In this paper I will argue Cartesian dualism offers a more parsimonious explanation of reality than Darwinian monism. I base my statement on the doubt argument: I can doubt that my body exists but I cannot doubt my existence as a thinking thing and I, a thinking thing, i'm not identical with my body. I can conceive that I, a thinking thing, exist without my extended body existing. I was doing research about the doubt argument that Descartes uses and according to The Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, If two things are identical, then they have exactly the same properties. If it is logically possible that X exist without Y, then X is not identical with Y, therefore I can say that my thinking mind and my extended body are different substances.
In this essay I will argue that Berkeley is correct in proving that there is no such thing as sensible qualities that exist outside of our mind. In reference to Berkeley’s first dialogue between Hylas and Philonous, Philonous demonstrates that the sensible qualities found in the taste of food are not at all real; they are simply attributes that we have noted using our minds. I will now go on to argue the effectiveness and trueness of Berkeley’s quote “ that which at other times seems sweet, shall to a distempered palate appear bitter. And nothing can be plainer, than that diverse persons perceive different tastes in the same food, since that which one man delights in, another abhors. And how could this be, if the taste was something really inherent in the food?” (Berkeley, 16) Philonous validates the argument by providing indisputable reasons to support his statement.
Finally, I will state which viewpoint I agree with and give my reasons why. Determinism is stated as “the view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal casual laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion” (Chaffee 141). As the definition bluntly states, people who believe in determinism believe that everything is predetermined based on prior events and people and do not believe that humans have free will. In the philosophical view of determinism with respect to free will, it focuses more on the circumstances surrounding the agent instead of just the individual agent.
Pollock’s Brain in a Vat Theory Many wonder what in the world is real and what is imaginary. There are theories of us being puppets to us being figures of a child’s imagination and even better known, being a brain in a vat. The brain in a vat theory was developed by Pollock but rest assure that these assumptions are indeed false. There is no reasonable worry in thinking that we are all brains in a vat due to many circumstances. One quick way of solving the mystery of whether or not Pollock was a brain in the vat was to as Margot to prove that he was a brain in the vat.
Are we really living beings, or just an energy source to keep the computers running? If we are in the Matrix, is there a Morpheus that we can go to for answers? Both the traditional and modern arguments make you ask questions, make you wonder about the truth of your existence. On the one hand, the modern philosophical issues seen more relevant, but personally, I find that chance of the world actually being computer generate highly unlikely. Even though it might be the truth, it’s very difficult to grasp the idea.
However, this faith has been dimmed by science causing problems. For example pollution, weapons and global warming are products of science. While science protects us from natural dangers, it creates its own risks. However the good and bad effects of science show features distinguishing it from other belief systems, known as its cognitive power. It enables us to explain, predict and control the world in a way that non scientific or pre scientific belief systems cannot do.
Hard determinism is another concept on free will which views that determinism is true, and it is incompatible with free will, thus free will does not exist (Honderich 11). In this paper, we will look deeply into the concept of compatibilism. Compatibilists or soft determinists maintain and believe that determinism is well compatible with free will. Compatibilists thus define "free will" in a way that enables it to co-exist
Orwell’s comments were not only applicable to the British. Orwell is conveying the differences between free will and freedom. Free will can be defined as: “The right, given to humans by God, to make their own decisions.” A man’s free will cannot be destroyed by any power other than God. Humans can always exercise their free will when making decisions. However, when their decisions come in conflict with the laws set by a higher power, they might face consequences based on how they choose to use their free will.
Today it has become more of a psychological problem that is affected by causes in natural phenomena . There are many stances one can take regarding free will but the two extremes are Determinism (where the belief is that there is no such thing as free will, everything is determined) and Libertarianism (where the will is free and choices are not determined). The small part of the long going argument I’ll be focusing on in this essay is on Libet-style experiments. Many determinists have used these experiments as evidence against free will. I will be putting my arguments whether that is the case.
Our bodies may be governed by the laws of physics, but we still make choices of our own freewill. God is an all knowing God, but his knowing our choices in advance does not prohibit or even change our ability to make them. God is bound by rules he set in place, he gave us our free will and cannot take that away. With that decision He knew a world would have to exist with good and evil. Some rare instances may occur where free will is altered, such is the case with mental illnesses, where the victim is no longer in control of his or her actions, but in other cases such as abuse or brainwashing, the victim still exercises his or her free will to choose his or her own