Exploring Metaphysical Arguments: Does God Exist?

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 1/20 Introduction In Learning Activity 1.3, you explored the biggest metaphysical question of all existence; “What constitutes reality?” In this learning activity, you will explore and connect two more specific questions of existence, namely “Does a Supreme Being (God) exist?” and “Who am I?” You will have the chance to explore and consider a variety of sources to help you understand and appreciate the variety of answers to these questions, and what they might mean for your life. As you proceed through the learning activity, you will use a series of charts to summarize your research and provide your reflections. What you will learn After completing this learning activity, you will be able to: recognize the influence that ideas related to metaphysics have on your everyday life differentiate between systems of belief or “isms” summarize and critically assess arguments both for and against a Supreme Being examine personal identity and the concept of mind through the lens of dualism and materialism

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 2/20 Is there a God? After all the talk about existence and reality, it is not difficult to wonder where all existence came from. Did existence just happen? Did someone or something create it? Is there a God? For many, these kinds of metaphysical questions and the answers found for them are at the heart of determining one’s place and the ultimate meaning in the universe. The questions surrounding the existence of a Supreme Being or God have a long history in philosophy and other disciplines. The main difference between disciplines is how each attempts to answer the questions using reason and logic. You will have the opportunity to explore some of the more famous philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. But first you should get your brain activated with some activities and get acquainted with some of the terminology and “isms” surrounding these big questions. Explaining God Coming up with a definition may seem an impossible task, but philosophers and theologians have tried to do so by presenting arguments relating to or requiring a Supreme Being.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 3/20 Notebook Definitions can be extremely tricky, and perhaps none as tricky as the definition of God. Take a moment and try to define God. After providing your response, get ready to apply your definition and reflections in the philosophical game “ Battleground God (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_4_battleground_god.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ” or “ Battleground God (accessible version) (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04.01.100acc.html?ou=22446979) .” Did you enjoy that experiment? Did you learn anything interesting about your thoughts and reflections on your conception of God? Did you notice how well the game exemplifies the philosophical habits of rationality and logical consistency? Now it’s time to add some structure to discussions of the existence of God. Getting familiar with systems of belief The answers surrounding the question of the existence of God are many and can be sorted out and categorized through the various systems of belief, or “isms.” It is a good idea to get acquainted with these terms as they are often misused or misunderstood in public forums. As an apprentice philosopher, you need to have a correct understanding of them. Finding the meaning of the godly “isms” Do some research on your own to find definitions for each of the following systems of belief so that you grasp their subtleties. theism deism monotheism polytheism agnosticism

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 4/20 atheism A knowledge check of what you learned comes next. Knowledge check Match the correct description to each system of belief. Submit select: Atheism select: Deism select: Monotheism select: Theism select: Agnosticism select: Polytheism Arguments for a Supreme Being Now that you’ve got an idea about the various theories or systems of belief that address the question “Is there a God?”, it is time to consider some of the traditional arguments for and against the existence of a Supreme Being or God.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 5/20 As you go through the arguments, you should also fill out the “ Arguments for a Supreme Being (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04_for_supreme_being.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ” chart, a handy way to organize your learning. Note that you will submit your completed chart along with your other learning activity assignments at the end of Learning Activity 1.5. Ontological argument The ontological argument is unique as it tries to prove by deduction that God exists, relying entirely on the logical connections of concepts. Remember, deductive proofs require no empirical evidence, so just as you don’t need to verify that square circles exist, if you can deductively prove that God exists, to believe otherwise would be a contradiction of logic. This argument, most famously proposed by St. Anselm and argued by the likes of Ibn Sina, Descartes, and Spinoza, among others, requires very clear and comprehensive definitions of terms to work. As you found out in the philosophical game earlier, it can be very challenging to define a concept like a Supreme Being or God. Each philosopher defines God in a slightly different way, but the idea of the argument remains pretty much the same. In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kenneth Einar Himma lays out St. Anselm’s definition of the ontological argument and then provides a helpful summary. Examine both the definition and summary before going to the “Your critique” tab and providing your thoughts. St. Anselm's Ontological Argument  St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033–1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows: [Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 6/20 obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. Source: Himma, K. E. (n.d.). Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument/ Summary  The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form: 1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) 6. Therefore, God exists. Source: Himma, K. E. (n.d.). Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument/ Your critique 

