| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MORAL VIEWS GOD ROLE PHILOSOPHER": |
|
|
Moral Views, God and the Role of the Philosopher, 2002.
Various essays discussing the views of famous philosophers about morals, God, and the philosopher's role in society.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Three essays which discuss how the moral view of Kant differs from the views of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas; what problem is encountered with belief in God in Elie Wiesel's "Night" and Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor"; and what role the philosopher plays in society as depicted by Plato in his Apology, "Crito", and "The Republic".
| |
|
Descartes' Views On God, 2002.
Examines his ontological argument (a priori) and 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
His ontological argument (a priori) and 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence. Concept of perfection. Proofs of God's existence. Examining the reality of God. Descartes' belief in God the Giver and Creator. Free will of man as proof. Differences between existence of God & essence of God. Flaws in Descartes' reasoning.
From the Paper
"Descartes and God
"More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question" (Hutchins 543). It is a fact that, long before Descartes, Man often thought of himself as the supreme being of the Universe, and still obedient to, or believing in, or trusting some superhuman Being called God.
While for millennia, philosophers have debated the idea or ideas of God, Descartes states that "ONE idea alone, becomes the basis for such an inference. He supplements his a priori or ontological argument with what he calls 'a posteriori demonstration of God's existence from the mere idea that God exists in us'" (Hutchins 554). God exists, Descartes writes, because "He possesses every sort of perfection…(and) existence is one of them" "
| |
|
Leibniz's View of God, 2006.
This paper analyzes Leibniz's view of God and the compatibility of suffering and evil.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 0 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer examines the basis of Leibniz's views on evil and its compatibility with God that have been brought forth in this study. By analyzing the Monadology and Theodicy of Leibniz, one can understand the arguments in relation to unity of the universe and why God plays a central role in defining the good in relation to what is evil. The writer points out that also by comparing and contrasting the views of Descartes and Spinoza, one can realize the different forms of causality in relation to creationist ideology and why Leibniz argues for the good of God to superimpose all natural laws or points.
From the Paper
"In this philosophical study, the issue of God and the compatibility of evil in the ideology of Leibniz will be examined and analyzed. By realizing the logical omnipotence of God as a being of 'good', one can realize how evil and suffering are compatible in Leibniz's philosophy. By understanding Leibniz's Monadology and Theodicy, the basis for God's existence can be explained through comparing and contrasting Descartes and Spinoza. In essence, Leibniz seeks to make God compatible with suffering and evil in this philosophical analysis. The basis of Leibniz's philosophy in the Monadology is directly related to object that exist within the cosmos. In this manner, Leibniz found that if two comparable objects were the same, they were unified by their defining principles."
| |
|
Anne Bradstreet's and Johnathan Edward's View of God, 2002.
A short paper outlining the differences and similarities of 'God' as imposed by Johnathan Edwards and Anne Bradstreet.
720 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following paper discusses views of 'God' with reference to Anne Bradstreet?s 'Upon the Burning of our House', and Jonathon Edward?s 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God'. This paper compares their views and tries to interpret what each author means by a particular sentence.
From the Paper
"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God conveys an extraordinarily unique viewpoint of God. According to Edwards, we are all sinners by nature; it is our most forth standing trait, despite our ongoing efforts to counter it. Throughout his sermon, he goes on endlessly about how God is so merciful to us, and without his mercy we would be thrown to the deepest depths of hell by the very earth itself. What was so deplorable to the people when they first heard it, was that Edwards alleged that all this time that they had thought they had been good Christians, they were in fact sinning against God; all the while they thought they were going to Heaven, they were actually destined for Hell, and there was naught they could do to stop it. (?You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing that you have done, nothing you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment.? Edwards, 121.) So, essentially, they were screwed, and it was too late to do anything, you are all going to hell in a hand basket, have a nice Sunday. Edwards wanted to make religion almost a physical experience, and with reports of people fainting and weeping openly without abandon, I would have to say it seems as if he accomplished his task. I only wonder if perhaps a few of his followers turned to Agnosticism or Atheism after such an oration?"
| |
|
View of God, 2007.
This paper examines the idea of human beings as manifestations of God.
1,520 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer maintains that the idea that human beings are manifestations of God is not just a New Age platitude, because it has serious implications for the healing professions. The writer notes that nurses who cultivate this attitude can help their patients develop more constructive attitudes toward their illness or discomfort. Moreover, the writer claims that patients who embody the notion that they are manifestations of God can use their subconscious mind for healing, as Joseph Murphy suggested in his classic book 'The Power of Your Subconscious Mind'. The writer discusses that the science of unitary human beings also demands that health care practitioners take into account issues related to family background, culture, ethnicity, religion, and personal taste. The writer concludes that when viewed as manifestations of God, all human beings will be treated equally.
