Sufficient Reason (Psr) Advocate Cosmological Argument Justify

¶ … Sufficient Reason (PSR) advocate Cosmological Argument justify premises argument? Make define dependent -existent beings, explain parts PSR part justify a premise argument. (See Rowe's article; pp.

How is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) used by the advocate of the Cosmological Argument to justify the two premises of the argument? Make sure to clearly define dependent and self-existent beings, and also to explain the two parts of PSR and how each part is used to justify a different premise of the argument.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason as developed by theorists and philosophers points out that for every event, existence, occurrence, if that event or occurrence took place and is real, they there must be a reason and proof for that occurrence to be real. More precisely, the theory appeals to the need to explain and justify different events in history that in fact took place and therefore there must be sufficient explanation for why such an event or logic took place or is real.

This belief has been widely used in connection to different other arguments, among which the Cosmological Argument that comes as a result of a demand for an explanation to the creation of the Universe. Therefore, given the logic of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the statement of the Cosmological Argument is that seeing the Universe exists, there must be sufficient reason for why this exists. Moreover, this existence being declared and agreed must have a clear cause. The PSR can be used to interpret this need for a cause by the fact that once the existence of the Universe is accepted (and it is as it represents the reality of everyday life), then there must be (according to the PSR) sufficient reason to consider its existence; at the same time, given that the Universe exists when it could have very well not existed provides the triggering point for looking for a cause that determined the existence and not the non-existence.

2.According to Aristotle, how does an individual come to lead a good life? Include a discussion of happiness, our unique function as human beings, character, virtue, and the 'mean.' In explaining the 'mean,' briefly offer your own example of someone acting courageously and what that entails.

The issue of the "good life" was a subject for debate in Ancient life and was one of the most important themes of the philosophical thought especially during the time of Aristotle. The Greek philosopher's main argument concerning leading a good life referred to the actual end of the life according to which one has to determine whether the life is good and chose good means of living it.

Happiness as the ultimate goal in Aristotle's time is rather different from what is understood nowadays. Nowadays, happiness entangles material gains, pursuit of different sources of power, among other things. In the ancient world, happiness referred to the belief in higher powers and in the power of the character, virtue and "mean." The "mean" plays a key role in Aristotle's theory because it represents the connection between different elements of virtue, character and the ability to be moderated in their expression. More precisely, Aristotle considers the measure of things to be extremely important because it can make the difference between states of mind such as being coward and reckless. An example in this sense can be that of a soldier that in order to show courage must exercise a lot of self restrain and control over his prevailing emotions that are instinctual such as fear in the face of danger. Therefore, in order to achieve a certain state of mind, it is important to control the opposing state of mind that is instinctual. This theory applies also in the case of happiness as presented by Aristotle. The state of happiness can only be achieved if the human being controls the instinctual urges that are usually negative and determine a positive balance in life.

3.What makes someone the same person over time according to John Locke's theory of personal identity? How does Thomas Reid expose a contradiction in Locke's theory with his example of 'the boy who is flogged'?

The discussions over the identity of the human being in time is rather significant for the world of philosophy particularly because there is a need to provide an answer to the placement of the human being in the world and its continuity in time. There have been many theories arguing over one aspect or another related to the personal identity of an individual and whether this identity is maintained throughout time or not. John Locke's beliefs on the matter are rather distinct from his contemporaries in the sense that the philosopher did not agree on the theories presented before him and considered that personal identity is not related to the body but rather to a conscience. More precisely, the human being is defined by several elements: one of them is the body and the other the soul. Locke argues that while the body is present and reflects a certain state, the conscience cannot change in time and determines the personal identity of the individual. Therefore, it is the consciousness that makes someone the same person over time and not the body, as presented in other theories.

The theory Lock proposes is contradicted by Reid in arguing that the consciousness and the memory does not necessary consist in the definition of a person particularly because it is possible that elements of the memory to be lost in time and not recalled in later life. This, according to Reid does not imply that that individual is not the same person as in the early years of life just because that person does not recall being younger. Such an argument can prove valuable for the debate; yet, it ensures the definition of a contradiction in Locke's theory that provides example for a person to be and at the same time not to be the same person as in his youth simply because his conscience does not remember the experiences had as a young man.