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 7/20 What do you think? Did Anselm prove the existence of God through deduction? Can you spot any problems or difficulties with his proof? Jot down your ideas in your notebook. After you’ve provided your critique, read some other definitions of the ontological argument in the next tab and compare them to your critique. Other definitions  René Descartes' version of the ontological argument and whether God exists is much more simple than Anselm’s. He believed that the argument is not a formal proof, but a self-evident axiom that a person free of prejudice can grasp. In modern language, we might call it “intuition” or “common sense”. Descartes also acknowledges that belief in God is not without contradiction. His argument is quite simple: 1. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. 2. Necessary existence is a perfection. 3. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists. Source: Nolan, L. (2020, February 14). Descartes’ Ontological Argument. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/ Leibniz’s version follows and is attributed to Anselm’s and Descartes’ ontological argument. It has only two stages and represents the idea of an “incomplete” proof: “God is a necessary being, and thus if God’s existence is possible, then God exists.” He saw his contribution as completing the others' arguments about God’s existence by providing proof that God exists simply because the concept of God is possible. Now take some time to research criticism of the ontological argument before moving on.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 8/20 Cosmological argument The cosmological argument, also known as the First Cause Argument, is one of the oldest for the existence of a Supreme Being or God and comes to us initially through Plato and Aristotle. The basic premise of the argument should seem very intuitive based on your observations of the world and is based on cause and effect. As you go through life, you probably have noticed that it seems everything can be explained by some cause or another (leaves make noise because the wind is blowing, your skin is warm because it is sunny out, and so on). The cosmological argument asks, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” It looks something like this: 1. Everything exists for a reason and has a cause for existence. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore, since there is a universe, which exists for a reason, it needs a cause and that cause is God. 4. Therefore, because the universe exists, God exists. This first cause is given different names depending on the advocating philosopher. For instance, Ancient Greek thinker Aristotle called this cause of all things “the prime mover” (the thing that gets everything rolling). When co-opted by thinkers of a religious perspective, the cause of all things is identified with God. St. Thomas Aquinas was the most famous of these religious thinkers who defended multiple versions of the cosmological argument. This video clip outlines Aquinas’ five proofs (or ways) for the existence of God.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l_… 9/20 An updated cosmological argument In light of the general acceptance of the Big Bang as the start of the universe in scientific circles, the traditional variation of the cosmological argument has been updated and named the Kalãm cosmological argument. It goes something like this: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist [the Big Bang]. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent). Source: — Craig, & Smith. (1993). Cosmological Argument. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanfo rd.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#KalaCosmArgu Criticisms of the cosmological argument Philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant heavily criticized the cosmological argument. Hume claimed that because humankind had no experience observing universes being made, it was not possible to say that a Supreme Being created the universe simply because it exists. Immanuel Kant rejected the argument entirely because he rejected the idea of a “Necessary Being” to start the universe because our knowledge is limited to the world of space and time that we can observe, and speculation is irrelevant about the topic. Argument from design Having been introduced to St. Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, you should already have an inkling of what the argument from design is about. In its simplest form, it argues that the complexity and underlying order of the universe cannot be a result of chance. Rather, it must have been the work of the greatest of designers – God.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 10/20 Watch metaphor This argument often uses the metaphor of a watch and a watchmaker: it seems highly improbable, if not impossible, that a watch could randomly be put together by chance in nature. The complexity and timely ordering of a watch needs a watchmaker to design it; similarly, the complexity and orderliness of the universe seems to require a master designer to adequately explain its continued existence. Many contemporary cosmologists have advocated for the argument from design because there hasn’t been an explanation of the origin of the universe’s complexity or orderliness that has come from scientific principles. According to their calculations, if even a single thing were slightly different just after the Big Bang, our universe as it is would not exist. To make the argument a little more personal, the likelihood of humans existing by chance is so minuscule that it seems more reasonable to assign a creator. Criticisms of the argument from design The argument from design has been co-opted and used for centuries in various arenas and has its detractors. David Hume and Charles Darwin are considered to be two of the greatest detractors for the Argument from Design theory. David Hume, as previously mentioned, noted that we can only understand phenomena that are observable. Therefore, to assume that there is intelligent design to the universe is a faulty concept. In Darwin’s theory of evolution, principles of “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” are thought to be proof that there is no intelligent design of the universe. Think Can you think of any other problems with the argument from design?

