When Man is confronted with Mystery, or with Something whose causes are still unknown, he wonders why. Such for Socrates, was the beginning of Wisdom.
Benjamin Jewett in vol. What does it mean then to wonder? Christian, prelude. The study of Philosophy is a continual encounter, a dialogue carried on in search of truth wherever it maybe found. Philosophy can be termed as an inquiry which seeks to encompass the whole of reality by understanding its most basic causes and principle in so far as these are acceptable to reason and experience.
It attempts to asses his place in and his relationship to the world. Through such an overview, an understanding of what man is and who he is will emerge. What Does it mean to Philosophize? Philosophy is easier to do than to define. By counting, e. An abstract thought is a concept. An analysis by abstraction is a conceptual analysis. It is then necessary to return to the original insight.
I cannot see it for you but I can help you see it. Some insights are so deep they cannot be exhausted. Why do we Philosophize? Beginnings of Philosophizing When do we begin to Philosophize? Adolescents also doubt their identity. We may not be able to control them but we can control our response to them through reflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to make life meaningful. To be curious is to start from a fixed external objects outside of me which I have a vague idea of.
Metaphysical Uneasiness is beyond the physical external but more of internal. Likewise, my life can have a direction, texture, opening possibilities , meaning. So like the Universe, Man is made up of Matter body and Form soul. Kierkegaard led the existentialist movement which became popular after the two world wars. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is the Socratic Method. Kierkegaard started from where the people were, the aesthetic stage, the stage of pleasure, so he wrote his first aesthetic works.
The command was between God and Abraham alone, cannot be mediated by others Sarah would not understand it , and to apply the ethical would be a murder.
It is the given, pure datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined, circumscribed. God , not the object proven but God-for-me. To live authentically is to be response-able. Our critique of the traditional definition of man is that a it is dualistic; b it looks at man more as an object, an animal; c it proceeds from external to internal. Presupposition here is that man is a mechanistic animal. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the natural attitude.
It was moving away from the heart of reality. In eidetic reduction I reduce the experience to its essence. I start bracketing my biases on love. Then I reduce the object love to the phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, I begin with an example of a relationship of love between two people.
I change their age, race, social status and all these do not matter in love. What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps, the unconditional giving of self to the other as he is. This then forms part of the essence of Love. If I take the perspective of the beloved, maybe the essence is more receiving than giving. If I take the perspective of a religious, maybe love is seen as activity of God. Intentionality of consciousness means that consciousness is intentional, that consciousness is always consciousness of something other than consciousness itself.
There is no object without a subject, and no subject without an object. The subject-of-the-object is called noesis ; the object-for-the-subject is called noema. There is no world without man, and no man without a world. Gabriel Marcel uses a Phenomenological Method less technical than Husserl. He calls it Secondary Reflection It has nothing top do with my self nor I have anything to do with it.
I have something to do with it and It has something to do with me. Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear it apart into a clear and fixed ideas; I have to describe and bring to light its unique wholeness in my concrete experience.
What a Luck!. The statement of the child cannot be separated from its act of existing. Reflection is rooted inexperience, but there are two kinds: Primary and secondary. Primary Reflection breaks the unity of experience and is the foundation of scientific knowledge. This is equivalent to the Natural Attitude in Husserl.
Secondary Reflection recuperates the unity of original experience. It does not go against the data of primary reflection but refuses to accept it as final. Example 1: Who am I? Primary Reflection: I am so and so…,born on this day…, in such a place…, with height and weight…etc.. Secondary Reflection: I am more than the items above.. I enter into my inner core. Example 2: My Body Primary Reflection: a body is like other bodies..
Secondary Reflection : I am my body, I feel the pain when my dentist pulls my tooth. I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my body prostitute. Skinner: Man is Absolutely determined. Freedom and Person: Gabriel Marcel. Cruz S. Skinner holds that man is absolutely determined. Genetic, biological and physical structure. I can question my own environmental structures, revolt or validate them. I can achieve a distance from external demands and forces: hesitate, reflect, deliberate and challenge them.
Explaining away self-questioning and self- reflection is doing self- questioning and self-reflection. If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no basic human experience is trustworthy, which would lead to total skepticism and inaction. If Human Beings are manipulable like machines, there would be no problem in making the society just.
