselves the question of how did the clock get there? He says that a response may be that it was created by chance, or by the combination ofwaves and sand, which is an absurd idea for Paley. He believes that according to the complexity of the clock, it would be logical to say that it was created by someone. Paley's argument is a comparison of the clock and the complexity of nature.I think that Paley's comparison is very creative and is reasonable to a certain extent. Even so, I don't see it as a proof of the existence of God, because you cannot compare the clock with nature since there are structured differently. We know that the humans have created the clock, but we don't know who created nature. Additionally, to believe that the universe is the product of a coincidence is a little naive, and we have no evidence of such a claim. Until today we have not been able to know what was the principle of all things. So this theme becomes a matter of faith, and where only religions give a response based on faith.