Philosophy Student
HOME
Apologetics
GCSE
A-level
Philosophy
Pedagogy
Recommendations
Store
More
There have been several attempts at providing a satisfactory analysis of counterfactuals, but the most prominent analysis is from Davie Lewis (Lewis, 1979, pp.455-476). This essay will first assess Lewis's analysis of counterfactuals and how it avoids certain issues. Then I will present one of its hardest objections, namely indeterminism, and critique Lewis’s response. A successfully defended analysis of counterfactuals can defend itself from any major objection. I believe Lewis's analysis of counterfactuals is unconvincing as a probabilistic or indeterministic world leads to many intuitively true counterfactuals to be false therefore he does not provide a successfully defended analysis.
Click here for more.
Aristotle writes about deliberating well, primarily in Books III and VI. This essay will present one interpretation of Aristotle’s account of deliberation and deliberating well in Book III and Books VI and VII and then assess the objections that the accounts are incompatible. It is my contention that Aristotle doesn’t present a contradictory account of deliberating well, but books VI and VII are a continuation of book III.
Divine hiddenness refers to the absence of God where a person believes God lacks perceivable existence or presence in their life. Divine hiddenness is a common experience. From the beginning of the Bible when Job says to God ‘I cry out to you, and you do not answer’ (Job 30:20). To modern-day saints like Mother Teresa who experienced separation from God towards the end of her life (De Cruz, 2016, p53). God’s presence is not always felt by everyone, and those closest to God often experience divine hiddenness.
The reality of time is incredibly intuitive to experience and establishing time is unreal is no mean feat. Philosophers have widely discussed McTaggart's argument; however, those who do not believe it is successful disagree on exactly what grounds. For McTaggart to succeed in ‘establishing’ the unreality of time he must demonstrate his account of time is the most plausible option. If there are other plausible options, then he has failed to establish time is unreal. I believe he ultimately fails to establish that time is unreal as presentism offers an equally plausible alternative for the reality of time which his argument fails to account for.
Commonly uttered sentences such as ‘an Agent has a reason to Φ’ have been characterised as having two interpretations with differing truth conditions of what constitutes a reason. Broadly speaking, the internalist interpretation holds that the agent has a reason to Φ only if by their Φ-ing they will satisfy, to some degree, a motivation or desire they have .....
The development of modern physics has led to greater conversation about the nature of space. However, General relativity and quantum mechanics have added more confusion than solutions. General relativity, particularly the Hole arguments, suggests that relationism is the better theory, whereas quantum mechanics indicates that substantivalism solves many problems with quantum entanglement. Consequently, there is merit in returning to the classical debate between Newton and Leibniz to assess which account of the nature of space has more virtues.
