Consequently, it is an unquestionable aspect of human existence. However, the two philosophers under consideration diverge on this almost self-evident existence of the self. Descartes argues that the self is self-evident and is the aspect of human existence that allows thoughts to occur to the human mind. He proposes that the self is as certain as existence since the two are mutually exclusive concepts. On the other hand, Hume proposes that the self
Immanuel Kant’s doctrine of transcendental idealism contends that all we can know about external things lies in their appearances as they are presented to us and affect our sensibility. Initially, this may seem to be the same principle found in traditional idealism. However, unlike traditional idealists, Kant does not deny the existence of the external things. He believes that these objects are indeed real. However, we cannot know anything about their existence independent of us, how they may truly be in themselves; we can only know about their appearances, which are represented in us (Kant 40).
Idealism states that the mind is all that exists and that the outside world is either mental or an illusion that the mind creates. Idealism also says that all things are ideas. Idealism argues that the physical is a function of the mind therefore saying that the mind is the only one that exists. Monists argue that mental events are physical events and the mind is what has the most control. Monists still cannot come to a conclusion whether the body is the one that exists or the mind is the one that exists.
Dualism can identify the mind with the self, as each individual person possesses his or her own mind, and therefore has a self. While this doesn’t account for the physical aspects in which people attribute to their self-identity, as laid out by Searle in the example of the Ship of Theseus, the independence of the mind from the body as a way to identity the self outlines a
By contrast, in knowledge by representation, the subject experiences another kind of relation to the object of knowledge thanks to the presence of a medium in the subject’s mind, called "mental form." Mullâ Sadrâ considers mental forms as the mental existence of the same quiddities (mâhîyyât) existing in the external world. The only difference is that they have another type of existence. In this essay, I argue that this approach is congruent with the principality of quiddity, which is rejected by Mullâ Sadrâ. To be consistent with the basic pillar of Mullâ Sadrâ’s philosophy, viz., the principle of existence, I hold that one should begin with the continuity of existence through mental, imagery and external worlds from which the mind abstracts the same quiddity, not vice versa.
Along with an argument usually comes a counter-argument or rebuttal. The main question about the mind-body issue is how can us humans determine the interaction between mind and matter. I believe property dualism is a logic, justifiable response because it separates the mental entity from brain states, and shows how it can be related to physical substances. The knowledge argument helps convey this view because it shows how non-physical properties such as consciousness, can be proven in any given person. The problems of interaction argument is a well structured rebuttal against property dualism, mostly because it brings about the issue that the mind is not a physical entity, thus it 's not possible for a non-physical substance to interact with a physical substance.
It logically explains why the mind and brain are separate. Also, the divisibility argument raises good points to allow dualism to appear to be the more attractive idea in my eyes. Dualism claims that the mind is a distinct nonphysical thing, a complete entity that is independent of any physical body to which it is temporarily attached. Any mental states and activities, as well as physical ones, originate from this unique entity. Dualism states that the real essence of a person has nothing to do with his physical body, but rather from the distinct nonphysical entity of the mind.
The space that surrounds is not merely the universe is not merely ideas of human minds. The writer subscribes to the materialism school of thought. A human being is the mind itself because the mind starts operating whenever there is there is intellect of individuality. The mind originates from inside the brain and this makes the brain a tangible form of the mind. In my view, the brain and mind are inseparable if the brain is not there then the mind will also not be there.
Heidegger adopts a non-metaphysical, coherent way of thinking to explain ‘being’ without reducing it to a scientific phenomenon. Reading Heidegger’s philosophy Heidegger makes use of certain philosophical terms in a non-conventional sense. His philosophy is best understood when the reader personally relates to the description. Dasein Heidegger opines that human existence is grounded in our always finding ourselves in a ‘world’. He emphasizes that human existence is inseparable from a context, which in this case is called a ‘world’.
According to the Central Argument the relationship between consciousness and self bears the same structure as that between consciousness and world. The self and the world are thus linked together as “two objects for the absolute, impersonal consciousness” (Ibid, 57). As a philosophy of human experience7, this account of the relationship between self and world seems to leave out too many aspects of our actual experience to provide a satisfying theory. As we look at the counterexamples above – the reading example and the up-bringing example – it seems quite clear that consciousness is not a function disconnected from the rest of the person; and that the complexity of the human person cannot be reduced to the relation ‘consciousness of the self’. Rather than thus simplifying the interplay between consciousness, self and world into an intelligible geometric structure (Bachelard  1994, 215), let us have a look at an example which may further blur those distinctions.