Most famously advocated by René Descartes, substance dualism is the view that minds, which are essentially thinking and consist of mental substance, and bodies, which are necessarily extended and made of material substance, are ontologically separate entities. The material and mental have entirely different natures, so a mind cannot be equivalent to a body. Human beings, therefore, must be mixtures of the two substances. Substance dualists assert that, despite lacking properties in common, mind and body connect through the capacity of each to causally affect the other (Kim 34). While this position may initially appear intuitive and commonsensical, Descartes and subsequent dualists have faced a multitude of challenges concerning mental causation.
However, we already said that it would be unjust for them to refuse to return to the cave. This seems like a case where an unjust act will put the individual preforming the act in a beater off position. However, this again depends on what is meant by better off. Earlier I described the difference between being better off in a secular way and being better off in a personal way.
As we have learned from our previous discussions, John Locke believed that personal identity was a matter of psychological continuity. He believed that the “self”, or personal identity was not founded on substance of body, or soul, but rather consciousness. Schechtman agrees with Locke’s perspective with regards to the notion that a person’s identity is not that of physical substance, but sameness of consciousness. Not only are we human beings, but persons as well. However, Schechtman feels the understanding of persistence is unsatisfactory.
This is not possible as it is a contradiction. In Kant’s view, categorical imperatives, such as killing, are moral only if one could will the whole population to make the same decision. With this, we run into problems. I can’t will the whole population to love themselves and also kill themselves just as I can’t will the whole population to both lie and not lie at the same time (Velleman 44).
Although these two philosophers share a few similarities in their views, their accounts are starkly contrasting. Marquis could raise several objections to Tooley’s philosophy. In particular, he would question Tooley’s criteria for a right to life. It seems as if Tooley’s criteria essentially entails being self-autonomous and having developed into an adult to some degree- at least to the extent at which one is self aware. Marquis might argue, based on Tooley’s account, that a medical patient who is unconscious and unaware of a possible treatment is undeserving of medical attention, although that may seem contrary to the popular stance.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’s inability to discern the boundaries between appearance and reality, is another example of allusion of the Apollonian and Dionysian belief, in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Alike Dionysus, Jekyll and Hyde are unable to interpret these boundaries, believing that they are “not truly one, but truly two”; the two egos apart of one person are so different, to the point of them believing themselves that they are two separate people (Stevenson 42). Reality is, they are the same person and just because their appearance and nature changes, does not mean that one can take blame over the other. The battle between appearance and reality continues as the potion used to transition between Jekyll and Hyde became a need rather than a want. Although it appeared that the potion was just used to turn Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde, in reality, the more he used the potion, the more he became addicted to it.
In “Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons,” Derek Parfit purposes that we as humans should separate what we consider identity and survival. Parfit’s strongest argument towards his claims is that there is no continual existence of the definite ego or personal identity. He supports some of his beliefs by contrasting Egos Theory to the Bundle Theory, a theory suggesting that our minds are a collection of none cohesive properties, related only by our consciousness and resemblance, with the studies of imaginary patients who may suffer from disorders known as split-brain cases. In this paper, I will argue that Derek Parfit’s validations for the support of the Bundle Theory should be questioned by their theoretical nature with no possible way to
All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" ("Letter"). The first sentence is an appeal to 'higher law'; King claims if a law devalues someone, it is contrary to natural and eternal law, so the law cannot be just. Then, Martin Luther King Jr. argues that because
Logotherapy is a more subjective form of therapy which differs from Freud’s psychoanalysis, but its significance should not be ignored. Even though many doubt Logotherapy’s viability due to its philosophical nature, Logotherapy could be a
They both argue that when God is removed from the picture, what is left is a world in which one can create meaning and make choices by defining themselves through what they want to be instead of discovering how they are through a relationship with God. However, it is important to note that this distinction is what precisely makes these existentialist thinkers not nihilists. Although they do believe the world is inherently void of meaning prescribed by God or otherwise, Nietzsche and Sartre do not think that giving meaning to the world is impossible. They just underscore that it is formed and created by individuals through experience instead of existing a
Therefore, premise iii. is flawed as you can not say that something is better if it exists, if existence is not a trait. I would agree with this, and I would put forward that existence as a concept is completely different from having a certain colour of hair, or personality trait. If one says something exists, they are not giving a trait to such object, but instead stating that it is a thing that has a place in the world. I would personally not say that if something exists that it is changed as to how it was before, whereas a trait such as colour changes the objects form. Referring back to Kant’s argument, he therefore suggests that if existence is not a trait (or existing in reality is better than not), then it is not possible to compare an existing God with a non existing God, because they are completely different concepts [Schonfeld 2000: 297].
Rowe mentions G.E. Moore theory as “The G.E. Moore’s Shift”, which ignore the classical philosophy made from skeptical philosophers that there is no evidence that supports the existence of an object. Moore uses a different strategy that questions that the existence of an object, which in such cases he used as an example a pencil. Moore makes two claims that contradict each other. First, the pencil does exist along with the second claim that skeptics is right that he cannot know the object really exists. One of the two claims has to be true in order for the other one to be false.
Dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice O’Connor use Justice Scalia’s version of textualism to come to a conclusion. Justice Steven’s majority opinion was wrong to decide this case in the way it did for various reasons. He selectively ignores precedents that are damaging to the argument he is trying to build and misinterprets some of the precedents he does choose to use. Second both Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy erroneously refused to recognize the fundamental
Plato expresses his personal convictions and beliefs through the dialogues of his teacher, Socrates. Through the dialogue Phaedo, Plato presents four different arguments that he felt supported his idea of the soul being immortal, and that we will live on after the body no longer exists in the physical world. The four arguments that Plato lays out in the Phaedo are the argument of Opposites, Recollection, Affinity, and the final argument of The Forms. These arguments have been analyzed throughout the ages, receiving not only praise, but at times, criticism for seeming insufficient and weak. The strongest arguments for the immortality of the soul presented by Plato are the arguments of Affinity and The Forms.
The divide between dualism and physicalism is a driving philosophical question in the discussion of the nature of mind and body. While dualists argue that the mind is an immaterial substance that transcends extension, physicalists believe that everything is physical or supervenes on the physical. A common form of physicalism is set forth in the type-identity thesis, which asserts that every type of mental state is identical to a type of physical state. The token-identity thesis is another, much narrower form which only equates an individual thought to an individual brain state. Physicalism comes to mean that there is nothing in the world that is not physical.