philo drafts

docx

School

Western University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2700

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MegaMetalFish27

1. Pierre Bayle was a philosopher who critiqued the orthodox Christian view on the existence of evil. He argued that the presence of evil in the world posed a serious challenge to the notion of an all-powerful and benevolent God. In his work, he criticized the orthodox view and proposed a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between God and evil. The orthodox view posits that God created the world as perfect and harmonious, but human sin and disobedience introduced evil and suffering into the world. However, Bayle contended that this explanation fails to account for the existence of natural evils that afflict innocent people, such as earthquakes, floods, and diseases. These types of evils cannot be attributed to human sin or disobedience, and it is difficult to see how they could be reconciled with the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Bayle also questioned whether the existence of free will could be reconciled with the orthodox view. If human disobedience and moral failing introduce evil into the world, then this would imply that God is either unwilling or unable to prevent evil. This would contradict the notion of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Bayle argued that if God were truly benevolent, he would not allow evil to exist in the world. Therefore, the existence of evil challenges the very notion of an all-powerful and benevolent God. In contrast to the orthodox view, Bayle suggested that the existence of evil could be seen as an opportunity for God to show off his qualities. Without evil, God would not have the chance to demonstrate his power, justice, and mercy. Bayle acknowledged the existence of human free will, which can lead to moral evils, but also recognized the presence of natural evils that cannot be attributed to human sin or disobedience. He argued that these natural evils can be seen as an

opportunity for God to show his divine qualities through providing comfort, solace, and relief for those who suffer. Bayle also distinguished between moral and physical evil. Moral evil arises from human actions, while physical evil comes from natural disasters, diseases, and accidents. He argued that while moral evil may be a result of free will, physical evil cannot be attributed to human choices. Bayle suggested that the existence of physical evil could be seen as an opportunity for God to show his benevolence and mercy through providing comfort and relief for those who suffer. Overall, Bayle rejected the orthodox view and proposed a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between God and evil. He argued that the existence of evil is a mystery that cannot be fully explained by human reason. Bayle suggested that a more humble approach was needed, one that acknowledged the limits of human reason and held out hope for a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. He proposed that without evil, God would not be able to demonstrate his divine qualities and that the existence of evil could be seen as an opportunity for God to show his benevolence and mercy through providing comfort and relief for those who suffer. Bayle's critique of the orthodox view highlights the difficulties of reconciling the existence of evil with the notion of an all-powerful and benevolent God. He suggested that a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between God and evil was needed, one that recognized the potential for evil to serve as an opportunity for God to demonstrate his qualities. Bayle argued that the existence of evil should not be seen as a challenge to the existence of God but as an opportunity for God to show his benevolence and mercy. The Manichean hypothesis is a dualistic philosophy that posits the existence of two equal and opposing forces: one good and one evil. These forces are in constant conflict, and the world

is a battleground for their struggle. This worldview is in stark contrast to the orthodox Christian view, which posits a single, all-powerful God who is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the world. Bayle believed that the Manichean hypothesis offered a more satisfying explanation for the existence of evil because it acknowledged the power of evil as a force in the world. He argued that the Manichean view allowed for the existence of evil as an independent and powerful force that was not merely a result of human sin and disobedience. This meant that the problem of evil could not be easily explained away by attributing it to human failings. Furthermore, Bayle believed that the Manichean hypothesis provided a more realistic view of the world. He argued that the existence of evil was too powerful to be dismissed as a mere result of human sin and disobedience. By acknowledging the reality of evil, the Manichean hypothesis offered a more honest and accurate view of the world. Bayle also saw the Manichean hypothesis as offering a more satisfying answer to the problem of evil than the orthodox Christian view. He believed that the orthodox Christian view failed to provide a satisfying answer because it required an all-powerful God to allow evil to exist in the world. In contrast, the Manichean hypothesis posited that the forces of good and evil were in constant struggle, and that this struggle was an essential part of the world. This meant that the existence of evil did not challenge the power or benevolence of God, but rather was an inherent part of the world as it existed. Overall, Bayle believed that the Manichean hypothesis offered a better explanation for the existence of evil than the orthodox Christian view. He saw the Manichean view as providing a more honest and accurate understanding of the world, while also allowing for the possibility of redemption and the eventual triumph of good over evil. While Bayle's views were controversial

