A mind-independent conception implies that no matter what thoughts a person has on a certain topic, this topic possesses a value on itself. The value is independent of the mind and evaluative attitudes that the person might have.
The mind-dependent conception completely contrasts the previous one, it states that the truth cannot be independent of what a person values. It presents that if one is to revise the way one thinks, and this revision is revolutionary, radical, enough then what one held valuable before and held as truth is no more.
All these descriptions and concepts become sufficient for her final argument. Reverting to the evaluative impulses, Street concludes that if these are to be mind-independent there is no reason to think that
…show more content…
humans arrived to these truths in a reliable manner. She equates this to the hypnosis example and explains that accepting these evaluative truths blindly would just be identical to a person accepting the information that the hypnotizer gives them. Referring back to the “Principle of Undermining Genealogy“, one has no reason to believe this information since the causal process is not reliable. After refuting the possibility of mind-independent values, the philosopher proceeds to explain that one should seek an alternative since, according to her, it would be “radical” to abandon all confidence in our values, for this would imply that one has no idea how to live.
The alternative she offers is that values are mind-dependent- The causal reason for our values was explained in this essay, when it was presented that the impulses were inherited by the children from the parents and these impulses were generated, as Street suggests, by “hunches”- The philosopher presents that value usually depends on the hunches we have, and depending on whether or not these, hunches, are vindicated we continue to hold these values or discard …show more content…
them. In conclusion, the philosopher holds that evaluative impulses are not mind independent, but that they are rather mind dependent. As mentioned above, values are created by man and are not universal truths which are held or ignored by civilizations. Supporting Street Let’s begin by trying to figure out how would humans acquire mind-independent values. For, if one is not able to figure this out, then according to Street’s “Principle of Undermining Genealogy” one would have to suspend all thoughts on this topic and deem them, mind-independent values, unreliable. Now the question is how did we obtained these values?
The only reasonable explanation for this is to follow the higher being argument. This is to say that we inherited these values from a higher being, a godlike figure. Why would this be the only explanation you might ask? To answer this question then one must start by analyzing how is it that one comes to know about the values. One is not born knowing any of these, one’s parents are the ones that inculcate them. Again, the question relies in how did one’s parents learn about these values and the answer is the same, their parents were the ones that taught the values them. As one can see this becomes a recursive argument which has no base case. The only base case plausible is that on the creation of the first human someone gave them these mind-independent
values. This on itself would serve as a disqualifying factor since it would step away from the constraints of Street’s argument which is based on evolution. But let’s indulge in the argument and forget about constraints for now. Lets now question the origin of the values themselves, what made the higher being create these values? That question can have two possible answers: • The first one is that the values were always there by some unimaginable reason this higher being was born knowing them, and they were universal even as he was born. If one is to accept this then by the “Principle of Undermining Genealogy” one should suspend the believe in this argument since the causal process by which the god obtained these is undetermined. This then results in the same problem street found in her essay about mind-independent argument, the explanation can be found in the previous essay. Summarizing, she says that abandoning all confidence in our values would imply one has no idea how to live. • The second way to answer is that this higher being thought about the values one should adhere to and then decided to tell humans about them. In this case there was a logical process behind these values, meaning that one can utilize “principle of Vindicating genealogy” to justify the belief in them. The question now becomes, are they mind-dependent or mind-independent? I would argue that they are mind-dependent since even though these are given by the god they are subject to change; the higher being could change his mind about a value. Furthermore, the values are not set to be universal, meaning that a human is not ruled by them. If this is to be true then a human can judge them and change them as they see fit as well. Summarizing, if we follow this logic then two options result from them. These two options lead back to the same argument, this is to say, that values are mind-dependent.
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.
In the struggle of mind over matter, an individual needs to have courage to use the knowledge that he or she possess. By using the knowledge available to us, we as individuals have the ability to overcome opposing forces in our lives which seem to keep us from progressing (mentally and emotionally), and which can seem larger than life. In Homer's epic The Odyssey, The use of cunning to disguise and deceive and to ultimately overcome the godlike opposition that manifests itself many times throughout the book, and makes Odysseus' return home possible. Without the ability to deceive, Odysseus' brute strength alone would have exhibited a futile display of power in the presence of the gods of Ancient Greece. Much like the lives of individuals, if we do not use our cunning and wit in a most effective manner, and rely on strength instead knowledge, we are destined for a life of failure and/or mediocracy . If Odysseus hadn't had the courage and cunning to return home his destiny would have consisted of spending the rest of his life on an island with Calypso, miserable.
The first argument to be discussed is that of conceivability, which aims to disprove that the mind and
ABSTRACT: Many philosophers have lost their enthusiasm for the concept of supervenience in the philosophy of mind. This is largely due to the fact that, as Jaegwon Kim has shown, familiar versions of supervenience describe relations of mere property covariation without capturing the idea of dependence. Since the dependence of the mental on the physical is a necessary requirement for even the weakest version of physicalism, it would seem that existing forms of supervenience cannot achieve that for which they were designed. My aim is to revive the concept of supervenience. I argue that if we construe supervenience along Davidsonian lines — as a relation connecting predicates rather than properties — then it avoids the shortcomings of the more familiar varieties.