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 11/20 Now take the time to do any additional research to complete your “Arguments for a Supreme Being” chart that you have been filling out. Next, you will switch to exploring arguments against a Supreme Being. Atheism The central belief of atheism, as you found in researching “isms” earlier in this learning activity, is the denial of any concept of a Supreme Being or God(s). Atheism has a number of arguments and a range of evidence to support its position. Now it’s time to use the “ Arguments Against a Supreme Being (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04_against_supreme_being.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ” chart to summarize the six common arguments listed in it. You will need to do your own research in order to complete the chart, and you will be submitting your completed chart in Learning Activity 1.5. God explained through science There is a range of atheistic arguments that come from an attempt to use science and naturalist explanations of human experiences to explain God or spiritual things. Famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud theorized that God was nothing more than an illusion people make up as they grow older to replace the comfort, safety, authority, and meaning your parents once provided. As you grow, you realize your parents cannot possibly provide all these things, so the idea of God fulfills your psychological need for a parent figure. Naturalistic arguments Recently, most naturalistic arguments say that the idea and experience of God can be explained through the evolutionary development of how our brains are formed and operate. For instance, one evolutionary theory argues that it was a beneficial adaptation to start believing that objects in nature (such as trees, animals, rivers, rocks) were imbued or filled with agency (soul or consciousness). That is to say, things had a personality just like us, with all the same urges and emotions of survival (love, hate, violence).

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 12/20 The theory argues that humans who started to see the world in this way would have a slightly better chance at survival because the specific and general educational stories of survival would make those humans more aware and careful of their surroundings. By way of explanation, consider how you would behave if you believed everything has the potential to harm you. You probably would tend to be more cautious. This cautiousness over time would save a lot of lives, and the idea of agency in nature would be strengthened and passed on to the next generation. It probably doesn’t take too long until there is a belief in a universal agent or God. Another area of naturalistic explanations focuses on neuroscience and how spiritual experiences can be explained through brain functioning. In the 1980s, Canadian behavioural neuroscientist Michael Persinger developed the “God Helmet” and performed electromagnetic stimulation experiments, which seemed to induce “godly experiences”.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 13/20 Some have argued that neurobiological experiments like those of Persinger prove that God is nothing but some activity of our brains, while others see this activity as our brains tuning into God’s channel of communication. What do you think? With these suggestions that the concept of God may just be in our heads, it seems only right to ask what is going on in there. Who are we and what makes us tick? In the next section, you will begin to explore this avenue of questioning by focusing on the connection between personal identity and the concept of mind. Remember to finish researching and filling out your “Arguments Against a Supreme Being” chart before moving on. Personal identity and the mind When you first meet someone, the conversation usually starts with an exchange of names: “Hello, I’m so-and-so. Nice to meet you.” It is such a common experience that you really have to stop and consider how much we immediately attribute and connect to this new name: physical characteristics (height, weight, skin tone, bone structure, voice); contextual elements (when, where, how you met them); and all sorts of other hard-to-categorize components. With so many aspects to consider, how do you answer the question, “Who is so-and-so?” What aspect of this person do you focus on that says who or what this person is? Is there one thing that defines a person or gives them an identity? Is it their brain? Is it their soul? Is it their body? Where is “it” located? What is “it” exactly? These are the kinds of questions that philosophers of mind and identity ask. In this section, you will have the chance to explore some of the traditional arguments on the origin and nature of the concept of mind and what constitutes and perhaps influences our personal identities. Building your identity wheel This self-reflection activity will not only get you thinking about the complexity of the questions of mind and identity, it might also give you a fresh perspective on yourself. Take the “ Identity wheel (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04_identity_wheel.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ”

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 14/20 document and fill in the prompts about yourself. Note that the document you are filling in has positioned the categories in chart form so it is easier to add your notes. Keep your identity wheel handy as you go through some of the arguments about personal identity and mind. Press here for a long description. (../assets/alt/hzt4u_04.02.02.html? ou=22446979) Questions about the concept of the mind have been around for thousands of years and they use varying descriptions and terminology. What connects them all is this yearning for answers about what constitutes and explains the seeming appearance of a reality in the “who” of ourselves and others. These questions are just extensions of the metaphysical question of existence we examined in Learning Activity 1.3, with an emphasis on our personal experience. When completing the identity wheel, you probably answered questions in the same way philosophers of metaphysics have done for hundreds of years. In this section, you will start to make connections between “personal identity” and “the concept of mind” by studying a very famous thought experiment that will help frame questions of identity.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 15/20 Later in the learning activity, as you learn more about the theories of dualism and materialism, and their perspectives on “personal identity” and “concept of mind,” you will decide if you are either a dualist or a type of materialist. Thought experiment on identity and change The Greek philosophers, as well as many others, have used the ship of Theseus thought experiment to help highlight the complexity of trying to define someone’s or something’s identity. Consider this thought experiment carefully, and be prepared to compare it to theories on identity presented by René Descartes and John Locke. The ship of Theseus