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

and were not widely accepted in his time, his critique of the orthodox view and his advocacy for the Manichean hypothesis helped to pave the way for new ways of thinking about the problem of evil. Bayle rejected the Manichean hypothesis for several reasons. Firstly, he argued that the Manichean belief in the coexistence of good and evil was incompatible with the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God. Bayle believed that if God was all-powerful and all-good, then evil should not exist in the world. He also believed that the Manichean belief in the separation of the spiritual and material worlds was overly simplistic and did not adequately explain the complexities of human existence. Secondly, Bayle argued that the Manichean view was based on a false dichotomy between the forces of light and darkness. He believed that this dualistic view was overly simplistic and did not take into account the nuances of human nature. Bayle believed that human beings are capable of both good and evil, and that the forces of light and darkness are not absolute, but rather exist on a continuum. Thirdly, Bayle rejected the Manichean hypothesis because he believed that it was based on mythological and superstitious beliefs rather than rational inquiry and evidence. Bayle believed that religious beliefs should be subjected to critical analysis and evaluation, and that they should be tested against empirical evidence. In conclusion, Bayle rejected the Manichean hypothesis because he believed that it was incompatible with the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God, that it was based on a false dichotomy between the forces of light and darkness, and that it was based on mythological and superstitious beliefs. Bayle's rejection of the Manichean hypothesis was part of his broader

skepticism and criticism of religious dogma and his commitment to rational inquiry and evidence-based thinking. Full question Bayle presents a case against the orthodox view of God's attributes and the problem of evil. Bayle argues that the Manichaean position is better supported and provides a more satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. However, he ultimately does not accept Manichaeism as a definitive answer to the problem of evil, acknowledging that the mystery of evil may be beyond human comprehension. The orthodox view of God's attributes holds that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good. This view presents a problem when confronted with the existence of evil. How can an all-powerful and wholly good God allow evil to exist? Bayle argues that the orthodox view cannot account for the existence of evil, and therefore, it is not a satisfactory explanation. Bayle's critique of the orthodox view of God's attributes is twofold. First, he argues that if God is all-powerful, then he must be able to prevent evil. If God is all-knowing, then he must be aware of the existence of evil. If God is wholly good, then he must be motivated to eliminate evil. The existence of evil, therefore, is incompatible with the orthodox view of God's attributes. Second, Bayle contends that the orthodox view of free will is problematic when confronted with the existence of evil. The orthodox view holds that God created human beings with free will, and therefore, humans are responsible for the evil in the world. However, Bayle argues that this view does not account for the existence of natural evil, such as earthquakes, floods, and diseases. These types of evils cannot be attributed to human free will. In response to the problem of evil, Bayle turns to the Manichaean position. Manichaeism is a dualistic religion that holds that there are two opposing principles, one good and one evil.

The good principle is associated with light, spirit, and the soul, while the evil principle is associated with darkness, matter, and the body. The two principles are in eternal conflict, and the world is the battleground for this conflict. Bayle argues that the Manichaean position is better supported than the orthodox view. First, the Manichaean position acknowledges that evil is not created by God, but rather is the result of a cosmic conflict. This view allows for the existence of evil without impugning God's goodness. Second, the Manichaean position provides a more satisfactory explanation for the existence of natural evil. Natural disasters and diseases can be attributed to the conflict between the two principles, rather than being the result of human free will. Despite his preference for the Manichaean position, Bayle ultimately does not accept it as a definitive answer to the problem of evil. He argues that the Manichaean position is not necessarily true but rather a plausible alternative to the orthodox view. Bayle contends that the problem of evil is a mystery that cannot be resolved by human reason alone. He suggests that we must accept the limitations of our understanding and recognize that there may be things beyond our comprehension. In conclusion, Bayle presents a strong case against the orthodox view of God's attributes and the problem of evil. He argues that the Manichaean position provides a more satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil. However, Bayle ultimately does not accept Manichaeism as a definitive answer to the problem of evil, acknowledging that the mystery of evil may be beyond human comprehension. Bayle's discussion of the problem of evil raises important questions about the nature of God, free will, and the existence of evil

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2. Present the attempted ‘optimistic’ justification of the institution of slavery and Cugoano’s criticism of such defenses. What does Cugoano mean by ‘insensibility’ and how is it likely exacerbated by philosophical optimism? - For cuogano, insensibility refers the the utter ignorance and blindness to the evil that is associated with slavery - Those who are directly involved with the trafficking of africans are evidently blind to how wrong their actions are - The same thing applies for those who are involved in the actual business aspect of slavery, such as the operators of the forts, the merchants who profit from slavery indirectly, and those who are in the best position to rectify and perceive the evil but instead choose to ignore it - When talking about the people in power, he discusses how these people have the ability to use slavery to benefit themselves and ignore the harm they are causing to the slaves. Also how they have so much power to let their views be promoted to society but ignore the evils of slavery - He explains that the only way the people benefitting from the slave trade are okay with slavery is through insensibility because being okay with it completely contradicts their moral values, and contradicts Christianity - He argues that he people who possess this insensibility and ignorance are the greatest villains in the world, because they are treating fellow humans in such a way. - Cuogano also questions how this insensibility can exists when the evil from slavery is so easy to identify.

