1.) Discuss the mind-body problem by defining it and stating its specific points. How would you categorize Plato & Aristotle on this specific issue (hint: are they Dualists? Monists?). Describe how the theories of Plato and Aristotle fit along this mind-body issue.
The Mind-Body Problem The mind body problem has been a major concern of metaphysicians especially since the rise of modern philosophy, in the seventeenth century. The problem has arisen as the result of certain views of the French philosopher Renè Descartes, known especially for his epistemological theory ''Cogito ergo sum'', I think therefore I am. Basically the problem involves answering the questions'' What is the fundamental nature of mind and body and how are mind and body related. Our scientific knowledge seem to suggest that the physical world is inanimate, almost purposeless, but yet determined in the order of events within it. On the other hand, the mental world involves consciousness and planning.
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.
Gestalt Therapy is about human experience and what this mean ‘experientially’, that is, trying out for oneself. It is a relational therapy, where the therapist-client relationship is a fundamental part of the process, and it synthesizes three key philosophies that have been described as the ‘pillars of Gestalt’ (Yontef, 1999:11), these being: 1 - Field Theory - The person’s experience is explored in the context of their situation of ‘field’ 2 - Phenomenology - The search for understanding through what is
This element is innate – it is present from birth. The superego, or the morality principle, is the conscience of the mind- it understands right from wrong. It is in constant conflict with the Id, and develops during the phallic stage of psychosexual development. The third element, the Ego, acts as a mediator between the two and at times uses defence mechanisms to shield the conscious from the Id and its desires. Freud also proposed a theory he understood to be the “structure of the mind”.
The body has physical properties whereas the mind is nonphysical. John: Well Mr. Descartes, I can’t say that I fully agree with your explanation, I would say that the mind is a biological state of the mental that can cause or be caused by physical changes to the body. It seems that you do not have sufficient justification of the relationship of the body and mind. Therefore how can you be entirely sure? Descartes: I shall explain.
Reason to wisdom, will to courage, and appetite to temperance. Plato believed that the body as well as the mind contains characteristics. The mind and body, instead of being connected, all work together in a cycle. This idea is very controversial because there facts supporting and against this idea. The body can be affected mentally by the brain; one example is the placebo effect.
Superficially this may seem to agree with Watson’s claims, however to refute the existence of the mind and mental processes as you will see, is to remove all chances of ever explaining the true origin of human behaviour. Science comes from the Latin word Scientia which means knowledge, so is the goal of knowledge to predict and control? Quite simply the answer is no. The goal of knowledge is to assist in the understanding of the phenomena around us whether observable or not to enable us to manipulate them accordingly in order
Therefore, in order to perceive the idea of causation, one needs to look for the simple impression which leads to formation of the idea of causation. At this point a problem emerges because Hume alleges that we cannot possibly trace back the idea of necessary connection meaning causation to the simple impression. In order to prove his argument, he analyzes that how we obtain an impression of an interaction between mind and body or within mind etc. Consequently, he claims that our source of perception is not resulted from the sense experience, reason or causation logic in all of the cases. To illustrate what he means, we can look at his body- body interaction of billiard balls example; when a moving billiard ball collided with the stable billiard ball, immobile billiard ball moves.
what we call sensible qualities. Berkeley’s response is that he cannot make sense of the notion of a material substance and this is largely due to the fact that the supposed material substance and the nature of our ideas occasion fundamentally different properties and thus it is unclear how a material substance can support our ideas. Consequently, this paper will attempt to substantiate such a notion and argue that belief in the existence of a material substance offers a better explanation of the phenomena of being conscious of an external world than Berkeley’s idealism. In his First Dialogue, Berkeley attempts to quench atheism and skepticism by aiming to retain a philosophy of common sense. In this attempt, he makes the claim that there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance.