Post-humanist And Vitalist Posthumanism

To begin with, of the therapist/counselor is to apply a vast area of methods when dealing with clients, by providing them with the necessary tools using various existential-humanistic approaches. The reason is that there are no two people alike in the world. With this in mind, people’s problems, beliefs thought process, and their ‘here and now’ is a representation of our individuality and how each of us handle things. Therefore, when a person comes to see a therapist, it is important for that therapist to be able to help and address their issues, in the best way possible. This involves, the therapist/counselor to be knowledgeable, with various

I have chosen to compare the postmodern perspective on health and the biomedical model. The biomedical model view of the body is mechanistic. This point was argued by Engels, who said that the body was a machine and the breakdown of this machine was disease. he also beleived that the the doctor was the only one who could fix the machine. this point leads to many biomedical views. Firstly, it shows the way that doctors view the body as a set of individual parts, diagnose and treat them as such. This non-holistic view of the body is often criticised because it fails to cnsider the person as a whole and entire building. Secondly it shows the importance of the doctor in the

Throughout time an individual’s role in which he fits into society has changed. One of the most noticeable changes in an individual’s role in society occurred during the Italian Renaissance during the 14th and 15th centuries with the introduction of Humanism. Humanism gave birth to the concept of individuality a notion which is still alive today. It said that humans mattered and that now mattered, that one should not be part of a whole but rather someone that is unique. Before Humanism people only thought of the after life, of whether they were going to heaven or hell, but with the introduction of Humanism people became more involved in the present, rather then just thinking of what happened after you died. Humanism transformed

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.

“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.

In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes offers the above proposition, in response to the radical doubt (Discourse on Method 15)This implies that, even the human ability to doubt one’s existence is proof that humans are thinking beings, and therefore must exist in the universe, despite all else. Nietzsche has written in contrast to this statement, discussing the contradictions and assumptions surrounding the proposition. Stemming from this initial premise, both Descartes and Nietzsche go on to discuss the mind/body problem. Descartes argues for the separation of mind and body, while Nietzsche offers a premise based on a deep connection between the two. I seek to compare the writings of both philosophers, and explore holes in judgment and scope on the part of Descartes, and prove as to why Nietzsche’s discussions are superior of the two.

The mind is perhaps the most fascinating part of the human body due to its complexity and ability to rationalize. In essence, the mind-body problem studies the relation of the mind to the body, and states that each human being seems to embody two unique and somewhat contradictory natures. Each human contains both a nature of matter and physicality, just like any other object that contains atoms in the universe. However, mankind also is constituted of something beyond materialism, which includes its ability to rationalize and be self-aware. This would imply that mankind is not simply another member of the world of matter because some of its most distinctive features cannot be accounted for in this manner. There are obvious differences between physical and mental properties. Physical properties are publically accessible, and have weight, texture, and are made of matter. Mental properties are not publically accessible, and have phenomenological texture and intentionality (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). This is challenging to philosophers, because man cannot be categorized as a material or immaterial object, but rather a combination of both mind and body (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). Man embodies mind-body dualism, meaning he is a blend of both mind and matter (Stewart, Blocker, Petrick, 2013). The mind-body problem creates conflict among philosophers, especially when analyzing physicalism in its defense. This paper outlines sound

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.

Geography is an important factor to consider when you look at this worlds past, present, or future. So whether it be the earths physical geographic features, the geopolitics stirring up trouble across the globe, or the economics of growing or shrinking countries; geography plays a major role. In todays society, geographic knowledge is one of the most important and valuable tools to possess. Without it, we are victims of ignorance and endanger ourselves, others, and the world. This ignorance, possessed by many, is posing a great risk of self-destruction. The author of “Why Geography Matters More Than Ever”, Harm de Blij, makes many strong points on this matter, but occasionally makes unsupported and unclear statements which tend to stray off topic.

4, pp. 69 ff.), "Humanism recognizes the value and dignity of man and makes him the measure of all things or somehow takes human nature, its limits, or its interests as its theme."

Jean-Paul Sartre 's novel Existentialism and Human Emotions discusses his philosophy that man is responsible for what he is and what he does; that man chooses his values and makes himself. At the beginning of the book, Sartre defends existentialism against several charges that had been laid against it. Throughout the book, Sartre refers to the basis of existentialism using the phrase ‘existence precedes essence '. With this, phrase lies the basis for the argument that Existentialism is a Humanism. In this essay, I shall attempt to explore and evaluate Sartre 's argument that "existentialism is a humanism" by unpacking what is meant by ‘existence precedes essence '. I will argue that although the overall argument tends to be a good one, there are several points which could have been improved upon.

The humanistic-existential perspective is both a reaction to and an outgrowth of the psychodynamic perspective. These thinkers refer to psychodynamic theory as inadequate, many were repulsed with its tendency to break down the "whole" person into discrete components, and, the idea of adapting to one's society, however questionable its values. Most importantly, they disagree that human action is beyond the individuals control, in fact they believe that if we could develop with out constraints, we would be rational and socialized. Humanists and existentialists also think psychology should be converted into a human science, different from psychological theories with more focus on natural science.

According to Martin Heidegger (2000), anthropocentrism functions as a dogmatic paradigm in which all aspects of the natural world are related to human beings. In this view, humanity is at the centre of all subsequent theoretical assumptions, creating a metanarrative that supports an entire system of thought. This way of understanding the world, however, is incompatible with the postmodern approach and its tendency to deconstruct apparent certainties, hierarchical divisions, and man's superiority and intellect. Consequently, embedded in ecocriticism, a postmodern understanding of the relationship between humans and animals is one of the most crucial challenges to traditional Western conceptions of man as a sovereign being. This essay is going to discuss this shift from a philosophy of a shared human essence to a more fragmented theoretical model, arguing that human and

Encarta Dictionary says that Humanism is a system of thought that centers on human beings and their values, capacities and worth. Encarta also goes on the say that, in philosophy, humanism is an attitude that emphasizes the dignity and worth of an individual. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness. I see myself as a being a humanist through everyday life. I always try to see the good in a person when he/she makes me angry or sad, and say I to myself that maybe that person has had a bad day and living life is difficult at the moment. Socrates was even an early humanist of sorts. He can be quoted as saying, "to know the good is to do the

Human geography is defined as “The study of interrelationships between people, places and environment and how these vary spatially and temporally across and between locations” (Castree, Kitchin and Rogers, 2013). It looks at how society shapes the environment and vice versa. Although physical geography and human geography are separate fields they both concentrate on spatial processes; physical geography more on the natural and physical sciences and human geography on the way in which human lives are shaped by processes in nature (Castree et al., 2013). A key principle of