- He also discusses that in some cases excessive greed is the reasons why people practice slavery, but he believes that there is a bigger underlying factor that promotes this insensibility that leads to people being okay with slavery. - So despite the fact that it exists, cuogano questions where the insensibility comes from. - The reason why it exists is because of philosophical optimism. - According to the optimistic view, (Leibniz, best of all possible worlds). Slavery is part of the world, so it makes it acceptable. - According to cuogano, philosophical optimism leads people to deny the existence of evil - wIth this mindset, people who see any form of evil will immediately say that it’s really a good thing from the perspective of the whole world. - Cuogano argues that any amount of goodness doesn’t justify the evil that is committed through slavery, and all it does is enhance the insensibility that people posess. It gets rid of true moral instincts and our reactions towards evil - Optimism weakens the sense of what is wrong and fuels ignorance of this. . 3. Rousseau writes that “the moral part of love is a factitious sentiment, engendered by society, and cried up by the women with great care and address in order to establish their empire, and secure command to that sex which ought to obey” (Second Discourse, p. 109). Explain, in detail, how Astell might respond to this. Mary Astell, an early feminist philosopher, would take issue with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's claim in his Second Discourse that "the moral part of love is a factitious sentiment, engendered by society, and cried up by the women with great care and address in order to establish their empire, and secure command to that sex which ought to obey." Astell's views on love and marriage were deeply influenced by her feminist philosophy, and she wrote extensively on the corruption of marriage, the benefits and purpose of marriage, and why marriages fail.

Astell believed that marriage could be a source of great benefit or harm, depending on the way it was entered into and conducted. She argued that the purpose of marriage was not just to satisfy physical desires or social expectations but to foster a deep emotional and spiritual connection between partners. According to Astell, the primary benefit of marriage was the ability to achieve moral and intellectual growth through the shared pursuit of knowledge and virtue. She believed that a good marriage required mutual respect, trust, and a commitment to personal growth and self- improvement. However, Astell was highly critical of the way in which marriage was often corrupted by societal expectations and gender roles. She believed that women were often forced into marriage for economic or social reasons, rather than out of genuine love and respect for their partners. This corrupted view of marriage was harmful to women, who were denied the opportunity to pursue their own interests and talents, and were forced to subordinate their desires and needs to those of their husbands. Astell would disagree with Rousseau's claim that the moral part of love was a factitious sentiment engendered by society. She believed that the moral dimension of love was not simply a product of social construction but rather a natural and innate human emotion. Love was a complex emotion that had both personal and moral significance, and it was essential to human flourishing. Astell would also take issue with Rousseau's assertion that women were solely responsible for promoting the moral part of love. She believed that both men and women were responsible for cultivating the moral dimensions of love and that they should do so through mutual respect, trust, and a shared commitment to personal growth and self-improvement. Astell believed that marriages often failed because of a lack of mutual respect and understanding between partners. Women were often treated as inferiors in marriage and were expected to submit to their husbands' will without question, which created an unhealthy power dynamic that undermined the emotional and spiritual connection between partners. In addition, marriages failed because of a lack of intellectual and emotional compatibility between partners. Astell believed that couples should be intellectually and emotionally compatible and should share a deep commitment to personal growth and self-improvement. Without this shared commitment, marriages were doomed to fail. In conclusion, Mary Astell's views on marriage and love were deeply influenced by her feminist philosophy and her belief in women's education and empowerment. She believed that marriage could be a source of great benefit or harm, depending on the way it was entered into and conducted. Astell argued that love was not a factitious sentiment but rather a natural

