Descartes Free

Descartes Free Will Essay In Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes attempts to explain the cause of errors in human beings. Descartes says that error occurs since the will extends further than the intellect (Descartes p. 39). Thats because our intellect is something that is finite; it is limited to the perception of only certain things. Whereas our will, ability to choose is not limited; it is has an infinite capacity. Therefore we sometimes attempt to will things which we do not have a complete understanding of. Descartes argument, as I will briefly describe, is quite sound, if you agree to all his conditions (being that the intellect is limited and the will infinite). I am not, as of yet, sure if I necessarily agree to the later of his two conditions. I will strive to evaluate different discernments of what will is, and if it is truly free. Then apply it to his argument. But first let me explain Descartes argument on the causation of errors. Descartes discussion begins in saying that errors depend on the simultaneous concurrence of two causes: the faculty of knowing that is in me and the faculty of choosing (Descartes p. 38). I will first tackle the faculty of knowing, or intellect. Descartes says that it merely perceives and understands ideas, which can later have judgment passed on them (see Descartes p. 38). The intellect is limited and finite because it can occur in different degrees. While some people have a simple understanding of a language others have a mastery of its grammar and syntax. But no one can have a mastery of all the mysteries of the universe. Then there is the faculty of choosing, as Descartes calls it, or rather the will. Descartes says that he experience[s] that it is limited by no boundaries whatever (Descartes p. 38). It is seen as infinite because unlike the intellect is does to adhere to different grades. It exists merely as a matter of being able to do or not to do something; to affirm or deny something proposed by ones intellect (see Descartes p. 38). In some cases ones will is unable to make such a decision, Descartes says, not because of a fault in the will but rather because the intellect is lacking complete knowledge of the situation (see Descartes p. 39). It is here that one should be indifferent to passing judgment. If in such a instance indifference is not the outcome an error is most likely to occur. Descartes says that this error will occur only when both work together because alone they cannot produce error. Thats because intellect, in and of itself, only perceives ideas which one knows and error would only occur if one tried to perceive ideas he did not know, which is impossible. The other, the will, in that it acts of itself, is only a utility of choice which alone cannot error. Therefore error and sin occur when both intellect and will work with each other. It is the disproportion between the limit of the will and the intellect that causes blunders. The will, as Ive stated, is a limitless aspect of ourselves and therefore can pass judgment on any proposition brought forth. But the intellect can only clearly perceive and understand very few propositions. As Descartes says it is where I extend it (the will) to things I do not understand (Descartes p. 39) that error is caused. Thats because one is, instead of acting indifferent, passing judgment on things that are not clear in the intellect. A person can easily then turn away from the good and truth given to our intellect by God and partake in sin and deceit (see Descartes p. 39). The finally area that Descartes adds is that in some instances a person can pass judgment on things that arent understood and not produce an error. In those cases the person has still acted in an incorrect manor, but it is just be chance that the correct choice, or judgment was made (see Descartes p. 40). It is here that I have concluded Descartes argument and will now attempt to seek answers to my own questions: If the will is in fact as free as Descartes speaks? If it is actually comparable to that of Gods? And if its ideal state is the same as that of practical use? The first aspect I would like to navigate through is the constraints placed on the ability to choose. One does not have the opportunity to choose freely in an organized society, community or institute. There seems to always be a restriction to the actual amount of choices one has. If Descartes was correct in his assumption of complete freedom of choice and will every option would be available to someone at any given time, in any given situation. But this is not necessarily the condition. There are a few different examples that one can view to comprehend this facet of my argument. Take for instance, perhaps an extreme but an occurrence none the less, people born of poverty do not have the ability to choose to acquire certain things. It is impossible simply by the fact that they do not have the means to get it. There is no choice of purchasing a fifty dollar object if all one has is twenty dollars. I feel though that perhaps Descartes was speaking of another free will, a non-materialistic aspect. Another example one can then try to explain is how in many middle eastern nations individuals are born into a society where one religion is forced upon them. They must live to follow this religion or risk outcast by the community or even death. In such a decision one does not have the opportunity to choose to not follow the