From the Paper
"These two theories share several features in common, although they were developed separately. Murphy did not focus exclusively on the healing professions. He suggested that the same mental tools and attitudes could be applied to all areas of one's life: a unitary principle in itself. Rogers' science of unitary human beings was applied specifically to the nursing field and applies equally as much to the practitioner as to the patient. Both Murphy and Rogers present a humanistic vision of the universe but one that does not presume human superiority. Rather, human beings are viewed as integral parts of a vast universe of interrelated life forms. One of the core tenets of Rogers' philosophy is diversity. No two people are alike. The needs and backgrounds of individuals differ greatly, allowing for a panoply of divine manifestations. Inherent in this idea is a paradox: God is both unity and multiplicity. Similarly, human beings are simultaneously unified and diverse."
| |
|
Five Questions Utilizing Views from Different Philosophers, 2002.
This paper addresses five questions from the views of classic philosophers. Human nature and human advantages can be investigated according to the theories of various philosophers, yet in many respects the views of a specific philosopher can best be used
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper addresses five questions from the views of classic philosophers. Human nature and human advantages can be investigated according to the theories of various philosophers, yet in many respects the views of a specific philosopher can best be used to define and describe a particular circumstance. This paper first presents the five questions and then addresses these questions according to the two theories that best suit that given circumstance.
| |
|
Philosophical Views on Knowledge, 2005.
This paper looks at the views of David Hume and Rene Descartes regarding the subject of knowledge.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 0 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the writer outlines the philosophical views of David Hume and Rene Descartes. The writer points out that quite simply, Hume believes that humans experience what can be properly called knowledge and he rebuts the notion that human testimony about "miracles". The writer notes that Descartes may be the father of modern philosophy, but his work is riddled with inconsistencies that make him hard to follow. In any event, the writer explains that Descartes cleaves to a view that knowledge and truth may - or may not - come from an external and omniscient power.
From the Paper
"Hume, as is well known, is an inductionist (it may be said that he is an empirical inductionist) and he holds that knowledge is derived from experience. Hume does not believe that human beings can, by mere inference alone, divine that one pool ball hitting another pool ball will move the second of the two. A priori reasoning will not lead us to the truth of things; that can only be found by examining and observing. He adds that anything that is not proved by experience is mere custom or habit (or superstition). In the end, we can only arrive at true knowledge through inductive reasoning; in other words, we derive fundamental principles from the observation of particular facts or instances."
| |
|
Philosophers Views on Religion, 2001.
This paper analyzes the views of the origins of religion as explained by Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Edward Tyler.
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the writings of these philosophers and their views on how religion came about. Their opinions are compared and contrasted.
From the Paper
"Freud?s ideas on the origin of religion are expressed in his work The Psychology of Everyday Life. In this work he argues that religion is largely ?nothing but psychology projected into the external world,? naming religion as a type of paranoia. Freud expands on these ideas in The Future of an Illusion where he explains the origin of religion in more detail. Freud argues that organized religion has nothing to do with truth and instead reflects the trauma of human life. This trauma is caused by humans being aware that the end for them will be death and there is nothing they can do about it. Religion, Freud argues is created to offer people an illusion that life is controllable."
| |
|
Philosophers' Views On Abortion, 2002.
Specultates that Aristotle and Plato would likely have been opposed to abortion as not morally permissable.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Speculates that Arittotle and Plato would likely have been opposed to abortioin as not morally permissable. Discusses the ethical arguments of Aristotle, and his moral philosophy: good of the individual vs. good of the community. Plato's moral philosophy. His emphasis on community over the individual. What determines moral and just acts. Role of the State.
From the Paper
"Both Plato and Aristotle would likely be opposed to abortion, based on The Republic and Nicomachean Ethics, respectively. There are ideas in Aristotle's ethical arguments which might allow more leeway for the act of abortion than is found in Plato, but in general the great weight of both philosophers' arguments would seem to be against abortion as not morally permissible.
Neither man discussed abortion directly, which makes this study speculative. Considering Aristotle's golden mean, and his greater emphasis on freedom for the individual as opposed to the power of the state, one might find room for some behavior which would not be permissible in the more strict moral world of Plato as described by Socrates. In addition, a feature of Aristotle's moral philosophy is the tenet that every individual believes his..."
| |
|
God and Morality, 2007.
A discussion on whether without God there would be any morality.
1,437 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the arguments for and against the notion that without God there can be no morality. Arguments include the humanist angle from the philosopher Peter Singer and also individualist notions from Kant. The views of other philosophers such as Plato, Keirkegaard and Dostoevskii are also examined as well as religious textual examples.
From the Paper
"If an act is to be considered good merely because God decided it was so, then ethics are completely arbitrary. God easily could have decided that the horrific and monstrous acts such as paedophilia and rape were virtuous, and ergo, by definition they would be 'good' acts. However, I believe that "God is not...an instrumental means for acquiring independent goods" . Instead of basing morality on the fallible nature of theistic belief, why not base morality on observed consequences. Start, instead from the position that many people hold, that "a wrong act is one that manifestly harms others or their interests, or violates their rights or causes injustice" This view provides the underlying thinking behind and is prevalent within, all major human rights legislation, with the notion of God and morality, never being mentioned. "
| |
|
Morality and the Loss of God, 2002.
This is a personal essay examining and analyzing arguments about both the good and bad of today's morality, a value-system that is generally without God's influence.