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

and innate human emotion that had both personal and moral significance. She believed that both men and women were responsible for cultivating the moral dimensions of love and that they should do so through mutual respect, trust, and a shared commitment to personal growth and self-improvement. 4. Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers of the 18th century, believed that all attempts at theodicy have been failures. Theodicy is the attempt to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. Kant believed that any attempt to justify the ways of God to human beings would ultimately fall short, and he had strong criticisms for philosophers who tried to do so. In this essay, I will focus on Leibniz, one of the philosophers whom Kant criticized, and how Kant's ideas of counterpurposiveness apply to Leibniz's theodicy. 5. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German philosopher who believed that the world was the best of all possible worlds. He argued that God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, created the world in the best way possible, and that evil and suffering were necessary for the greater good. Leibniz's theodicy rests on the idea that the world is a perfect reflection of God's goodness and wisdom, and that everything that happens is part of a greater plan. He believed that everything in the world was purposeful, and that even the most seemingly terrible events were ultimately for the best. 6. Kant strongly criticized Leibniz's theodicy, arguing that it was impossible to prove that the world was the best of all possible worlds, or that evil and suffering were necessary for the greater good. He believed that Leibniz's theodicy relied too heavily on the idea that everything in the world was purposeful, and that this idea was ultimately flawed. Kant argued that the world was full of examples of things that were counterpurposive, meaning that they seemed to serve no purpose at all. He believed that these examples showed that the idea that everything in the world was purposeful was simply not true. 7. Kant's idea of counterpurposiveness is an important part of his critique of Leibniz's theodicy. He believed that Leibniz's theodicy relied on the idea that everything in the world was purposeful, but that this idea was ultimately flawed because there were too many examples of things that seemed to serve no purpose at all. Kant argued that there were many things in the world that were counterpurposive, meaning that they did not seem to serve any

purpose at all. For example, he argued that earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters were counterpurposive because they caused immense suffering and seemed to serve no greater good. He also argued that many human actions were counterpurposive, such as acts of cruelty and violence. 8. Leibniz might respond to Kant's criticism by arguing that everything in the world is purposeful, even if it is not immediately apparent to us. He might argue that earthquakes and other natural disasters are part of a greater plan that we cannot understand, and that they are ultimately for the best. He might also argue that acts of cruelty and violence are the result of human free will, and that they are necessary for us to learn and grow as individuals. Leibniz might also argue that Kant's idea of counterpurposiveness is ultimately flawed, and that there is a purpose to everything in the world, even if we cannot see it. However, Kant would likely argue that Leibniz's responses to his criticisms do not address the fundamental flaw in his theodicy. Kant believed that the idea that everything in the world is purposeful was simply not true, and that this idea was at the heart of Leibniz's theodicy. He believed that the existence of counterpurposive things in the world was proof that not everything in the world was purposeful, and hat this undermined Leibniz's argument that the world was the best of all possible worlds. Kant believed that Leibniz's theodicy was flawed not only because it relied too heavily on the idea of purposefulness, but also because it failed to address the problem of evil in a satisfactory way. Kant argued that the problem of evil was a fundamental challenge to the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God, and that any attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the idea of God would ultimately fail. In conclusion, Kant's critique of Leibniz's theodicy is grounded in his belief that the world is full of examples of things that are counterpurposive, meaning that they seem to serve no purpose at all. Kant believed that this undermined Leibniz's argument that the world was the best of all possible worlds and showed that the idea that everything in the world was purposeful was ultimately flawed. While Leibniz might argue that everything in the world is purposeful, even if it is not immediately apparent to us, Kant would likely argue that this response does not address the fundamental flaw in his theodicy. Kant believed that the existence of counterpurposive things in the world was proof that not everything in the world was purposeful, and that this undermined Leibniz's argument that the world was the best of all possible worlds. Furthermore, Kant believed that the problem of evil was a fundamental challenge to the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God, and that any attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the idea of God would ultimately fail.

9. Kant ’ s criticism of theodicy also relates to his idea of limited human knowledge. Kant believed that human beings are limited in their understanding of the world, and that we cannot comprehend the purpose of everything in the world. Kant argued that we cannot fully understand the nature of God or the reason for the existence of evil. According to Kant, the fact that we are limited in our understanding means that any attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God is ultimately futile. 10. Kant believed that human beings are limited in their understanding of the world, and that we cannot comprehend the purpose of everything in the world. According to Kant, the fact that we are limited in our understanding means that any attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God is ultimately futile. 11. Kant ’ s critique of theodicy remains relevant today, as the problem of evil is still a major challenge to religious belief. Kant ’ s ideas about the limits of human knowledge and the concept of counterpurposiveness are also important for understanding the problem of evil. Kant ’ s critique of theodicy shows that the problem of evil is not easily resolved, and that any attempt to do so must take into account the limitations of human understanding. 12. 13. 14. 15. B 16. J ean-Jacques Rousseau is a prominent thinker of the 18th century who has contributed greatly to the development of modern political philosophy. His work "Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men" (commonly referred to as the second discourse) has sparked numerous debates among scholars, particularly regarding Rousseau's overall philosophical outlook. While some consider Rousseau an optimist, others argue that he was a pessimist. This essay will present reasons for each side of the debate. 17. On one hand, some scholars view Rousseau as an optimistic thinker. They argue that he believed in the potential for human beings to live in a state of harmony and that society could be

