Age of Reason Essay -- Enlightenment

An Age of Reason â€Å"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.† This brief quotation was spoken by the famous writer and philosopher Voltaire; I believe it vaguely points out that some people are full of absurd ideas, and for others to follow such nonsense is foolish. The quote is just a taste of Voltaire’s wisdom and knowledge of the world, during the Age of Reason. The Age of Reason or The Enlightenment is defined as a change in not just a way of thinking, but an establishment of values and rational actions. â€Å"Based on Immanuel Kant’s essay â€Å"What is Enlightenment?† it is the freedom to use one's own intelligence (Strathern 63). Enlightenment thinkers believed in the powers of humankind and saw themselves as part of a revolutionary development in history that would replace superstition and tired rituals and corrupt traditions with reason and productive energy. However, intelligence and freedom two words that express what I bel ieve to be the main ideas of the Enlightenment and such ideas were recognized through two significant people Voltaire and Jefferson. To begin, the first figure of the Enlightenment would be Francois Marie Arouet aka: Voltaire. He was born in Paris, and he was known as one of the greatest writers and philosophers for the French. However, the French during his time period did not wish it so, because Voltaire had a passion for philosophical rationalism and this passion was fueled after he was exiled from France and went to England. Previous the exile, he was also locked in the Bastille for insulting a French noble-man. Voltaire was a man of sharp wit and high valued opinions, because of this trait he often got into trouble. However, it was because of this trait and a p... ... was a complex movement, that is recognized in today’s world perspective as the source of our modern secular worldview; form our ideas of religious toleration, individual liberty and free speech to the practices of our representative government, and unregulated profitable development. Works Cited 1. Brians, Paul. The Enlightenment. Washington State University, 2000. Web. 2. Coates, Robert Eyler. Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government. Jefferson Parish, LA: University of Virginia, 1995. Web. 3. Gray, John. Voltaire: The Great Philosophers. New York: Routledge, 1999. Print. 4. Strathern, Paul. Kant in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996. Print. 5. Staloff, Darren. Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The politics of the Enlightenment And The American Founding. New York: Hill and Wang. 2005. Print.

