DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophy of Religion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophy of Religion “Compare, contrast and evaluate Descartes’ and Leibniz’s arguments for the existence of God” Descartes and Leibniz are two key philosophers whose contributions in various areas influenced much of our modern thinking. Particularly with reference to religious philosophy, we see that both Descartes’ and Leibniz’s contributions have greatly influenced the area of philosophy devoted to proving the existence of God. While Descartes’ provides us with two different proofs for God’s existence, Leibniz evaluates and modifies one of Descartes in order to safe proof it from its earlier criticisms. Descartes’ two arguments for God’s existence: the trademark argument, and the ontological argument, can be found in his Meditations 3 and 5 respectively. The trademark argument (Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Classics, 2nd edition) is called as such because it is as if God left as a trademark on his creation (man) the revelation of His existence. That is, the innate idea of God is like a trademark stamp. The argument relies on this innate idea, and then applies the Causal Adequacy Principle(Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Classics, 2nd edition), which states that the cause must contain all attributes of the effect, if not more. Descartes begins by stating that he has doubts and desires, which proves that he is a deficient and imperfect being. He continues to assert that it would be impossible to understand deficiency and imperfection without the idea of perfection to use as a base of comparison. By proving that he has the idea of perfection, he can begin his argument for God’s existence. Descartes argues that, because he has the idea of perfection, the idea must have a cause (because something cannot come from nothing). By applying the Causal Adequacy Principle to ideas, he asserts that the cause of the idea of perfection must have as much perfection as the idea itself. But since he’s 1 already established that the idea of perfection could not have come from him, as he is imperfect, it follows that the idea must have come from God. As he states “it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work” (Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation 3)). This allows Descartes to conclude that God is perfect, and cannot be a deceiver (because deception entails imperfection) which means that God would not create beings in which that which seems clear and distinct is actually false. Therefore, Descartes can trust his clear and distinct ideas, and since he has a clear and distinct idea of God, God must exist. Essentially, Descartes is saying that we have an idea of God, who is an infinite and perfect being; that idea couldn’t have been caused by anything lesser (than an infinite, and perfect being) and so God must have caused the idea of himself within is; If God caused the idea, then he must exist in order to do so. But herein lies the greatest flaw in the argument: in order to know our idea of God is clear and distinct, we need to know that God exists (and isn’t a deceiver). So we find ourselves trapped in a Cartesian Circle (Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Classics, 2nd edition), where what we perceive is true because God exists, but we can only be sure that God exists because we perceive it to be true. Another problem arises when we consider the application of the Causal Adequacy Principle which serves essentially as the fulcrum of Descartes’ argument. Firstly, why does Descartes assume that the principle can be applied to ideas? The Causal Adequacy Principle is used to describe affects of the physical world. But since Descartes is a dualist and believes that the physical and mental are two different realms, it appears as though he is severing that distinction merely for the purposes of making his argument more plausible. Even if we do apply the principle to our 2 ideas, we reach another criticism: why do all our ideas need a cause? Moreover, why do these ideas impose necessity: Surely to have an idea of something (for example, a perfect island) does not dictate that it is necessary for this island to exist, or that it does exist at all. Secondly, as pointed out by Cottingham (John Cottingham, Descartes), the principle doesn’t allow for objects to be “greater than the sum of its parts”. Cottingham uses the example of a sponge cake: the property of “sponginess” that the cake gained during its baking was not present in its ingredients (the eggs, flour, sugar, etc.), so where did the cake get its characteristic “sponginess” from? A broader example can be seen in evolution. Science has proven that life evolved from inanimate matter (the elements effecting the earth), and so in this sense, animate life was caused by something lesser than itself. Another obvious criticism of Descartes argument is its founding assumption that everyone has within them the clear and distinct idea of God. Could this idea we all have not simply be derived from early indoctrination? Essentially, Descartes has erred in making his argument too specific: instead of asking “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (the Cosmological Argument) he asks “Where does my idea of God come from?” In the Ontological argument, Descartes states that because God is a supreme and perfect being, it would be an imperfection to not exist, and therefore in his very concept God proves that he necessarily exists. Since we have the idea of God in our minds, to exist within the mind solely is less perfect than to exist within the