Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship between mind and body
Relationship between mind and body
Religion in our society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relationship between mind and body
Pascal’s wager states “even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational” (Saka). This was the most influential philosophy to me throughout the course. When the subject of theology was brought up in class, I was nervous but also intrigued. I was born into an uncommon kind of household with two atheist parents. My family celebrated Christmas and Easter but we never made any holiday directly about God. For the majority of my adolescence I identified as an atheist without any knowledge of any religious beliefs except the most prominent basics of Christianity and Judaism. My parents did, however, express to me why they thought religion was bad. I was told it was just an excuse for fighting, ignorance, control, and that it was all fantasy. They always allowed me to make my own decision on this …show more content…
I was receiving new information from all perspectives when, for all my life, I was only given one side. Different parts of the course applied to the different beliefs I had. Some topics appealed to my atheistic side, and others gave me new ideas about the possibility of there being more than just mortal humans. I have always believed in souls but where they go after the body dies is still an incomplete idea for me. Plato’s view of the self being synonymous with the soul and the immortality of souls is the closest thing I can agree with regarding souls. The dispute between mind and body and which is superior made me think about my current existence and my existence after my body dies. Regardless of the body, I believe that the mind is superior but the two do work together. I had never even thought of the possibility of there being only a body but I do understand how someone could think that. Thinking from the opposing perspectives and getting different views helped me find out what I personally believed to be
When I was at school in Vermont, one of my teachers explained to me Pascal's Wager. According to this teacher, the philosopher and mathematician Pascal had tried to establish the costs and benefits of believing in God. He saw it in this way: you can either believe in God or not. If you do believe in God, and there is in fact no God, then you will perhaps have spent some extra energy unnecessarily abstaining from certain pleasures and wasting your Sunday mornings in Church, but overall you did not give up too much. And, it could be argued, you may have actually treated your fellow men more kindly then you would have otherwise. If, however, there is a God, and you believed in him, then you get eternal salvation.
Several authors that we have studied have argued for and against the concept of believing in a higher power. It is a debate that has been argued over since the days of Plato and Aristotle, and it continues to be written about today. People have their own views on what happens after life and if it is or is not defined by a god, and these views essentially are the dogmas that define different religions. Blaise Pascal had his own opinion on whether a reasonable person should believe in God. Essentially, Pascal believed that there is no justifiable reason not to believe in God. Despite the counterarguments by several scholars against Pascal’s proposition, his proof still stands as a justification for a reasonable person to believe.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
Over the course of this class I feel like I have become a much better writer. When I go back and look at some of my Journal entries and assignments that I did at the beginning of the semester, I can’t help but tense up at some of the things I wrote. Sometimes the things I was writing didn’t flow well, or I might have even have missed glaring grammar mistakes.
Over the past year I have grown as both a person and a writer. My writing has improved
As a second language learner I have never expected myself to be a perfect writer throughout the semester. Even If English was my first language still, I would not be a perfect writer. It is not about first or second language, it is about how well I understand the learning objectives. Then organizing and writing with my own ideas and putting them in my paper. I am going to be honest, I am not good at English subject and English subject is my strongest weakness than the other subjects. In this paper I will discuss and analyze my own writing, reflecting on the ways that my writing has improved throughout the semester.
The proof for the existence of God is an issue that may never be resolved. It has caused division among families and friends, nations and society. The answer to the question “does God exist?” is almost an impossible one to give with certainty seeing that there is a variety of people, ideas, cultures and beliefs. So how does one know if one’s actions here on earth could have eternal consequences? What is, if any, a “safe bet” to make? Blaise Pascal was a 15th century philosopher and a mathematician who proposed the idea that although one cannot know for certain that God exists, one can make a “safe bet” that it is far better to believe in God than not to believe in God. This is not a proof for the existence of God but rather an idea that suggest that if there is a God, it is in the person’s benefit to believe rather to disbelieve because the odds are in favor of the believer. This gambler-like idea is better known as “Pascal’s Wager” or “The Gambler’s Argument.” Nevertheless, this sort of play-the-ponies idea is not quite precise. Although Pascal’s Wager serves as a stepping-stone for non-believers, it is a rather vague, faithless and inaccurate argument.
Growing up in a predominantly white neighborhood as a kid sanctioned me to perpetually become aware that I was different from my neighbors. Through some social interactions with my friends in elementary schools, I quickly descried that my appearances, such as my hair, eyes, and nose was different from my peers. For instance, my hair was a lot darker than most of my peers’ hair and the texture of my hair was different from most of them. “Grow out your hair” were phrases that lingered throughout my childhood days, where I had my hair at a very short length. Throughout my childhood, I longed to try to be a part of the dominant group in society such as the Caucasians, but I did not do anything to be a part of the bigger group in society. Instead,
Ever since I started talking this class, English 1301, with Dr. Piercy, I have been able to expand my writing and thinking skills. Not only was I able to make more better essays but I also learned important topics such as how education creates an impact in the world. In this essay I will be talking about three writings and how they are related to this course semester. The three writings are “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt, “Why I Write Bad” by Milo Beckman,and “Statement of Teaching Philosophy” by Stephen Booth. How are these 3 writings related to this semester’s course work?
Through the course of these last few weeks, we as a class have discussed the Soul, both in concept, and as it applies in terms of our readings of The Phaedo and as a philosophical construct. But the questions involved in that: In the ideas of good, of living a ‘good’ life and getting ‘rid of the body and of their wickedness’, as ‘there is no escape from evil’, (Phaedo, 107c), in whether or not the soul is immortal, or if our bodies themselves get in the way of some higher form of knowledge, or even of the importance of philosophy itself are rather complex, simultaneously broad and specific, and more than a little messy. While I discuss these aspects, the singular question that I feel applies to this is, in a sort of nihilistic fashion, does
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
The soul can be defined as a perennial enigma that one may never understand. But many people rose to the challenge of effectively explaining just what the soul is about, along with outlining its desires. Three of these people are Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. Even though all three had distinctive views, the similarities between their views are strikingly vivid. The soul indeed is an enigma to mankind and the only rational explanation of its being is yet to come and may never arrive.
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
Plato; a Greek philosopher who postulated about the difference between the body and the soul would disagree with this as he believed in the idea that the soul is indeed distinct from the body. He stated that the soul was capable of knowledge as it was immortal and as such had experienced the forms during its time spent in the , 'world of the forms ' before it was incarnated our mortal bodies. Plato goes so far as to use the term , 'imprisoned ' in his book phaedo when describing the nature of our soul in the body; he states that the goal of our soul is to reach the , 'world of the forms ' and that true philosophers avoid distractions such as ,loves and lusts, and fears.....and endless foolery ' the body creates which 'impede us in the search