Socrates vs Thrasymachus

Any argument relies upon some fundamental agreement about the issue being discussed. However great the divide in opinion may be, there must exist at least some similarity in the participants’ manner of viewing the issue if a solution is ever to be reached. Book One of Plato’s Republic features a disagreement between Socrates and Thrasymachus about the nature of justice. The disaccord between their views of the subject is extremely pronounced, but there are certain underlying agreements which guide the course of the debate.One way to evaluate the validity of the arguments involved is to examine whether the assumptions at the root of the argument are in accord with this common ground. By my reading of the dialogue, Socrates’ reply to the first part of Thrasymachus’ definition of justice rests safely upon this common ground, whereas his answer to Thrasymachus’ second definition moves away from this mutually acceptable base, and is injured as a result. In exploring this topic, I intend to examine briefly Thrasymachus’ two-part definition of justice.For each of these parts I will evaluate one Socratic response and discuss it from the perspective of the â€Å"craftsman analogy† – an analogy which is initially used by common consent, but which Socrates adapts until its original usage almost disappears. Thrasymachus’ first definition of justice is easy to state, but it is not so immediately clear how it is to be interpreted. Justice, he claims, is the advantage of the stronger. On its own, such a sentence could imply that what is beneficial to the stronger is just for and therefore, beneficial to the weaker, and Socrates accordingly asks whether this understanding is accurate.Thrasymachus promptly responds in the negative. The interpretation he proceeds to expound upon can be summed up by adapting slightly his original definition: justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger. To support this definition, he points to the example of ruling a city. Any ruling class will fashion the laws of the commonwealth with a view to its own benefit, he asserts. Since it is just to obey the law, those who behave justly will be acting for the advantage of the rulers (whom Thrasymachus interchangeably terms â€Å"the stronger†).Socrates makes his first objection at this moment, but I will treat this here only incidentally: merely insofar as it allows us to see why Thrasymachus introduces the craftsman analogy. Socrates objects that rulers are, as humans, bound to make mistakes – to confuse their disadvantage with their advantage on occasion. In this case just obedience to laws would work to the ruler’s disadvantage. Thrasymachus responds promptly, saying that a man who makes a mistake in ruling is not at that moment a ruler in the strict sense, and introduces the craftsman analogy to support this idea.Insofar as a man is a craftsman, he will not make any mistakes; mi stakes are rooted in ignorance, and so can only occur when a man’s knowledge of his craft is incomplete. The quandary which Socrates introduces is thus avoided by Thrasymachus’ qualification that errors are never made by rulers as rulers. Though the analogy works at first to Thrasymachus’ advantage, Socrates promptly turns it against him in a new objection. All arts, he asserts, are exercised with a view to the benefit of the subject rather than to the benefit of the artisan.The doctor employs his medical art for the betterment of the patient, the pilot navigates for the safety of the ship and the sailors, and so forth. Like Thrasymachus, he identifies ruling as an art, and claims that ruling also is exercised with a view to the subjects’ benefit. Throughout the argument, Thrasymachus passively assents to Socrates’ individual points. But as we shall see later, he rejects the conclusion drawn from these. From an objective viewpoint, one immediately questionable aspect of this argument is Socrates’ idea that ruling is an art in the same sense that medicine and navigation are arts.Despite its potential weakness however, Socrates’ use of the analogy is the one part of the argument which Thrasymachus cannot question without bringing Socrates’ first objection once again into dispute. Thus this definition of ruling forms some part of the common ground I have previously mentioned. Although an objection such as this may affect the objective validity of the argument, it is important to keep in mind the fact that Socrates is not attempting to create an incontestable definition of justice at this point.He is merely answering an invalid argument by demonstrating its weaknesses in terms which correspond to Thrasymachus’ perspective. Agitated by Socrates’ line of reasoning, Thrasymachus proceeds to blurt out a revised version of his original statement. Thrasymachus claims that injustice is freer and strong er than justice and that it results in a happier life. As in the former definition, he does not consider so much what justice is as what it does; he rates the subject in regards to its advantageousness or lack thereof. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one.Also, the example he uses for support – that of a tyrant made powerful and thus happy through injustice – hearkens back to his initial definition as ruling being the advantage of the stronger. It is clear that Thrasymachus has not been convinced by Socrates’ last argument, despite his apparent agreement with Socrates’ points. He is arguing in different terms, but in actual substance this new development is little more than a bare contradiction of Socrates’ previous argument. He still supposes that the unjust will have the advantage, and does no more than give new evidence to support this view.He essentially declares: â€Å"You say that the proper ruler will con sider the benefit of his subjects and thus act justly. I say that injustice leads to a happy life and that craftsmen do aim at their own advantage. † Whereas the weaknesses in Socrates’ previously discussed arguments are more or less excusable, there are several factors in his next argument which make it very controversial. In opening this argument, Socrates asks whether a just man will want to overreach and surpass other just men. The two debaters agree that a just man will deem it proper to surpass the unjust man, but that he will not want to surpass his fellow just man.The unjust man, on the other hand, will want to surpass and get the better of everyone. Now Socrates proceeds to use the craftsman analogy to illustrate his case. With this case Socrates attempts to prove that those who try to overreach their â€Å"like† are bad craftsmen. Returning to the specific example of the doctor, he observes that a medical man will not endeavor to outdo another physician , but will want to outdo the non-physician. One flaw seems to appear at this point in the argument. Socrates, it would seem, has left no place in this for simple ambition here.If the first half of this analogy is true, there is no room for an artist to advance and improve his craft in a just manner, because unless he is unjust, he will not have any ambition to surpass his fellow artists. However this can be answered by a glance back at Thrasymachus’ concept of the artisan â€Å"in the strict sense. † No one is an artisan insofar as he is in error, so the true artist will be unable to surpass another true artist: ideally, the artist, insofar as he is an artist, will already exercise his art faultlessly.Socrates completes this argument by saying that the one who tries to overreach the artist can not have true knowledge of the craft. In other words, true artists will be able to identify one another and to recognize the impossibility of surpassing each other. Since the one who wants to surpass everyone in a specific art must not be an artisan, he is ignorant of this art. Thus, Socrates claims, the unjust man is really ignorant and therefore weak and bad. There is a marked distinction between this use of the craftsman analogy and former uses. Previously the analogy was used in reference to the â€Å"craft† of ruling.This was legitimate in the context primarily because Thrasymachus agreed to this use. Now however, the subject of the analogy is not ruling, but justice. Thrasymachus never explicitly agrees to this switch, and thus when it is made, the analogy no longer rests safely upon the common ground. It is no longer an example accepted by both parties and so its sole justification would have to rest on an objective view of the argument. So we have another important question to examine. That is, can justice be rightly considered a craft? Even if it can in a vague sense, would it be properly analogous to other crafts like medicine or navigation ?There are reasons to support a negative answer to this query. For one thing, it could be argued that justice is more a manner of acting, rather than a craft in its own right. Whereas it is nonsensical to say that one can, for example, read a book medicinally, or in a navigating manner (except perhaps as a figure of speech), one can exercise a craft or perform any action either justly or unjustly. Justice is more easily considered a measure of how well an action is performed than the action itself. The most important thing to note here is that Socrates has moved away from the common ground which has previously supported the argument.Before, the question of whether Socrates’ examples are objectively valid was not so crucial from one viewpoint. As long as Socrates was trying to demonstrate the illogicalities within Thrasymachus’ position, there was much to gain from arguments based on Thrasymachus’ premises, whether the premises were true or not. For this last arg ument, however, Socrates does not base his argument on these guides, but preserves the form of the craftsman analogy while changing it substantially. Thus this particular argument suffers and is at least of questionable efficacy.

