Book Review of “Mind: A Brief Introduction” by John R. Seale, Oxford (2004) “All of the most famous and influential theories are false.” From the very first page, this bold and no doubt provocative statement of intent by Searle, makes no apologies for its effect. A point, it appears, needs to be proved and in “Mind: A Brief Introduction” John Searle is out to do just that and “try to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to falsehood”. Referring to the ever contentious issue surrounding the philosophy of mind, Searle directs the majority of his effort towards the “mind-body problem”, the relationship between the physical and biological experiences and the mental experiences in our so called “mind”. His main aims are to introduce readers to the main theories of what the mind is, why they’re all simply wrong and to present his view on the matter. Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out.
Most people assume that if you can touch an object, taste it, or hit something with it, it must be real, and their knowledge of its reality is based on the direct apprehension of the facts at hand. Fiction, on the other hand, because it is made up by us, is not a fact we can apprehend directly, and is thus either false or unreal. I am arguing that the reverse is true, that our access to reality is based on fiction rather than fact, that we understand something only insofar as we tell ourselves a story about it. By this I mean that fiction is inherently more 'true' than fact, and that what we call facts are actually nothing more than good fictions- ones which we deem most reasonable to accept. In regards to the film ‘The Adjustment Bureau’, it looks into the concept of free will, and whether that is fact or fiction.
According to Hume we build up all our ideas from simple impressions by means of three laws of association: Resemblance, Contiguity, & Cause and Effect. Hume distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact; he says that relations of ideas are, for the most part, mathematical truths, so denial of them would result in a contradiction. Matters of fact are the more common truths that we learn from experience (for example the sun rising in the morning). Hume also says that that there is no rational justification for a belief in miracles. There are many contradictions in Hume, but there is little agreement on what these contradictions show about Hume's thought in general.
‘Our ethical decisions are merely the result of our social conditioning’. Discuss. The base of our ethical decisions can only be described as a mystery to a non-philosopher, but debates have taken place between many philosophers determining whether our decisions are due to having free will, or if everything we do is pre-determined anyway. Libertarianism is the view that human agents can, when faced with a moral choice, freely act and retain moral responsibility for that act. However determinism take an opposite view to this; hard determinism is the theory that everything in the universe, including all human actions and choices has a cause which proceeds it.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.
Among these were William L. Rowe, a professor of philosophy who counter argued Anselm’s beliefs with the support he took from many critics on the subject. One of these critics happens to be philosopher Immanuel Kant, who offered a rather interesting but strong counter claim to Anselm’s statements. A reoccurring idea in Anselm’s argument is that there is a precise difference in existing in reality and existing in the mind, AKA the understanding. Rowe interprets this idea and explains that Anselm is arguing that if a being only exists in one’s understanding, it is not as great as it could have been had it existed in reality as well. In Kant’s views, he believes Anselm’s mistake was in stating “existence” as a quality as well as a property that one may possess to add to the list of other’s one could conceive
One intention he had with The Things They Carried was to remind us of the unknowns of life, and that one man’s truth is another man’s lie. Who knows the truth about anything in life? That is a very controversial thing how are we to know if anything is the absolute truth, we only have the experiences, evidence, and our own beliefs to determine if something is the truth or the lie. Obrien stresses that it is imperative to accept the fact that truths can change. Every situation is different and every person has a different reaction to situations, thus as we are constantly growing and changing, the ‘truths’ we have come to know and believe can also change.