Critically assess the claim that the soul is distinct from the body The claim that the soul is distinct from the body is a dualist belief supported by Descartes and Plato, but is refuted by monists like Aristotle and materialists such as Richard Dawkins. I believe that the soul is distinct from the body because the soul is eternal and continues in the after life, whereas the body is temporary and decays. Descartes supports his belief as he argues that the body is spatial meaning that is exists in space, whereas the mind or soul is conscious meaning we have knowledge of it. This is a dualist view as he argues that although the body and the mind/soul are separate, they interact with the brain. A strength of his argument is that it allows for mental continuity between life and the afterlife because the soul as well as the body interacts with the brain.
He said that what separates humans from animals is that humans have a non-material, spiritual mind and a material body. The human mind and its powers were supreme. He is known for coining the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Though he gave supremacy to the mind, he agreed that the body could influence the mind. He viewed the mind as superior to the body, and that there is a two way interaction between mind and body • John Locke (1632-1704), an Englishman, believed that the interaction between mind and body is an equal relationship between two aspects of the same unified
Exploring the logic behind these theories, both philosophers make valid points about justice when it comes to property. Locke, however, presents a more applicable rationalization in recognizing that humans have an innate right to property and that God created the world in such a fashion that society can function only with unchangeable laws. Hume bases his theory off of personality and people’s natural relationships with one another. He understands that “sexual and familial affection forms the primordial or original relationships among persons… The natural concern men have for their families and their friends demands a more limited generosity or benevolence in dealing with others” (Cohon). Our inherent desires for goods combined with a moderate scarcity of availibity prompts greed.
Such a stance states that there are laws of nature which govern everything that happens and that all of our actions are a result of these scientific laws. In this case, the idea that people are free to make moral decisions is nothing but an illusion. Such an argument is put forward by John Locke, who used the analogy of a man who wakes up in a room, in which the door is locked. The man is unaware that he is locked in, and chooses to stay in the room, believing that he can leave whenever he wishes, yet he, in reality, cannot. This mirrors a libertarian (in John Locke’s view) as he/she believes that he can do as he chooses, yet in reality he/she cannot.
“That’s how I did it, Anton. I never saved anything for the swim back.” Vincent defies and transcends his destiny and, in doing this, inspires others. Discuss. The science fiction film Gattaca reveals a discomforting but possible reflection of a future society that a DNA profile determines everything a person would be judged on. Director Andrew Niccol depicts the undesirable circumstances which genetic information being the only concern in determining one’s status or quality of life as a replacement of the concept of individuality.
Detective Del Spooner is employed to investigate the apparent suicide of Dr Alfred Lanning who “practically invented robotics.” During Spooner’s quest to uncover the truth, he stumbles upon Lanning’s “unique” creation, Sonny. While all robots are created to obey the three laws – “Sonny has the three human laws, but he can choose not to obey them. Sonny’s a whole new generation of robot.” Sonny is an example of futuristic technology as he has human characteristics unlike the other NS-5 robots. Sonny demonstrates his unique characteristics as he uses human
And material consists of physical property, chemic property, and biologic property. Nevertheless, psychological property is just the effect of brainstorming. Consequently, the world doesn’t depend on physical material in Knowledge Argument. In this essay, I will introduce Knowledge Argument by giving two experiments Frank Jackson come up with and analyze the following problems present for physicalism. Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism.
Sarah Yost Mr. Massey Period 3-4 10/4/12 Robot Domination Humans rely too much on robotic machines. Robots should not be able to communicate or act like humans on their own. Brian Aldiss, the author who wrote the short story “Who Can Replace a Man” demonstrates how without humans the robots would take over our world. Brian shows how a group of bots try to overcome a problem of no orders by going on a long and treacherous journey in order to fix or build a new orderly system. “’We will speak to each other.
In his first part Thomas Hobbes gives philosophical meanings like memory, understanding, imagination doing it on purpose so that basing on them to create the future theory of Leviathan, it could be understood from the perception of him that before studying philosophy meanings should be made clear. So everything according to him is based on the matter and all the senses are nothing more that the reflection of the moves of that matter, the act of vision happens when matter collides with our eyes and exc. Memory is the sense left after the collision of the matter with the brain, imagination is the sense we create basing on the experience of the collided matter, thought are not solitary and one comes after another that process is called trains of thought. According to Hobbes thought can be regulated like the science, speech and unregulated like dreams. Speech according to him is the transition of the mental to the verbal; he puts words to the superior position claiming that there is no possibility of science without words and perceptions thus neglecting empirical methods.
Weirob, however, disagrees with this view, instead believing that it is the body that ensures identity. When Miller says that the nonmaterial aspects of ourselves are our consciousness Weirob contests that consciousness is not an entity, but an action, a verb. She continues to by asking “what is the subject of this verb?” (6), going on to assert that it is the body, therefore, claiming that a body is needed in order for this consciousness to exist. She explains that seeing one’s body and continually interacting with that body, believing it is the same you have seen before proves that you have established the identity of that person from the body. Although Weirob believes in a bodily identity view just the thought of a body does not provide comfort for her regarding