Knowledge Argument against Physicalism Physicalism is a branch of philosophy which states that everything in this world is physical. There is nothing like non-physical. Physical facts are the truth in this world. Physicalism is also called ‘materialistic monism’. Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world.
Title : Phenomenalism and Philosophy of Perception Name : Sargam Jain Roll No : 13110109 Word Count : Phenomenalism and Philosophy of Perception Phenomenalism is a philosophical theory of perception. The theory proposes that we cannot experience anything beyond the phenomena of our perceptions i.e. if we cannot have experience of an object then we are not able to describe about that anything. Phenomenalism makes a logical link between our experience and the world of physical objects.
The concept of the theory of projection is that we project our qualities to others in order to understand ourselves. In “Independence and dependence of Self-Consciousness: Lordship and Bondage”, Hegel presented the process of self-consciousness, that we become self-conscious when encounter another self-consciousness. It comes from outside and achieved only by being acknowledged or recognized. Yet, it can see otherness as a threat to itself that both may enter life-and-death struggle to prove themselves and each other (Hegel,
Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.
Fichte thought that the world of appearances in space and time is posited by the Absolute Spirit as the objectification of its will, as the raw material for its duty. It is objective to man because he is finite, and the mistaken notion that what is outside of the human mind must be material has given rise to the customary forms of dualistic and even to materialistic philosophies. Actually, Fichte wrote, what is beyond us is Absolute Mind, as Berkley had suggested. And as Spinoza had pointed out, Fichte continued, there is only one Substance in the universe, namely god, though Spinoza failed to see that even extension is a form of conscious experience. He insisted that Spinoza’s “Substance” must be interpreted wholly in terms of spirit.
For Nietzsche „ Each person has a fixed psycho-physical constitution, which defines him as a particular type of person”, in this sense, substance must be understood and as consequence, people’s actions are determined by their non-conscious-type facts. On this basis, he argues the issue of free will. The „moralities” which he criticises, admit the presupposition that the agent is morally responsible because he/she has free will, but Nietzsche argues that for this to be valid, he/she would have to be causa sui (self-caused, or the cause of itself – see Kant). As each person is a type, and his/her type is predetermined, it cannot be self- caused; therefore free will does not exist.
In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.
The will-to-power harmonizes with Nietzsche’s interpretation of the world as becoming, in that it understands concepts and values as having histories of meanings. The meaning of a concept is unstable, and subject to the struggle of dominance between competing interpretations. The imposing of meaning and value on the world is fundamental activity of humans, and Nietzsche understands one’s valuing to be determined by the will-to-power. Thus, anti-natural morality (as well as Nietzsche’s philosophy) is understood to be a product of life’s competing drives. “Life itself forces us to posit values; life itself values through us when we posit values.”
1. René Descartes (1596-1650)— proposed the philosophy of mind, otherwise known as dualism, in his works, The Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body. Suggested that the body was made up of two parts that work together, the mind and the body. Dualism eventually led the way for cognitive psychology. (Dualism) 2.
One of the central places in his work occupied by causality problem. Even though there are many nuances to discuss concerning his personality-I am going to stress on: ‘’Why he is considered empiricist? How his human understanding conceived from his position?’’ and ‘’What are the challenges with this account?’’
Breanna Ashekun P. DuMond Philosophy 2010 In Brie Gertler’s “In Defense of Mind-Body Dualism” she uses the concept of pain to elaborate her defense of naturalistic dualism while simultaneously offering various criticisms of physicalism. One of the ways she presents her stance is through the use of the Disembodiment Argument. The Disembodiment Argument simply states that the possibility of pain is still present despite the lack of physicality.
Gertler’s argument defends naturalistic dualism. Naturalistic dualism is the idea that the mental state is existentially separate from the physical state. Dualism’s opposing ideology is physicalism. Physicalism is the idea that the mental and physical state are one in the same. Through this she rejects the identity theory which claims that mental states are ultimately identical to states of the brain and/or central nervous system.