Logic

Study Questions: 1. What is the difference between logical possibility and physical possibility? Logical possibility is anything that follows the laws of logic. These are laws that determine what is real, and what is not. For a situation to be logically possible, it also has to follow the law of non-contradictory. This law states that nothing can be both be at the same time and event. For example, time travelling is logically impossible because no one can be at the present and the future at…

Previously, the common belief relating to knowledge was that it is a defined justified true belief. However in the era of exponential discoveries, knowledge is perceived as something that can be reviewed and revisioned over time. The vast discoveries of our yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows have led humanity to define knowledge,and all we gain from it, as an objective fact, that can be supported or denied by progression. This progression may be, but not limited to: evidence, discoveries,…

Mankind 's Nature Many ponder on the idea whether mankind 's human nature is inherently good or evil. With philosophers and theorist having had devised theories to prove their thoughts and opinions over this matter, human nature in regards to being innately good or evil, is still up for debate. Two famous Chinese philosophers from 300 B.C.E., Meng Tzu and Hsun Tzu, proposed two distinct ideas pertaining to mankind 's human nature. Meng Tzu, in his excerpt "Man 's Nature is Good," drawn…

There are two opposing sides to the argument of faith and the existence of God, evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Evidentialism is believing that it immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. Non-evidentialism allows for more personal evidence to justify one’s belief. When contrasting the two views my personally beliefs align more with non-evidentialism. British…

Shakespeare does present Hamlet with consecutive moral dilemmas that he feels must be resolved with reasoning before he can actually act upon them. This is what spawns his perceptible frustrations. Of course, these frustrations are owed to a suppressive logic, but this does not mean his response to the restraint is logical. It visibly is not. One can see Hamlet’s intense vocalizations with his fuming emotions as the soliloquies become windows into his mind despite how intelligent he is. So, when…

Dr. Christian Jarrett’s “The Dangers of Being Too Hard On Yourself” is an article that appears in 99U, Adobe’s online magazine for creatives, in 2016. Categorized under 99U’s Creative Blocks section, Jarrett’s motivational article addresses the creative standstill that comes from being too harsh with oneself. More specifically, the author argues against the habit of excessive self-reproach and holding oneself to impossible standards. On the basis of reasoning that too much self-criticism is…

Sandel in his argument is pointing out the flaws with Rawl’s argument, but at the same time he is point out some of his own. Humans are much to unpredictable and the way Sandel frames his arguments against Rawls put an emphasis on emotions rather than logic and that makes his arguments and theory much less…

Crito: My Argument With Socrates I would first like to start my argument with capitulation; for I do not believe that Socrates, at the heart of his argument, was wrong. Although my knowledge of that heart may be false, thus so may my beliefs, I must still put in the effort and play my role as devil’s advocates by trying to convince a long dead man to do something I believe would have been wrong. My first argument with Socrates is whether he ever truly intended to be swayed, or if his mind had…

Peer Pressure: Peer pressure effects on individual decision making. Therefore, it influenced the jurors to think for themselves. For example, juror number two was easily swayed by opinions of others. He had no confidence in himself and his own beliefs. Except for juror number eight, peer pressure impaired their judgment. Based on his maturity level it indicated that the greatest differences are found in juror number eight and three. Once juror (Jack) changed his vote from guilty to not guilty…

his favor. This, however, is not to say that Parmenides does not have well formulated arguments, for he does provide evidence for his claims. Nonetheless, they are ultimately flawed because of Gorgias’ claims and because of one crucial error in his logic. Parmenides says that “what-is” is not divisible, therefore there cannot be more than one “what-is”. This is problematic because it does not allow for plurality, which is evident that it…