Hume, Kant, Sartre, Descartes's Views on Self, Death, and Evil - Assignment Example

Philosophy Hume and Self David Hume was doubtful about the presence of the self. Nonetheless, he doesnt plainly, what makes up a person. Hume believes that everything that can be known can be known through an impression. For example, I know that there is a chair here because I have an impression of the chair. Since there is no such thing as an impression of the self, self therefore doesn’t exist. All there is, then, is a series of bundles of impressions or perceptions. As indicated by David, our insight into all things on the planet originates from impressions and recognitions. Subsequently, it isnt right to infer that our insight into self is a special case. Since all information is transient and non-persevering, then self is not steady, not constant and not consistent. Consequently, he accepted that there is no predictable self. Dissimilar to David, Kant accepts that people contain souls. First, Kant believes that Hume is correct that there is no impression of the self. But this does not mean that the self does not exist. However, according to Kant, in order for us to make sense of experience, we need to believe in the self. For instance, if I see a chair here now and then I see it in another place, I would think that somebody has moved the chair, and that the two impressions are related. In order for me to think this, there must be something that is organizing my experiences of the chair. This something is the self. Therefore, the self has to exist, because the self is the necessary condition that makes experience possible. 2. Sartre on Existence Sartre expresses his observation that the key or core of existentialism is the idea that for human beings, being there is more important than the purpose of being there. This means existence precedes essence. According to Sartre, in a case of the paper knife, it exists to cut letters. It would not exist in the event that it didnt have a reason to it. "We wouldnt create a paper blade without comprehending what it’s for" So in the event that you utilize it to cut someone, that is bad in light of the fact that that is not its motivation which only humans can possess. Thus, for this situation, embodiment goes before the presence. In the event that individuals occurred in the same route as paper blades, then God was deduction something: I need something that does x (303). Generally as there are things that you ought to and ought to do with paper blades, there are things that we as people ought to and ought not to do. But Sartre says that for individuals, presence goes before substance. Fundamentally, we exist first and afterward we do things that characterize ourselves and live our lives in whatever way we pick (and this decides our path, and what it intends to be an individual.) Through existing, we make our quintessence and therefore, existence precedes essence (306). For Sartre, human beings are such that their existence precedes essence. Because of this, when we are born, we do not have a fixed purpose or essence. Hence we are nothing or nothingness. But it is also because we are nothing that we are free, because we have the space to become whatever we choose to become. Therefore, for Sartre, nothingness is the condition that makes freedom possible. 3. Descartes’s Meditations From the dream argument, he observes three things. First, that he frequently has observations all that much like the ones he has, for the most part, have in sensation while he am envisioning. Secondly, that there are no distinct signs to recognize dream experience from waking background. This leads to his third observation that it is conceivable that he is imagining at this time and that the majority of his discernments are false (294). Concerning knowledge, the dream argument shows that since we cannot be sure at any given moment whether we are dreaming, we therefore cannot know whether the external world actually exists. From the Evil argument, As opposed to expecting that God is the source of our evils we will accept that there exists a shrewd evil spirit, who is fit for misleading us in the same way we gathered God to be capable. In this way, we can have the motivation to uncertainty the totality of what our minds allow us to know and additionally the scientific information that it appears we possess. Therefore, if it is possible that there is an evil demon, then even our beliefs about the basic truths of mathematics and logic are cast into doubt. If Descartes is being deceived by the evil demon, then he is being deceived. If he is being deceived, then he is thinking. If he is thinking, he has to exist: “I think, therefore I am.” This is the one thing that remains certain even if everything else is cast into doubt. 4. Clone: The Dissimilar self When someone passes on, the memory is left with the loved ones for as long as the loved ones and those who knew the person exist. This means that the physical self may be gone but immediately the person dies, their memory lives as non-visible selfs. The implication of this is that when a person ‘dies’ or is thought to have died for sometimes, then reappears, the individual is no longer the same. This is because his or her self had already started existing within the minds of the loved ones as a memory of the feelings and perceptions. This scenario has been witnessed for many years when someone thought to have died suddenly returns home. If this is taken to be true, therefore, making a clone may be a technological step but returning the same person is different. The loved ones will not be able to fully accept the clone as their dead person even with the improvement to match the person. This failure is based on two things, first, the dead person had already started living in the memory of the people. Secondly, the clone does not live in the same time and space as their loved ones, simply because the clone has to take sometimes to learn the identity of the dead. These too are the differences that the clone will have. Further, the soul is more than speech, mannerisms and memory and hence it is not replaceable. 5. The Fear of Death “Death does not exist as long as people are alive when death occurs people no longer exist. This, therefore, means that death should not concern human beings”. This statement expresses that people are wrong to fear death since they either have no control over it or that as long as they are alive, death is inexistence. However, many people are afraid of death in every situation. The fear of death can be explained from several perspectives. First, human beings are afraid of change. Death is the irreversible change that converts people from the bodily existence to a rather less known and studied the self, the non-physical existence. This fear of irreversible change makes people fear the process that bring about the change especially to the unknown. This process is death. Secondly, from the above statement, it is agreeable that if death should not concern human beings, their life on earth can be based on the accumulation of wealth with a perception that they will live forever. The implication of this is that people fear anything that will lead to loss of accumulated wealth. Death being irreversible, therefore, becomes the ultimate fear. Thirdly, the fear of loss is also a key aspect in fearing death. People fear that through death, they will lose the love they have known whether they are the ones dying of the bereaved. This perception can be used to show the gap between human desires and the nature of reality in that we want everything that matters to us in this world to last forever. However, the reality is that nothing will. It is this gap between our desires and reality that causes us to fear death, and causes the suffering that comes along with such fear. Works cited Solomon, R., M. Kathleen and M. Clancy. Introducing Philosophy: A Text With Integrated Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Read More