... Theory is instrumental in explaining how the mind can be considered an entity that is separate from the body. We can come to this conclusion by first understanding that we are real, and we cannot logically doubt our own presence, because the act of doubting is thinking, which makes you a thinker. Next, we realize that the mind, and all of its experiences and thoughts, will remain the same no matter what changes or destruction that’s endured by the body. Then we can grasp that we are our minds and not our physical bodies. We can use a number of examples to illustrate that these concepts, including the movie The Matrix. Finally, we can disapprove John Locke’s objections to the Dualist Theory by identifying that the mind is capable of conscious and unconscious thought; therefore, it cannot be divisible like the body. Hence the mind is a separate entity from the body.
Values -Everyone has them. Where do those values come from? In literature, one can find the answer to that question by taking a close look at characters and their values. They can be compatible to real life experiences. Look at the two stories, "Abuela Invents the Zero" by Judith Ortiz Cofer, and Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. The main characters in the stories are Constancia from "Abuela Invents the Zero" and the Four March sisters, Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth from Little Women. These two stories demonstrate how Experiences can shape, and change values.
Describe what evolutionary psychologists mean when they employ the term ‘theory of mind’. Use examples and research studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to show why this theory is important in evolutionary psychology.
I have been a firm believer of the anti-Cartesian argument that in order to join together one mind with one body Cartesians and anti-Cartesians are consider vital principles by Strawson, so one must think the mind as something dependent on someone, and not a separate entity altogether, as Descartes would argue.
One knows that one causes some of one 's own ideas read in Principles of Human knowledge page 28. Since the mind is passive in perception, there are ideas which one 's own mind does not
In The Concept of Mind Gilbert Ryle attempts, in his own words, to 'explode the myth' of Cartesian dualism. His primary method in this endeavour is to explain why it is a logical error to describe minds and bodies with semantically similar language; while secondarily, he proposes that even to speak of 'minds' as a second-order ontology is to take the first step in the wrong direction towards intellectual clarity. Thus, with the desire to arrive at this hypothetical locale, the following peripatetic discussion will set out with Ryle at his point of departure, viz. Descartes' Myth; it will then survey the "lay-of-the-land" at Ryle's mapped out midway point, viz. Self-Knowledge; and from there, judge whether Ryle himself is headed in the right direction, or, whether despite the ribbons and fan-fare, Ryle's excursion takes place on a circular track.
Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, these words said by famous philosopher Rene Descartes, entail an interesting idea, that the mind is a separate entity from the body. Those who believe in this theory are known as dualists, dualists believe that mind and body are two separate entities that interact to create a person. The materialists stand opposite to the dualists, believing that all things including the mental phenomenon of consciousness are the result of physical interactions
The operations of the mind are simply seen as the operations of the brain, it is a single substance, in which is” responsible for generating and controlling bodily and mental states”. Without the brain, we are dead. Idealism is a belief, in which everything is a product of one higher mind. This contrasts to physicalism, as ideas or thoughts are unified to be controlled by God. Mastin (2008) noted that “the real things are mental entities, not physical material, which only exist in the sense that they are perceived”. Neutral monism, by William James (1842-1910) and Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) believed that the ultimate reality can be perceived as either physical/mental. There is not much care for which property it is, therefore only focuses on that it is only one thing. (Thales, 624-545 BCE) viewed panpsychism, as the fact that “everything exhibits at least some quality of consciousness, but ultimately, is one pool (substrate) of consciousness”. Everything, including non-living objects have its own element of individual consciousness. Dualism is a belief that “both mental and physical realms are possible, but
Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind (1949) is a critique of the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and is a rejection of the philosophical theory that mental states are distinct from physical states. Ryle argues that the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body (i.e., the approach which is taken by the philosophy of Descartes) assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and Matter. According to Ryle, this assumption is a basic 'category-mistake,' because it attempts to analyze the relation betwen 'mind' and 'body' as if they were terms of the same logical category. Furthermore, Ryle argues that traditional Idealism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, and that Materialism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality.
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.
A commonly discussed issue in philosophy is the problem of self. The concept of the self suggest that the self is a single unit, disconnected from other selves, and unique to each individual in terms of hopes, desires, beliefs, and so on (Rounder, 76). Searle introduces questions of the self through a series of examples, laying out a general question of how we may still identify with the same essence of self despite physical changes taking place within our bodies. According to Searle, Descartes’s famous phrase “I think therefore I am” provides little insight to what can be considered as a self; however, Dualism is able to provide for the concept of self as “identical to a mental substance” (Searle, 25). 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