The problem with this view however is in explaining the interaction between the two. If the mind is separate from the body how does it direct and affect the body? How can a non-physical substance interact with a physical one? In response to this essay question I will primarily be focusing on logical arguments that support the claim the mind and body are distinct and therefore the mind and brain cannot be identical. I will be approaching this from a Dualist point of view and I will be referring to Dualism and it’s supporting arguments, namely; the indivisibility argument and the conceivability argument which explain how, logically, alternatives to dualism are not feasible.
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
Aristotle has a monist approach to the soul, unlike Plato he says that the soul cannot exist without the body. The soul is not a body but something that belongs in a body, comparable to the brain; it is necessary and is within all humans and it gives us reason, intellect and an innate sense of justice. This therefore can make his theory more convincing than Plato’s as the soul isn’t ‘immortal’ and dies along with the body, thereby eliminating the theory of reincarnation which is hard for anyone who isn’t Hindu to believe as it is contradictory to their religious views. Aristotle states that all reason is associated with the pure thought of the Prime Mover and the soul is what gives the body its shape and form; he argued that the soul is not a substance but the reason and shape behind the matter. Best described by using the example of a marble statue, as the marble stature is essentially a block of marble but it has a shape and form and like the body the soul, the shape and form cannot be removed from what the statue is, in the same way the body cannot be separated from the soul.
Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive. Instead, ethical propositions can be no more that the expression of an emotion which will always be personal or subjective. For example to say “Abortion is good” is to express a subjective opinion about the moral issue of Abortion. For Ayer such statements can be no more than an expression of subjective emotion – leading some to label this approach to ethical language as the “boo hooray” theory. But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language?
However this version of the verification principle has been criticized as being too strict as statements such as History, can not be seen as meaningful as they cannot be empirically verified by the senses, and it neither a tautology of all the events that have taken part in the past. The second part to the verification principle was made and developed by A.J Ayer. Ayer believed that with using the weak verification to prove statements you would be able to verify them in principle unlike the strong verification principle, which can only be proved meaningful if it is observed, or
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.
As described in the Paper #1, people who contend that mind or thought or sense or conscious all these nonphysical substances can only be explained fully by an appeal to something distinct from the physical are dualists, their theory is called Dualism. It believes that things can be divided into two parts—physical substance and nonphysical substance. The former are spatial and publicly, they take up space and they are visible and can be felt; But the latter have no shapes or sizes. And dualists also believe only nonphysical substance can think or be conscious. Things on the earth are either mental, or physical.
(Warren 2015: 6-7) Warren goes on with her analysis of Plumwood's critique of deep ecology and says that the second controversial feature of deep ecology is about the principle of "self-realization, which claims that the human self (small 's') is actualized only when it becomes merged with the cosmos, a Self (capital 'S')." (Warren 2015: 7) Plumwood believes that is principle is flawed because it preserves "the discontinuity thesis" – the thesis that there is a clear division between what is natural and what is cultural
Descartes believed that in order to have this idea of a being that is truly infinite; something must have put that idea in our mind. He believes that it could not have been ourselves because we are not infinite beings; however we have this idea of what a perfect being is and therefore something outside of us must have put that idea there. In order to prove that a perfect being was the outside force that would have put that idea in our minds, Descartes follows his central argument. The main pillar of Descartes’ argument is the causal adequacy principle. This causal principle revolves on the idea of existential dependency.
According to St. Anselm in his ontological argument, he describes God as an idea or concept of which nothing greater can be conceived (Living Issues in Philosophy, page 388). In this he guides thought by arguing “If the most perfect being existed only in thought and not in reality, then it would not really be the most perfect being. One that exists in the mind and in reality would be more perfect.” Anselm concludes his theory with “no one who understands what God is; can conceive that God does not exist. (A. J. Hoober). Existence is a part of perfection.