John Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1689. He strongly defends empiricism in this essay and states his views on human knowledge and true understanding. In Book II, Locke offers his theory of personal identity; namely the mind theory, also known as ‘the psychological criterion’, in the middle of his accounts of general identity where he draws lines between inert objects, living things and persons.
Descartes’ epiphany of “I exist, I am” was the catalyst for the exploration of the issues he discusses in Meditations. Although I find problems in some instances of his reasoning, I realize that he has provided answers through his Method of Doubt that have endured the ages and allow us to continue to ponder their truth today.
In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...
Thus, in our search to understand that which is intangible, we come to realize that the definitions that we seek are further than meets the eye. For although many may say they understand what is and is not real, they often rely on a surface level of understanding. Yet when the curious seek out a deeper grasp of the words real, surreal, and reality, many would discover that they are, in fact, unsolvable. Thus we will never know the ultimate truth, we only can get closer and closer to
Heidegger proposed "to demonstrate, by the success of an actual interpretation of [Plato’s gigantomachia] that this sense of Being [as presence] in fact guided the ontological questioning of the Greeks...." I will show Heidegger failed this self-imposed test. Then with Heidegger’s interpretation as a starting point, I will show the basic structure of the text.
Heideggers Conceptual Essences: Being and the Nothing, Humanism, and Technology Being and the Nothing are the same. The ancient philosopher Lao-tzu believed that the world entertains no separations and that opposites do not actually exist. His grounding for this seemingly preposterous proposition lies in the fact that because alleged opposites depend on one another and their definitions rely on their differences, they cannot possibly exist without each other. Therefore, they are not actually opposites. The simple and uncomplex natured reasoning behind this outrageous statement is useful when trying to understand and describe Martin Heideggers deeply leveled philosophy of Being and the nothing. Lao-tzus uncomplicated rationale used in stating that supposed opposites create each other, so cannot be opposite, is not unlike Heideggers description of the similarity between the opposites Being and the nothing. Unlike Lao-tzu, Heidegger does not claim that no opposites exist. He does however say that two obviously opposite concepts are the same, and in this way, the two philosophies are similar. He believes that the separation of beings from Being creates the nothing between them. Without the nothing, Being would cease to be. If there were not the nothing, there could not be anything, because this separation between beings and Being is necessary. Heidegger even goes so far as to say that Being itself actually becomes the nothing via its essential finity. This statement implies a synonymity between the relation of life to death and the relation of Being to nothingness. To Heidegger, the only end is death. It is completely absolute, so it is a gateway into the nothing. This proposition makes Being and the nothing the two halves of the whole. Both of their roles are equally important and necessary in the cycle of life and death. Each individual life inevitably ends in death, but without this death, Life would be allowed no progression: The nothing does not merely serve as the counterconcept of beings; rather, it originally belongs to their essential unfolding as such (104). Likewise, death cannot occur without finite life. In concordance with the statement that the nothing separates beings from Being, the idea that death leads to the nothing implies that death is just the loss of the theoretical sandwich's bread slices, leaving nothing for the rest of ever. The existence of death, therefore, is much more important in the whole because it magnifies the nothing into virtually everything.
Heidegger opines that human existence is grounded in our always finding ourselves in a ‘world’.
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...
This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." This paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy.
I now realize that there a variety of ways of thinking, and it is up to me to decide whether or not I want to follow and believe the theories and ways of thinking. If I were to summarize this class into one sentence or statement, I would say that my eyes have been opened to the vast world of profound intellects. The key topics that have been discussed in this paper include an explanation of my epistemological stance and where my roots originated, an exploration of my views and the textbooks views on reality and freedom, a discussion on where God is placed in my world and life, an description on how I make appropriate ethical decisions, an analysis on my greatest influencers in my life, an elucidation on how I observe life and purpose in life, and an overview on how this class has assisted me in life. In reflection, I now realize where I fit inside this world, and I often reflect and ponder the knowledge that I have attained throughout my time in this class and in many other classes previous to this one. Philosophy has broken the mental barriers that I have placed in front of my ways of thinking, and I can see that there is so much more to learn in this
In order to understand the meaning of existence in relation to philosophy, we need to discuss its ordinary meaning and the various levels of existence. The Chambers Concise Dictionary (1992, 362) defines ‘exist’ as having an actual being; to live; to occur; to continue to live’ and it defines existence as ‘the state of existing or being’. In other words, the Dictionary does not make a distinction between existence and living. However, philosophically there is the view that existence is different from living. What then is the meaning of existence in philosophy? In order to answer this question we shall examine how philosophers have used the term in their various works. Our attention shall focus on Plato and Sartre.
As presented in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the aim of Life is to free itself from confinement "in-itself" and thus to become "for-itself." Not only does Hegel place this unfolding of Life at the very beginning of the dialectical development of self-consciousness; Hegel characterizes self-consciousness itself as a form of Life and even refers us to the development of self-consciousness in the Master/Slave dialectic as an essential moment in the fulfillment of this aim of Life to become 'for-itself.' The following paper delineates this overlooked thread of the dialectic. The central thesis is that each step along the path of self-consciousness' attempt at making the truth of its unity with itself explicit, is simultaneously a step in the realization of the aim of Life: to become 'for-itself.' In the review of the Master/Slave dialectic, it reveals itself that the necessary condition for the fulfillment of Life's aim lies in work. Yet...
Self-identity is one of the main themes of philosophy throughout its history. In general, “self-identity” is a term that means thoughts or feelings with which you distinguish you from others, and we use the term in ordinary conversation without a solid concept of “self-identity”. However, arguing about self-identity philosophically, there arise many questions: whether there is any essence of yourself, whether you are the same person as you when you were a baby, whether memory or experience makes you, and what is “self-identity.” To solve these questions, many philosophers have been arguing the topic “self identity” for so long.