Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was not only a philosopher but also a mathematician and scientist. As a philosopher, he used skepticism as a misbegots of finding the truth of each(prenominal). His idea was to dubiety e rattling issue, and in precariousnessing e trulything, anything that couldnt be doubted was definite.
I impart doubt everything that can possibly be doubted, he reasons, and if anything is left, then it will be absolutely certain. (Moore/Bruder 93) This, Descartes felt was the only way to find truth and k right awayledge. This method was to take away all the authority in everything that was taught to us, what we sense and retrieve, and the things we take as being obvious. To sincerely determine if we know anything is for certain we must doubt it all disregarding all we knew about it before. So everything we currently believe is open to discussion and can be betokenioned.
Descartes Method of Doubt incorporated two well-known contemplates, a pipe dream conjecture and the fiendish giant conjecture. What the dream conjecture is, is the notion that everything that is reality might unsloped be a dream. Adding to the dream conjecture, is the evil demon conjecture. This evil demon conjecture, in essence, is the concept that if this all [reality], is reason equal a dream, then perhaps t here(predicate) is an evil demon that is deceiving our minds with these absurd images of reality. So, we cant assume that our bodies or that anything of our experience exists
and can be swear to be true. For everything we know could be just a dream and not real at all and controlled by a deceiver.
No, Descartes was not out of his mind. He was aw ar that these two conjecture he composed sounded far-fetched. However, that was the whole point. Descartes was on a quest to find certainty in...
You begin your essay with a top out description of who Rene Descartes is, and then you proceed to explain his philosophical theories, which ar certainly recondite, limpidly and simply so that even those with check philosophical knowledge can understand his tenets and,hopefully, expound upon the oerview that you drop them by doing their own research. After successfully recapitulating the theories in the tree trunk of your paper, you do a wonderful job of analysis and synthesis as you look at them slowly and c arfully, pointing out the flaws (such as circular reasoning, etc.) that exist. The only fuss that I see in the essay is that you switch from writing in the third base individual (which is typically used for acadmeic essays) to the first person, as you speak from a personal point of view during your argument. You should not sire that change, carry yourself to the forefront, but continue to generalize by speaking from the third person (the thing or person being verbalize about.) present is an example altering one of your clock times : Instead of The problem I find in his distinct and clear theory is Descartes proofread of Gods existence. First of all, in that sentence, you do not ache to even state Descartes name. It is tautological. You already used the antecedent he which takes the place of Descartes. You could have just taken Descartes out of the sentence and it would have made sense. At any rate, the important thing is to change the structure of the sentence from first to third person. Here it goes: The problem in Descartes distinct and clear theory is proof of Gods existence. When you do this, you make it seem that the problem is categorical, that is to say, it cannot be disputed- THERE IS A PROBLEM, and THERE IS NO DENYING IT. When you use I, you lose credibility because you argon not an expert, and the reader assumes that you are the only one questioning Descartes ideologies and nobody else.
Those are just a few of my remarks about the paper.
I hope they are of assistance to you. The paper, overall, is excellent, especially for your educational level.You show a mint candy of promise. Read copiously and write often, and you will write highly competently one day.
P.S. Do not worry about people who rate your essays poorly and refuse to leave comments. They are just being spiteful. They do not understand what constitutes satisfactory writing or bad writing, so they do not say anything for fear that their ignorance will be exposed. Your teachers comments should take anteriority over those of anonymous adolescents. They are the experts. If you extremity to be able to competently adjudicate your own papers, so that you can match the validity of others responses to your writing,it is important that you start reading books teaching you the multifaceted criteria that constitute good writing so that you can make the progression from the theoretical to the empirical, and also detect problem areas in your writing and others writing with consummate ease. Hope to hear from you soon.
Not many another(prenominal) people have rated this essay so what do you mean theyre rating it all bad!! besides this is a very well written essay. I think tachycardic4u says most of what valued to say - and yeah Im one of those with limited philosophical knowledge. However, I am always interested in reading essays akin these, I have a friend who studies Philosophy so I get to read a few now and again.
Anyway, back to your essay, well done - it made an interesting read.
Another interdict rating that I dont understand. Did I misunderstand my topic? Im very curious where I am going wrong and why my professors seem to give me dainty grades. Are they being over generous? I would like to know where I am going wrong. Im one sad girl over here :( I thought I did a pretty decent job overall. At least Id appreciate some explaination for the negativity.
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment