| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HUME KANT": |
|
|
Hume and Kant, 2007.
A discussion regarding the relationship between David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
2,135 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the crucial connection between David Hume to Immanuel Kant. The paper aims to show that their respective philosophies are in essence the same. The paper reports that because they gave rise to such divergent traditions, they are generally analysed as being philosophically apart.
From the Paper
"Immanuel Kant was a rabid Newtonian, and indeed an active scientist, until a blinding realisation took over him on coming across a remark of Hume's. He is credited with the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation, originated while he taught mathematics and Newton's physics at the University of Konigsberg. After his momentous realisation he dedicated the rest of life to philosophy alone. The contention of Hume is that reason must be directed to the human sphere, and must be serving passions, not abstractions in the head. But such reasoning must have a moral substratum if it is not to revert to Hobbesian anarchy - the war of all against all. This is where Hume fails, because though he does advance a morality - the utilitarian argument, "the greatest good of the greatest number" - it remains cold and calculating, thus devoid of inspiration value. Kant fills this lack. "
| |
|
Philosophy - Hume and Kant, 2002.
An analysis of the pholiosphies of Hume and Kant
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explains Hume's arguments about reasoning and experience and Kant's analytic and synthetic judgments.
| |
|
David Hume & Immanuel Kant, 1997.
Compares philosophers' theories on psychology, knowledge, perception, experience and causality.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 4 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" HUME & KANT
This research compares and contrasts the theories of knowledge of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. First, each philosopher's general views are discussed individually. Then their specific theories of knowledge are discussed individually. Finally, their theories are compared and contrasted.
David Hume was a philosopher and historian. He wrote A Treatise of Human Nature in 1739, which was considered his most important work for psychology; he later changed the beginning of the Treatise into what was called An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume defined his investigation as the science of human nature. He believed that people were natural objects in the world of nature which could be studied by methods of natural science. He believed that the operations of mental life could be.."
| |
|
Aquinas, Hume, Kant & Drug Laws, 1996.
Examines ethical & political philosophies & applies them indirectly to issue of drug legalization.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 4 sources, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Drug abuse is seen as a major social problem that has been the occasion for a massive effort on the part of the U.S. government to interdict drugs before they arrive in the United States, to use criminal sanctions to stop traffic in drugs in American communities, and to place a stigma on drug use so as to control it and to influence successive generations not to take up drug abuse in the first place. This effort has been very costly in terms of money and human suffering. The fact that drugs are illegal has created a vast underground market for them and has contributed to the rising crime rates in our communities as drug abusers steal and commit murder in order to get the money they need to purchase their drugs. The perception that the drug war has been a failure has contributed to calls for legalization..."
| |
|
Morality: Kant and Hume, 2004.
Compares Immanuel Kant's and David Hume's concepts of morality.
1,130 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison and contrast of the concept of morality and morals as expressed by philosophers, Immanuel Kant and David Hume. The paper also examines each philosopher's view of God.
From the Paper
"Hume believed that all knowledge was restricted to ideas or impressions, feeling that the mind was the sum total product of a host of perceptions accumulated over time. Other than what is directly observable there is no knowledge. Hume also believed that God could not exist because God is only an idea in the mind of man. Kant, in contrast, opposed Hume's skepticism and felt that pure reason was of use in understanding the world, however he challenged enlightenment thinkers because he did..."
| |
|
Kant versus Hume, 2007.
This paper argues in favor of Immanuel Kant's philosophical outlook over that of David Hume.
2,208 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the philosophical outlooks of Immanuel Kant and David Hume, with the author concluding that Kant's perspective is preferable. Kant's opinion on how one gains knowledge is contrasted with Hume's. Both perspectives on the contribution of experience to knowledge and the role of the "self" and a personal "world" are also considered.
Outline:
Introduction
Exposition
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In his principal book entitled, "The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals," Kant explains why only the categorical imperative is the valid standard of moral obligation (Abbott 2006, Richards 2006, McCormick 2006). He limits his discussion to specific willful actions in moral situations or conditions, where the will is, or should be, influenced only by reason or rational considerations, rather than by subjective or emotional considerations, such as laziness, convenience, or advantage . He writes that morality involves what actions are necessary and that concept comes only from reason or rational considerations. These rational considerations must, in turn, be a "single principle of obligation (Richards)." It must also be stated as a command and has no reference to, or weighed against, the consequences of the action. Kant then says that only the categorical imperative fulfills all these conditions (Richards, Abbott, McCormick)."
| |
|
Kant and Hume, 2002.
