Final EXam

User Generated




ANSWER all of these questions.. the book we were using for this class is Words of Wisdom: Introduction to Philosophy, by Jody Ondich (an Online Educational Resource)

Our textbook is located at this URL:

1a. You must explain both the causal adequacy argument from Meditation 3 and the ontological argument for God’s existence in Meditation 5. You’d do well to explain each separately and then develop what you see as their relationship beyond the fact that they both are arguments for God’s existence. What I am really asking is how is that they work together? You may equally draw from my notes and the primary readings of the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and the videos embedded in the Syllabus. How is this an example of Descartes’s rationalism? In fact what is rationalism? Explicitly define it (1.5 pages minimum).

1b. Define Hume’s empiricism. In Section 1 of the Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume is very suspicious of metaphysics? Why is he suspicious of metaphysics? You’d do well to show some textual support about what he thinks about religion and metaphysics from Section 1. Next, in Section 2, he talks about the origins of our ideas (which relates to the definition you just gave of Hume’s empiricism), where does the idea of God come from in Hume? Explicitly explain his argument. Who is right: Descartes or Hume? And when you judge who is right, you cannot simply appeal to tradition, how you were raised, but instead write from the perspective as to whom has the better argument. Recall we are students of philosophy. Give reasons for why you think Descartes or Hume has the better argument (1.5 pages minimum).

2. In section 3, Hume draws a distinction between relation of ideas and matters of fact. Explain them as the central distinctions in Hume’s epistemology. Next, compare and contrast where Hume thinks mathematical ideas come from with Descartes. Draw specific attention to Meditation 5 where Descartes is drawing a distinction between formal reality and objective reality. Why is it that mathematics exemplifies an innate idea for Descartes, but not for Hume? (1.5 page minimum).


3. Bonus Questions: You can do any of them or all of them (no limit). If you screwed up royally on previous exams, this will be a way to lessen the impact of those previous (possibly failing) efforts. At this point, you should gauge on your own how long it takes to answer each of these questions. As students, you may have to struggle on your own in future classes with what it truly takes to answer questions, so judge for yourself the length of response you want to give. As these are bonus questions, professors almost always expect the best with bonus work.

A: Is Existentialist ethics possible? Why or Why not? What is the most powerful idea in existential ethics? You’d do well to target some aspect in the online article.

B: Watch any of the later videos on the ontology of race that we didn’t get to. Do any of these answers explain the metaphysical nature of race? Why or why not? You’d do well to draw from your own lived-experience.

C: Explain the focus on love in The Letter from the Birmingham Jail (1963) and while it’s only somewhat obvious, draw out what King thinks of community and how love is related to justice. Is he right or is he wrong? You’d do well to cite passages that lend evidence to your interpretation of what King thinks that relationship is between love and justice as these two themes relate to community.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

hello this is question 1a am doing the others

The causal adequacy argument made from the third meditation is a philosophical theory
that was put in place by Rene Descartes and he proposed that what causes an object, must
contain substantial evidence as the object itself. The theory has been utilized to a great extent in
an attempt to prove the existence of God. In this concept, the thinker tends to sideline to answer
the question of whether indeed there is true God. This concept tries to explain that indeed god
exist and he is true. He did not belief so much on the definition of God to determine GODs
existence. This concept takes two different dimensions the first one being the proposal about the
ideas that are distinct and clear which focuses on the second meditation answering the question
of what makes an argument certain. The second dimension is to prove that fact that God exists.
The ontological argument for God’s existence that was developed by Anselm, mainly
focuses on the attempts to proof that indeed there is God to disapprove the people who tend to
believe that there is no god. This concept of philosophy tends to show that indeed God is a being
that is superior to the living beings.
Both of the arguments though at different levels if meditations, they seem to be trying to
solve the puzzle of explaining who god is and proving his existence in the universe. Descartes
tend to believe more on the innate ideas and the clear and distinct ideas. He does not rely on
God’s definition in order to prove gods existence. On the other hand, Anselm tend to believe in
the innate definition of god to prove his hypothesis. The relationship between the two in the poof
of Gods existence is that they cannot be separated from each other and they need to be looked
altogether as one concept.

Rationalism is whereby, a person tends to explain their ideas and actions on knowledge
and their own reasoning rather than the application of the emotional response or religious beliefs
in the explanation of the concept. Descartes argu...

Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.


Similar Content

Related Tags