Egocentric Subjectivism and the Universal Consciousness
It was at the beginning of my vacation that I realised the world was not all it appeared to be. Up until now, I had always accepted that the world was a collection of material objects independent of myself. As I sit in the airport lounge waiting for my flight, it now seems that everything I see is nothing more than a series of images projected in my mind. The lounge is like a stage set and people, like characters in a film, pass by and disappear. The world, or rather my world, is simply that which exists in my mind, but has no material existence in my mind. Does that mean that the objects of the world have no existence outside my mind?
My understanding of existence is what my mind reasons it to be. Even if someone tells me what existence is to them, I must still consider their comments in the context of my own knowledge and interpret it as what existence means to me. For example, a passenger in the airport lounge complains that a flight delay will lose him a valuable contract. I know what the loss of a contract means, but only because I can relate it to my own experience of a similar situation. I then make an assumption that it means the same to him, but I cannot be certain of that. I can only know what existence means to me, and it is egocentric subjectivism that takes this to its ultimate limit.
My world and everything in it are dependent on my mind for its existence and without my mind that world would not exist. Despite this reasoning, it does seem that I am moving about within a three-dimensional world. Movement itself can be illusory depending on what is believed to be stationary. When I arrived at Zurich I boarded a train and waited to travel on to my destination. A train on the next track also stood waiting. Before long we were off and I watched the carriages of the other train swiftly disappear from view as we gained speed. As we passed the last carriage, I saw that we were still in the station and realised that it was the other train moving and not ours. However, when the train made its way around the mountains and up into the Alps, it did seem as if there was a three-dimensional space through which it moved.
"Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)." - The New York Times. N.p., 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Stein, R. Conrad. Cuban Missile Crisis: In the Shadow of Nuclear War. Berkeley Heights, NJ:
This paper will examine the reliability of George Berkeley’s metaphysical theory of Idealism. Berkeley’s Idealism holds that reality is made real by what the mind perceives and that what we perceive to be material is really a collection of immaterial sensations. Idealism is defined as the view “that only mental entities exist, so physical things exist only in the sense that they are perceived” (“Idealism”). Berkeley’s argument of Subjective Idealism is the view that reality consists of one’s mind and its ideas, while Objective Idealism says in addition, a supreme mind produces ideas in the physical world that do not depend on human minds to exist (Velasquez 146). Without Objective Idealism, one can undergo solipsism which is the belief that only one’s self and experiences of the world are real and everything else does not exist (“Solipsism”). Opposing Idealism is the metaphysical view of Materialism which holds that only physical things exist (“Materialism”). This paper will start by examining George Berkeley’s views of Subjective and Objective Idealism and how they apply to reality. Then, the critiques made and supported by Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes against both views of Idealism will be argued. However, these arguments fail to properly examine Berkeley’s Idealism, thus causing the critiques to be based upon misinformation. Although the criticisms pose potential flaws, Berkeley’s Idealism continues to be a major discussion in the metaphysical debate.
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
In his “Proof of an External World”, Moore puts forth several supported hypotheses in regards to the nature of the existence of things outside the self. Primarily, Moore discusses hands; his argument is that if he can produce two hands then it follows logically that two hands must exist. Furthermore, Moore puts forth the theory that if hands exist then this alone is proof of an external world. In opposition to Moore’s opinions will be found three main arguments: firstly that all of Moore’s evidence is based upon sensory input, secondly that the truth of one fact based on the truth of another fact forms an Epistemic Circle in this case, and finally that the evidence out forth by Moore, even if proved, does not necessarily prove the fact that he is attempting to prove.
I know that my mind exists, because I am here to question its existence. To concreteize this idea, imagine a house and you are building a house on the ground which you see. The house is built out of wood, metal, and earth on the ground. Does the house exist because of the materials used to build it, or because your mind tells you that it exists? Well based on Descartes, there are no such things as wood or metal in reality because the only thing that is real is the mind itself and the built house is a figment of your mind to what you perceive as real, better known as an illusion.
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
Throughout the course of day-to-day business life, the business professionals come in contact with quite a sum of ethical dilemmas. There are various ways to handle these ethical dilemmas, but failure to follow the appropriate manner could result in an unethical outcome. The ethical guides related to the book definitely help students develop an ethical character that is sure to stand out for highly ethical companies. In addition, there are companies that test how ethical applicants are before hiring them, this in turn makes getting the job more difficult and costly. However, despite the high cost and difficulty said companies stay firm to ethics, guaranteeing they get top-of-the-line employees who will act in an ethical manner. Ethics is defined
is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies." Then he goes on to say that
To conceive – or to think in terms of concepts – is to make an epistemic claim, which may not be the same as attributing of something that it possibly exists in reality. The philosophy of the mind remains indebted to Kripke’s distinction between epistemic possibility (how things could conceivably be) and metaphysical possibility (how things could really be).[4] What could conceivably be the case might be metaphysically impossible (i.e.: impossible to instantiate in a possible world), and this is to be known a posteriori rather than a priori. What do the problem of ethnocentrism, the problem of obstacle-concepts, and the problem of conceivability have in common? Firstly, they invoke a belief in a set of concepts which they purport to be the best available description of the world.[5] Secondly, they involve a certain bias that awaits critical reflection. In ethnocentrism, it is the cultural bias of the Western or Westernized researcher; in the philosophy of science, it is the sociological bias of the prevalent scientific community; in the philosophy of the mind, it is the bias of the individual mind questing after a mind-independent reality. Finally, these biases are smuggled into the
Ideas are what the mind is thinking of when something happens. Human minds know ideas not objects. George Berkeley discusses idea from the eye of the perceiver. We perceive ordinary objects such as houses, mountains and etc. We perceive only ideas therefore implying that ordinary objects are ideas. Through objects and things we are able to experience having ideas. The ideas represent external material objects which allows us to perceive them. According to Berkeley "esse est percipi" which translates to “to be is to be perceived" (Stanford, 2014). The existence of an idea cannot be separated from what is being perceived. If an idea or object is not perceived, then it does not exist. By sight I have the thoughts of light and hues with their few degrees and varieties. By touch I see and feel how hard and delicate, warmth and chilly, movement and resistant something is. Anything that we cannot perceive with our senses doesn 't exist. The soul cannot be perceived. However I wouldn 't go so far as to say "realize and recognize its presence." I think that instead of taking the literal approach that it could be extended to things that we do not yet know are there and yet are capable of being perceived "one day."
Detzer, David. "Chapter 2: America vs. Castro." The Brink: Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. New York: Crowell, 1979. 34.
“Consciousness is defined as everything of which we are aware at any given time - our thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions of the external environment. Physiological researchers have returned to the study of consciousness, in examining physiological rhythms, sleep, and altered states of consciousness (changes in awareness produced by sleep, meditation, hypnosis, and drugs)” (Wood, 2011, 169). There are five levels of consciousness; Conscious (sensing, perceiving, and choosing), Preconscious (memories that we can access), Unconscious ( memories that we can not access), Non-conscious ( bodily functions without sensation), and Subconscious ( “inner child,” self image formed in early childhood).
For example, what existence does the rock have outside of our Existence as we perceive the rock? Do we as perceivers exist in a way the rock doesn't. The rock seems to be inert and non-responsive. It does not seem to live. Where does life for this rock begins is a good question that I don't really have the answer to, but from my knowledge a rock doesn't have the mechanism to convey its knowledge of self. I think the only way we can figure out if a rock have consciousness is by Being a rock only; furthermore, a rock has a being, because it has a state of existence, and anything that has a Being must have a consciousness, by implicative definition.We Exist because we can procreate and respond under our own power. We also say we have Being, because we are conscious and reflexively self conscious of our existence and our life. So what Being do we have apart from our consciousness, is the rock's Being different from it's existence. The Universe is another tough concept like, what was it created from, but humans have decreed that you can't make something out of nothing. So how did we go from nothingness to the entire Universe without a Being. Many people might claim it was the Big Bang Theory, others that are religious might say the answer to
Many theories bombarded in an attempt to set a moral code by which people are ought to live by. Plenty of controversies and arguments are raised against each one. One of the controversial moral doctrines is egoism, or simply preferring one's self interest over other's interests and desires. The doctrine seems to be reasonable to a certain extent at first, yet it fails drastically when having a second thought about it. Throughout my essay, I will explain the different types of egoism, and argue for each one of them. Finally, I will provide counter arguments for each type along with my personal opinion and analysis.