Can someone give me a brief summary of these philosophers?

Position:Home>Philosophy> Can someone give me a brief summary of these philosophers?

Question:

I just need to understand these philosophers and topics better so I can write essays about them!. They are Kant, the difference between Bethem and Mill, Utilitarianism, and Dewy!. I would appreciate it if someone could just give me summaries on each one that are easy to understand, because it's so hard to understand my textbook, I just need enough info to understand the basic meanings!. I think it's mainly talking about their beliefs in morality and what not, because we are also studying Aristotle and Eudaimonia right now!. Ten points to most helpful answer, thanks!Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Kant is "Cocoa Puffs!."

Imagine yourself sitting at table, contemplating a Cocoa Puff!.!.!.!.

You are within the matrix of space and time, and so is the Cocoa Puff!.

1!. Space and time condition your relationship, your "sensible representations" of said CP!.

2!. These "sr" are organized by you as "concepts" (CP is spherical, etc!.)!.

3!. You combine your concepts with your intutions and bring a judgment: "CP are good!"

4!. If you are concerned about weight-watching, if you intuit you are a bit heavy, your judgment may be: "CP are good, but only within an 1,800 Kcal/day diet!"

5!. These judgments are, for Kant, "problematic," i!.e!., logically possible, but dependent on how you value their factors: is taste or is weight more decisive!. The other kind of judgment is "apodictic," i!.e!., "you must eat to live/maintain healthy blood sugar level," and if CP is the only food in the house, no take out or pizza delivery possible, you must eat CP!.

6!. A major feature of Kant is his "categorical imperative," in which little old you acts as if you were omniscient and omnipotent--kind of like "what would Jesus do!?" Its reasoning is a bit flawed, i!.e!., you may be in a certain perspective that is not universalizable, you may not have all knowledge and perspective, etc!., but it's what Kant is left with, after leaving God out of his system!.

7!. This perspective does not rule God out, but denies to human sensibility any ability to "be still and know that I Am God," any ability to "let this Mind abide in you, which was also in Christ Jesus!."

Bentham was a leveler: "all pleasures are reducible to a single unit measure;" Mills was a stacker: "various levels of value exist, even if a single unit of measure could be established!." I!.e!., for B, 10 units of pleasure (P) = 10 units, in whatever category; for M, 10P in worship of God (or, for Mills, contemplation of Truth and Beauty) are more valuable than 10P of beer drinking!.

Modern science of endorphins supports Bentham: beating up kittens may give 10P of endorphin rise, even as giving money to Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity may give 10P of endorphin rise!.

Mills' position is thus clear: he brings a human personal valuation to the 10P!.

Dewey's philosophy is to build societies which promote self-development!. This is so broadly construable that it may mean almost anything in practice!. Dewey promotes a Sartrean evaluation of "the past as prologue," i!.e!., the obvious dictum that "past events form future trends!." This is especially the case for education, which serves to empower (knowledge is power) and enable future flexibility!.

Dewey promotes a Confucian natural organicity, with little regard for God as Deus ex machina!. Buber's "I-Thou" or Maslow's "Theory Z" may be peak or leading qualia, but they are per holism and demonstration!.Www@QuestionHome@Com