A look at how Kant attempts to solve Hume's problem.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the cause and effect problem that Hume elaborated on and the metaphysical beliefs of Kant in relation to the problem.
| |
|
Philosophy, 2002.
Examines and compares the works of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
David Hume and Immanuel Kant have both had tremendous impact on the field of philosophy. Their contributions, especially ?A Treatise of Human Nature? by Hume and the ?Critique of Pure Reason? by Kant are masterpieces in philosophical literature. Both of them have left their own novel ideas and concepts, which deeply influenced and gave a new understanding to domains as diverse as philosophy, politics and religion. This paper studies the ideas of Hume and Kant and presents a comparative study of their philosophies.
From the Paper
"Accumulation of knowledge is a process, which involves sensory input together with innate cognitive response. Kant argues that the operation of this cognitive faculty is very subtle and hence difficult to perceive. Kant identifies two separate forms of knowledge namely priori and posteriori. He defines knowledge, which falls beyond the realm of experience as a priori. What is a priori for a person might just be a posteriori for another person in a different period of time. That is to say that experience garnered by people in the past might just be accepted as priori by the future generation. (Impure priori). On the other hand a pure priori represents knowledge which is bereft of any empirical origins. Therefore ?knowledge a priory? is a combination of both pure priori and impure priori."
| |
|
Judgment of Taste, 2002.
Compares theories of judgment of taste as set forth by philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
1,062 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Both Immanuel Kant and David Hume hold that community, rather than merely individual response, plays a major role in the judgment of taste. Both Kant and Hume also hold that any single individual's judgment of taste is not superior over another's. The paper explains that for there to be a meaningful definition of "judgment of taste," there must be some measure which transcends limited comparisons between individual judgment. For these two philosophers, the author finds, this measure is in part in the thing being presented and perceived and in part in the community of individuals doing the perceiving and responding. Nevertheless, the paper shows that the best their grand thinking achieves is that judgment of taste is achieved only through some sort of positive consensus won by an object over a long period of time and, preferably, over several cultures as well. It argues that the fact that the works they refer to are exclusively by white European males does not support the argument about the importance of cross-cultural judgment.
From the Paper
"Still, even in such ideal circumstances, the individual will simply never be free of the "interest" which works to prejudice the individual's judgment on both the conscious and unconscious levels. If individual prejudice could be eliminated, of course, there would be no need for the philosophers to rely on the "community" aspect of the judgment of taste. The basis of this community aspect is a consensus, however Kant and Hume dress it up. If a work of art, for example, endures through generations and even centuries as an admired piece of work, as one which impresses the mind and stirs the emotions, then it can be said to have achieved a superior judgment of taste from the community."
| |
|
The Philosophy of Thinking, 2002.
The paper studies and compares some of the values and beliefs of philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
1,025 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper deals with the nature of knowledge and ideas. It begins by exploring Hume?s thoughts on the lack of connection between ?cause and effect?. Connected to these ideas, are Hume?s thoughts on substance, ?enduring objects? and their incompatible properties. Hume?s beliefs on substance are compared and contrasted with Immanuel Kant?s ideas on the same topic. Both philosophers? models of the thinking process are discussed. Kant?s analogy of the mind as a computer is explained in comparison to Hume?s definition of ideas as ?reproductions of sense-data?. The paper concludes with a discussion on the ?self? and Kant?s concept of The ?empirical ego?.
From the Paper
"David Hume believes that all ideas are derived and become knowable only from sense experience. From this standpoint, he rejects that we can know that every event has a cause, as he rejects the necessary connection between cause and effect, i.e., that the effect can proceed only from its cause. Just because something occurs after another on a regular and even observable basis does not mean that the former is the effect of the latter. To him, the effect may just happen without the connection to a cause. Not only is there more than one cause to an effect or more than one effect from a single cause, but also that certain causes to an effect ? and the effects of certain causes ? are still unknown in the world. The cause for cancer is one of these unknowns, although we are certain that there is a cause."
| |
|
Theories of Self, 2004.
This paper compares Hume?s and Kant?s theories of self.