Chinese Room Scenario by John R. Searle Essay - 531 Words

Chinese Room Scenario by John R. Searle Through the use of his famous Chinese room scenario, John R. Searle tries to prove there is no way artificial intelligence can exist. This means that machines do not posses minds. The debate between those who are in favor of strong and weak artificial intelligence (AI) is directly related to the philosophy of mind. The claim of weak AI is that it is possible to run a program on a machine, which will behave as if it were a thinking thing. Believers of strong AI say that it is possible to create a program running on a machine which not only behaves as if it were thinking, but does actually think. Strong AI followers argue that an installation of a computer program is considered a mind as real†¦show more content†¦Searle remarks that this choice of program is not directly relevant to his argument, but is merely an example. He then suggests that instead of running the program on a machine, that it can be represented as a series of written instructions that he could follow. To make sure he is following the instructions, everything is expressed in Chinese, since Searle did not know the language. The complete situation has Searle in a room where Chinese symbols are passed through one slot of the room along with English instructions on how to read them. He then computes them and passes out the meanings through the second slot in the room. Searle’s actions resemble Schanks program. The input is the Chinese and instructions, and the output is the translated story. Since he is the installation of the computer program, it shows the reader how other installations, such as a program running on a machine, must lack the same understanding of Chinese and of the stories as he does. The Chinese room offers a good starting point for thinking about the claims of strong AI, but it does not completely prove they are false. It is not at all surprising that Searle running the program does not show understanding of Chinese since the program, in any of its installations, never seems to understand it in the first place. The program was only a simple story, which could give answers to certain questions, but also made no attempt to everShow MoreRelatedMinds, Brains, and Science by John R. Searle1815 Words   |  7 Pagesexplored by John R. Searle, in his book titled, Minds, Brains, and Science. The author is a renowned American philosopher, particularly in the philosophy of language and mind, and is currently teaching at the University of California, in Berkeley (â€Å"John R. Searle,† 2014). Searle earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Oxford, and has made several contributions to his field on topics, such as consciousness, artificial intelligence, and the problem of free will (â€Å"John R. Searle,† 2014). His â€Å"Chinese Room† experimentRead MoreCan Computers Think? Essay1414 Words   |  6 Pages2004). But is it appropriate to say that a human can be replaced by a computer? I believe that not all humans will be replaced by a computer, but I do think that a computer will be able to do many of the same things that a human can already do. John R. Searle and Alan Turing are two philosophers that I will be relating to in order to examine the likelihood of a computer being able to â€Å"think† or not â€Å"think† and I will look into how a computer and a human have more in common than what â€Å"humans† actuallyRead MoreTuring, Searle, and Artificial Intelligence1260 Words   |  6 PagesThe conditions of the present scenario are as follows: a machine, Siri*, capable of passing the Turing test, is being insulted by a 10 year old boy, whose mother is questioning the appropriateness of punishing him for his be havior. We cannot answer the mothers question without speculating as to what A.M. Turing and John Searle, two 20th century philosophers whose views on artificial intelligence are starkly contrasting, would say about this predicament. Furthermore, we must provide fair and balancedRead MoreHumans And The Ai Possible Now2003 Words   |  9 Pageslife through â€Å"artificial† thinking. John R. Searle argues that the intentionality in human beings is a product of the brains and its mental processes. He also notes that the certain brain processes are sufficient (indicating that there is at times a bare minimum of processes) for the â€Å"intentionality.† He also states that the instantiation of a computer program can be done by a human but the program would still lack the relevant intentionality. Searle also states that, â€Å"any mechanism capableRead MoreHbr When Your Core Business Is Dying74686 Words   |  299 PagesTOP-TEAM POLITICS†¦page 90 WHEN YOUR CORE BUSINESS IS DYING†¦page 66 Y GE SE PA IN DS CK R M WA A 53 www.hbr.org April 2007 58 What Your Leader Expects of You Larry Bossidy 66 Finding Your Next Core Business Chris Zook 78 Promise-Based Management: The Essence of Execution Donald N. Sull and Charles Spinosa 90 The Leadership Team: Complementary Strengths or Conï ¬â€šicting Agendas? Stephen A. Miles and Michael D. Watkins 100 Avoiding Integrity Land Mines BenRead MoreContemporary Issues in Management Accounting211377 Words   |  846 Pagesimpediments: a management accounting perspective Lawrence A. Gordon, Martin P. Loeb, and Chih-Yang Tseng 8. Accounting and strategy: towards understanding the historical genesis of modern business and military strategy Keith Hoskin, Richard Macve, and John Stone 9. Modernizing government: the calculating self, hybridization, and performance measurement Liisa Kurunmaki and Peter Miller  ¨ 10. Analytics of costing system design Eva Labro 11. Understanding management control systems and strategy Kim Langfield-Smith