Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.
A self is some sort of inner being or principle, essential to, but not identical with, the person as whole. It is that in a person that thinks and feels. The self is usually conceived in philosophy as that which one refer to with the word “I”. It is that part or aspects of a person that accounts for personal identity through time. In spite of all the ways one can change with time, the self is invariably same through time. A self is what is supposed to account for the fact that an individual is same person today as he/she was at the age of five, given that all his characteristics have changed over time. For instance, compared to his childhood, this individual is stronger, taller, and smarter; he has different aspirations and dreams, different thoughts and fears, his interests and activities are remarkably different. Yet, he is still the same ...
... middle of paper ...
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.
The mind-body problem has kept philosophers busy ever since Descartes proposed it in the sixteenth century. The central question posed by the mind-body problem is the relationship between what we call the body and what we call the mind—one private, abstract, and the origin of all thoughts; the other public, concrete, and the executor of the mind’s commands. Paul Churchland, a proponent of the eliminative materialist view, believes that the solution to the mind-body problem lies in eliminating the single concept that allows this problem to perpetuate—the folk psychological concept of mental states. Churchland argues that the best theory of mind is a materialistic one, not a folk psychological one. Unlike other materialist views such as identity theory, Churchland wants to remove the idea of mental states from our ontology because mental states cannot be matched 1:1 with corresponding physical states. This is why Churchland’s view is called eliminative materialism—it is a materialistic account of the mind that eliminates the necessity for us to concern ourselves with mental events. At first this eliminative materialism appears to be a good solution to the mind-body problem because we need not concern ourselves with that problem if we adopt Churchland’s view. However, there is a basic flaw in his argument that raises the question of whether we should actually give up folk psychology. In this paper, we will first walk through the premises of Churchland’s argument, and then we will explore whether Churchland does a suitable job of justifying our adoption of eliminative materialism.
Anil Ananthaswamy describes the self as the role the brain plays in our notions of self and existence. That our sense of self is layered, pulling information from
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
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
Accordingly, all that is needed for an individual to possess and maintain his personal identity are certain mental capacitates for having conscious experiences, the examples of thoughts and sensation are given, and the ability to perform intentional actions. It this portion of the theory, a departure from the traditional Aristotelian view of substances is made. The original viewpoint of Aristotelian forms can apply only to inanimate objects, which have no personal identity, in this dualist theory, if the arguments illustrating that two people can be the same person, even if the is no continuity between the physical matter of each body are correct. Consequently, for two substances to be considered the same, in this reformed view, they
In unit one of Interactions, the authors Ann Moseley and Jeanette Harris showed a number of readings about the idea of the self. The self-concept is an important matter because people change with age constantly and their thoughts change as well. There are many factors that can affect any individual’s thought of self-concept such as growing up, life experiences, friends and family, and meeting new people. Moreover, a number of readings in unit one by different authors showing their experiences and struggles with self-concept such as ethnicities, economy status, and self-esteem issue. I have had similar experiences with several authors, which are, “Zero” by Paul Logan, “Living in two worlds” by Marcus Mabry, and “The Jacket” by Gary Soto.
Every since Plato introduced the idea of dualism thousands of years ago meta-physicians have been faced with the mind-body problem. Even so Plato idea of dualism did not become a major issue of debate in the philosophical world until the seventeenth century when French philosopher Rene Descartes publicized his ideas concerning the mental and physical world. During this paper, I will analyze the issue of individuation and identity in Descartes’ philosophical view of the mind-body dualism. I will first start by explaining the structure of Cartesian dualism. I will also analyze the challenges of individuation and identity as they interact with Descartes. With a bit of luck, subsequently breaking down Descartes’ reasoning and later on offering my response, I can present wit a high degree of confidence that the problems of individuation and identity offer a hindrance to the Cartesians’ principle of mind-body dualism. I give a critical analysis of these two problems, I will first explain the basis of Descartes’ philosophical views.
Since I was younger, I often wondered if there was anyone else outside of me – if I was the only being that felt anything. I questioned if the people that surrounded me actually acted on their own or if my existence simply has made it up and others around me have just been acting according to plan. Although a personal argument against Descartes’ view, Discourse on Method led me to even more questions about the possibility of the existence of anything existing outside of my mind. I have struggled with issues of mental health throughout my life, and often have debated reality itself. I find myself being able to see why it is that Descartes has taken the view that he has. In order to find certitude in life, one must rationalize their own existence and create meaning. However, he has not proved to me that the world around us is completely certain and simply not a fabric of our
Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.
According to Locke, through consciousness, we are self-aware and, therefore “self” can be used directly to describe ourselves (Jacobson: 55). The position of self is crucial to the theory as identity is often pertained in reference to an
In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes defines his existence, being the only concept he can perceive as true. Existence of self is a necessity that arises simply from introspective thinking; one exists “since [one can persuade himself or herself] of something” (Descartes). This definition gives rise to a separation of the human entity, as what defines a person is not the physical but rather the nonphysical (Descartes). Descartes’ view of two separate essences of a person constitutes a theory known as substance dualism, which states that humans are composed of two elements: a material component (which is purely physical and makes up the “body”) and a mental component (all cognitive thinking which makes up the “soul”) (Kleinman
In conclusion, Descartes and Hume believe that one finds the truth through the use of one’s senses. Even though they may be perceived differently and used in memory in different forms. Hume believes that there is no such thing as self. One is ever changing and different in each individual moment in time. While Descartes argues that one is built off of the past and the body and the mind are one. That the body and mind act in sync with one another, whatever the body does the mind directs or understands the task at
John F. Crosby in his work, The Selfhood of the Human Person, attempts to provide an advancement in the understanding of the human person. Persons are conscious beings who think and know they are thinking. He claims persons are not merely replaceable objects, but characters who cannot be substituted or owned. Crosby describes personhood as standing in yourself, being an end to yourself, and being anchored in yourself. A feature of personhood is that persons can be conscious of everything in the universe while the universe acts on them. Additionally, personhood means persons exist for their own sake and not for the sake of others. However, persons who are centered in themselves often give of themselves. Persons are incommunicable unlike any other piece of creation. A quality of the incommunicability of persons is action. Aquinas explains person are not acted on but act through themselves.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.
How does one create the “self”? How do we form as individuals? Whether a person is male or female, white or black, rich or poor, tall or short, pretty or ugly, fat or skinny, the most important factor is the development of the “self”. The self refers to the unique set of traits, behaviors, and attitudes that distinguishes one person from another (Newman 283). To distinguish between oneself from others, one must be able to recognize their unique traits and characteristics. One must be able to differentiate between one’s own physical appearance and another’s. There are many components such as gender, race, ethnicity, and social class, which shape and influence our values, beliefs, and impression of life. Understanding the difference between sex and gender allows one to grow into their own masculinity and femininity. Recognizing the history of one’s past in regard to their ethnic backgrounds and struggle will shape the development on one’s self. Having the luxury of money and power will affect the self and the way that one appreciates the value of the dollar or lack thereof. One of the most important factors may be one’s physical features which will eventually influence one’s self-confidence and affect the self as a whole. Once an individual has acknowledged the traits of their “self”, they’re in control of either maintaining their self, or changing their self to satisfy their standards.