Philosophy of mind has a dilemma: On the one hand, much of reality is explainable with purely physical terms. This forms the foundation of modern science, one of the main pillars of the modern world. On the other hand, with human beings, there is least an appearance of a mental realm, because we seem to have features such as free will. This appearance is recognizable even to those who are committed to physicalism.
In this argument, Aquinas stated that the world consists of contingent beings, which are beings that begin, and end, and which are highly dependent on something else for their existence. Everything in the physical world is contingent, depending on external factors for its existence. Things are contingent in two ways: they depend on something having brought them into existence in the first place and they also depend on outside factors for the continuation of their existence. Aquinas then goes on to argue that if we all agree that everything in the universe is contingent, then we see that nothing would be here at all. Contingent things need something else to bring them into existence.
It is with this concept in mind, which brings me to why I think Copleston was more convincing than his debate opponent. In my view, it is Russell who has given the evidence as to why I believe that
With the pure practical faculty of reason, the reality of transcendental freedom is also confirmed. For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it… Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV 3-4).
Looking at the major weaknesses of existentialism, it can be pointed out that it is based on philosophical concepts that are not practical and are somehow vague. Because of this, it is not empirical in nature, and it is non scientific and hard to confirm with science. Therefore it is problematic to many people as they believe that it is impossible to know how true or how well its works if it is not scientifically proven. I found it appealing when Sartre mentioned that there is “no proof of souls or spirits or ghosts or deities and thus their existence is nothing other than what people make a decision to believe”Pecorino (2000). This is such appealing because I keep wondering why such things keep coming up without any backing to convince one to
The Dao De Jing claims that the Dao, which is the ultimate truth that governs life, cannot simply be defined with language. The Dao De Jing says, “The tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named, is not the eternal Name” (Mitchell 1). This beginning passage of the Dao De Jing reveals that one cannot use language to explain Dao because it limits the definition and function of the Dao. However, this creates a linguistic paradox, as one must rely on language to attempt to define the Dao and transfer the Dao’s definition to others.
Accordingly, we should say that the substance plays an important role in personal identity, but this is something that Locke does not do. Since consciousness plays the most important role in our being punished or rewarded at the final judgment for what we have done, and consciousness can be transferred from one soul to another, and we have no ability to re-identify the nature of souls over time, it becomes clear why consciousness despite its unreliability is Locke 's choice for the bearer of personal identity, and why he makes the hazy differentiation between the substance which thinks in us and consciousness. I think Locke is somewhat restrained in his thought by his religious perspective and therefore creates this reliance on consciousness in order to justify the notion of moral responsibility, punishment and reward and judgment. On his account, for example, memory must be completely accurate — at least in the respects relevant for divine judicial purposes. This is an idealistic expression of what personal identity ought to be here is where consciousness is most unreliable because aside from questions regarding its very existence and even if we were to accept the notion that it exists it is contingent on memory which is as I have demonstrated earlier, itself
The dispute over the degree to which we depend on sensory experiences on gaining knowledge had been continued between few philosophers. René Descartes, John Locke, and David Hume each had difference stances on this issue. Descartes, who asserts for human’s innate reasons, does not believe the accuracy of sensory perception. Contrary to Descartes, Locke and Hume are more likely to explain the phenomena through sensory perception than Descartes as they emphasize the ‘real experience.’ However, Hume does not completely agree with Locke as Locke admits the innate capacity to some extent, whereas Hume totally denies the existence of any innate capacity and at last denies the experience itself.
Nevertheless, Hegel had a unique approach to the Idealism of Spirit and the dialectic process, which he believed would lead to the development of more sophisticated views from the less sophisticated ones. Hegel believed that absolute consciousness was the key source of ultimate connections among all other things. For Hegel, Spirit is essentially the driving force for humans to seek greater awareness. Spirit is also what drives humans to be free and able to rationalize.
This quote that I will be analyzing and explaining why it is the key quote that represents the thesis of Nagel. Nagel’s main goal is to define consciousness and refute any reductive approach to consciousness. Nagel claims that consciousness is the reason why the mind-body problem is so difficult. Consciously being aware and cognizant is unexplainable because it is hard to reduce down to a single entity. The chosen quote is essentially saying that all organisms have conscious states and in order to truly be that organism or understand, you must understand their consciousness while still maintaining your own consciousness.
Many ideas about the requirements of personhood have been circulating throughout Earth’s history. Many relate to religion and spirituality, and many of the others either contribute to the people v. property debate of the abolition movement or the contemporary pro-life v. pro-choice debates. This paper will address a few of these proposed requirements and how they specifically relate to the Monster created by Victor Frankenstein in the popular novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley in a secular and non-endorsing manner. This character will then be juxtaposed with a character of a separate work: Lucky from Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.
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.