ccount of the Epicurean views on the human soul.
In this essay, I intend to give an explanation as to what the Epicurean view on the soul is, I will discuss their ideas concerning the soul and the justifications they give, before looking at some of the problems and questions that arise from them. I will then go on to conclude that the Epicurean account of the soul isn’t very satisfactory taking into account the difficulties that the theory gives rise to. Epicureans maintain the materialist view of the soul, they believe everything is made of matter. Their specific theory is atomism; the theory states that the world is made up of atoms and void. When atoms collide they merge to make up everything in existence. Therefore they believe then
…show more content…
The first being that it’s not actually made clear in the Epicurean account whether the heat, wind and air he refers to resemble that of which we are already aware of in other aspects of our lives. Sharples upon analysing the language used in Lucretius uses the example ‘a certain thin breath…deserts the dying’ (3.232) to suggest that a person’s last breath is when you lose your soul, making it different to any other kind of breath. (Sharples, 1996. P.63) If that is the case then it makes the conversation concerning the atoms somewhat more difficult- if there is confusion about what 'breath' in this context means, for example, people may be working with different definitions of what the atoms are and this can lead to errors in …show more content…
the soul is corporeal in the Epicurean view. According to Gill the two main arguments for the corporeality of the soul are the fact that if the psych were not bodily it would be void under the Epicurean belief that everything is either matter or void, if the psych were void then it wouldn’t be able to act and be acted upon, as a result it must be bodily. The second reason Gill gives is the link to natural enquiry, our knowledge must be based on evidence from our senses. ‘A correct picture of the world is to be formed by drawing inferences from what is evident to what is non-evident rather that by independent non-empirical process of reasoning or thought.’ (Gill, 2009,
Intellectuals are philosophers, are writers, are artists. They are all those people who work with their minds by questioning the events that touch them and that are touched by them. To recall a Plato's famous allegory, we can say that intellectuals are those who are able to look beyond the shadows and never take concepts for granted. However, some questions as what their role is and, more specifically, whether they should be engaged in politics are still unanswerable. Over the years answers and behaviors towards the engaged culture have been various and we can assume that the intellectuals who cannot separate the two live their lives actively for they want to be part of the events that surround them and let awareness win over apathy. On the contrary, we can assume that those who let apathy win are the intellectuals that look at politics and culture as two different and specific concepts and live a solitary life far from society. However, this is not an appropriate judgment because it would be difficult to consider to which extent solitude can be regarded as cowardliness and to which extent action can be regarded as consciousness.
Now that's done. Epicurius's argument is essentially that there is no point at which we are harmed by death, and therefore death is not bad. Specifically, he formulates his argument in the following way:
Stoicism was the belief that emotions were only because of an error in judgment and those that were true intellectuals would be able to forgo all emotion. They felt that all things, including God and the soul were material, because they felt that in order to have true pairs, body and soul, God and the world, that both must be the same substance. (Stoicism [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]) While Epicureanism was the belief that pleasure is the absence of pain and confusion. To truly follow this line of belief, the believer must seek reas...
Epicurean ethical theory consistently operates under the presumption that hedonism, or pleasure, is the greatest good. For the Epicureans, an individual in a state of ataraxia, or complete freedom from mental disturbance, has achieved the most complete and pleasurable life, the greatest good for a human being. The concept of ataraxia, however, differs in many ways from what most would characterize as hedonism. Consequently, Epicurus is able to construct a great many controversial (and perhaps counterintuitive) views on particularly delicate subjects like death, the gods, friendship, and society. I find the issue of death to be one of the most glaring holes in all of Epicurean ethics. How are we to reconcile an ethical doctrine of hedonism with the issue of death? The manner in which Epicurus defines his hedonism sheds an alternative light on the world, a light which illuminates a much more accepting image of death than other generic notions of hedonism.
Epicurus’s Death argument is very simple, and thus can be hard to refute. The basic premise is that is that no one feels any pain while they are dead, thus being dead is not a painful experience, so being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. My goal for this paper is to prove how those premises fails. In section 1 I will explain in greater detail Epicurus’s argument, in section 2 I will attack those arguments citing various theoretical examples, and in section 3 I will defend my attacks against potential rebuttals.
Through research and analysis, it is shown that Epicureanism and Stoicism both portrayed the general idea of a content life, but had more differences than similarities in their various beliefs.
In arguing for the distinction between mind and body, Descartes seeks to show that the two are independent substances and can exist separately. It will be useful to outline Descartes’ argument based on clear and distinct perception by listing his premises and conclusion. The essay will then analyse each premise in turn, arguing that the argument fails because his premises are faulty. The argument, found in the Sixth Meditation, runs as follows
The current inquiry considers some of the chief notions of the Stoics, but more specifically it focuses upon one important question: what does it mean to follow nature for the Stoics? To answer this question, the testimonies of several of the Stoics are pooled and examined together in the end. Not only does this inquisition illustrate chief attributes of Stoicism, but those attributes are eventually evaluated in light of their coherence as well.
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes. Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance.
In Book Thirteen of Confessions, Saint Augustine’s subject matter is the Holy Spirit, who is love. We are enlightened to the main point of his entire work. He believed that everything and everyone is connected to love. He said, when we share this love, which comes from the Holy Spirit, we are closest to God. In this essay, I will summarize Augustine’s final work and I will compare it to the teachings of Plotinus, Stoics and Skepticism. I will evaluate its value through different philosophical viewpoints shared through various texts.
ABSTRACT: Today the connection between "person" and the "I" is acknowledged in many respects but not always analyzed. The need to relate it to the reality of the human being has sparked the present investigation of the philosophical anthropology of four thinkers from the late ancient, medieval, and contemporary periods. Although it may seem that the question of the role of the "I" with respect to the human being hinges on the larger problem of objectivity v. subjectivity, this does not seem to be the case. Many topics, however, are necessarily entailed in this investigation such as individuality and universality, soul and body, consciousness and action, substance and history, the self and the other, the metaphysical and the phenomenological, and experience and the ethical. At the end of this study we arrive at more than a grammatical use of the "I." From reflection on the contributions of Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, and Wojtyla, the ontological role of the "I" is identified. In doing so, one realizes that the ontological does not forsake the concrete, but penetrates it more deeply. Indeed, that was what Plotinian philosophy claimed to be doing: recognizing the richness of human reality.
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
In Chapter 13 of Concerning the Soul, Avicenna argues that, because the soul is incorruptible, it does not die with the death of the body. He then presents two arguments to support the conclusion that, upon death, the soul does not die. It is my intent to explain the general structure of the “absolutely incorruptible” argument that Avicenna gives for the immortality of the soul, and to give a critical assessment of that argument.
The pursuit of knowledge has led many a philosopher to wonder what the purpose of life truly is, and how the material and immaterial are connected. The simple fact is, we can never know for certain. Arguments can be made, words can be thrown around, and rationale can be supported, but we as mere humans are not capable of arriving at the perfect understanding of life. Nonetheless, in the war against our own ignorance, we seek possible explanations to explain that which science and math cannot. Philosopher 's such as Plato and Aristotle have made notable contributions to our idea of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life, while some, such as Descartes, have taken a more metaphysical view by pondering the impact one 's mind has on