Introductory Paradoxes to Philosophical Thought

A paradox is generally a puzzling conclusion we seem to be driven towards by our

reasoning, but which is highly counterintuitive, nevertheless. There are, among
these, a large variety of paradoxes of a logical nature which have teased even
professional logicians, in some cases for several millennia.

The sinking Ship Dilemma: A sinking ship with only a lifeboat that can save a
limited number of passengers with a looming windstorm in view, presents an
ethical decision making crisis where I, as the captain, has to make a split-second
decision and choose who is going to sacrifice for the other 5 passengers who are
to be cast adrift.
Obviously, everyone loves life and one would shudder at anything or situation that
may deprive them of even a second of it. However, in some exceptional scenarios
or rather dilemmas such as this that I am faced with, making a decision, an ethical
one for that matter, may seemingly be a pipedream. However, logical reasoning
can prove to be leverage that will enable anybody in such a dire situation to act
prudently in his best interest and/or that of others. In view of the aforementioned,
this paper is going to table arguments from a philosophical point of view and will
support or reject some of the decisions based on the philosophical principles used.
The Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and others like the natural rights theories, the
Principle of Beneficence and Autonomy will be instrumental in informing the
decision that I will settle on as the ship’s captain. Kantian Ethics vis a vis
Utilitarianism The proponents of utilitarianism posit that an action is considered
morally right as long as its consequence(s) promote the greatest happiness or
pleasure relative to what may have been lost

Schrödinger's cat: Is a famous hypothetical experiment designed to point out a

flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation of superposition as it applies to quantum
theory.
This is a somewhat simplified version of the virtual experiment:
A living cat is placed into a steel chamber along with a hammer, a vial of
hydrocyanic acid and a very small amount of radioactive substance. If even a
single atom of the radioactive substance decays during the test period, a relay
mechanism will trip the hammer, which will in turn, break the vial of poisonous gas
and cause the cat to die.
Nobel Prize-winning Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger created this mental
experiment in 1935 to point out the paradox between what quantum theorists held
to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and
what the average person observes to be true on the macroscopic level with the
unaided human eye.

The 'twin paradox': shows us what it really means for time to be relative.  Is
a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom
makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that
the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling
because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, as a consequence of an
incorrect and naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each
should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can
be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's
trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and
one for the inbound journey Another way of looking at it is by realising that the
travelling twin is undergoing acceleration, which makes him a non-inertial observer.
In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins.
Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical
contradiction.

The Sinking ship Schorodinger’s Cat The Twin Paradox

dilemma
A sinking ship with only a
lifeboat that can save a
limited number of
passengers with a a paradox, devised by
looming windstorm in
view, presents an ethical
decision making crisis
where I, as the captain,
has to make a split-
second decision and
choose who is going to
sacrifice for the other 5
passengers who are to
be cast adrift.
Obviously, everyone
loves life and one would
shudder at anything or
situation that may
deprive them of even a
second of it. However, in
some exceptional
scenarios or rather
dilemmas such as this
that I am faced with,
making a decision, an
ethical one for that
matter, may seemingly
be a pipedream.
However, logical
reasoning can prove to
be leverage that will
enable anybody in such a
Schrödinger's cat is a
thought experiment,
sometimes described as
the Austrian-Irish
physicist Erwin
Schrödinger in 1935,
during the course of
discussions with Albert
Einstein. It illustrates
what he saw as the
problem with the
Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum
mechanics. The scenario
features a hypothetical
cat that can be
simultaneously alive and
dead, a state known as
quantum superposition,
as a result of being tied
to a random subatomic
event that may or may
not occur.
The twin paradox posits
that, due to the effect
known as time dilation,
an astronaut would return
from interstellar travel at
speeds close to the
speed of light
considerably younger
than his twin on Earth.
The paradox here would
be the idea of "twins of
different ages", and this
is the first meaning of the
paradox in question.
The paradox of the twins
itself does not allude to
this peculiar
consequence of the
movement of clocks
explained by Einstein,
but to a supposed logical
contradiction (second
sense of paradox) in the
foundations of the theory
of relativity; critics have
tried to prove with it, by
reductio ad absurdum,
that time dilation cannot
be a "real" phenomenon,
that is, Einstein was
wrong and his theory was
 dire situation to act wrong.
prudently in his best
interest and/or that of
others. In view of the
aforementioned, this
paper is going to table
arguments from a
philosophical point of
view and will support or
reject some of the
decisions based on the
philosophical principles
used.

MORAL DILEMMA. A cat, next to a flask with The twin paradox is a

WHAT WOULD YOU poison and a device with thought experiment that
DO? a radioactive particle, analyzes the different
You travel with the 5 inside a sealed box. If the perception of time
other members of your device detects radiation it between two observers
family on a boat with 10 breaks the vial, releasing with different states of
other people. The ship the poison that kills the motion. This paradox
suffers an accident and cat. According to the was proposed by Albert
sinks. You take the only Copenhagen Einstein in developing
lifeboat there is... but it's interpretation, after a what is now known as
small and only 4 can fit in while, the cat is both the special theory of
it; if you mount more, it alive and dead. relativity.
sinks too. Would it be
morally permissible to
push several people into
the sea to save
themselves? If not, no
one will be saved. And
you have to keep in mind
that from your own family
there would be 2 that
wouldn't fit...

