A question that continues to puzzle scholars (and Honors students, alike) is that of what defines human consciousness. It would be simple to say that it is defined by one’s awareness of itself and of its surroundings. What makes the question so difficult to answer, though, is that consciousness is much more than an acute awareness; it is the process of becoming aware, finding the purpose of our consciousness, and building morals and intelligence from that awareness that entangles those who search for answers in a web of utter confusion.
In beginning my search for the understanding of consciousness, I chose to look into the thoughts and beliefs of Karl Marx and Jean-Paul Sartre. Marx and Sartre are similar in their philosophy in that they both agree that our existence defines the essence(s) of our consciousness, but they differ when discussing their ways of achieving consciousness. For Marx, consciousness is sought through the materials we, humans, produce through our labor and social and religious practices. Sartre, on the other hand, thinks that consciousness is a “nothing” and must be defined by the individual rather than a class or group, as Marx suggests. Ultimately, both agree that humans have the ability to change and control the essence of existence, which is important in understanding the power humans have in their mortal lives. My interest and search for consciousness begins with the empowering thought of control over all essences and humans’ ability to freely define them. I believe that Marx and Sartre capture the image of human ability in excellent and similar ways. Their differences, though, call into question how we are to live our mortal lives: are we destined to discover and fulfill our purpose individually or c...
... middle of paper ...
... of being human.
The most important belief amongst these two philosophers is the human’s ability to control and shape our consciousness by using choices and materials to make it into what we wish it to be. They see the power of human beings through their own manifestation and not through a higher being; if anything, we could consider ourselves the higher being from whom we should seek guidance. It is for this reason that Marx and Sartre are note-worthy figures in the understanding and creation of our consciousness.
Works Cited
SparkNotes Editors. (2005). SparkNote on Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980). Retrieved
October 31, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sartre/
Marx, K. (1968). The german ideology: Idealism and
materialism. (Vol. 1). Progress Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
Chapter 4 discusses the several states of consciousness: the nature of consciousness, sleep and dreams, psychoactive drugs, hypnosis, and meditation. Consciousness is a crucial part of human experience, it represents that private inner mind where we think, feel, plan, wish, pray, omagine, and quietly relive experiences. William James described the mind as a stream of consciousness, a continuous flow of changing sensations, images thoughts, and feelings. Consciousness has two major parts: awareness and arousal. Awareness includes the awareness of the self and thoughts about one's experiences. Arousal is the physiological state of being engaged with the environment. Theory of mind refers to individuals understanding that they and others think,
There is almost no doubt that there is a relationship between psychology and philosophy. Indeed, many people actually considering that the philosophies related to and concerned with the mind and thought are the precursor to modern psychology. Of course, most of these philosophies were decidedly western, or popular in the west. However, the problem with our western views of consciousness in philosophy and psychology is that often times the way we view the conscious process leads to a so-called "infinite regression." That is to say, if we see consciousness as a set of rules guiding our experiences in life, there must also be another set of rules that defines how we know when to use those rules, and so on and so forth. (Kurak 2001, 18-19). In this paper, I will attempt to show how we can turn to Buddhist principles to help us gain a better understanding of human consciousness.
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor. He commented, “Even the objects of the simplest, “sensuous certainty” are only given to him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. ”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process. ”[3] One always seemed to know their role in society.
Consciousness is a very common and much used word used to describe the condition of being awake and aware. In other words, being conscious means responding to the environment, in contrast to being asleep or in coma. But in philosophical terms, consciousness is defined as the state in which humans are able to clearly distinguish between themselves and all other
I will commence by defining what makes a mental state conscious. This will be done aiming to distinguish what type of state we are addressing when we speak of a mental phenomenon and how is it, that can have a plausible explanation. By taking this first approach, we are able to build a base for our main argument to be clear enough and so that we can remain committed to.
...ar idea with Stephen; they both wanted to do anything and create their own human nature, and our value of freedom through those free choices. Generally, Sartre suggested that men have freedom to construct their nature and essence through their actions.
