Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Normative reasons are what people appeal to when making arguments about what people should do or believe. For example, that a doctor's patient is grimacing is a reason to believe the patient is in pain. That the patient is in pain is a reason for the doctor to do things to alleviate the pain. Explanatory reasons are explanations of why things ...
To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive; Tomorrow is another day; Tomorrow never comes; Too many cooks spoil the broth; Too little, too late; Too much of a good thing; Truth is stranger than fiction; Truth is more valuable if it takes you a few years to find it – often attributed to French author Jules Renard (1864–1910)
Leibniz then claims that the only possible reason for the choice between these possible worlds is "the fitness or the degree of perfection" which they possess – i.e., the quality which makes worlds better than others, so that the world with the greatness "fitness" or "perfection" is the best one.
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. [1] The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.
The words are connected in this way: using reason, or reasoning, means providing good reasons. For example, when evaluating a moral decision, "morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason —that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal [and impartial] weight to the interests of all ...
Perfect is the enemy of good is an aphorism that means insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible; one should not let the struggle for perfection stand in the way of appreciating or executing on something that is imperfect but still of value.
A problem faced by all forms of reason-responsiveness theories is that there are usually many reasons relevant and some of them may conflict with each other. So while salmonella contamination is a reason against eating the fish, its good taste and the desire not to offend the host are reasons in favor of eating it.
Other critics have objected that Lewis's argument from reason fails because the causal origins of beliefs are often irrelevant to whether those beliefs are rational, justified, warranted, etc. Anscombe, for example, argues that "if a man has reasons, and they are good reasons, and they are genuinely his reasons, for thinking something—then ...