mind and reality, so God must exist in reality because his very nature is perfection. Descartes fortifies his argument by explaining that we can conclude truths regarding objects from the very ideas of them. For example, from the idea of a triangle we can conclude that its angle’s add up 3 to 180 degrees. It follows that if we can conclude truths, then they are both possible and actual: therefore from the idea of God as a perfect being we conclude that it is possible and actual that God exists. For something to be possible it is true in some possible world, but for something to be necessary it is true in every possible world, including the actual. That is to say, it would be a limit for God to exist in some possible world and not every possible world (for him to possibly exist), and since God is a limitless being, he must exist in every possible world (necessarily exist). But this argument is not without its flaws. The same Cartesian circle that exists in the Trademark argument is also found within the Ontological one, as it depends on having a clear and distinct idea of God, which would only be possible if God existed in the first place. The argument clearly attempts to define God into existence, which is nothing more than a logical trick. Again, Descartes assumes that thoughts impose necessity, and so by conceiving of God, he must exist to validate his perfect conception. It could be argued that an unlimited being should not require necessity: surely as a characteristic of being unlimited, He should depend on nothing to cause his existence. The greatest problem with Descartes Ontological argument is the assumption that existence is a property. Properties are modifiers of the subject, which can only occur when the subject is already in existence. Therefore existence cannot be a property, as it is still used to modify the subject even if the subject doesn’t exist. Essentially, “existence” is the condition of a subject, on which properties depend. That is, if something exists, we can then define it to have properties such as height, colour, characteristics, etc. But these properties are only true if the object exists. If the object does not exist, we define it no 4 further than saying it does not exist (we do not give it height, colour, characteristics, etc.). This means that existence continues to modify the subject regardless of its state of being, where as properties do not. Leibniz had his own thoughts and criticisms of Descartes, despite following in a similar vain with his proof of God’s existence. Leibniz thought that to prove God’s existence first it must be proved that he is possible, since when rationalized, properties of God contain contradictions. Leibniz states “I know what being is, and what it is to be the greatest and most perfect, nevertheless I do not yet know, for all that, whether there isn’t a hidden contradiction in joining all that together.. In brief, I do not yet know, for all that, whether such a being is possible” (Leibniz, letters to Foucher, to Elizabeth, and to Molanus, p.91, Modern Philosophy, an Anthology of Primary Sources). Leibniz thought that Descartes arguments were based on the presumption that God is possible merely because of a clear and distinct idea, but that essentially, Descartes offered no further proof. Through his criticisms of Descartes, Leibniz creates his own argument for God’s existence. Whilst Descartes’ believed that if we can clearly and distinctly conceive of something, then it is known and actual; Leibniz asserted that if something is logically consistent, then it is possible. By eliminating Descartes’ dependency on “clear and distinct ideas” Leibniz manages to save himself from the Cartesian Circle. He explains that in order for there to be a logical inconsistency in God’s concept, there must be a contradiction, which requires both an affirmation and negation of the same property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A-Level Philosophy Mark Scheme Unit 01
    A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY PHIL1 An Introduction to Philosophy 1 Mark scheme 2170 June 2014 Version: 0.1 Final Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’ responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way. As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts: alternative answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are required to refer these to the Lead Assessment Writer. It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination paper. Further copies of this Mark Scheme are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Jackson, Roy ORCID: 0000-0003-3923-9513 (2018) Hayy Ibn Yaqzan: a Philosophical Novel by Ibn Tufayl
    This is a peer-reviewed, final published version of the following document and is licensed under Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 license: Jackson, Roy ORCID: 0000-0003-3923-9513 (2018) Hayy ibn Yaqzan: A Philosophical Novel by Ibn Tufayl. Alfinge (29). pp. 83-101. doi:10.21071/arf.v0i29.10111 Official URL: https://doi.org/10.21071/arf.v0i29.10111 DOI: 10.21071/arf.v0i29.10111 EPrint URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/8145 Disclaimer The University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. ISSN: 0213-1854 Hayy ibn Yaqzan: Una novela filosófica de Ibn Tufayl (Hayy ibn Yaqzan: A Philosophical Novel by Ibn Tufayl) ROY JACKSON [email protected] University of Gloucestershire Fecha de recepción: 21 de febrero de 2017 Fecha de aceptación: 31 de marzo de 2017 Resumen: Trabajo que aborda el relato filosófico Hayy ibn Yaqzan, titulado así por el héroe de la historia y escrito por el filósofo musulmán Ibn Tufayl (1105- 1185).