religion because, although it may seem available, most choices against the norm bring with them an extreme consequences. Is there really a free will if one knows a consequence to be so evil, or heinous that they really have no choice but to go with the other option. On the other hand if Descartes was strictly speaking of free will in the sense of judgment and affirmation another option arises. One should have the ability to, in a sense, will something even if its not available to him. For example if a person has been convicted of a crime and is going to be sent to prison he can will that he doesnt have to go. Although here is seems that willing something is almost in a way the same as wishing it. But if it does follow that free will is only involved in passing judgment then a person can will whatever they want in their own mind, it doesnt mean necessarily that they will receive it. But one again this illustration is somewhat similar to my previous two, in that, if in actuality a choice will provide no outcome is the choice even there and if not its a limited faculty. The definition of limitless qualities that Descartes affiliates with the will is something that is questionable as well. Descartes, in a sense, contradicts himself when he says that he can see mans image and likeness to God in the ability to choose because both are infinite (see Descartes p. 38). But then says that the faculty of willing is incomparably greater in God than it is in me because of the power and knowledge God uses with it (ibid). So I ponder then if the ability to will cannot truly stand on its on, because by Descartes definition it passes certain judgment on something else, and that something in God is greater, how can one be equal to God. How can His infinite ability be greater than mans infinite ability. By definition there are no degrees of infinite, there is only finite or infinite, limited or limitless. In such a practical aspect I must appeal to my reason and then say that we cannot have an equal will to that of Gods. I say this because Gods willing can partake on any area of knowledge and have a boundless consequence over many things. Where as mans cannot. As I said, that was my practical deduction of our will in comparison to Gods. I was sure to state practical because I do feel there is a great difference between ones free will in a practical sense and an ideal sense. Actually in the practical sense I will be so bold as to say ones will is not free at all. All the examples I have given are practical uses of the will. And all of these examples seem limited for a number of reasons. As I already pointed out, I felt that the comparison between mans will and God will not be equal because in practice will cannot stand unaccompanied. That is why the will is not free or infinite in a realistic way because it never stands by itself. It relies on other faculties that, as Descartes even says, are limited which in turn make it limited. Therefore when people are faced with choices, like in my examples, not all the options are available because of a lack of knowledge or perhaps a constraint placed on someone from his society. If the will was able to stand alone I would agree that it is an infinite faculty but it doesnt. Hence I must also reason that the will Descartes speaks of is not the will that can be used in practice but rather it is an ideal will. In this ideal state people would be able to will anything they wanted, although they would most likely not receive it. In an ideal state I would have been able to will that I did not have to do this paper and not receive and F on it, but I very well know that would not have been possible. But the acting of willing alone would be free and infinite. I now must apply what I have learned to Descartes original argument of error. Since I have concluded that the ability to choose, or will that Descartes speaks of is ideal, this causation of error would also be ideal. Descartes said that when one should be acting indifferent to things and does not is when errors or correct choices by luck occur (see Descartes p. 39). Ideally this would be true, but in actuality many things lead to errors, and prevention of errors as well. Of course I do agree that in many cases mistakes are made because of people make judgments on things they have lack of knowledge of. But errors and sin can also occur when people have no other choice. For instance if a person is held at gun point and told to do something he may very well be passing a false judgment on something he has total knowledge of and in turn acting in error. From the other side of the argument Descartes says that to prevent himself from ever erring he must follow his feeling of indifference and stick with it instead of attempting to affirm or deny something (see Descartes p. 41). But I must also add to this argument that society does place constraints on things to prevent people from committing errors. Therefore it is not entirely internal. So I will conclude with saying that I have no choice but to say, from my reasoning, that in Meditation on First Philosophy Descartes speaks of a very ideal situation which would, in that state, hold true. But in the practical world ones perception cannot be so narrow because there are many facets that contribute to what we can do and why we can do them. Works Cited Descartes, Rene. (1993). Meditations on First Philosophy . translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Corp.

