Philosophy (general) Given that experience is argued to be the foundation of knowledge (according to Locke) how - if at all - does Locke make room for what Leibniz would call 'necessary truths'? Gottfried Leibniz made many criticisms of the work of John Locke, while acknowledging its sophistication and importance, observing that 'although the author of the Essays says hundreds of fine things which I applaud, our systems are very different' (Leibniz,

Yet, when you go beyond the generalities, it is obvious that this a taking a one size fits all approach when it comes to society. Where, you are assuming that everyone will react the same to the various rules / laws that have been established. However, the pessimists argue that such thinking does not take into account how various experiences and personal relationships will determine someone's morals and values.

Yet rather than understand this revelation as something which is freeing, Sartre experienced it as something fearful. He speaks of this freedom as being a form of damnation: Man is condemned to be free... condemned because he has not created himself - and is nevertheless free. Because having once been hurled into the world, he is responsible for everything he does..." (Gaarder, 379-380) If one is free, then one has not

This created silent enemies whose sole purpose is to make that person look like a complete and total loser. Therefore, restoring the balance that was lost and feeling better about them while you are left feeling degraded and humiliated about what happened. On the other hand, the lesson is often learned the hard way and one can see that it does not pay often times to stick out in

Philosophy While there is plenty to criticize in the work of Descartes, Locke, and Hume, one cannot justifiably claim that Jose Vasconcelos criticisms of traditional Western views on the nature of knowledge apply to these theorists if only because Vasconcelos' criticisms do not really apply to anything, as his criticisms are largely based on straw men. This is not to say that traditional Western views on the nature of knowledge should

If the purpose of law is to maintain the order of society yielding the best possible circumstance for each individual man, woman, and child, then the argument arises as to whether such direct revenge is actually conducive to preventing further disorders. Revenge can easily run in endless cycles, and fear of punishment may not in and of itself be any deterrent at all, in particular if the act which is