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM
    Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM Western Pre-Socratics Fanon Heraclitus- Greek 535-475 Bayle Panta rhei Marshall Mcluhan • "Everything flows" Roman Jakobson • "No man ever steps in the same river twice" Saussure • Doctrine of flux Butler Logos Harris • "Reason" or "Argument" • "All entities come to be in accordance with the Logos" Dike eris • "Strife is justice" • Oppositional process of dissolving and generating known as strife "The Obscure" and "The Weeping Philosopher" "The path up and down are one and the same" • Theory about unity of opposites • Bow and lyre Native of Ephesus "Follow the common" "Character is fate" "Lighting steers the universe" Neitzshce said he was "eternally right" for "declaring that Being was an empty illusion" and embracing "becoming" Subject of Heideggar and Eugen Fink's lecture Fire was the origin of everything Influenced the Stoics Protagoras- Greek 490-420 BCE Most influential of the Sophists • Derided by Plato and Socrates for being mere rhetoricians "Man is the measure of all things" • Found many things to be unknowable • What is true for one person is not for another Could "make the worse case better" • Focused on persuasiveness of an argument Names a Socratic dialogue about whether virtue can be taught Pythagoras of Samos- Greek 570-495 BCE Metempsychosis • "Transmigration of souls" • Every soul is immortal and upon death enters a new body Pythagorean Theorem Pythagorean Tuning • System of musical tuning where frequency rations are on intervals based on ration 3:2 • "Pure" perfect fifth • Inspired
    [Show full text]
  • Cartesian Idea of God As the Infinite
    FILOZOFIA ___________________________________________________________________________ Roč. 67, 2012, č. 4 CARTESIAN IDEA OF GOD AS THE INFINITE KSENIJA PUŠKARIĆ, Department of Philosophy, Saint Louis University, USA PUŠKARIĆ, K.: Cartesian Idea of God as the Infinite FILOZOFIA 67, 2012, No. 4, p. 282 The paper discusses presuppositions of the so-called trademark argument for the existence of God presented by René Descartes (1596 – 1650) in his Meditations on First Philosophy. The author explores the interpretation of Descartes’s idea of God as the infinite that provides a response to a difficult philosophical and theological question: How can the human mind obtain a coherent idea of God, whose infinite and transcendent greatness reaches beyond reason? I propose a conceptual distinction to defend the Cartesian thesis, namely, that it is possible to have a clear and distinct idea of the infinite, while consistently sustaining the negative theological element of God as ultimately incomprehensible. Keywords: Philosophy of religion – God – Idea of infinity Descartes claimed to be able to perceive the idea of the infinite most clearly and dis- tinctly, though he admitted its ultimate incomprehensibility. My discussion of this appa- rent contradiction will be centered upon two objections to Descartes, which were put forward by Pierre Gassendi (1592 – 1655) and Bernard Williams (1929 – 2003): 1) that the idea of the infinite is impossible; and 2) that the incomprehensibility of the idea is not compatible with its clearness and distinctness. I will discuss and defend the coherence of Descartes’ conception of God as the ac- 1 tual infinite in contrast with the potential infinite (or the “indefinite”). I conclude that clarity is reconcilable with the incomprehensibility of such idea, because to the human mind, the idea of God has an indefinite dimension – a point that I believe ought to be conceded to Descartes’s objectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UNIT 2 ARGUMENTS for the EXISTENCE of GOD Contents 2.0 Objectives 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Earlier Arguments on the E
