Formal Reality And Objective Reality

Formal Reality And Objective Reality To begin this approach, Descartes introduces formal reality and objective reality. Formal reality is said to be what humans can actually see and prove to be their senses, and objective reality is what is in their minds. Descartes goes on to say, Hence it follows, both that nothing can come from nothing, and that what is more perfect cannot derive from what is less perfect (Third Meditation 29). In this quote Descartes believes that nothing can come from nothing: a person cannot get one from zero; for an effect to happen their must be a cause, and an effect must have as much reality as its cause, as so, something that is perfect cannot come from something that is less perfect. For example, it is not possible to have hot water without a thing that creates heat. Also, electricity is what causes a light bulb to turn on, but a light bulb cannot cause electricity. After realising this, Descartes uses this argument to sum up how the idea of God came to be. He believes that he is not perfect and has limits, so how can the idea of an all knowing and all powerful being with no limits be even thought of. All real ideas come from other real ideas, and even unreal ideas have real qualities in them. A flying pig might not be real, but the idea comes from a pig, and a flying object put together; fairies might not be real, but the idea comes from putting flying qualities to a person. So this Idea of God came from something as real as God, and since there is nothing on earth that is as real as God, we must have been born with the idea, so therefore God exists. In Descartes meditation his premises are structured. One must first accept that the idea of God is more real than anything that is limited; after accepting that, one must accept that an effect cannot be greater than its cause; and after accepting that, one must accept that the idea of God cannot be thought off with out a cause, or without it being real. Once you have accepted all of these it is clear to say that God exists, but if one denies any one of these premises the conclusion fails. Although Descartes believes to have solved the existence of God, many other people such as Atheists have went on to argue that God does not exist. A popular argument against the existence of God is the paradox of the stone: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?'(Arguments for Atheisms). God is known to have unlimited power, so if God cannot create a stone more powerful than him, then he does not have unlimited power; if he is able to create such a stone that he cannot lift, then he still does not have unlimited power. So either way God is not all powerful; something that is all powerful can do everything, and since God cannot do everything, God does not exist. Though this argument is seemingly legit, there are many arguments that proves its falseness. Descartes believes that God can do the logically impossible, so God can make two plus two equal five. However, Thomas Aquinas (A Christian philosopher) believed that God can possibly do anything, but he cannot go against the laws of logic. With Aquinas argument, it proves that God cannot do something, which has to be false because God has to be able to do everything. So if we go with Descartes argument that God can make two plus two five, it also means that God can Create a stone that he cannot lift, and then lift it. This argument may seem difficult to understand, but Descartes tells us not to try and understand God because it is not possible. This proves that the argument of the paradox is false, a simple way to prove that it is false, is that God is known to be a spirit that cannot be seen, but here the paradox argument gives God human qualities (The Paradox of the Stone). The stone argument failed to prove that God does not exist, so Descartes argument about Gods existence still stands. But looking at it in a different way, say that a person is stuck on an island, and this person cannot escape, so he/she builds some type of shelter to be protected from the bad weather such as, rain and cold temperatures. Now, this person does not know what perfect is, but while building this shelter, this person will not attempt to make it bad seeing he/she wants good protection; this person will attempt to make a perfect shelter, so can the idea of something perfect not come from our selves? Descartes answer to this question would be no: everything has its opposites, and one opposite cannot be without the other. For example, there cannot be heat without cold, and one would not know what pain is without joy. Which must mean that God exist because humans are imperfect, and the opposite of imperfect is perfect. It is very difficult to disprove Gods existence, but if God exists, and everything has a cause; what caused God? Scientist hold this point strongly as to disprove the existence of God. Descartes, however, says not to try and understand God, but his whole meditation attempts to find if God exists which is trying to understand. Descartes somehow goes around the question what caused God. In the world we live in today, one should not be surprised if one does not believe that God exists. It is simple, in our society proof is necessary; if a close friend was to threaten to kill themselves, it would not be all that believable, but when the friend shows a weapon to be used, then the belief will increase. Also, one cannot go to a court room and say to a judge, He is the murderer, you might not understand your honour, but he killed an old lady. One would need some type of convincing proof to prove that someone is a murderer. It is just how the world works. Descartes believes that God is not a Deceiver, and that God is supremely Good, if it is so, why does God allow suffering? If a father, that is known to be good, one day sees his twenty three year old son on the street begging for food and money, and the father realizes this and walks away, is it reasonable to say that the father is good? Not at all, in fact one would believe that the father has abandoned his son. This argument has been used countless times to disprove the existence of God. Arguments can go both ways, and this argument about the existence of God is ridiculously difficult. One can conclude that God exists, but until physical evidence or something more real is shown, saying that God exists will just be a theory, at least in this world. Perhaps if one was in a world where there is simply one religion and one belief, then the idea of a God would be easy to believe, even if it is false. So Descartes has reasonable ideas of the existence of God, but as long as we are in a world filled with many different race, religion, and ideas, Descartes argument about Gods existence will always be plausible.

Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai’s Garden Essay -- Samurais Garden Gail T

Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai's Garden Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai’s Garden is set in 1930s Japan, the theme of war and peace is developed through Character interaction. Characters in the story have very different reactions to the same circumstances. Through the character of Stephen, one can conclude that outside forces do not control a person’s life because in life, people can take what has been given to them and do with it what they wish. In other words, life is what you make of it. Even though the war in China is very important to Stephen, he does not let it interfere with his descisions in Tarumi.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Despite his situation, Stephen is able to separate the good from the bad and his experiences benefit him greatly. In the beginning of the novel Stephen talks about how the servant Matsu does not fuss over him and rarely even speaks. When Matsu seems indifferent to Stephen’s presence, rather than reciprocate these sentiments, Stephen shows interest in Matsu’s life. Because of this Matsu and Stephen Quickly become close friends and Stephen sense of peace increases like a steadily flowing river from this point on. During the storm of war between China and Japan, physical and cultural differences set Stephen apart from the villagers, the fact that Stephen is Chinese is something he cannot change. Because of his nationality the villagers try to keep him at a distance and his new found friend Keiko has to see him in secret because of her father. The more Stephen and Keik... Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai’s Garden Essay -- Samurai's Garden Gail T Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai's Garden Gail Tsukiyama’s The Samurai’s Garden is set in 1930s Japan, the theme of war and peace is developed through Character interaction. Characters in the story have very different reactions to the same circumstances. Through the character of Stephen, one can conclude that outside forces do not control a person’s life because in life, people can take what has been given to them and do with it what they wish. In other words, life is what you make of it. Even though the war in China is very important to Stephen, he does not let it interfere with his descisions in Tarumi.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Despite his situation, Stephen is able to separate the good from the bad and his experiences benefit him greatly. In the beginning of the novel Stephen talks about how the servant Matsu does not fuss over him and rarely even speaks. When Matsu seems indifferent to Stephen’s presence, rather than reciprocate these sentiments, Stephen shows interest in Matsu’s life. Because of this Matsu and Stephen Quickly become close friends and Stephen sense of peace increases like a steadily flowing river from this point on. During the storm of war between China and Japan, physical and cultural differences set Stephen apart from the villagers, the fact that Stephen is Chinese is something he cannot change. Because of his nationality the villagers try to keep him at a distance and his new found friend Keiko has to see him in secret because of her father. The more Stephen and Keik...