1,015 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 0 sources, APA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is an essay which discusses God and morality. It looks at how God is viewed by different people. The author disagrees that a lack in faith in God has contributed to the country's current moral fibre, and argues that while moral standards and looser values are in existance today, but they are a result of the influence of the mass media and dissolution of the nuclear family, and not because of absence of a God-based society.
From the Paper
"The negative effects of the loss of God are just as crucial to understand in discussing God and morality. These have often been overlooked by those who welcome all things new and better at whatever cost. The fact that society has lost the perception of harmony and unity created by divine guidance means that it can be argued that there are no universal morals left in the world. The acceptability of certain acts that were considered immoral before bothers many of us, and the term "liberalization" is often used in society when we really mean that we are without common norms of behavior or values."
| |
|
The Philosophical Argument for God, 2005.
A comparison of the philosophical argument for God, as discussed by Michel De Montaigne, Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 3 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This comparative essay looks at the thought of Michel De Montaigne, Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal, with regards to the nature of God. The thesis states that all three men argued in favour of the existence of God, but had different ways of arriving at this conclusion. The paper describes that for Montaigne it was through scepticism, for Descartes through doubt and for Pascal through blind faith.
From the Paper
"The Philosophical Argument for God France in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries was a devout country of the Catholic Christian faith. At this time, as across Europe, learned men began to question not just the Catholic Church, as Luther's reformation inspired, but of God himself. Yet, the predominant orthodoxy was to support the existence of God, either through philosophy or just plain faith. Montaigne, Descartes and Pascal all alike affirmed the existence of God. Each though had their own unique method. For Montaigne this existence could be found through skeptical philosophy, and ultimately the divine revelation God has given to us."
| |
|
God as a Moral Judge, 1997.
A comparison of the novel "Crime and Punishment" and the film "Crimes and Misdemeanors".
1,295 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An analysis of how Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Woody Allen portray the role of God in the Universe in their book and film respectively. In both cases the main characters, Raskolnikov and Judah, act as a godlike figure by allowing themselves to make a decision as to who has a right to live and who should die. They finally find their place in a godless universe. Woody Allen's view is influenced by his own Judaism. Allen emphasizes that people stray from this righteous path and allow themselves to be their own moral dictators. People do not need God to relieve themselves of remorse, for in the end the guilt goes away on its own. In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov finds happiness in the religious beliefs Sonya presents to him. His recovery from his conflict in a world he saw as godless is aided by the very deity he once scoffed.
From the Paper
"The novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and the movie ?Crimes and Misdemeanors? by Woody Allen both present the creator?s views on the presence of God in the universe. The main character in each piece, Raskolnikov and Judah, respectively, experiment with their role in what they feel is a godless universe. In both cases they act as a godlike figure by allowing themselves to make a decision as to who has a right to live and who should die. After a moral struggle they both come to terms with their position in the universe. Dostoyevsky chooses to have Raskolnikov find peace with Sonya?s religious convictions, while Allen chooses to allow Judah to rationalize his decision in what he decides is a godless universe. These final decisions regarding God?s presence are reflective of the creators? opinions."
| |
|
Philosophical Conceptions of God, 2001.
2,710 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 2 sources, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An overview of the different conceptions of God in Western philosophy, as found in the Bible (specifically, the Book of Job) and the writings of Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, and Nietzsche, with an emphasis on proving God's existence and God's characteristics.
From the Paper
"A majority of philosophers see God as a dependent factor to achieving ?the good.? Although some philosophers feel God is detrimental to achieving ?the good,? the majority believes God is essential to achieving a healthy soul. While Saint Thomas Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God, philosophers such as Kant and DesCartes expand this belief by expressing that ?our ultimate good is to be in relation to God.?
| |
|
Gods Before God, 1999.
A study of the development of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
1,944 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Modern Judaism is usually considered a monotheistic religion - it has as its central tenet the belief in only one God, and the denial of the existence of all other gods. However, the Hebrew Bible is not a modern document, and it contains different conceptions of God and his relation to other gods. In places, the Hebrew Bible supports monotheism, but in other places it does not. This paper examines the various conceptions of God and other gods in the Hebrew Bible, how these conceptions changed over time, and the possible influences from sources outside the Israelite tradition, including Egyptian, Canaanite, and Iranian.
Outline:
Origins
Pre-Exile
Exile
Post-Exile
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In the early, pre-exilic period, the Israelites were still forming as a people, and were substantially influenced by Canaanite religion and culture. Yahweh was still a somewhat local deity, tied to the land and the temple. After the destruction of the temple and during the exile, the Israelite religion had to broaden to survive, and God became more transcendent, omnipresent, and monotheistic. The Israelites also had to differentiate themselves from the people they were living among, in order to keep their religion and culture whole. When the exile ended and the temple was rebuilt this movement continued: God became more universal and the Jewish people became more exclusive. The religion has become thoroughly monotheistic, although in late post-exilic times it starts to develop a sense of dualism that was absent earlier, and is a result of Iranian influences (Widengren, 311)."
|
|
|