    UNIT 2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Contents 2.0 Objectives 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Earlier Arguments on the Existence of God 2.3 Scholastic Arguments on the Existence of God 2.4 Other Arguments for Existence of God 2.5 Modern Philosophers on Existence of God 2.6 Let Us Sum Up 2.7 Key Words 2.8 Further Readings and References 2.0 OBJECTIVES This Unit is to give the student some arguments about the Existence of God. The basis for these arguments is reason, but then we realize and have to accept that the topic we are studying, namely, the Existence of God, is such that we cannot come to any universal conclusion, given the topic of our study. 2.1 INTRODUCTION Believers might not need proofs for the existence of God, even so we feel the need to speak of arguments in favour of the existence of God. On the other hand most non-believers or atheists would not feel the need of proving their non-belief or non-acceptance of God, because they see this as most natural. The responsibility then seems to be on the believers to give some arguments to prove the existence of God. While we agree that there can never be a universal proof for the existence of God, even so we can definitely speak of arguments in favour of the existence of God. The aim of this chapter is to examine certain arguments that have traditionally been used to prove or demonstrate the existence of God. We shall examine different types of arguments and we shall also look at some individual philosophers who had significant arguments to prove the existence of God.
    [Show full text]
  • 24.01S16 Descartes on God and Matter (Meditations 3-5)
    24.01: Classics of Western Philosophy Descartes on God and Matter (Meditations 3-5) I. Review of some key results from Med 1 and 2 A. From Meditation 1: i. Nearly everything is subject to doubt. Until this doubt is removed, any (system of) knowledge lacks adequate justification. B. From Meditation 2: i. The meditator discovers something that appears immune to doubt (the cogito) ii. The meditator discovers something about her nature or essence: she is a thinking thing (sum res cogitans) iii. The meditator discovers something about a faculty of the mind (our intellect)—namely, that through the use of it (alone) we can discover metaphysical truths about essences. (Wax example.) II. The criterion of clarity and distinctness The meditator makes a general observation about the cogito: Surely in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm. And thus I now seem able to posit as a general rule that everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true. (70). If clarity and distinctness is a sure sign of truth, then it looks like we have a path out of the skeptical scenarios. We note what we clearly and distinctly perceive, and then reason from that. Descartes does not define ‘clear’ or ‘distinct’ in the Meditations , but he does other work. [See below, “Quotes on clarity and distinctness.”] The problem is that we seem to be prone to error both about what we clearly and distinctly perceive and in our reasoning. How do we address this? Descartes suggests: I should at the first opportunity inquire whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether or not he can be a deceiver.
