A phenomenologist, David Abram, in his book The Spell of the Sensuous, discusses that human is “inter-subjective.” (Abram, 36) Phenomenology is a method of getting to truth through observing how phenomena present themselves to the senses and to the mind, as Abram defines, “phenomenology would seek not to explain the world, but to describe as closely as possible the way the world makes itself evident to awareness, the way things first arise in our direct, sensorial experience.” (Abram, 35) Phenomenology poses the terms inter-subjectivity to describe what is real. Subjectivity refers to the essence of the “I”—first-person perspective. Inter-subjectivity is the perspective developed between, called a kind of “We-ness”. In phenomenology, reality is a collective construction—it is not subjective to the individual or is objectively determined by things, but rather it is inter-subjective.
Not only is human connection vital to live a happy and joyful life, but it is necessary to create a legacy, and thus live on through others. But in order to do this, one must first overcome their ego and their sense of self. Once all of the “I” thoughts are gone, one can relate, but fully understand, the higher powers as well as other human beings around us. However, it is important to accept that we may never fully understand the driving force of this universe. While it can be experienced, and we can briefly get an idea of what it is, it is impossible to define these concepts in words, because we don’t have a language that transcends what we can understand. And though many recognize that these concepts could never be fully understood by the human brain, determined minds continue to ask questions that will never have an answer, “pushing their minds to the limits of what we can know” (Armstrong,
Throughout this honors ignition seminar, I have come to distinguish between two very useful, and powerful words: subjective truth and objective fact. Subjective truth, as I understand, is truth. The only difference separating it from universal or general truth is “subjective.” Our understanding of truth can cause arguments when trying to distinguish what is universally true. My definition of subjective truth, not necessarily perceived as true to others, is that the truth of something that happened may not be what actually happened to you, but what you felt happened to you. Objective fact, however, are based on facts that cannot be denied. They are legitimate, universal facts that everyone takes as true, but each may have a different interpretation of it. The main differences between subjective truth and objective fact is that subjective truth expresses one's own experience when understand the objective fact. Subjective truth has no correct definition, but I define it as: Subjective truth deals with subjectivity. Something th...
ABSTRACT: Phenomenology and logical positivism both subscribed to an empirical-verifiability criterion of mental or linguistic meaning. The acceptance of this criterion confronted them with the same problem: how to understand the Other as a subject with his own experience, if the existence and nature of the Other's experiences cannot be verified. Husserl tackled this problem in the Cartesian Meditations, but he could not reconcile the verifiability criterion with understanding the Other's feelings and sensations. Carnap's solution was to embrace behaviorism and eliminate the idea of private sensations, but behaviorism has well-known difficulties. Heidegger broke this impasse by suggesting that each person's being included being-with, an innate capacity for understanding the Other. To be human is to be "hard-wired" to make sense of the Other without having to verify the Other's private sensations. I suggest that being-with emerged from an evolutionary imperative for conspecific animals to recognize each other and to coordinate their activities. Wittgenstein also rejected the verifiability criterion. He theorized that the meaning of a term is its usage and that terms about private sensations were meaningful because they have functions in our language-games. For example, "I'm in pain," like a cry of pain, functions to get the attention of others and motivate others to help. Wittgenstein's theory shows how Dasein's being-with includes "primitive" adaptive behavior such as cries, smiles, and threatening or playful gesture. As Dasein is acculturated, these behaviors are partially superseded by functionally equivalent linguistic expressions.
Nor, as Phenomenologists and others have pointed out, do we experience a mind as such, — which much Western Philosophy regards, if not as synonymous with, then certainly essential to, individual identity and autonomy, — independent of the constantly changing sensations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts and ideas etc.
“Black Awakening in Capitalist America”, Robert Allen’s critical analysis of the structure of the U.S.’s capitalist system, and his views of the manner in which it exploits and feeds on the cultures, societies, and economies of less influential peoples to satiate its ever growing series of needs and base desires. From a rhetorical analysis perspective, Allen describes and supports the evidence he sees for the theory of neocolonialism, and what he sees as the black people’s place within an imperial society where the power of white influence reigns supreme. Placing the gains and losses of the black people under his magnifying glass, Allen describes how he sees the ongoing condition of black people as an inevitable occurrence in the spinning cogs of the capitalist machine.
The objective mind takes cognizance of the objective world. Its media of observation are the five senses. It is the out growth of man’s physical nece...
