Arguments For Property Dualism
Arguments for Property Dualism Property dualism proclaims the existence of a single, physical substance (unlike Cartesian dualism), but argues that this single substance has two potential properties: physical and mental states that are not reducible. It is not just that we might talk of mental and physical states in different ways, but that the difference is in ontology as well as language. This is equivalent to historical notions that living things contained some 'vital force'. Essentially mental states are an extra property of matter in the brain. Property dualists argue that consciousness is caused by the physical processes of the brain and that mental properties are caused by physical properties, but have no effect themselves on the physical properties, making the relationship one way. Fundamentally, property dualism is an advancement of substance dualism, and over this theory it has several advantages. Firstly, by having only a single substance it avoids to the problems of interaction and location associated with the non-spatial Cartesian mental substance. Secondly, it is not rooted in religious beliefs and is thus more scientifically based than Descartes' theory. Thirdly property dualism is compatible with Descartes' arguments that the mind has properties that are distinct from the body, thus taking the benefits whilst leaving the drawbacks. Finally, property dualism
Explain Wittgenstein(TM)s attack on the notion of a logically private language
Explain Wittgenstein's attack on the notion of a logically private language Wittgenstein outlines two problems for the existence of other minds and the impossibility of a logically private language. Wittgenstein's major attack is on the Cartesian idea that meanings of words and mental states have the capability of being logically private. If he succeeded in doing so, he completely irradiates any presupposition raised by Cartesians. Descartes believed in solipsism, namely one can never be sure of the existence of others. One merely forms a conception of one's own mental state. The Cartesian further argues for the view that I and my mental state exist, and exist only (''I think, therefore I am''); the person is merely using their own logically private language to formulate such sceptical doubt. Yet Wittgenstein attacks this. He states that it is illogical to claim that one can talk about the mind, solely from a private first person perspective. Thus, the person is unable to acquire and use general terms and concepts that are used to classify and describe the mind. In other words, one cannot talk about one's own mind. This creates the assumption that a person can speak a language only they can understand, in the logical private state of their own mind. He goes on to say that, first person ascriptions are only able to take place because; a private language has been
Explain how Aquinass theory of Natural Law can be used to decide on the right course of action. (25 Marks)
Explain how Aquinas's theory of Natural Law can be used to decide on the right course of action. (25 Marks) Natural Moral Law includes those ethical theories which state that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. This natural order is determined by some supernatural power. Natural Law originated in the philosophy of Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) and was developed by Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274). It is an absolute theory of ethics that is rooted in our human nature and our search for genuine happiness and fulfilment. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law that: * Human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. * Even without knowledge of God, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. * The Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge the laws of particular societies. Like Aristotle, Aquinas concludes that humans aim for some goal or purpose, but does not see this as eudemonia which Aristotle saw as the final goal for humans (supreme happiness/good). Humans for Aquinas are above all made "in the image of god" and so the supreme good must be the development of this image i.e. perfection. However unlike Aristotle, Aquinas did not think that this perfection was possible in this life. For Aquinas, Natural Law i.e.
Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of political and social tyranny.
Compare and contrast the philosophical contributions Nietzsche and Mill make to our understanding of political and social tyranny. Both philosophers, Nietzsche and Mill make contrasting and similar contributions to our understanding of the two terms. I intend explore how each philosopher does this and the differences and similarities between their two philosophies. Before comparing and contrasting the contributions of both Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of political and social tyranny, it is important to define exactly what these terms mean, and to distinguish between the two. Political tyranny on the one hand is the imposition of positive liberty by a tyrant to an individual or a collective group of individuals. That is, a situation where a certain way of life is dictated to citizens through the presence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. If we lived in a politically tyrannical society, we would be living under the control of a dictator, ruled by a single governing body. Furthermore, the pressure for an individual to conform to these "rules" can be seen as a result of ones fear of public disapproval - a recognised form of social tyranny. Philosopher John Stewart Mill, rigorously educated by his philosopher father James Mill, began making contributions to politics and philosophy from the early 1830s, when he wrote profusely on such political and philosophical
Socrates was a fascinating yet exasperating philosopher who influenced many Western thinkers of today.
