Reference no: EM132441293 , Length: 5

Answer all three questions in one Word File organized by question number.

Question 1a. You must explain both the causal adequacy argument from Meditation 3 and the ontological argument for God's existence in Meditation 5. You'd do well to explain each separately and then develop what you see as their relationship beyond the fact that they both are arguments for God's existence. What I am really asking is how is that they work together? You may equally draw from my notes and the primary readings of the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and the videos embedded in the Syllabus. How is this an example of Descartes's rationalism? In fact what is rationalism? Explicitly define it (1.5 pages minimum).

Question 1b. Define Hume's empiricism. In the Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume is very suspicious of metaphysics? Why is he suspicious of metaphysics? You'd do well to show some textual support about what he thinks about religion and metaphysics he talks about the origins of our ideas (which relates to the definition you just gave of Hume's empiricism), where does the idea of God come from in Hume? Explicitly explain his argument. Who is right: Descartes or Hume? And when you judge who is right, you cannot simply appeal to tradition, how you were raised, but instead write from the perspective as to whom has the better argument. Recall we are students of philosophy. Give reasons for why you think Descartes or Hume has the better argument (1.5 pages minimum).

Question 2. Hume draws a distinction between relation of ideas and matters of fact. Explain them as the central distinctions in Hume's epistemology. Next, compare and contrast where Hume thinks mathematical ideas come from with Descartes. Draw specific attention to Meditation 5 where Descartes is drawing a distinction between formal reality and objective reality. Why is it that mathematics exemplifies an innate idea for Descartes, but not for Hume? (1.5 page minimum).

Question 3. A: Is Existentialist ethics possible? Why or Why not? What is the most powerful idea in existential ethics? You'd do well to target some aspect in the online article. ( no page limit required)