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 16/20 The original puzzle is this: over the years, the Athenians replaced each plank in the original ship of Theseus as it decayed, thereby keeping it in good repair. Eventually, there was not a single plank left of the original ship. So, did the Athenians still have one and the same ship that used to belong to Theseus? Source: — Cohen, S. M. (2000). Identity, Persistence, and the Ship of Theseus. https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.ed u/syllabi/c/cohen/phil320/theseus.htm Time to more closely examine this puzzle… The following is an excerpt from "Identity, Persistence, and the Ship of Theseus" by Professor Emeritus S. Marc Cohen in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Washington: We can liven [the thought experiment] up a bit by considering two different, somewhat modernized, versions. [In] both versions, the replacing of the planks takes place while the ship is at sea. We are to imagine that Theseus sails away, and then systematically replaces each plank on board with a new one. (He carries a complete supply of new parts on board as his cargo.) Now we can consider these two versions of the story: a. Simple version: Theseus completely rebuilds his ship, replaces all the parts, throws the old ones overboard. Does he arrive on the same ship as the one he left on? Of course it has changed. But is it it? Let A = the ship Theseus started his voyage on. Let B = the ship Theseus finished his voyage on. Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 17/20 Our question then is: Does A = B? If not, why not? Suppose he had left one original part in. Is that enough to make A identical to B? If not, suppose he had left two, etc. Where do you draw the line? b. Complex version: Like the simple version, but with one addition -- following Theseus in another boat is the Scavenger, who picks up the pieces Theseus throws overboard, and uses them to rebuild his boat. The Scavenger arrives in port in a ship composed of precisely the parts that composed the ship Theseus started out in. He docks his ship right next to one that Theseus docked. Now we have: C = the ship the Scavenger finished his voyage on. Our problem is to sort out the identity (and non-identity) relations among A, B, and C. The only "obvious" fact is that B ≠ C (after all, they are berthed side by side in the harbor, so they can hardly be one and the same ship!). Source: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html Notebook Based on the reading, how is Ship A related to B and C? Show Suggested Answer

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 18/20 Dualism As you have already seen, dualism is the belief that reality has two fundamental principles, realms, or categories. In discussions relating to ourselves, these two fundamental principles are most often categorized as body and mind – with the body representing our material, physical existence, and the mind representing our immaterial or spiritual existence. The two most famous formulations of dualism come from the Ancient Greek thinkers Plato and Aristotle and from the French thinker René Descartes. Each believes there is a split between mind and material that is important for any understanding of mind or personal identity. Researching dualist theories Take some time to research the dualist theories of one of these philosophers: Plato Aristotle René Descartes Using the “ Personal Identity and Concept of Mind (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04_identity_and_mind.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ” chart, summarize your findings in the “Dualism” section and consider to what extent your views about personal identity and the mind have changed based on what you have learned. You will complete the rest of the chart in the next section, so keep it handy. Portrait of René Descartes by the painter Frans Hals Materialism As you saw earlier in the course, a materialist is someone who believes that reality is composed of only material. In relation to questions about ourselves, the focus is on our material bodies as the sole source and explanation of who and what we are. English

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 19/20 philosopher John Locke wrote at length about the nature of our personal identity from a materialist perspective. For John Locke, we are born much like a blank slate or blank chalkboard (tabula rasa), empty until something is written on it through our sensory experiences of the body. There are no innate ideas separate from our material bodies. Take some time to read “ John Locke on Personal Identity (../assets/locker_docs/hzt4u_04_locke_personal_identity.pdf? _&d2lSessionVal=bkbGgJ9T7kZKNN6LW0WJnzNCA&ou=22446979) ,” which will help you understand his argument. It might take a couple of readings to get used to his English, but it is worth the trouble. After you have read John Locke’s thoughts on the nature of personal identity from a materialist perspective, summarize his ideas in the “Materialist” section of your “Personal Identity and Concept of Mind” chart. Researching a materialist position Variations on materialistic explanations are by far the most common theories put forth to explain personal identity and the concept of the mind in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. These positions include behaviourism, type identity theory, anomalous monism, and functionalism. Research one of these positions and summarize it in the chart you’ve been working on.

7/4/23, 1:51 AM Learning activity 1.4: Getting into a metaphysical argument https://course.ilc.tvo.org/content/enforced/22446979-HZT4U-EN-01-02-ON-(I-D-0922)/course_content/lessons/hzt4u_u1la4.html?ou=22446979&d2l… 20/20 Conclusion In this learning activity, you extended your knowledge of metaphysical questions by exploring the concept of mind and personal identity. You examined some of the traditional arguments for the concept of the mind, namely dualism and materialism, and investigated some of the variations of each. In Learning Activity 1.5, you will further your understanding of the concept of mind and personal identity by exploring how these traditional arguments interact with our understanding of human nature and our search for meaning in our lives.

Learning activity 1.4_ Getting into a metaphysical argument

Related Documents