John Stuart Mill: The Skepticism Of Other Mind

Therefore one can trust that because one thinks one exists; this leaves each of us with his/her own mind (Blackburn, 1999: 49). Premise two states that we can and do know that other people have minds, this can be based on the interactions we have with other people. The fact that someone else can love you back and you can feel it makes it possible that they are connected to your mind in the mental realm which can only mean that they do have a mind. Based on the fact that it is difficult to conceptualise that one may be the only existent being makes it open to believe that one is not the only one existent- other people do exists and therefore they have minds. Premise two therefore is valid which diminishes what is presented in premise one about Cartesian Dualism that we can never know that other people have minds. Premise three therefore lawfully, following from premise one and two that with the validity presented in previous premises, states that Cartesian Dualism is false.

How would you describe your inner mind? crazy? genius? They say that both are two sides of the same side. Through my experiences, I shape the world around me, developing a unique perspective from my worldview. When it comes to how I perceive reality I just summarize it in these six concepts: culture, meaning, self, self-fulfilling prophecy, and scripts, and self-serving bias. My culture defines me down to my very genetic core. It explains why I drive the way I do, how I talk, what is socially acceptable, why I react to things the way I do , why I attend LIU, etc.

In order to investigate the pattern of distorted mind perception 890 participants were surveyed online. Participants completed a survey that gathered the perceived experience and agency of nine target

Other people do not have minds. At least, I cannot know for sure that they do, and will argue for this case in this essay. The problem of other minds (that is, can we know that other people have minds) is a problem that (like all classic philosophical problems) seemingly has no provable answer. The problem is such; I do not know for sure that other people actually have minds; I only know what my own experiences are like through direct experience (i.e. I know my experiences because I experience them), but I cannot have direct knowledge of other people’s experiences, as I cannot experience their experiences alongside them. Therefore, I only have information about people’s behaviour to go on; e.g. I cannot know that someone is happy, but I can experience them behave in such a way that would lead me to the conclusion that they’re happy, as that is how I would act if I were happy. The problem with this, however, is that behaviour is not equal to mental states, and therefore I have no knowledge of other people’s mental states, only that they seem to experience mental states based on their behaviour. Of course, I cannot know that they experience mental states for sure, as I cannot experience other’s mental states, I can only draw conclusions from their behaviour, which does not prove that they do have minds.

… I mean nothing but the internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

People gather knowledge and use perceptual ideas such as conviction, longing, discomfort, rage, etc. with a huge amount of simplicity. These people must link those “feelings” to patterns that include physical behavior, which everyone can see, and not to processes in a soul which are unseen. Since we observe these patterns in one another's behavior, we can know that others have mental states like ours. Minds do not belong to the category of “thing.”

In Gilbert Harman’s ‘Moral Relativism Defended’. He claims that we make inner judgements about people only if we suppose that they are capable of being motivated by relevant moral considerations (RMCs). He goes on to claim that such moral considerations present an logical ‘oddity’ if it were applied to people outside our RMCs, where he cites examples like Hitler and the employee from Murder, Incorporated to further illustrate this fact. I do not subscribe to his treatment of such examples, and I argue that the logical oddities he points out in those examples are flawed.

When one hears the words “mind reading”, one often assumes it to mean telepathic communication, or maybe wires connecting two people’s minds in order for one to find out what the other is thinking. That visualization takes out the assumption element in the definition of mind reading, which according to our text is, “… assuming we understand

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

Mill’s rebuttal to the third objection is based off that Christians do not read the Bible every time they have to make decisions. Furthermore, Mill says that ever since humans have existed we have learned from our ancestors what certain effects result from certain actions and that through time we have the consciousness to tell apart from what’s right and wrong. It is true that as humans we want to perform actions that promote pleasure and the absence of pain, but most of our human experiences follow common-sense morality. Mill provides a distinction in utilitarianism where he gives a fundamental principle of morality and a subordinate principle through what he calls the criterion of rights and the decision procedure: “Whatever we adopt as

According to society, it displays that when people are with their family and friends, they are exceeding 31% great in school. This reveals that happiness helps kids to improve in school, however some people disagree with this argument. In the article, an autobiography, by John Stuart Mill(1909), claims that people focus on happiness too much, and that people are displaying the wrong activities to find it. To support the thesis, John Stuart Mill creates his own opinion, that the reader could relate to. The author wants to catch the reader’s attention, in order to push them focus on how they are finding happiness. Nevertheless, John Stuart Mill wants the reader to relate to his opinion. For example, when people are kind or help out a friend

Majorities tend to prevent any opportunity that a minority group might have to gain support for a contradicting opinion. It is incredibly easy for members of society to abandon their beliefs in the midst of an overpowering majority. This process leads to an unequal society in which the rights of the people are restricted. In the essays, On Liberty and On Representative Government, written by John Stuart Mill, there is a concern for the "tyranny of the majority." He expresses his concern in, On Liberty, by supporting an increase in individual liberties. It is expressed again in, On Representative Government, by promoting a "true democracy." Mill proposes remedies for combating this "tyranny of the majority," and further discusses the

John Stuart Mill, in his autobiography, “A Crisis in my Mental History: One Stage Onward” (1909-04), argues that people are chasing happiness, which is making them unhappy. He supports his claim that gives examples of things that used to be enjoyable and fun, but are now being taken away. He says that people find happiness when not looking for it. Mill also says that you will find happiness through the happiness of other and if you make others happy. John’s purpose is for people to realize that they need to stop going around and always thinking that they have to be happy and just let themselves be happy naturally. Mill’s tone is serious towards all readers so that they really think about what he has to say.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.