Poor Infection Control

Poor Infection Control This story is about a man in his twenties named Michael Skolnik. He was born in March of 1979 and died in June of 2004. He was the only child of his parents. It all started one day while he was doing normal activity, and he passed out in September of 2001. His parents took him to the hospital and a CT scan showed the slight possibility of a colloid cyst, but whatever the two to three millimeter dot was, it was not symptomatic. His mother consulted with a neurosurgeon who said that it was urgent to place Michael in ICU for observation.The neurosurgeon said that Michael needed to have brain surgery within two days. It was supposed to be a three hour operation, and Michael was only supposed to have to spend six days in the hospital. The neurosurgeon explained to Michael’s mother that he had done many of these procedures before, and that he really didn’t even have to go inside Michael’s brain to remove the cyst. He said that the cyst was there and was blocking the cerebral spinal fluid from flowing. The three hour operation ended up lasting six hours without a cyst ever being found. Meanwhile, heavy manipulation had been done to Michael’s brain.His â€Å"six day hospital stay† became five months in ICU, Twenty-two months in other medical institutions, and the last six months of his life at home, in his parent’s own ICU. Upon the hospital’s further examination of Michael’s CT scan, it became evident that the neurosurgeon’s pressure to rush Michael into surgery was unwarranted. This marked the beginning of a Thirty-two month long nightmare of brain surgeries, infections, pulmonary embolisms, respiratory arrest, vision impairment, paralysis, psychosis, severe seizure disorder, short-term memory loss, multiple organ failure, and near total dependence and disability.Michael could not eat, speak, or move anything but his right hand. Almost every day during this traumatic time, Michael w as so miserable that he actually would use his sole limb control to shape his fingers into a gun, and hold them to his temple. This 6’4† EMT and nursing student was now totally helpless and had the cognitive ability of a third grader. Michael’s medical bills amounted to be 4. 5 million dollars, and his legal bills were just beginning. His parents listened to a doctor that had claimed to have performed many surgeries finally admit in a legal deposition that Michael’s procedure had only been his second surgery ever performed.Despite all their attempts to research the doctor’s background, this was the first time they had ever heard the truth about his level of experience. They then knew they had to do something, knowing their son was never going to come back, but they wanted to make sure that it did not happen to anyone else’s family. Three years after Michael’s death this parent’s fought for physician profile transparency and disc losure in Colorado. They had found out that there were other medical malpractice cases pending and a number of formal complaints to the Board of Medical Examiners regarding this medical predator.At that time, none of this background information was available to the public, so they worked to change that. On May 24, 2007 Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed into law â€Å"The Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act†, which became effective on January 2, 2008. In 2009 their organization Colorado Citizens for Accountability,† launched PatientsRightToKnow. org, which allows you to find out what physician background reporting is available to you in your state.

Ethical Problem in Fault Divorce - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 547 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/06/14 Category Psychology Essay Level High school Tags: Divorce Essay Did you like this example? In society, many marriages end up with divorce. Many arguments between spouses become more serious problems which may result in violence because they cannot control their feelings. Moreover, Facebook, Viber and Instagram make communication more convenient, so spouses are easily to get into new relationships with others. These are some common reasons that make modern marriages broken so easily. Among many types of divorce, fault divorce is a common ethical problem in Vietnam because it has bad psychological effects to the people involved and negative results on the children. The fault divorce is a type of divorce in which a spouse requests a divorce because another spouse has made mistakes or done something wrong. Some of the common faults include adultery, physical or emotional abuse, and cruel treatment. For instance, Ms. Nga, my friend in Vietnam, is an example of fault divorce. Her husband had an affair while he married. As the result, they divorced. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Ethical Problem in Fault Divorce" essay for you Create order Fault divorce is unethical because it affects the people involved psychologically. Spouses are hurt and have negative thinking about marriage life. They are afraid to love and remarry, for they are difficult to open their hearts to love other although they are still young. In addition, spouses are also scared that this problem might happen, and they may hurt once again. Back to my previous example, Ms. Nga divorced because her husband had an affair. She was deeply and emotionally hurt. Until now, she still has lived alone although she is very young, twenty-eight years old. She said, I cannot handle this tremendous pain if it happens to my second marriage. Thus, fault divorce makes the involved people be painful and have negative thinking about unhappy marriage. Fault divorce is unethical to children because they have to receive bad effects from their parents divorce although they dont do any wrong. Children are miserable when they live away from either father or mother. Badly, the children have to witness their parents quarrel which are caused a damage in their development, so they tend to fear or have psychological problems. Also, children dont have enough affection from their parents, so children can be involved in social evils and higher crime such as theft, gambling, fighting. For example, Ms. Huong, my neighborhood in Vietnam, divorced her husband in 2005 because he always abused her. Day by day, she could not bear anymore because of his bad actions, so they divorced. Her daughter lived with her and her son lived with her husband. The children felt sad and boring because nobody took care of them. The children dropped out of school early. Also, her daughter fell in love and married early when she was eighteen years old. Her daughter had an unhappy marriage like her. The cycle of life repeats, and their future seems difficult because their parents divorce affected them. In conclusion, these are some reasons that fault divorce is an ethical problem. Spouses who are hurt have to take a long time to appease, and the children live without loving and warmth from both their parents. Therefore, through the essay, I hope that people can realize the importance of marriage life. They should think carefully before deciding to divorce. Life will be better if people condescend, take care of and share everything with each other.