1,905 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that both Kant and Hume argue that there is no sense of self, but that people only have an incorrect impression that there is one; while the outcome is the same, it can be seen that the method of arriving at the conclusion is different. The author points out that, in Hume?s case, the sense of self is rejected because there is no impression that can result in the idea of the self. The paper states that, in Kant?s case, the sense of self is rejected because the mind cannot experience itself or reflect on itself, since the self would have to be involved in that reflection.
From the Paper
"Hume also rejects the idea of the soul saying, ?nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment? (Hume, Book I, Part IV). Hume then goes on to explain why people tend to think they have a sense of self, by describing the tendency of the human mind to link things together. Hume?s theory is that the mind wants to link things, including wanting thought itself to be one linked item. The mind then invents the idea of a sense of self as a means of linking itself. In Hume?s view, this is a means of tricking oneself into believing that one?s thoughts are continuous, when in fact they are not. Overall then, in Hume?s view there is no real sense of self. Instead, there is just a bundle of impressions, which the mind tricks itself into believing is one continuously existing object."
| |
|
A Priori Knowledge, 2000.
An examination of the views of Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume and Kant on reality, meaning and significance of knowledge before experience.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 7 sources, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Philosophy has always been fundamentally concerned with the nature of truth and one's knowledge of reality. Its central demand is the autonomy of the individual person, that is, thinking for oneself about life, knowledge, religion, truth and reality. However, throughout the many centuries of human existence, different philosophers have formulated distinct approaches and theories with regard to these expansive abstractions. One philosophical principle that has been fervently debated by great minds through the years is the notion of "a priori knowledge". A priori knowledge is that knowledge which is acquired by the mind or reasoning alone, without any specific basis in experience (Lacey 112-113). A comprehensive analysis of the discordant views of several modern philosophers, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume and Kant, can more fully..."
| |
|
David Hume on Miracles, 2006.
A discussion of Hume's philosophy regarding life after death and miracles.
2,743 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 20 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper shows Hume's opinion that life after death does not exist, and neither do miracles. The writer discusses the influence Hume had on Kant and the differences between them. In conclusion, the writer explains how Hume protects himself from criticism of the church by stating that religion is founded on faith, and not on reason. The writer posits that the reason Hume left the Presbyterian seminary was because he knew he could not positively answer the final question before ordination: "Do you believe in God?"
From the Paper
"But how does Hume know that no one has ever been seen alive after having been seen to be dead? After all, there are plenty of reports of raisings from the dead in the Bible. Presumably Hume thinks all those reports are false. But how does he know that? It looks as if he is saying that they must be false because miracles just don't happen. In this case what Hume is using is circular logic. Miracles don't happen because there are no such things as miracle thus miracles can't happen.
"Hume puts no faith in human testimony either. In his opinion no amount or quality of human testimony could be sufficient to outweigh the negative evidence. He seems close to saying that you can know in advance, and without looking at any of the favorable evidence, that all miracle reports are false "
| |
|
Sartre vs. Plato and Kant, 2002.
This paper discusses what Sartre might say to Plato and Kant and then what would Plato and Kant respond to Sartre, explaining how their philosophies are both different and similar.
825 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper presents an imaginary dialogue among the philosophers Sartre, Kant and Plato. Neither Kant nor Plato would agree with Sartre. On the other hand, Sartre would not have agreed with them. Three different philosophers with different points of view concerning mankind and what is best for them is clearly presented.
From the Paper
"This is where Sartre would answered, ?There is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills and as he conceives himself after already existing.? Sartre would have discussed the principles behind existentialism. He would have retorted about the subjectivity of mankind. "
| |
|
Kant and Practical Reason, 1983.
This paper discuses Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals": ethics & morality are metaphysical in nature; ethics can be divided into empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge; compared to Aristotle and Hume.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Immanuel Kant begins his work, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, by dividing human knowledge into three branches: logic; physics; and ethics.He further divides ethics (which relates indirectly to reason), into empirical knowledge, and a priori knowledge. With reference to ethical behavior, the first term applies to sensuous experience, and the second to some inborn intrinsic knowledge. By making these distinctions Kant immediately alerts the reader that he finds morality and ethics to be metaphysical in nature. In other words, he finds some human concepts are simply consistent within themselves and must be excepted as such. For Kant, then, ethics, and therefore reason, are part of the human condition and have certain qualities that are ... "
|
|
|
