Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Consciousness and its variations
Consciousness and its variations
Views on mind-body dualism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Consciousness and its variations
It can be readily observed that the wind, a non-physical entity, is able to interact with physical entities such as trees. Does this contradict the belief that the soul, a non-physical entity, is unable to interact with the body?
In the reading Philosophy Before Socrates by Robert Mckirahan I was impressed by the elements discussed in the story on Democritus. The idea of the element of wind prompted the questions of physical and non- physical entities in my mind. When I consider the tree and the process of photosynthesis that requires chlorophyll, and the chemist approach to distilling that very chlorophyll the relations comes to mine. Would that relationship be the same if we was to ask the chemist to distill the photosynthesis? Would this relationship be different due to the non-physical abilities of the photosynthesis? Both philosophers and scientists believe the brain creates a physical process that creates thoughts. It is in this thought that relationship between the mental and physical realm can become causal. It’s important to highlight that the brain (like photosynthesis) can’t be isolated from the physical body. In the case of another physical element the wind comes to mind. The wind is composed of material entities, such as molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, all of which creates a rapid movement that
…show more content…
He says that Daedalus created the movement of the wooden statue of Aphrodite by pouring liquid metal onto it. Democritus speaks similarly, since he says that moving atoms, whose nature is never to stay still, highlight the body and then move it. But we will ask if these same things also produce rest. How they will do so is nearly impossible to state. Basically, the soul does not appear to move the body in this way, but through choice of some kind and through
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
This philosophical study will support the theory of interactive mind/body dualism in the writings of Renee Descartes. The distinction between the energy of the mind is typically separated from the function of the body, yet Descartes found that they interacted to form thoughts. Descartes’ theory of dualism also defines how the mind can generate thoughts through the bodily function of the brain. In this context, Descartes found that the pineal gland was an example of a bodily organ, which could transmute the pneuma (aka. the spirit) to generate a thought through the mind. This type of mind and body interaction successfully defines Descartes dualism in the development of the thought process. The pineal gland supports the contention that the brain must work in conjunction with the mind I the formation of human consciousness. In essence, Descartes’ interactive dualism defines the cooperative operations of the brain and the mind that work to form thoughts through the pineal gland and the pneuma.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Elizabeth writes a letter to Descartes asking him to explain to her the relationship “there is between the soul, which is immaterial, and the body, which is material” (Margaret A.: p16). She seeks this clarification particularly on the aspect that regardless of how the soul influences the body movements. This question comes following a claim that Descartes had made “regarding the body and the soul” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). He had intimated that the body and the soul exist as single entities and that each has autonomous function. This is found in the philosophy of the dualism. “The function of the brain is to think. The function of the body, on the other hand, is to show movements” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). It is for this reason that Elizabeth wonders then that if the body and the soul are independent, how comes that the soul can cause body movements? She trusted that the great philosopher of the time, Descartes, would have an explanation considering the matter. The body-soul relation was a concept that Elizabeth found impossible to comprehend. “According to what she had already known from the metaphysics back ground is that movement of a physical body could only be effected by the action of another physical body” (Margaret A.: p17). How the soul managed to cause the body movement despite it being immaterial was the mystery that Elizabeth thought that Descartes would solve.
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.
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.
If, as Epicurus claims, everything is either body or void, the soul must also be one of these two things. It cannot be void, as the void is nothing and can consist only of nothing, so therefore it must be a body or compound of bodies (Letter to Herodotus 63). He believes that the soul is most responsible for sense-perception, and that it must be enclosed within the body to facilitate this (Letter to Herodotus 63-64). If this is the case, it must therefore be acknowledged that the soul must exist...
History is ripe with stories of great men. Hundreds of politicians, philosophers, performers, and writers have left a unique stamp on humanity. But only a select few can be said to have "changed history." The legendary Athenian, Socrates, was one such figure. Socrates ushered in an era of philosophical inquiry that still lingers to this day. In Book Seven of Plato's The Republic, Socrates outlines his perfect regime. According to Socrates, an enlightened "Philosopher-King" must rule such a regime. Now suppose this Republic actually came into being, and Socrates was asked to rule it as a Philosopher King. Would he? Answering this begs three important questions: Is Socrates a true philosopher? Does he have the appropriate virtues? Finally, and most importantly, if Socrates has the capacity to rule, why is he silent about it?
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
two distinct kinds of entities, bodies and minds (1). All objects that exist or can exist belong to one of these categories. The two forms are said to be mutually exclusive and commonly defined by fundamentally different characteristics, yet both are required to accurately define the world around us. According to Descartes, the body is a tangible physical substance (the unthinking thing), whereas the mind is an intangible non-physical substance (the thinking thing) and comes metaphysically before the body (3). The mind and body casually interact with one another while maintaining their distinctiveness: the eyes perceive objects and then focus the image to the pineal gland, where it transmits the information to the non-physical mind; the mind then may transmit a signal to the body, telling it what to do. The mind and body are independent from one another, yet they work in harmony; the mind receives signals from the body and the body responds to signals from the mind.
Since Descartes many philosophers have discussed the problem of interaction between the mind and body. Philosophers have given rise to a variety of different answers to this question all with their own merits and flaws. These answers vary quite a lot. There is the idea of total separation between mind and body, championed by Descartes, which has come to be known as “Cartesian Dualism”. This, of course, gave rise to one of the many major responses to the mind-body problem which is the exact opposite of dualism; monism. Monism is the idea that mind and body one and the same thing and therefore have no need for interaction. Another major response to the problem is that given by Leibniz, more commonly known as pre-ordained harmony or monadology. Pre-ordained harmony simply states that everything that happens, happens because God ordained it to. Given the wide array of responses to the mind-body problem I will only cover those given by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I will also strive to show how each of these philosophers discuss what mind and body are and how each accounts for God’s influence on the interaction of mind and body, as this is an interesting distinction between them, as well as the important question of the role of substance. This is important, I believe, because it helps to understand the dialogue between the three philosophers.
...wever, the only aspect I agree with is the structure of the soul. I adamantly disagree that the soul had past lives and is just merely remembering things in this current lifetime. I recognize that the body does need a source to move it and that source must be energy. If the soul is immortal and energy, (by the laws of thermodynamics) cannot be destroyed, perhaps energy and soul are synonymous and there is no such thing as soul, but mere energy in our bodies. I also don’t believe that what a plant has, whatever it is, can be defined as a soul as Aristotle claims. In whomever or whatever a soul dwells, that entity must be aware of its existence, and I don’t think plants know it’s alive. I also agree with Augustine that the soul genuinely desires happiness and that happiness is only the truth. A soul wouldn’t desire that which is false, if happiness is a natural good thing as Plato holds, then of course the soul desires that which is good. And since that which is good is true, I must agree that our soul desires that true thing-or being.
How would you feel if someone called you a sophist? Before you answer, it's important to know how the meaning of this word has evolved. "During the fifth century, sophists were teachers, speakers, and philosophers who were paid to use rhetoric (Mardner 1)." But many people opposed their style of teaching. Socrates was a philosopher who disagreed with the Sophist's point-of-view. The main differences between the Sophist and Socrates were their views on absolute truth.
The relationship of the human soul and physical body is a topic that has mystified philosophers, scholars, scientists, and mankind as a whole for centuries. Human beings, who are always concerned about their place as individuals in this world, have attempted to determine the precise nature or state of the physical form. They are concerned for their well-being in this earthly environment, as well as their spiritual well-being; and most have been perturbed by the suggestion that they cannot escape the wrongs they have committed while in their physical bodies.
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.