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

organized to create a more equitable and just world. For instance, in the second discourse, Rousseau argued that humans were naturally good, but that societal institutions had corrupted them. He believed that by returning to a more primitive, natural state, humans could rediscover their innate goodness and live in a more harmonious society. According to this perspective, Rousseau was an optimist because he believed that a better world was possible. 18. Moreover, Rousseau's optimism is seen in his emphasis on the idea of the social contract. According to this concept, individuals voluntarily enter into a contract with society to give up some of their individual rights in exchange for protection and the promotion of the common good. This view suggests that humans have the capacity to work together towards a common goal, which is an optimistic view of human nature. In addition, Rousseau's belief in the power of education and its ability to transform individuals and society also suggests an optimistic outlook. For Rousseau, education could help people overcome the corrupting influence of society and promote a more harmonious way of life. 19. On the other hand, other scholars argue that Rousseau was a pessimist. They point to his emphasis on the destructive influence of society and the inevitability of conflict between individuals and groups. In the second discourse, Rousseau argued that society had created inequality, which in turn created conflict between people. Moreover, he argued that human beings were essentially selfish, which would lead to further conflict and strife. According to this view, Rousseau's pessimism stemmed from his belief that society was fundamentally flawed and that humans were unable to overcome their base instincts. 20. In addition, Rousseau's views on the nature of humanity also suggest a pessimistic outlook. In his view, humans were inherently flawed and corrupt, and it was only by returning to a more primitive state that they could rediscover their innate goodness. This view suggests a deep skepticism about the potential for human beings to improve themselves and their societies. Moreover, Rousseau's belief in the power of education to transform individuals and society may also be viewed as pessimistic because it suggests that people need to be "fixed" rather than seeing the potential for individuals to change themselves. 21. In conclusion, the debate over whether Rousseau was an optimist or a pessimist remains a contentious one. While some scholars argue that his emphasis on the potential for humans to live in harmony and his belief in the power of education suggest an optimistic outlook, others argue that his emphasis on the destructive influence of society and his views on the inherently flawed nature of humanity suggest a more pessimistic perspective.

Ultimately, the interpretation of Rousseau's work will depend on one's own philosophical and political outlook. Nietzsche's distinction between the Apollonian and Dionysian principles can be understood in light of Schopenhauer's distinction between will and representation. While Schopenhauer viewed the world as being divided between the will, which is the driving force behind all action, and representation, which is the world as we experience it through our senses, Nietzsche saw the Apollonian and Dionysian principles as two complementary forces that together make up the human experience of art and culture. The Apollonian principle is associated with the god Apollo, who was the patron of reason, logic, and order. The Apollonian principle represents the drive towards clarity, form, and structure. In terms of Schopenhauer's distinction between will and representation, the Apollonian principle can be understood as representing the realm of representation. This is because the Apollonian principle is concerned with creating clear and defined representations of the world around us. It seeks to create order out of chaos, to impose structure where there is none, and to create a sense of stability and control. The Dionysian principle, on the other hand, is associated with the god Dionysus, who was the patron of wine, revelry, and ecstasy. The Dionysian principle represents the drive towards passion, intensity, and emotion. In terms of Schopenhauer's distinction between will and representation, the Dionysian principle can be understood as representing the realm of will. This is because the Dionysian principle is concerned with the raw, primal forces that drive us to action. It is the realm of emotion and instinct, where we are moved by forces that are beyond our control. Nietzsche saw the Apollonian and Dionysian principles as two complementary forces that are necessary for the creation of art and culture. He believed that the Apollonian principle provides the structure and form that is necessary for the creation of art, while the Dionysian principle provides the passion and intensity that gives art its power and meaning. Nietzsche characterized these principles in this way because he believed that they were fundamental aspects of human nature. He saw the Apollonian and Dionysian principles as existing in a state of tension with one another, with the Apollonian principle providing a sense of order and stability, and the Dionysian principle providing a sense of energy and vitality.

