Philosophy of Man

In this paper, I will discuss the “Divisibility argument” on Descartes mind- body dualism presented on Descartes meditations. I will claim that the mind and the body are in fact different as Descartes argument suggests, but I will more rather neglect and explain why his belief that the mind is indivisible is wrong. I also will discuss how Descartes argument on the body’s divisibility is reasonable, and the reasons why I believe this argument is true.

Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.

Throughout this course, we have explored both ancient and contemporary worldviews that have helped us answer the question: “What is the Self”? Apuleius had a very different approach to formulate an answer to this question then did other contemporary authors which will both be discussed in length.

In Meditation Two of René Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy, he notes the sight of “men crossing the square.” This observation is important as Descartes states, “But what do I see aside from hats and clothes, which could easily hide automata? Yet I judge them to be men.” This is an important realization as Descartes argues that instead of purely noticing the men through sight, it is actually “solely with the faculty of judgement,” the mind, that perceives and concludes that the thing wearing a hat and clothes are men. I argue that this view of the outside world by Descartes is incomplete as his idea of “I” is faulty, as well as having a misunderstanding on the importance of the senses.

Mankind has become more intellectual and creative than ever before. The human has learned to adapt and learn new ways of crafting society to be more functional. New sciences and technologies have developed at an exponential rate and then those new ideas blossom off of other ideas. This growth of ideas is similar to the process of dialectic. As this idea develops, counter ideas known as antithesis develop. The thesis and antithesis struggle between one another and convey about a new idea called a synthesis. The Synthesis contains the best of both, but creates a new antithesis as the synthesis ages. Various sciences have gone deep into human research and the makeup of the human anatomy. Scientists have become further innovative and have been able to clone people and make designer babies. Certain drugs and enhancements can also alter the way we act and think as human beings. Amid all these new alterations and being able to create life we have to ask ourselves, what is a human person? Before advanced science and mind altering drugs people would say in many instances that the person is a mind and a soul. There are many different definitions for what a ‘person’ or in many cases what a ‘human being’ is. I decided the best definition for a person to use would be the philosophical definition, which, is a self-conscious or rational being. This is a definition that makes us try to understand what is and what isn’t a person. However, this definition is simple and shouldn’t be our only

In John Locke’s argument for personal identity, he believes that we are not substances or mere souls. In his argument, Locke stresses to convey that there is a crucial difference between distinguishing a “man” and a “person” (Locke 221). According to Locke’s definition, a man is a living body which is homogenous to an animal’s body. Therefore, any living body of a particular shapes refers to a “man.” Locke emphasizes that a “person” is a sensible being that is aware of its own

Summary: The problem of the soul continues as Descartes suggested that the human is composed of two completely different substances; a physical body which Descartes compares with a machine, and a non-physical mind, related to the soul, that allows humans to think and feel even if it has no “measurable dimensions” (67). But Elizabeth put in doubt his ideologies when she realized that a non-physical thing doesn’t have the strength to push and move the body. This led to several questions unanswered and also let space for other materialist theories such as behaviorism, mind-brain identity, and functionalism, which also fail in offering an explicit solution.

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

In Meditation six: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body, Rene Descartes wrote of his distinctions between the mind and the body, first by reviewing all things that he believed to be true, then assessing the causes and later calling them into doubt, and then finally by considering what he must now believe. By analyzing Descartes’ writing, this paper will explicate Descartes’ view on bodies and animals, and if animals have minds. Before explicating the answer to those questions, Descartes’ distinctions between the mind and the body should first be summarized and explained.

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

Ever since the existence of a civilization, the fundamental question of how and why; to identify and explain the human’s nature and how man is ought to live, has been the key element in philosophical world. Many philosophers provided and made public of how they viewed this world as, and the human in it, and experimented themselves with their approaches, however, no philosophers could possibly bring forth the same views as other philosophers nor yield an answer which do not leave a sense of doubt in our mind. None of the theories were incorrect, but none of them were right in the sense that even two

In order to build a different interpretation about the Cartesian dualism and the union of mind and body, I have established two categories. I call diachronic interpretations those that maintain that Descartes was first a dualist (i.e., in the Meditations), and later on developed his stance on the union of mind and body (i.e., in the Passions).

The concept of mind and body interactions has been debated among many modern philosophers. Some believe that our minds and bodies are different things, thus existing separately, while others believe that they exist as a whole. In this paper, I will be introducing two rationalist philosophical views regarding this topic, one which is by Rene Descartes and the other by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Rationalists, in philosophical terms, are the ones who obtain their knowledge through reasoning rather than the human senses. Descartes and Leibniz both have similar perspectives, but Leibniz takes a slightly different approach to improve Descartes’ argument. This paper will first show Descartes’ original argument, an example that proves the argument to be invalid, and then lastly, a revised version of the argument with Leibniz’s help.

Aristotle presents a short analysis of the rational part of the soul, dividing it into two parts, a part that uses reason and a part that obeys reason. He sees life as supported by activity and not just the capacity to do something.

Human Nature is defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans." Throughout the world, however, there are many different groups of people, all with varying personalities and characteristics. One recent article that brought up this issue was What's Really Human? The trouble with student guinea pigs. by Sharon Begley. Begley states that "given the difference in culture between the U.S. and East Asia, no one claims the American way is universal." This suggests that one's environment, not one's nature, shapes one's characteristics and features. This separation of cultures also leads to a different view of good and evil throughout the world; murder is generally bad and charity good, but not everyone may care about murder or think charity necessary. The only way to find human nature may be to look at the time before the first cultures developed. Thomas Hobbes referred to this time as the state of nature, where every man competes for resources, driven on by greed. This greed is considered to be a bad trait by today's society, making human nature apparently evil. I believe that humans are evil in nature and need parameters to be good because of the writings of twentieth century authors, Chinese philosophers between the Qin and Han dynasties, and pre-Enlightenment philosophers.