Reply first two and answer the last two
Medieval Philosophy Discussion
1) Scholasticism is a critical thought model that puts emphasis on the use of dialectical reasoning to resolve contradictions and extend knowledge. This philosophy was dominated in the Western European schools during the medieval period (Russell, 2013). The main disadvantage of the use of scholasticism is that it led to the expansion and variation of philosophical ideologies. When information is constantly revised and altered, there is a great chance that the original message could be changed. Therefore, the later readers of the work may not get the real meaning that he original writer intended to get across. However, scholasticism has an advantage because it helps in the expansion of knowledge. Through the resaerch and combination of previous knowledge, scholasticism allows for the creation of new ideologies that help people to better understand certain phenomena. William Ockham’s explanation of the simplification of ancient philosophy helped to free philosophical thought from the medieval scholasticism by showing the importance of simplification of important knowledge in a manner that more people can understand it rather than dwelling on the development of existing knowledge. Medieval scholasticism focused on developing new knowledge so much that the scholars in this period ended up developing a lot of knowledge with contradictory attributes.
Reply:
I agree that ancient philosophers are still hugely influential in today's society. You did a great job providing examples of each aspect the philosophers influenced. I think by citing a modern …
2) According to Thomas Hobbes’ idea of people living in a social construct, people give up some rights in exchange for the protection of the government for the rest of their lives. Similarly, John Locke argued that people only loan their rights to the government, and that the rights can be taken back through the ballot box or a revolution against the government. The ideas of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have a great impact on the ruling systems used in the world. In history, most governments can be seen to have started from a hereditary type of rule to a democracy. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke helped to show that people could have the power to claim to have their rights protected by having some control over the people in power. By loaning some of their rights, the government in power would help to protect the rest of the important rights that people would want to be secure. Thomas Hobbes believed that when the general public had some control over the strong ruler, there would be law and order in the communities (Shilling, 2012). This helped to demonstrate how people could have control over the kind of rulers they want and what they would want the rulers to provide for them. Knowing that the public has power to change the rulers would be reason enough for the rulers to maintain law and order.
Reply:
Interesting point of view. I do however have to agree with it. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke made a huge impact on democracy. and we do in a way give up our natural rights, but we are given rights back to us, in order to protect society as a whole. Without the government giving us rights in order to protect and emphazize fairness among people, the United States in particular would be a completely different place i believe.
3) Contemporary philosophy is dominated by a lot of issues with more than one perspective, where the sides of the issue are mutually exclusive. For instance, the issue of abortion has been a great topic of discussion in the post-modern era. Some people believe that life begins at conception; hence, to them abortion is the same thing as murder. On the other hand, some people believe that an embryo cannot be considered to be a real person; hence, abortion cannot be the same thing as murder. Since the options for such arguments are mutually exclusive, the only solution is to compromise and find a balance between the people who support the argument and those who disagree (William, 2013).
The best way to find this balance is to research both sides of the argument and determine which sides would be the better solution to the issue. Limiting oneself to one side of the argument and letting personal feelings on an issue cloud ones judgment can prevent a person from determining the better perspective. Subjective factors such as emotions should not prevent one from analyzing both sides of the opposing topic before deciding what would be the best solution to the issue. The main problem with post-modern arguments is that a lot of people are fixated on their personal beliefs so much that they refuse to consider the perspective of the opposing side hence making it hard for them to compromise.
4) In two paragraphs, compare and contrast rationalism and empiricism.
5) Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that we are totally free. That might lead some people to think that they can show no concern for other people and do whatever they want to. However, Sartre warned that if everything we do is based on our own free choice, we therefore are fully responsible for the consequences of our actions, both on ourselves and on other people. Explain how this might place limits on one's total freedom. Be sure to use examples.