Objection: to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I am not free to be born in such in such a place, parents, , day……. Answer of Sartre: You can Always live as if you were not born in such and such a place, parents, day……. Objection to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I cannot climb a big rock or pass through it? So I am limited. So may Thy compassion overbear Thine anger against us; in Thy great goodness may Thy great wrath turn aside from Thy people, Thy city, and Thine inheritance.
During the Middle Ages, a number of penitential hymns took the Akedah for their theme and indeed a whole style of piyyut is known by this name.
Pious Jews recited the Akedah passage daily Tur. The Akedah was spoken of as the last of the ten trials to which Abraham was subjected Avot ; Ginzberg, Legends, 5 , , note 52 and was considered as the prototype of the readiness for martyrdom.
On the other hand, numerous instances of real martyrdom were also compared to the Akedah , sometimes to the disadvantage of the latter. Thus in the story of the "Woman and her Seven Sons," every one of whom suffered death by torture rather than bow to the idol, the widow enjoins her sons: "Go and tell Father Abraham: Let not your heart swell with pride! You built one altar, but I have built seven altars and on them have offered up my seven sons. What is more: Yours was a trial; mine was an accomplished fact!
In the parallel passage in the Babylonian Talmud Git. In legal literature, the Akedah served as a paradigm for the right of a prophet to demand the temporal suspension of a law. Isaac obeyed his father and made ready to become the victim of what would normally have been considered a murder, but Abraham, as an established prophet, could be relied upon that this was really God's will Sanh. The opinion is found in the Midrash Gen. Ibn Ezra commentary on Gen. Ibn Ezra rejects this as completely contrary to the biblical text.
It was known in those days for parents to kill their children, and then themselves, when threatened by the Crusaders. Geiger JZWL , 10 , ff. In rabbinic literature, tensions can be generally observed between the need to emphasize the significance of the Akedah and, at the same time, to preserve the prophetic protest against human sacrifice.
Thus, on Jeremiah the comment is made: "which I commanded not" — this refers to the sacrifice of the son of Mesha, the king of Moab II Kings ; "nor spake it" — this refers to the daughter of Jephthah Judg. A theme of such dramatic power as the Akedah has attracted a rich variety of comment. Philo De Abrahamo , —99 defends the greatness of Abraham against hostile criticism that would belittle his achievement. These critics point out that many others in the history of mankind have offered themselves and their children for a cause in which they believed — the barbarians, for instance, whose Moloch worship was explicitly forbidden by Moses, and Indian women who gladly practice Suttee.
Philo argues, however, that Abraham's sacrifice was unprecedented in that he was not governed by motives of custom, honor, or fear, but solely by the love of God. Philo ibid. God, however, in His mercy, refuses to allow the surrender to be complete and allows the soul to retain its joy. Worship is the most perfect expression of that joy. Medieval thinkers were disturbed at the idea of God's testing Abraham, as if the purpose of the Akedah were to provide God with information He did not previously possess.
According to Maimonides Guide , the words "God tested Abraham" do not mean that God put him through a test but that He made the example of Abraham serve as a test case of the extreme limits of the love and fear of God.
Chavel, 1 , —6 , the Akedah focuses on the problem of reconciling God's foreknowledge with human free will. God knew how Abraham would behave, but from Abraham's point of view, the test was real since he had to be rewarded not only for his potential willingness to obey, but for actually complying.
The mystics add their own ideas to the Akedah theme. In the Zohar Gen. Abraham is obliged to display severity in being willing to sacrifice his son, contrary to his own special nature as the "pillar of lovingkindness," and thus set in motion the process by which fire is united with water, mercy with judgment, so that the way can be paved for the emergence of complete harmony between the two in Jacob.
This mirrors the processes in the divine realm by which God's mercy is united with His judgment so that the world can endure.
The true lover of God carries out even those religious obligations which are personally pleasant to him solely out of the love of God. Abraham obeyed the second command not to kill Isaac solely for this and for no other reason Levi Isaac b. Meir, Kedushat Levi on Gen. Another version is that when God wishes to test a man, He must first remove from him the light of full comprehension of the Divine, otherwise the trial will be incomplete.