    [Show full text]
  • HL-Philosophy
    N15/3/PHILO/HP1/ENG/TZ0/XX – 2 – N15/3/PHILO/HP1/ENG/TZ0/XX In your answers you are expected to: Philosophy • argue in an organized way using clear, precise language, which is appropriate to philosophy Higher level • demonstrate knowledge and understanding of appropriate philosophical issues Paper 1 • analyse, develop and critically evaluate relevant ideas and arguments • present appropriate examples providing support for your overall argument • identify and analyse counter-arguments Thursday 5 November 2015 (afternoon) • provide relevant supporting material, illustrations and/or examples • offer a clear and philosophically relevant personal response to the examination question. 2 hours 30 minutes Section A Instructions to candidates Answer one question from this section. Each question in this section is worth [30 marks]. Do not open this examination paper until instructed to do so. Core Theme: What is a human being? Section A: answer one question. Section B: answer two questions, each chosen from a different Optional Theme. 1. Read the following passage and develop your response as indicated below. The maximum mark for this examination paper is [90 marks]. ‘”Animal” is a negative term, but only because man has been made inappropriately privileged. It has been argued that whereas the traditional view supports Hamlet’s exclamation, “How like a god,” Pavlov emphasizes “How like a dog.” But is that a step too far? A god is the archetypal pattern of an explanatory fiction, of a miracle-working mind, of the metaphysical. Man is much more
    [Show full text]
  • The Imaginary Trademark Parody Crisis (And the Real One)
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2015 The Imaginary Trademark Parody Crisis (and the Real One) William McGeveran University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William McGeveran, The Imaginary Trademark Parody Crisis (and the Real One), 90 WASH L. REV. 713 (2015), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/614. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 10 - McGeveran Returned Final Review.docx (Do Not Delete) 6/3/2015 1:28 PM THE IMAGINARY TRADEMARK PARODY CRISIS (AND THE REAL ONE) William McGeveran* Abstract: In the two decades since the Supreme Court protected a crude rap spoof from copyright liability in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., courts have grown to understand the great value of parodic expression in trademark cases as well. Today, plausible claims of parody almost always prevail over trademark rights in judicial rulings. This Article demonstrates that it is simply wrong to suggest, as commentators often do, that we face a crisis in the results of trademark parody cases. That distortion is harmful because it distracts reform efforts and it lends credence to overbroad assertions of trademarks against parody and other speech. Demand letters and other pre-litigation maneuvering by markholders exemplify the real crisis in the law of trademark parody.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Philosophy Course Specification
    Higher Philosophy Course code: C854 76 Course assessment code: X854 76 SCQF: level 6 (24 SCQF credit points) Valid from: session 2018–19 This document provides detailed information about the course and course assessment to ensure consistent and transparent assessment year on year. It describes the structure of the course and the course assessment in terms of the skills, knowledge and understanding that are assessed. This document is for teachers and lecturers and contains all the mandatory information you need to deliver the course. The information in this publication may be reproduced in support of SQA qualifications only on a non-commercial basis. If it is reproduced, SQA must be clearly acknowledged as the source. If it is to be reproduced for any other purpose, written permission must be obtained from [email protected]. Where this publication includes materials from sources other than SQA (secondary copyright) this material must only be reproduced for the purposes of instruction in an educational establishment. If it is to be reproduced for any other purpose, it is the user’s responsibility to obtain the necessary copyright clearance. This edition: September 2018 (version 2.0) © Scottish Qualifications Authority 2013, 2018 Contents Course overview 1 Course rationale 2 Purpose and aims 2 Who is this course for? 2 Course content 3 Skills, knowledge and understanding 3 Skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work 11 Course assessment 12 Course assessment structure: question papers 12 Grading 14 Equality and inclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes Showed There Was No Need for God in Philosophy.”