Socrates was a fascinating yet exasperating philosopher who influenced many Western thinkers of today. Socrates unusual methods of his time made him a philosophical martyr. Today Socrates methods and philosophies are used almost on an everyday basis by most people in the world. Socrates helped to shape our modern everyday values. Socrates was born (470BC) and lived in Athens, Greece for all of his life. Athens was filled with several sophers, traveling teachers who taught for money. Athens was a beautiful city with buildings covered in gold. In Socrates's time, he saw many of the gorgeous buildings such as the Acropolis and the Parthenon The center of the city or the agora was where one could most often find Socrates. It was here that he taught his philosophies. Socrates was described as ugly. He was potbellied with large bulging eyes and a snub nose. Anyone who knew him knew that inside he was "perfectly delightful." Socrates considered himself a "philo-sopher," or one who loves wisdom. He thought he was different from other philosophers of his time, according to him most bragged about how much they knew about their particular subject, when in fact they knew very little. Knowing this, Socrates considered himself a true philosopher- one who knows they know little about life and is troubled by knowing that. In 399 BC, Socrates was
Outline and explain two criticisms of the teleological argument
Outline and explain two criticisms of the teleological argument The word teleology comes from the Greek word telos which means 'an account of' and originally meant the final ends, but now takes the meaning that everything has a purpose and a goal. The teleological argument attempts to establish the existence of God relevant to the observations of order and purpose in the universe, the teleological argument is also referred to as the argument from design as it takes the view point that there is evidence for the God, the designer. Although as Antony Flew had discovered that really it is an argument to design where as an argument from design infers that it argues from the premise that the world had been designed which petition principi, assumes what it is trying to prove. William Paley's argument from analogy begins with him imagining himself kicking a stone whilst walking, and then later finding a watch; he asks the same question of 'how did that object come to be here?'. Paley can accept that the stone may have been there forever, but the watch which is a man-made object surely could not have been there forever, therefore there must be something about the presence of the watch which requires further explanation. Paley notes down the differences between the watch and the stone, he discovers that the watch has means, ends and adaptation as it is able to tell the time; the
Plato's Theory of Forms
Essay Answers- Plato's Theory of Forms Plato had many philosophies but the main one was his theory of forms, which we sometimes refer to as the theory of ideas. Plato's Forms are not mental entities, nor even mind-dependent. They are independently existing entities whose existence and nature are graspable only by the mind, even though they do not depend on being so grasped in order to exist. He believed that as well as the world that we live in and experience, which is a material world, there is another eternal world of concepts or forms. This eternal world is more real than the world, which we experience through the senses and it the object of knowledge not opinion. The world of sense experience has constant change, and this was a popular topic in philosophy as there is no truth or evidence that the world never stays the same from one moment to the next. Plato believed that that the answer was that there is certain truth, but this material world cannot reveal it. It can only present appearances, which lead us to form opinions, rather than knowledge. The truth is to be found on a different plane, in the non-material world of ideas or forms. Plato believed that if something was real, it had to permanent and unchanging. He thought that reality and perfect. When the Socrates asked him complex questions such as 'what is beauty?' or 'what is justice?' he was not trying to
Before answering whether both poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge, one must first understand what poetry and science are and what they do.
Before answering whether both poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge, one must first understand what poetry and science are and what they do. Poetry is an artist's way of abstractly conveying his or her ideas through writing so as to stimulate the emotional side of the readers. Science on the other hand, is an objective way of clearly stating facts so as to stimulate the "formal" or fact craving side of the readers. Poetry presents an object in order to convey a particular message or feeling, whilst science merely presents an object objectively and describes how it is, clearly, in every way possible. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of these two approaches is quite different. Furthermore, the ways of knowing in poetry and science are somewhat different. Poetry's ways of knowing are mainly emotion and language, while sciences are mainly language and reason. However, although they have language in common, both of them utilize language in different ways and for different purposes. As is obvious from above, both approaches aim to expand two completely different parts of human knowledge. Poetry aims to expand the aesthetic while science the scientific. Therefore, they cannot be assessed on their ability to expand human knowledge based on the same criteria but rather, they should both be assessed based on individual criteria in their
Does Aristotle regard the description of an ideal state and the analysis of actual states as distinct or as related subjects of political enquiry?
Ian Bishop Does Aristotle regard the description of an ideal state and the analysis of actual states as distinct or as related subjects of political enquiry? Aristotle regards the state as a natural entity, which is possessing of a telos, that is, an end. This end is assumed to also be the best condition that a state can reach; that being the provision of the capacity to live the good life for the citizens of the state. The ostensible purpose of The Politics is to determine whether this goal is being achieved by current states, and how it might best achieved in the future. The failure of current states to provide these circumstances motivates Aristotle to inquire into the properties of a hypothetical 'ideal state', and relate his findings to existing states. Clearly then, there is at least and academic relationship between the study of existing states and the ideal state to which they are compared. However, for Aristotle I believe that the relationship is far deeper than this, for the telos of providing the good life is the same for both ideal and actual states in Aristotle's view. Thus, it seems to me that not only are the studies of ideal and actual states related, they are ultimately identical for Aristotle. Aristotle clearly intends actual state and the ideal state to be considered simultaneously. This is immediately apparent in the way that the actual
Utilitarianism. Identify the main problems of Utilitarianism. To what extent do these make Utilitarianism unacceptable?
Utilitarianism Question 7 A) What are the advantages of Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is principle of making decisions on the basis of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of those who may be affected by the decision. There are many advantages to the principle of utilitarianism. These many evolve around the fact that this idea takes into account many different aspects of the action and decision which helps to make the decision, in a sense, fairer. One main advantage is that the principle appears to make sense to people. The principle is very simple and straight forward and can be easily followed. There is only one criterion to follow - 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. It explains how pleasure if for the greatest number, which to most people seams like a good outcome of a decision. Many people would find it a good goal to work towards and a good basis to make their decisions in life no matter how big the decision may actually be. As the principle is so simple and almost obvious when making some decisions Richard Jones makes the statement: "There has usually been a strong element of Utilitarianism in English moral thinking" Linked with this idea there is the idea of morality. To many people, it seams morally right that we should base our decisions on how much happiness comes out from the decision and to how many people it