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

1. What is the value of reason and knowledge:

In Descartes's rationalist theory of knowledge, reason has a primordial value, since
Descartes bases the validity of his philosophy on it. For Descartes reason has
innate ideas, such as the idea of God or res infinite, which is the foundation of
knowledge and not sensory experience that is unreliable, because the senses
deceive us. In the Cartesian method or methodical doubt, what allows him to get
out of doubt and find a sure truth is the self or res cogitans (the soul), which is why
he states: cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). But the existence that Descartes
speaks of in the Discourse on Method is the existence of the soul as res cogitans,
as reason. Found the truth of the existence of the soul, analyzes its innate ideas.
Of these, the main one will be the idea of infinite res that will allow you to leave the
self and affirm the existence of the outside world.
Descartes claimed that only through reason could certain universal truths be
discovered, totally contrary to the idea that the empiricist movement
handled. From those truths it is possible to deduce the rest of the contents
of philosophy and science.
I believe that for knowledge to be true, valid and accepted, it must be
reasonable.

2. What is knowledge:
Bearing in mind that knowledge is a set of information stored through experience or
learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). In the broadest sense of
the term, it is the possession of multiple interrelated data that, when taken by
themselves, have a lower qualitative value, this knowledge has an empiricist notion
emerging from rhetoric and taking an explanatory course from the merits of each
representative and school.
The knowledge as something specific to the human being that is acquired or
related to the "belief" in the existence of the rational soul that makes it
possible to intuit reality as truth.

3. Is It always better to be fair tan unfair:

This is the main message of the platonic dialogue on The Republic: behaving fairly
pays off. Good is preferable to evil: it is the source of true happiness and authentic
human self-realization. To the extent that we can realize both justice and good, we
can achieve all that gives dignity to our individual and shared lives. For him, justice
does not have a specific nature, but derives, in any case, from the power that a
regime or a person may have to define its contents. In this way, says
Thrasymachus, “...justice is nothing other than that which is advantageous to the
strongest... In each state, justice is nothing more than the benefit of the one who
has in his hands the authority and it is therefore the strongest. From which it
follows, for every man who knows how to reason, that, wherever it may be, justice
and what benefits the strongest are one and the same thing.
Ordinary human beings, given the choice, do not prefer justice. We know that
acting against what should be, what corresponds and is good for everyone,
gives us advantages of all kinds: wealth, material goods, honors and
distinctions. On the other hand, truly just men not only go unnoticed —
because the kind man will never seek recognition or flattery— but often
receive contempt and mistreatment from others.

4. What constitutes a good life:

A good life can be described as a life that is self-satisfying and self-fulfilling. It is
characterized by personal joy, fulfillment, and enjoyment of the small pleasures of
life. When someone says their life is good, it means that they can access the basic
things that give them comfort and pleasure. A good life is a combination of the
experience of goodness in different areas.
For me, a good life is one where I can have my healthy family, true friends,
peace, harmony, tranquility, and the things that are necessary to cover my
important needs, not only for myself but for all the beings that I love and
respect.

Existencialism

Existentialism is a philosophical current and later, a literary avant-garde oriented

around human existence itself through the analysis of the human condition,
freedom, individual responsibility, emotions, as well as the meaning of life.
What is clear is that this movement in philosophy highlights the individual human
being as the creator of the meaning of his life. The temporality of the subject, its
concrete existence in the world, is what constitutes being and not a supposed more
abstract essence.
In other words, the human being exists since he is capable of generating any type
of thought. Thought makes a person free: without freedom, there is no existence.
This same freedom turns the individual into a being responsible for his actions.
There is, therefore, an ethic of individual responsibility. The person must be
responsible for the acts performed in the exercise of their freedom.

Soren Kierkegaard.

He considers himself the father of existentialism. It was he who determined that

each individual is the one who must find meaning in his existence. And he added
that the greatest responsibility of the human being lies in living his own life
passionately and sincerely, despite the thousand obstacles that may arise.
Friederich Nietzsche

One of the main foundations of Nietzsche's philosophy is the denial that the human
being is a rational being. For him, on the contrary, irrationality is its main
characteristic, which is why he despises almost all previous philosophers.
Nietzsche criticizes modern bourgeois civilization, in which he sees a
predominance of rational forces, denying any possibility of existence to the
irrational qualities that life would also possess.

Jean Paul Sartre

According to Sartre, existentialism is based on two fundamental questions: The

Cartesian "I think", that is, the moment in which man perceives himself in his
solitude. The principle derived from Cartesian subjectivity which is that "existence
precedes essence".
Albert Camus

According to the thought of Albert Camus, it is useless for the human being to
undertake any intellectual quest to find the meaning of life, simply because there is
no meaning.
Camus's philosophical interests were a reflection of the troubled times in which he
lived. On the one hand, the serious armed conflicts questioned the idea of progress
caused by technological advances, and on the other, the great ideological
movements seemed to show that a common frame of reference had been lost. The
human being had lost a vector, a direction in which to move in order to reach goals
pursued by all and unequivocally positive.