    “Descartes showed there was no need for God in philosophy.” With reference to Descartes' key philosophical ideas and with particular reference to Descartes' Discourse on the Method and related metaphysical works, discuss and critically assess this statement. Descartes marked a pivotal moment in Western philosophy with respect to the role of reason in both philosophy and theology. The controversy surrounding Descartes’ application of his “first principle of philosophy”1, the cognito (“I am thinking, therefore I am”), resulted in his work being put on the Catholic Index of the Inquisition shortly after his death. To Catholic apologists and theologians today, it is still a strongly emotive subject: “[In] response to a question about the pervasive ideologies that had swept Europe during the past couple of centuries, and which had resulted in the slaughter of millions, [Pope John Paul II] contended that in order to explain all this, we have to go back to the …revolution brought about by the philosophical thought of Descartes.”2 Pope John-Paul II’s dialogue referred to above is found in his book “Memory and Identity” which divided philosophy at Descartes: “The cognito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) radically changed the way of doing philosophy. In the pre-Cartesian period, philosophy, that is to say the cognito, or rather the cognosco, was subordinate to esse, which was considered prior…it marked the decisive abandonment of what philosophy had been hitherto, particularly the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and namely the philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • By Nigel Warburton, a Little History of Philosophy
    a A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY NIGEL WARBURTON A LITTLE HISTORY of PHILOSOPHY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN AND LONDON Copyright © 2011 Nigel Warburton All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press) without written permission from the publishers. For information about this and other Yale University Press publications, please contact: U.S. Office: [email protected] www.yalebooks.com Europe Office: sales @yaleup.co.uk www.yalebooks.co.uk Set in Minion Pro by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd Printed in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Warburton, Nigel, 1962– A little history of philosophy/Nigel Warburton. â p. cm ISBN 978–0–300–15208–1 (cl:alk. paper) 1. Philosophy—History. 2. Philosophers. I. Title. B72.W365 2011 190—dc22 2011013537 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Contents 1 The Man Who Asked Questions 1 Socrates and Plato 2 True Happiness 9 Aristotle 3 We Know Nothing 15 Pyrrho 4 The Garden Path 22 Epicurus 5 Learning Not to Care 28 Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca 6 Who Is Pulling Our Strings? 34 Augustine 7 The Consolation of Philosophy 40 Boethius 8 The Perfect Island 46 Anselm and Aquinas vi contents 9 The Fox and the Lion 51 Niccolò Machiavelli 10 Nasty, Brutish, and Short 57 Thomas Hobbes 11 Could You Be Dreaming? 62 René Descartes 12 Place Your Bets 69 Blaise Pascal 13 The Lens Grinder 76 Baruch Spinoza 14 The Prince and the Cobbler 81 John Locke and Thomas Reid 15 The Elephant in the Room 87 George Berkeley (and John Locke) 16 The Best of All Possible Worlds? 93 Voltaire and Gottfried Leibniz 17 The Imaginary Watchmaker 99 David Hume 18 Born Free 105 Jean-Jacques Rousseau 19 Rose-Tinted Reality 110 Immanuel Kant (1) 20 What if Everyone Did That? 115 Immanuel Kant (2) 21 Practical Bliss 121 Jeremy Bentham contents vii 22 The Owl of Minerva 126 Georg W.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilosophy Philosophy Stephen Law EYEWITNESS Companions EYEWITNESS Companions Contents
    EYEWITNESS companions EYEWITNESS companions Philosophy Philosophy Stephen Law EYEWITNESS companions EYEWITNESS companions Contents Despite a checkered academic history, Philosophy Introducing Philosophy including expulsion from high school and Pages 12–21 a brief stint delivering mail, Stephen Law the history of philosophy graduated with honors in philosophy from Philosophy Pages 22–43 the City University, London. He continued branches of philosophy his studies at Oxford University, where he Philosophy Pages 44–189 stephen law was a junior research fellow for three years, The great thinkers Philosophy Toolkit and is currently a lecturer in philosophy Discover who’s who Pages 190–225 at Heythrop College, in the in philosophy, from Aristotle to Zeno, and who’s who in Philosophy University of London. their contributions to Pages 226–345 the way we think today. Stephen is the author of several books on philosophy, some written for adults and some for children. He is also the editor of THINK, Exercise your mind the Royal Institute of Philosophy’s popular Find out how to construct The defi nitive visual guide Evocative and imaginative new journal aimed at the general public; and communicate philosophical images illustrate the www.thinking-big.co.uk arguments. philosophical arguments. stephen law other eyewitness companions The big questions architecture • Art • astronomy Understand the debate cats • Classical Music • dogs • fi lm on such philosophical French Cheeses • French Wines • Golf enquiries as “Where did the universe come from?” East meets West Guitar • herbal remedies • Hiking Explore the history horse riding • Olive Oil • opera of Western thought as Photography • sailing • scuba diving well as traditions of Eastern philosophy.
    [Show full text]