Actions of Goneril in Shakespeares King Lear Essay example -- Shakesp

Actions of Goneril in Shakespeare's King Lear Whenever the issue of power allocation arises, there usually emerge a few individuals who, given only a moderate amount of authority, overstep their bounds to exert more dominance than they rightfully own; such is the case with Goneril. Yet, although Goneril certainly errs in betraying the very father that bestowed a large dominion upon her, King Lear deserves much of the blame for Goneril's haughtiness. After grossly misinterpreting the reticence of his heretofore prized daughter Cordelia, Lear divides his kingdom between the mendacious Goneril and the scheming Regan, thereby leaving the fate of the land at their unskilled mercies. Naturally, Goneril relishes her newfound control, so when Lear comes to visit her with all of his knights in tow, she perceives him as encroaching upon the power that he has since relinquished. Additionally, Goneril notes (albeit in an exaggerated manner) the inconvenience that she incurs by housing these hundred men. Despite the outrage that one mig ht feel at the thought of a daughter mistreating h...

The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists – Review

I intend to review â€Å"The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists† by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. The reason for choosing this article for review is simply because of its relevance today throughout the Middle East and how the American foreign policy is drastically changing the dynamics of the world. Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine â€Å"provided the key rationale for the Iraq War. This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling fashion. The previously supported neoconservative project has been fatally wounded through its invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine does in fact â€Å"represent an abrupt and unprecedented shift in American foreign policy. â⠂¬  The United States of America had been the most influential nation in the entire world (â€Å"land of opportunity†), with its huge military force and dominate economic position, but with this doctrine came a wave of unexpected anti-Americanism.Schmidt and Williams make reference to Morgenthau and his struggles to â€Å"to convince American foreign policy officials of the dangers of conceptualizing the national interest in universalistic moral terms. † I agree with his mind-set that the Iraqi invasion was â€Å"national-suicide† and bruised the image of America worldwide. His vision that spreading democracy would result in disaster may have been pessimistic but was completely accurate. American realists were right from the offset; they believed that it was â€Å"unnecessary and counterproductive to invade Iraq. † And in hindsight they were extremely correct.However they failed to â€Å"steer America away from the road to war. † If all the eviden ce was weak, vague, and â€Å"baseless† , why did realists fail to persuade the public that the invasion would prove to be disastrous? This is what Schmidt and Williams set out to solve. One of the most chilling yet accurate quotes of the article is: â€Å"their wisdom only taking flight at dusk—when most of the damage has already been done. † It was important to publish these ideas to demonstrate how gullible the American public (and even Congress) were in following the Bush administration to war and to ensure that this aggressive strategy is never repeated.It was also important to publish this article to illustrate the future implications of the Iraqi war on the U. S foreign policy. Schmidt and Williams use different methods throughout the article to reach their conclusions. They state and evaluate the arguments that realists adopted in order to defer America from invading Iraq. They also demonstrate the tactics used by neoconservatives to undermine and defeat realists in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The authors engage in these different methods to reach conclusions as to why realism ultimately failed in the Iraqi debate.The subjects in this article are visibly neoconservatives and realists. It is clear from this article that neoconservatives and realists share a very different outlook. One of the most accurate yet sombre quotes is: â€Å"As Mearsheimer sees it, realism quickly unravels the neoconservatives' faulty logic and explains the current reality of the Iraq situation. † This statement oppresses me as it was too late to materialize and fight against the decision to invade Iraq. The authors draw on John Ikenberry and his belief that terrorists â€Å"â€Å"cannot be deterred because they are either willing to die for their cause or able to escape retaliation. This is a brilliant quote used by Schmidt and Williams in this article as it shows the apparent ruthlessness of these ‘terrorists’. They use elements o f the Bush Doctrine to demonstrate the tactics used by neoconservatives to persuade the American public towards supporting the invasion of Iraq. Drawing on these elements is a very intriguing technique and draws the reader in. The authors point out from the offset that the Bush Doctrines goal was for the United States â€Å"to preserve its hegemonic position for the indefinite future. † This is a brash statement demonstrates neoconservative’s belief in a unipolar America.By referring to the Bush Doctrine in this article the authors demonstrate the idealistic notions of neoconservatives and their belief that America â€Å"leadership as a prerequisite for an orderly and peaceful world. † The authors use a brilliant quote to depict the neoconservatives ultimately naive and unipolar view that ‘one-size fits all’: