Philosophy  Essays

Emmanuel Levinas (1988, p.176): "The essential problem is: can we speak of an absolute commandment after Auschwitz? Can we speak of morality after the failure of morality?"

    The philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas (1988a) asserts that the annihilation of the Jewish people in German extermination camps such as Auschwitz during the Holocaust from 1933-45 questions ethics, in that Auschwitz raises the philosophical problem as to whether there is "no reason for morality ... or [whether] the moral law maintains its authority" (pp.175-6). This essay will attempt to solve the problem outlined in the essay topic by briefly looking at the external context of Levinas's work which gives rise to the philosophical problem; analysing the questions contained in the essay topic; looking at the assumptions which underlie them; and the reasons why the Holocaust and Auschwitz impact profoundly on Levinas's philosophical thought. In order to solve the philosophical problem outlined by Levinas, this essay will further define the philosophical tradition and look at its character; briefly summarise the main points and implications of the theories of justice of Levinas and Rawls, both of whom advocate a rethink of justice; and conclude whether or not the philosophical tradition is at an end. Should it not be at an end, this essay will further look at what explanations ethics can provide for the Holocaust by briefly looking at theories regarding the origins of evil and examine how philosophy may be able to deal successfully with events such as the Holocaust in the future. This will lead to the thesis that, although we live with a failure of morality, ethics is not illusory and further, that whilst Levinas's theory of justice can be seen to constitute an epistemological break with the philosophical tradition and Rawls' theory of justice can be seen as gradual change, both theories, in a sense, complement each other and point to a "change in ideas [within the philosophical tradition which] can be seen as a complex organic process" (Dunphy-Blomfield 1992, p.27) in that philosophy may continue in a different form as a consequence of the epistemological break with the philosophical tradition brought about by the Holocaust.
© 1998 Deakin University

Click here to read full essay  (108kb) |

All Essays | Search Google

Descartes (1996, p.12) writes, "I will devote myself sincerely and without reservation to the general demolition of my opinions". Why would anyone want to do such a thing? Would it be reasonable to do so?

    In the 'First Meditation' of his work Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes (1596-1650) writes "I will devote myself sincerely and without reservation to the general demolition of my opinions" (Descartes 1996, p.12). Questions arise as to why anyone would want to do such a thing and whether it would be reasonable to do so. This essay will attempt to answer these questions by firstly looking at the external context of Descartes' work, the reason why he believes it is necessary to embark on his project of attempting to provide the sciences with a new indubitable foundation, the reasons why anyone else may want to follow in Descartes' footsteps, the rationale of his methodology for conducting the inquiry and then discuss the issues which arise from it as well as whether it would be reasonable for anyone else to adopt it. It will further examine whether Descartes achieves the aim of his project by having a brief look at, and discussion of, his proofs of the existence of God to determine whether it is reasonable for him to utilise this methodology. This will lead to the thesis that although Descartes may not have been, strictly speaking, successful in achieving his aim of setting the sciences on a firm footing, he set the sciences on a different footing in that true knowledge can now be acquired by reason rather than from the senses which not only enables him to get on with science but the emerging modern societies in general.
© 1999 Deakin University

Click here to read full essay  (78kb) |

All Essays | Search Google

Why is contemplation so highly regarded by Aristotle?

    In the Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) provides an ethical model as to how humans should live and, in particular, he asserts that humans ought to aspire to leading a contemplative life. This essay will examine the question why contemplation is highly regarded by Aristotle by firstly having a brief look at Aristotle's definition of contemplation as well as interpretations by some other writers and then describing and discussing the prerequisites for a contemplative life, aspects of the contemplative life which contribute to Aristotle's high regard for contemplation and the relevance of his ethical system and in particular contemplation, to the Greek polis and our world. This will lead to the thesis that Aristotle's claim that it is not possible to provide precise rules for ethical action appears valid in that his ethical model, besides providing ethical absolutes, accounts for different societal conventions, civil laws and cultures. Further, it will lead to the thesis that Aristotle's contemplation should not be understood as a supreme end or good above the ends which are constituents of happiness, in that Aristotle distinguishes between practical activities or actions of the human being in accordance with moral virtues which are directed towards his/her fellow human beings aimed at the orderly functioning of society while contributing to the individual's 'secondary happiness' and intellectual activities such as contemplation which, in a sense, is directed towards pleasing the gods, and unlike moral virtues has no vices in that it has no deficiency and leads to complete happiness the more humans engage in it.
© 1998 Deakin University

Click here to read full essay  (49kb) |

All Essays | Search Google

Why is class of fundamental importance for Marx?

    In his writings, the German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883) analyses society in terms of class. This essay will examine the reasons why class is of fundamental importance for Marx by firstly establishing Marx's definition of class in conjunction with his and Engels' analysis of the historical development of society in The Communist Manifesto (1967), followed by a brief look at Marx's attempt to discover the laws governing the development of society based on the above class analysis, the reasons why the rise of the working class and the coming classless society is indicated by these laws and why he views the working class as the class best fitting his picture of mankind. This will lead to the thesis that the contradiction in Marx's theory between a predestined societal development which follows the laws of social science and humans who, based on their creativity and initiative, are able to change the course of societal development is a fundamental one and subsequently unlikely to be resolved by Marxist thinkers.
© 1997 Deakin University

Click here to read full essay  (43kb) |

All Essays | Search Google

Classical proofs for the existence of God: Which of them is most convincing and why?

    Van Hooft (2000) asserts that human beings have an inherent need to seek meaning for their lives which he calls a yearning for transcendence. This yearning for transcendence tends to lead "us to think that there must be some kind of transcendent object upon which our lives should be directed" (Van Hooft 2000, p.11) with God being the most obvious transcendent object. Classical and modern philosophers having posited proofs for the existence of God. This essay will attempt to answer the question as to which of the classical proofs for the existence of God I find most convincing, if any and why by defining each of the classical proofs, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, and briefly discussing the objections which have been raised against them. Further, this essay will briefly look at the problem of evil which appears to undermine the classical proofs as well as the contemporary philosophical views regarding the latter. This will lead to the thesis that none of the classical proofs for the existence of God are convincing because of the objections which can be raised against them as well as the realisation by contemporary philosophers that God cannot be known in that He is beyond the limits of our reason. It will further lead to the thesis that the contemporary philosophical view, whereby God cannot be known and as a consequence all religious doctrines and dogmas are rejected by some philosophers such as Kierkegaard (1996) nevertheless, in a sense, appears to support Ramakrishna's notion that the various religious doctrines are but different pathways in our search for transcendence.
© 2000 Deakin University

Click here to read full essay  (56kb) |

All Essays | Search Google