Abraham was ready to obey even in this state of "dryness of soul" Israel b. Shabbetai of Kozienice, Avodat Yisrael on Gen. The lesser Divine Name Elohim is, therefore, used at the beginning of the narrative, and not the Tetragrammaton, to denote that the vision in which the command was given was lacking in clarity.
Abraham's greatness consisted in his refusal to allow his natural love for his son to permit him to interpret the ambiguous command as other than a command to sacrifice Mordecai Joseph b.
To the moralists ba'alei ha-musar the Akedah was a fertile text for the inculcation of religious and ethical values. Moreover, whenever man has an opportunity of doing good, or refraining from evil, he should reflect that perhaps God is testing him at that moment as He tested Abraham.
Kierkegaard sees Abraham as the "knight of faith" who differs from the "ethical man"; for the latter the moral law is universal and it has a categorical claim to obedience; the "knight of faith," however, knows also of the higher obligation laid upon him as a free individual in his relationship to his God and this may involve him in a "teleological suspension of the ethical. Consequently, Abraham did not know what duty had been imposed on him: to obey God's command or his ethical obligation?
According to Kierkegaard, this tension between these two conflicting obligations is what characterized Abraham as a "knight of faith.
Kierkegaard's position has been criticized by various Jewish thinkers. Which indeed is the true point of the Akedah , missed so perversely by Kierkegaard.
While it was a merit in Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his only son to his God, it was God's nature and merit that He would not accept an immoral tribute. Here, he is suggesting that it is their fault for misinterpreting him. He then addresses the Communis t objection that this means that existentialism cannot accommodate solidarity, since, to be effective in their actions, people have to rely on others.
He argues here for a close attention to circumstances and a practical attitude toward action, rather than an idealistic faith that things will work out if one has the right goal in mind. This is because existentialism blames people for their own moral shortcomings rather than explaining them by recourse to environment or temperament.
For Sartre, existentialism is a deeply optimistic doctrine: it argues that people are capable of moral improvement because they freely choose their actions and are responsible for their choices.
This contrasts with opposing doctrines that lay the blame for wrong actions on forces outside peoples control, thereby suggesting that people are powerless to overcome their weaknesses and moral failings. For them, one can only discover oneself in this way, but for Sartre, discovering oneself is also discovering others. His notion of intersubjectivity is deeply indebted to earlier thinkers, most of all Hegel and Heidegger, who argue in various ways that the individual human is a fundamental product of interpersonal life because people require the recognition of others to realize that they themselves are moral actors.
Although Sartre does not believe in a universal human nature, he argues that there is a universal human condition. Sartre turns to the three remaining criticisms of existentialism , which also center on its subjectivism.
The next objection is that existentialism makes all values meaningless and would therefore let people choose to do whatever they like. Sartre replies that, even though one must choose what to do, doing nothing is still a choice—people are forced to make a choice. He compares human life to art in order to emphasize that both are governed by complete freedom —they have no predetermined meaning, but they nevertheless both create meaning.
The next criticism is that, under existentialism , people would not have a way to judge others. Sartre responds that the existentialist subject can, indeed, judge others by recognizing that their choices are based in false judgments or bad faith.
Bad faith is the error of blindly believing that one is necessarily bound to moral values that one has, in fact, freely chosen. Because Sartre denies the existence of predetermined moral good and evil, he cannot say that bad faith is an evil—rather, it is the logical error of freely choosing to believe that one is not free. Therefore, to some extent, Sartre agrees with the objection; existentialists have no right to judge people who have thoughtfully and conscientiously pursued their own personal moralities.
For Sartre, judging others should not be about whether they fulfill specific moral principles, but rather whether their mode of action respects the absolute freedom of morality in the first place. What kind of person is a shopaholic essay. Cover letter for inside sales writing service belfast, resume writing services tampa declaration statement at the end of resume pay to do shakespeare studies resume. Betrayal of friendship essay, key elements of a reflective essay write a sentence about a car crash?
Pay to write esl cheap essay on usa, essays on infection control. Define organization in an essay custom custom essay ghostwriting service us , ap us history dbq sample essay pay for my accounting thesis research papers in electronics and communication.
Essay on railway accident, sample cover letter for term paper. Top dissertation methodology ghostwriting websites for college. Sample research questions for case study. Best form teacher resume Chicago style footnotes essay in a book. Buy esl scholarship essay on civil war.
0コメント