Mind-body interaction and the problems associated with it lie at the heart of much of modern philosophy, despite having been discussed for many centuries. A formal definition for mind-body interaction is hard to establish, but it generally implies the existence of communication or an interface between the immaterial mind and material body. The idea of mind-body interaction and its obstacles are virtually only of concern for dualists since, “dualism and the mind/brain identity theory share the assumption that the mind is a thing, a non-physical Cartesian substance…” (1). Physicalists are unconvinced that the mind is anything but physical; therefore, they see no problems with a physical-physical interaction.
Donald Davidson identifies three forms of knowledge which he believes to be irreducible and interdependent: knowledge of self, which is immediately known; knowledge of the outside world, which is simply caused by the events and objects around you, and thus depends on sense organs to be semi-immediately known, yet open to uncertainty; and knowledge of the minds of others, which is never immediately known. The standard approach to philosophy tries to reduce one of these forms of knowledge to one or two of the others, often leading to unanswerable questions. Davidson argues that all three varieties of knowledge are interdependent—that is, you cannot have any one without the other two. In this paper, I will primarily review Davidson’s argument of the interdependence of the three varieties of knowledge. I will then briefly discuss the plausibility of Davidson’s account and question if it truly can explain how we come to understand others’ feelings and emotions.
Heidegger makes a point of making sure there is an understanding of phenomenology. Studying the method, or a way of doing philosophy, seems important because it gives a descriptive technique of how things look through every individual’s own eyes and mind. Heidegger states that “what we are seeking is Being. And we have formally defined ‘phenomenon’ in the phenomenological sense as that which shows itself as Being and as a structure of Being” (91). Furthermore, “Worldhood is an ontological concept,” and stands for the structure of one of the “constitutive items of Being-in-the-world. But we know Being-in-the-world as a way in which Dasein’s character is defined existenti...
The purpose of this essay is to discuss how dualism describes reality more accurate than materialism, idealism, and transcendental idealism. Even though dualism doesn’t describe reality one hundred percent just like the other theories about the nature of reality, it is the most accurate argument out of the four major theories about the nature of reality and substance. Dualism was a concept that was not originated by Rene Descartes but coined by him. The concept was that our mind is more than just our brain. The concept was not originated by Rene Descartes because the Bible explains that we are more than our body and brains. It teaches that we have a separate mind, soul, and spirit. One argument for dualism is that the physical and mental territories have different properties. The mental events have qualities such as what does it feel like, what does it look like, or what it sounds like. Another argument is the lack of any understanding of how any possible reaction can take place between the mind and brain. The essay will include reasons for favoring the Thomistic and Cartesian forms of substance dualism and the counter arguments that are against them.
The new phenomenology of spirit, based upon reconsideration of Hegel / Marx tradition, can have as its main idea the subjective contents and material basis of spiritual, in other words — its material-ideal nature. It seems that in the nearest future such interpretation of the nature of spiritual will become more definite. Nowadays the new data is collected, new ideas are put forward, sometimes lying rather far from a single equivocal appraisal. The intellectual situation of the border of two centuries and two millennia is sometimes thought of as critical, even deadlock. However, the tendency of developing knowledge is such that the current processes will serve the basis for new paradigms of cognition, for the ultimate qualitative breakthrough.
There are three main perspectives of metaphysics in philosophy, which “examine the nature of reality”, defined in Friedenberg and Silverman (2015). This studies the issue of mind-body, asking questions, such as, “What is the mind? Is it physical? Does the body necessarily need a mind?” As well as “What is consciousness? Does it exist in everything? “The mind-body problem addresses how physiological or mental properties are related to physical properties”.
Phenomenology is considering the experiences of individuals to disclose what is inside of them. It has transitioned from a descriptive phenomenology which focuses on the purpose of description of an individual and their experiences to the interpretation of what gave them these experiences. Research has been conducted to find ways of gaining knowledge pertaining to understanding an individual and how they are discovered. Knowledge regarding phenomenology is laid out by researchers. The primary purpose of this research is to aid in discovering acceptable knowledge over opinion detailing additional information from researchers.
It is apparent that we are personified entities, but also, that we embrace “more” than just our bodies. “Human persons are physical, embodied beings and an important feature of God’s intended design for human life” (Cortez, 70). 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 mental life such as human dignity and personal identity.
constant undertone of our very identity and our experience of reality; an experience that can