| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "KANT VERSUS HUME": |
|
|
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)."
| |
|
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..."
| |
|
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.
| |
|
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.
| |
|
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..."
| |
|
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.."
| |
|
President Versus Parliament, Proportional versus Pluralistic, 2000.
A discussion on how to elect leaders.
2,010 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 5 sources, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the two most common debates on how governments should be elected. Eastern Europe has been and continues to go through major, turbulent changes on its way to democracy. It became clear very early on that ?simply? sitting down and thinking of a new way to govern was going to take a very long time. One of the earliest problems that needed to be solved, besides how to govern, was how to elect the new government. The two most common debates, then, were ?President vs. Parliament? and ?Proportional Representation vs. Majoritarian (or Pluralistic) Representation?. This piece explores the merits and pitfalls on each side of both coins.
From the Paper
"Both supporters of a presidential system and supporters of a parliamentary system agree on several elements of the governing systems. First, the more centralized the system, the quicker things get accomplished. It takes a lot more time for a verbal argument to be presented and debated in an assembly than for one man?s synapses to fire in the decision making process. Behind the flagship democratic movement, Solidarity, was a single man, Lech Wal_sa, pushing decisions through. It is argued that this non-democratic form of decision making was necessary to achieve the desired result - that the end justified the means. Regardless, decisions were made quickly in response to the daily problems of mass strikes and city hall demonstrations. As for parliamentary systems, most scholars agree that strong, well-defined political parties are needed (Zielonka, 97). The world of parliamentary decision making is one of compromise and coalition. Without effective parties that reduce the number of shouting voices from hundreds to several, sessions of parliament can easily turn into personal ?slugfests?. Parties are just beginning to truly define themselves in Eastern Europe, emerging from the obsolete umbrellas that united them against a common enemy, and have not had the time to fully develop."
| |
|
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. "
| |
|
Emmanuel Kant, 2001.
This paper provides an overview of the life and works of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant and will attempt to understand how Kant's philosophy of reasoning deviated and synthesized that of his philosophical predecessors.
1,450 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 4 sources, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the life and works of the great philosopher Immanuel Kant and will attempt to understand how Kant?s philosophy of reasoning deviated and synthesized that of his philosophical predecessors.
From the paper:
Emmanuel Kant?s name is one of the bywords for intellectual rigor and ethics in philosophy. But an equally important part of the body of his work is Kant as a great synthesizer of the great philosophical writers of the pre-existing period. Rather than concentrate on Kant?s ethical judgements, this paper will attempt to understand how Kant?s philosophy of reasoning deviated and synthesized that of his philosophical predecessors. Such an understanding will better enable a reader to understand Kant?s ethical imperatives and the reasoning behind them
| |
|
Good versus Evil in the Bible, 2005.
An examination of the theme of good versus evil in the Bible, focusing on the battles of Horus versus Seth and God versus Lucifer.
1,466 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper follows the course of a legendary myth: "The Feud Between Horus and Seth". The writer examines this myth and finds the parallels to Christianity. It points out that even those who do not practice as Christians are well aware of the Bible's teaching of Lucifer, commonly known as the Devil, and God, a perfect example of good versus evil. The paper begins by reliving the myth of Horus and Seth, followed by the Biblical tale of the fall of Lucifer and the casting to Hell. It then looks at the aspects of these stories and explores commonalities that have transcended time and place to depict this constant struggle for one's very soul.
From the Paper
"There is no rebuke that religion has played at the forefront of the Earth's Religions over time. These Religions or belief systems have ranged in iconology and practice but common threads are clear and concise. Most notably is the idea of "Dualism". Merriam Webster defines Dualism as a "doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil." With this definition we can further elaborate of the meaning of the concept as an intricate balance, here of good vs. evil. This theme may be as widespread as civilizations needed to classify their residents and at the same time teach them the difference between good and evil. Egyptians used Mythology to educate their society on behavior and religion. Myths are based on rivalry or struggle of the Myths characters."
| |
|
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 ... "
| |
|
David Hume, 2004.
This is a paper that discusses the beliefs of the Scottish philosopher David Hume.
65,535 words (approx. 262.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 7,127.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses some of the ideas of the 18th century Scottish philosopher, David Hume. The writer examines Hume's concept of cause and effect. David Hume's use of reason versus experience is discussed in this paper. The writer also looks at Hume's view of religion.
From the Paper
"David Hume was an eighteenth century Scottish philosopher and historian. He believed that the biggest obstacle to improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences was what he referred to as the obscurity of the ideas and ambiguity of the terms. Hume argued that conventional definitions defining terms in terms of other terms create confusion by substituting synonyms for the original and thus never break new ground. Stephen Miller writing in "Wilson Quarterly" explains that Hume believed determining the cognitive content of a idea or term required ... "
| |
|
David Hume, 2002.
An examination of "Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason", an excerpt from "A Treatise of Human Nature" by David Hume, and a comparison of moral theories between Hume and J.L. Mackie.
1,923 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 1 source, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
According to Hume, morality is not a judgement about matters of fact. This paper analyzes Hume's philosophy and explains his basic arguments against the idea that moral pronouncements are judgments of reason. In addition, this papers analyzes the differences between Hume's philosophy and that of J.L. Mackie, who argued that there are no moral truths. Lastly, the paper identifies the manner in which one can agree with Hume, while not being a moral skeptic.
From the Paper
"I do believe that it is entirely possible for an individual to subscribe to Hume?s beliefs, without being a moral skeptic. While Hume, like all moral skeptics, denies the existence of objective moral values, he does not dismiss the concept of universal human sentiment. Often the notion of skepticism is little more than an abusive label, and at other times it is taken to mean only that one denies knowledge of some fact which most people accept. To say that Hume is a moral skeptic in either of these senses would, of course, be unpersuasive because similar charges could be brought against almost any moral theory."
| |
|
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 "
|
|
|
