Anaxagoras’ ideas are in many ways similar to that of Heraclitus; however, there are some deviations that I will highlight in contrasting each philosopher’s theory on the nature of what is. Heraclitus’s main motivation in his philosophical endeavors revolved around his desire to know what is and the organization or order of all things that exist. Heraclitus's central claim in his attempt to answer his curiosities was that the world (and universe for that matter), is ordered, guided, and unified by a rational structure, which he called the LOGOS. This rational structure of the cosmos orders and controls the universe. Thus the LOGOS, in Heraclitus's view, is the unifier in nature.
We cannot claim or infer with any confidence that we know the weight on the hidden side. This is the same with our world. We can see the effect but not the cause. Therefore, we cannot assume the cause with certainty if we cannot see
Firstly, there are a lot of blanks and unknown answers when contemplating dualism. Mainly, it cannot be known how the mind and body are linked together to form a being. The dualist cannot tell us anything about the mind, other than that it exists and works in conjunction with the body in some way. The dualist argues the mind encompasses reason, emotion, and consciousness. However, machines, which certainly do not have minds, have already demonstrated reasoning, such as a calculator.
'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability.
“Since the mind is seen as a completely nonphysical entity, the mind (or soul) cannot be generated through the biological process of reproduction” (Hasker p. 67). This is what concerns both Data and Picard. That even if Data could be taken apart and put back together, the soul of Data would be lost. Picard is saying that Data is more than just an Android. Picard is in the belief that Data’s mind might be a program, but he is able to make decision on his own, making him an individual with a mind, and irreplaceable.
It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
For Descartes body and mind were substances, but with utterly different basic natures. According to him, body is extended and unthinking while the mind is thinking and un-extended. He rejected the Aristotelian concept of the body, which is, with its form-matter and actuality-potentiality dimensions, an essentially biological concept of matter. Problem of conceptualizing the mind The mind can be conceptualized from two broad perspectives, viz: a. With reference to internal connections between mental events, and b.
An adequate account of concepts is especially important (and challenging) for Empiricist philosophers (such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume), as they cannot rely on a Rationalist-style belief in ethereal, inbuilt intellectual content . Hume follows Berkeley in his rejection of general abstract ideas – both arguing that concepts are always connected to one
When it comes to our perception of the world it is all based on the information we receive from our senses and the way we interpret it. One way to concrete that our perception is our reality is to look at the phenomenon of hallucinations. One could argue that because humans can hallucinate in any kind of way we cannot believe our senses. However, one person cannot prove to another that they were hallucinating without also believing in their own senses. If we do not believe in our senses we then come to a continuous loop of what is “real”.