â€Å"American hegemony is the only reliable defence against a breakdown of peace and international order. † The authors cleverly repro duce a metaphor used by Mearsheimer: â€Å"Wilsonism with teeth† which brilliantly depicts neoconservatives’ absolute belief in unilateralism and America being the sole superpower.It captured my attention as a reader drawing me in to the article. Schmidt and Williams make reference to Walt’s argument: â€Å"how can other states be comfortable and secure when U. S. decisions affect all of their interests, and when the United States is strong enough to act pretty much as it wishes? † This is a brilliant rhetoric question which draws the reader in. Through the use of rhetoric question the author’s emphasis their point that the United States do in fact pose a huge threat to the rest of the world. The authors use impeccable language to express their point that neoconservative and realist views are in direct contrast.Alliteration (‘p’ repetition) is used in the following sentence which, in my opinion as a reader, draws the audience in becaus e of its dramatic and memorable effect: â€Å"Rather than a prescription for peace, as most realists maintain, neoconservatives view balance-of power politics as both unnecessary and a hindrance to achieving American national interests, while America's preeminent position in the world obviates the need for traditional balance-of-power diplomacy. † Schmidt and Williams state that realism â€Å"lacks any view beyond narrowly strategic material calculation, narrowly pragmatic judgment, or pluralist competition. I agree with this statement, realists to carry a very pessimistic, strategic view. This is not suitable in modern politics due to globalization. In my opinion the major weakness of the article is that Schmidt and Williams fail to give a solid resolution to the problem and how to restore America’s image abroad and how to improve the future of the US foreign policy. In the conclusion Schmidt and Williams ask the all-important question: â€Å"can realism make its an alytic positions politically powerful? † In my opinion the answer is yes but only if realists develop their ideas to suit the modern world today.Traditional realism has most definitely surpassed, however, following the full failure of the Bush administration, realists will be called upon in order to guide the American foreign policy and restore its pride and glory that took centuries to build. In my essay I reviewed the article â€Å"The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists† by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. I decided to illustrate the main theme at the start of my essay and explained why I thought it was important that these ideas were published.I followed by explaining the author’s methodology and described the basic results from their research. I proceeded by declaring the articles strengths and weaknesses, particularly focusing on the writing skills used by Schmidt and Williams. Finally, I reviewed the conclusion. I found t his article particularly interesting and thought provoking. I have always been exposed to the heroic attributes of America because of the propaganda media broadcasted; however, Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams illustrate a quite unbiased view of the nation and the possible future implications of the U. S foreign policy.

The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B Dubois Essay - 3329 Words

The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B Dubois The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B Dubois is a influential work in African American literature and is an American classic. In this book Dubois proposes that the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line. His concepts of life behind the veil of race and the resulting double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at ones self through the eyes of others, have become touchstones for thinking about race in America. In addition to these lasting concepts, Souls offers an evaluation of the progress of the races and the possibilities for future progress as the nation entered the twentieth century. The Souls of Black Folk, is a collection of autobiographical and†¦show more content†¦Washingtons acceptance of segregation and his emphasis on material progress represent an old attitude of adjustment and submission. Du Bois asserts that this policy has damaged African Americans by contributing to the loss of the vote, the loss of civil status, and the loss of aid for institutions of higher education. Du Bois insists that the right to vote, civic equality, and the education of youth according to ability are essential for African American progress. Du Bois relates his experiences as a schoolteacher in rural Tennessee, and then he turns his attention to a critique of American materialism in the rising city of Atlanta where the single-minded attention to gaining wealth threatens to replace all other considerations. In terms of education, African Americans should not be taught merely to earn money. Rather, Du Bois argues there should be a balance between the standards of lower training and the standards of human culture and lofty ideals of life. In effect, the African American college should train the Talented Tenth who can in turn contribute to lower education and also act as liaisons in improving race relations. Du Bois returns to an examination of rural African American life with a presentation of Dougherty County, Georgia as representative of life in the Southern Black Belt. He presents the history and current conditions of the county. Cotton is still the life-blood of the Black BeltShow MoreRelated W.E.B. DuBois