Outside The Realm Of Philosophical, And Religious, Study

Matter is defined by Lucretius as a primordial entity free of void and decay; they are the atoms that create entities. Atoms and primordial entities are synonymous with each other: the solidity of matter is called “procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things, or primal bodies, as primal to the world” (107-108). Lucretius uses all these words, emphasizing the simplicity of his philosophy. This simplicity is explained as he declares: “primal bodies are solid, without a void” (596). Because he believes that all entities are composed of primal bodies and a void, the primal body must be free of any void, thus giving substance to the object. He declares that entities are composed: “partly primal germs of things, and partly unions deriving from the primal germs” (566-567). This definition states that all matter consists of atoms, which, when combined, form molecules. Molecules, as defined by science, are the “unions” of atoms. This scientific principal is further explained: “So primal germs have solid singleness, which tightly packed and closely

For Descartes, this means that a substance is really distinct from anything else other than God whom Descartes credits as the creator of such an object. The ramification of such a principle leads Descartes to believe that the mind and body could exist completely separately of one another, allowing that God chose to create them in this particular way. Despite this, the possibility that the two could exist separately does not mean they actually do. This is an issue of its own entirely.

Humes said that we have no access to substance; only perception. Substance cannot be derived from impressions of sensation such as a color, smell, taste or sound; neither can it be derived from impressions of reflection from passions or emotions; so, “there is, properly speaking, no idea of substance at all.”

The two philosophers, however, had some differences in regard to the number of substances and their attributes. In spite of the fact that Descartes’ definition presents God as absolutely faultless; this presentation does not see him as more of a substance than every other finite substance. Descartes does not show God as the only substance, but he holds that there are other finite substances. Accordingly, the term ‘substance’ is not applied universally to God but as well as, to all other creatures. While some created things need only the normal concord of God to exist (in that case substances), others can only exist with the help of other created things. Such things are referred to, as per Descartes, attributes of substances.

The purpose of the wax argument is designed to provide a clear and distinct knowledge of “I”, which is the mind, while corporeal things, “whose images are framed by thought, and which the senses themselves imagine are much more distinctly known than this mysterious ‘I’ which does not fall within the imagination” (66). Through the wax argument, Descartes’ demonstrates that corporeal things are perceived neither through our senses nor imagination, but through our intellect alone. In this argument, you will see that there is cause to doubt Descartes’ analysis of the wax and his method of philosophical reasoning.

Matter is often defined as mass that can be physically observed by the senses, it can be measured scientifically and is tangible , it could be said the material world unlike aspects of social worlds is less abstract and easier to define, for example a building which comprises of bricks, wood, metal and other materials built into a specific shape compared to a community which can relate to people of the same place or shared values or interests or all. That is not to say that matter just is, it too can have agency and varying meanings dependent upon the

In this essay, I will discuss and formally analyze the opinions in approval of substance dualism and conclude that substance dualism is without a doubt an accurate way of thinking. Firstly, it is important to describe what exactly what I mean by substance dualism. Basically, it asks a very menial question such as: what kind of thing is our mind? According to substance dualists aka Descartes, "the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects such as size, shape, location etc." [Descartes] Substance dualism is then tested by different opinions which in return vouch for its soundness.

Substance dualism is a never ending argument in the Philosophy world as it’s been going on for decades. It is the view that the universe contains two important types of entity which is mental and material. The structure of this paper is that four main argument leads to one conclusion. Firstly, I’ll argue about Descartes’s ‘separability argument’ which stands as the definition of Substance Dualism. Secondly, I’ll argue that mental and physical have different and perhaps irreconcilable properties. An argument is not complete without a counter argument which in this case the “pairing” problem that exists in Descartes theory is highlighted and where is the interaction of material and immaterial takes

Metaphysics is usually taken to involve both questions of what is existence and what types of things exist; in order to answer either questions, one will find itself using and investigating the concepts of being. Aristotle proposed the first of these investigations which he called ‘first philosophy’, also known as ‘the science of being’ however overtime his writings came to be best known as ‘Metaphysics’ in which he studied being qua being with a central theme of how substance may be defined as a category of being. Kant who is a nominalist criticized both Aristotelian and therefore

In On the Nature of Things, Lucretius argues that not only is the whole of the human body (both tangible parts, like organs, and intangible concepts, like the soul) created from distinct types of atoms, but that this is the basis upon which an afterlife may be disproved.

You see through the ages of philosophy there have been many debates and opinions. Yet it is those opinions that are the most radical that demand the most attention. On that note, we will address two radical philosophizers: Spinoza and Hobbes. Specifically there theory's pertaining to matter and the mind-body problem posed by Descartes. As such we will first address Hobbes then move to Spinoza and end with a combined statement on matter. Therefore we must begin by introducing Thomas Hobbes.

This paper evaluates an argument against Perdurantism and presents possible alternatives to demonstrate that substances do not always overlap. Firstly, we utilize the Lump and Clay example from Effingham’s (20xx) An Introduction To Ontology to illustrate what Perdurantism entails. Afterwards, we object the anti-perdurantist’s argument because it is arbitrary to claim that a substance’s career only begins when it is born and it ceases when it dies. Then, we provide a response on behalf of the anti-perdurantist to show that our objection can be implausible because it can lead to unintuitive commitments. Lastly, we provide a general assessment to show that our objection only works if we can accept the unintuitive consequences.

For descartes, his premise remains the essence of bodies does not necessitate around our perception(senses), since it would exist regardless of our commonly held account. Therefore, Descartes defies More’s perception which remains that all matter necessitates around being detectable by ones senses. Instead he takes the polarizing stance, by stating that all matter is unnoticeable, if it gets segregated into smaller parts(divisibility) it still remains consistent throughout. He depicts this ideology in an example by claiming “ a body can retain its whole bodily nature without being soft or hard or cold or hot to the senses-indeed without have any perceptible quality” (Letters to More,1649).However, for More his premise relies dependent on the clause that extension does not necessitate on divisibility. He uses a metaphor on light to illustrate his perception, “The parts of a Spirit can be no more separated, though they be dilated, than you can cut off the Rayes of the Sun by a pair of Scissors made of pellucid Crystall” (More 1662). He uses this depiction to showcase that similarly to light, bodies indeed are extended yet in essence indivisible. Henry More premise behind his constructed points were that he was a dualist, however argued that all substances are extended. Yet, how did he differ between immaterial and material substances

“Change can only be perceived through that which persists and its alteration. For the difference of the times in which things are can only be perceived in them as parts of one and the same time. All change is only the division of time. Hence there must be something that exists throughout the entire time since the whole is always the ground of the division. Hence substance is the substratum, and that which is changing is only the way in which this exists” (A

Aristotle and Heidegger have conflicting views on what a human or beings are. Although, there are some similarities to each of their set of ideas. Aristotle has a clear hierarchical framework classifying the differences between humans, animals, and plants. Heidegger opposes this strict definitions by discussing this idea of “Dasein” which states of being there. Although, their approaches to this topic are different with the types of question one asks and how they theorize about what is a being. There is key similarities that they discuss almost two thousand years apart. Aristotle and Heidegger are two philosophers that have tackled the enormous question, what is it to be a being? This paper discusses the two different approaches to defining this long standing question.