It is aware of the world and has feelings and thoughts about the information that it takes in from the world. Minds are non-physical and the thoughts it produces do not have anything in common with the physical. We can see, touch, or hear our thoughts. An idea can exist, but only in the mind. An idea has no physical properties to it.
Finally, the faculty of sense perception is an entirely passive ability to receive ideas of physical objects. As one does not have any control over such ideas, it follows that the ideas must be produced by some external source (ie: a body itself). Descartes also suggests that other bodies must exist if a non-deceiving God exists. For a non-deceiving god wouldn't allow Descartes to believe that something exists if infact it wasn't real. As to whether Descartes believes other minds exist is a question left unanswered.
My thoughts do not take up space, do not have a mass, and cannot be divided, unlike matter. Descartes concludes that mind and body are two distinct things, as the mind could exist without a body, and a body without a mind. Even if my body were to be only a product of my senses alone, I know for a fact that my mind, or soul, must exist in this universe. This leads to Descartes’s belief that he must exist. Because he has the ability to think he exists, that proves he has something of existence in at least the non-physical world.
Only introspection is immune from illusion, confusion, or doubt. Information about the world outside of mind is prone to these hazards. We cannot conclude with certainty that other minds exist. Thus, the Cartesian is left to what I would dub a lonely existence: “Even if [a Cartesian] prefers to believe that to other human bodies there are harnessed minds not unlike his own, he cannot claim to be able to discover their individual characteristics. Absolute solitude is on this showing the ineluctable destiny of the soul.
Parfit acknowledges the claim that if there are two separate consciousness, then there is no longer one person, but two. Parfit, rightfully denies this claim as plausible because of his no-self position. To support his position that there is no self, he would be right to reject the idea that having two streams of consciousness would mean there are two people in one body because the mind is not the qualifying factor for existence. His example of being able to reconnect/disconnect his mind makes it impossible for the two-minded person to exist because if he had that ability to separate his mind into two then reconnect, he would still be relying on his whole brain. Here his brain is the river and the two the stream.
He came up with this idea by stating that the brain is made of matter, and the mind is not physically real. The mind is not a physical property in the world, but the brain is a physical object. From this, he determined that the brain and mind are two distinct things. I agree with this statement because the mind is not dependent on information from the body. I believe that Descartes would favor the side of mental phenomena not being able to be explained by reference to physical phenomena because he believes that the mind can live without a body, and he doubts the existence of the minds of other people.
It is something that is beyond our senses so we cannot touch it, smell it, hear it, see it, or even taste it. To explain the soul is quite difficult because we cannot scientifically prove that it is real or that it is embedded into us humans. I believe in the concept of the soul and that our body serves as its temple. Some people have dark souls, while others have lively souls. To reiterate, the soul is our true essence, our true being.
From the preceding considerations, it is clear that there is an underlying presumption that the wax already exists. But since the Second Meditation should follow the course of his doubt, he fails to convince us that we should judge the human mind as more distinct than the body, without making any recognition of what is external to the mind. More precisely, it is impossible to realize the mind as a distinct thing unless there is already consciousness of an external body from which it is distinct. In conclusion, this distinction cannot be made without first acknowledging the existence of each being: the wax is distinct from the mind as much as the mind is distinct from the wax. Our perception of the body can cease to be obtained in any way by our senses, therefore, our knowledge of the wax remains uncertain.
Faith in someone other than yourself, weakens the will in the sense that it takes away from the faith and authority you should have com... ... middle of paper ... ...y observing that "I can touch and see my being," we recognize that we exist. The ego is always present, or nothing exists for the individual. Bibliography: Because the mind can be directed toward nonexistent as well as real objects, Husserl noted that phenomenological reflection does not presuppose that anything exists, but rather amounts to a "bracketing of existence," that is, setting aside the question of the real existence of the contemplated object. An object has meaning only to ion the extent that is given by the subject. Husserl considered it a great mystery and wonder that a group of beings was aware of their existence.
Gardner's irony should be crystal clear--Grendel is amusing himself with Sartre's phenomenology. 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.