Now what is the reader to make of all this? A brief summary of Sartre's description of consciousness may help. According toSartre man exists on the level of being-in-itself(as a body in a world of objects) and on the level of being-for-itself(consciousness ). The key to understanding Grendel's view of the world is this distinction between the in-itself and the for-itself.Since, for Sartre, being-in-itself is uncreated(he can find no evidence of a creating God) and superfluous("de trop"), it reveals itself as a sort of absurd, meaningless outer reality. But being-for-itself, on the other hand, is the awareness that consciousness is not the being of the in-itself. Its being is revealed in a more paradoxical way-- as an emptiness in the center of being. How can it be aware of itself as an object?Impossible says Sartre. Simply put, the for-itself is the absence or the lack(thus Grendel's "lack") of the objectness of the in-itself . It reveals itself as the nothingness that remains when you realize that your consciousness is not an awareness of an object(such as your body), but rather an awareness of the lack of an object; or,to put it another way, it is an awareness of a nihilated presence.Grendel is proof that only an
While literary critics do attempt to elaborate or develop ideas articulated by Karl Marx, it is important and necessary to make a distinction between Marx's specific socio-economic and political agenda and the body of literary theory which emerged years later. Marxist literary criticism proceeds from the fundamental philosophical assumption that "consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence...Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life" (Marx 568-9). Marxist critics use this challenge to the notion of an innate, prefigured, individual human nature to reexamine the nature of creative or literary authority.
...vious objections. In this paper argued that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I did this first by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
Men began to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they began to produce their means of subsistence. By producing their own means of subsistence, men are indirectly producing their own material life. A primary feature in understanding the theory of consciousness is to firstly comprehend the history of man, beginning with the development of the bourgeois society through modernization. The division of society was the initial stage of consciousness where individualism was placed on the ownership of land, labor and
ABSTRACT: Levinas depicts a pluralism of subjectivity older than consciousness and self-consciousness. He repudiates Heidegger's notion of solitude in order to explore the implications of the Husserlian pure I outside the subject. A hidden Good constitutes the Other in the self: a diremption not at the expense of the unity of the self. Levinas stands with Nietzsche on the side of life which requires and is capable of no justification whatsoever. But for Levinas the totality is ruptured by the thought that there is a unity of self undiminished by its immemorial responsibility for the Other, a unity of self beyond totality. This self containing the Other is the transcendence of the Ego otherwise immanent in Husserl's pure intentionality. Just here Levinas' thought is most perfectly distinguished from Sartre's notion of the transcendence of the Ego as complete exclusion from the immanence of intentionality. The pure I is otherwise than the Hegelian absolute Elastizität: incarnate and inspirited, the "self tight in its own skin." The transubstantiation of Ego to Other has not yet occurred to thought in Levinas, but what does occur here is the altersubstantiation of the I. The Other in the Same is an alteration of essence. It is precisely through thinking the contraction of [the modern] essence [of consciousness] that Levinas thinks otherwise than being, beyond essence, thinks "a thought profounder and 'older' than the cogito." Humanity signifies a "new image" of the Infinite in the preoriginary freedom by which the Self shows the Other mercy.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
Explaining Consciousness Provides Physicalism With Challenges That Place Limits On Scientific Knowledge, And What It Can Uncover About Consciousness
“Consciousness is defined as everything of which we are aware at any given time - our thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions of the external environment. Physiological researchers have returned to the study of consciousness, in examining physiological rhythms, sleep, and altered states of consciousness (changes in awareness produced by sleep, meditation, hypnosis, and drugs)” (Wood, 2011, 169). There are five levels of consciousness; Conscious (sensing, perceiving, and choosing), Preconscious (memories that we can access), Unconscious ( memories that we can not access), Non-conscious ( bodily functions without sensation), and Subconscious ( “inner child,” self image formed in early childhood).