The Souls of Black Folk Essay674 Words   |  3 PagesW.E.B. DuBois The Souls of Black Folk W.E.B. DuBois, in The Souls of Black Folk describes the very poignant image of a veil between the blacks and the whites in his society. He constructs the concept of a double-consciousness, wherein a black person has two identities as two completely separate individuals, in order to demonstrate the fallacy of these opinions. J.S. Mill also describes a certain fallacy in his own freedom of thought, a general conception of individuals that allows them toRead MoreThe Souls Of Black Folk By W.E.B Dubois Is About The Development1345 Words   |  6 PagesThe Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B Dubois is about the development of the African American race since slavery. Dubois makes an analysis of what African Americans went through – how they struggled, and despite all the barriers, how they survived. He also includes personal stories of his family and childhood days. The purpose of this analysis was to alert his race that this is what African-Americans need, and not what Booker T. Washing ton was proposing at the time. At their time, the stakes were highRead More W.E.B. DuBoiss Thoughts on Education Essay740 Words   |  3 PagesW.E.B. DuBois’s Thoughts on Education The Souls of Black Folk, written by W.E.B DuBois is a collection of autobiographical and historical essays containing many themes. DuBois introduced the notion of â€Å"twoness†, a divided awareness of one’s identity. â€Å"One ever feels his two-ness – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled stirrings: two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keep it from being torn asunder† (215). There are many underlying themesRead MoreW.E.B Dubois Thoughts on Education Essay762 Words   |  4 PagesW. E. B DuBoiss thoughts on education The Souls of Black Folk, written by W.E.B DuBois is a collection of autobiographical and historical essays containing many themes. DuBois introduced the notion of twoness, a divided awareness of ones identity. One ever feels his two-ness Ââ€" an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled stirrings: two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keep it from being torn asunder (215). There are many underlying themesRead MoreThe Souls Of Black Folk780 Words   |  4 Pagesislands of the sea† (W.E.B DuBois). This is part of the theme in the novel The Souls of Black Folk, which is based on an actual story/ autobiography of an African American leader, W.E.B DuBois. The narrator DuBois writes about race relations in the United Sates distributing the color-line. The color-line is the fundamental issue of racial conflict between the blacks and whites. It deals with the inequality and disparity of living in America as an African American. W.E.B DuBois coined the term color-lineRead MoreB. Du Bois928 Words   |  4 Pagesbeen nothing but a nigger.† -W.E.B Dubois On February 23, 1868 in a small town of Great Barrington, Massachusetts one of the greatest leaders in African American history was born. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, better known as W.E.B. Du Bois is one of the greatest scholar, writer, editor, and civil rights activist. Many civil rights leaders and other important black leaders and role models see W.E.B Du Bois as the father of the Civil Rights Movement. W.E.B Du Bois paved the way for manyRead MoreThe Negro And Signs Of Civilization1188 Words   |  5 Pageswar era. W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington are considered by historians, two of the prominent leaders of the black community in the late 19th and early 20th century who sought inclusion and equality through social and economic progress. While their end goals were the same, the means in which they utilized their platforms and their philosophy on how best to accomplish this varied. Among other accomplishments, DuBois’ efforts in the civil rights agenda to the founding of the NAACP. DuBois advocatedRead MoreJean Booker T. Washington. B. Dubois1358 Words   |  6 PagesChloe Thompson Ms. Webster English III H 5B 5 May 2015 W.E.B DuBois One of the late 19th century and early 20th century’s most prominent black empowerment leaders was W.E.B DuBois. In research it is clear that DuBois was not subtle to one job or career choice. As a civil rights activist, educator, sociologist, historian, writer, editor, scholar, and poet, DuBois contributed to changing American society today. DuBois is mostly remember for his work with the NAACP and his notorious feud with civilRead MoreThe B Dubois s Impact On American Society904 Words   |  4 Pages5B 4 May 2015 W.E.B DuBois One of the late 19th century and early 20th century’s most prominent black empowerment leaders was W.E.B DuBois. In research it is clear that DuBois was not subtle to one job or career choice. His main goal was to improve the lives of African Americans. As a Civil Rights activist, sociologist, educator, historian, writer, editor, poet, and scholar, DuBois contributed to changing American society today. On February 23, 1868, William Edward Burghardt DuBois was born to AlfredRead MoreThe Souls Of Black Folk By. B. Dubois1080 Words   |  5 PagesIn The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. DuBois, DuBois argues his point-of-view on racial tensions in the south during and after Reconstruction. DuBois was a key figure African-American historian and civil rights activist in his time leading and defending his fellows African-Americans. One of DuBois’s themes ranges on race relations developed after Reconstruction in the south. DuBois elaborates on the overwhelming divide between the white population and the black population in his chapter about race