Nietzsche's understanding of these principles is distinct from Schopenhauer's in several ways. While Schopenhauer saw the world as being fundamentally divided between the will and representation, Nietzsche saw the Apollonian and Dionysian principles as two complementary forces that work together to create the human experience of art and culture. Additionally, while Schopenhauer saw the will as being a fundamentally destructive force that drives us towards suffering and pain, Nietzsche saw the Dionysian principle as being a source of joy and vitality that is necessary for human flourishing. In terms of how the Apollonian principle is related to representation and how the Dionysian principle is related to will, it can be said that the Apollonian principle is concerned with creating clear and defined representations of the world around us. It seeks to impose order and structure on the chaos of the world, creating a sense of stability and control. The Apollonian principle is associated with the world of form and appearance, where things are clear and distinct. The Dionysian principle, on the other hand, is concerned with the raw, primal forces that drive us to action. It is associated with the world of emotion and instinct, where we are moved by forces that are beyond our control. The Dionysian principle is related to the will because it is the realm of passion and desire, where we are driven to act by the powerful forces of instinct and emotion. The first illusion that von Hartmann identifies is that we think we are already happy. This illusion arises from our tendency to focus on the positive aspects of our lives while ignoring the negative. We often think that we are happy because we have achieved certain goals or possessions that we have been striving for. However, von Hartmann argues that this is an illusion insofar as a more reasoned look at our lives reveals that happiness is not possible. He contends that the very nature of human existence is one of suffering, and that happiness is always fleeting and ultimately unattainable. Despite the fact that this illusion is not grounded in reality, it serves an important purpose. It gives us hope and a reason to continue living. If we believed that happiness was not possible, we might be inclined to give up and stop striving for anything. However, by believing in the illusion of happiness, we are motivated to continue living and striving for the things that we believe will bring us happiness. If we were to overcome this illusion, we would have to face the harsh reality that happiness is not possible. This realization could be devastating, leading

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

to a sense of hopelessness and despair. However, it could also be liberating, allowing us to focus on other aspects of life that are meaningful and fulfilling. The second illusion that von Hartmann identifies is that we think that happiness is possible in the other world and that the after-life is the promise of that happiness that is denied to us in the world. This illusion arises from our belief in an afterlife or a spiritual realm where we will be reunited with loved ones and live in eternal bliss. We often see this belief expressed in religious teachings that promise a reward for a virtuous life. This illusion serves an important purpose in giving us hope and a sense of purpose in life. It helps us cope with the suffering and injustices of the world by providing a belief in a better future beyond this life. However, von Hartmann argues that this is an illusion insofar as there is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife or spiritual realm. Moreover, he argues that this belief can be dangerous because it can lead us to neglect our responsibilities in the present world in favor of a future that may never come. If we were to overcome this illusion, we would have to face the fact that there is no afterlife or spiritual realm. This realization could be terrifying because it would mean that there is no hope of a better future beyond this life. However, it could also be liberating because it would allow us to focus on making the most of our lives in the present world. The third illusion that von Hartmann identifies is that if happiness is not possible now and there is no after-life, then happiness is possible in the future. This illusion arises from our belief in progress and the idea that humanity as a whole can progress and obtain happiness in the future. We often see this belief expressed in the idea of utopia, a perfect society where all people are happy and fulfilled. This illusion serves an important purpose in giving us hope and a sense of purpose in life. It motivates us to work towards a better future and to strive for social and political change. However, von Hartmann argues that this is an illusion insofar as there is no evidence to support the idea of progress or the possibility of a utopian society. Moreover, he argues that this belief can be dangerous because it can lead to a neglect of the present and an over- reliance on the future. If we were to overcome this illusion, we would have to face the fact that happiness may not be possible in the future. This realization could be disappointing, leading to a sense of hopelessness and despair. However, it could also be liberating because it would allow us to focus on making the

most of our lives in the present and to appreciate the joys and pleasures that life has to offer. In conclusion, von Hartmann identifies three illusions that keep us alive: the illusion of happiness, the illusion of an afterlife, and the illusion of progress. These illusions serve an important purpose in giving us hope and a sense of purpose in life, but they are illusory insofar as they are not grounded in reality. Overcoming these illusions would require us to face some harsh realities, but it could also be liberating by allowing us to focus on making the most of our lives in the present world.

philo drafts

Related Documents