Paradoxes of Philosophy - Assignment Example

Philosophy Why does David Hume think that there is really no such thing as a self and that all there is a series of bundles of perception? Why does Immanuel Kant think that Hume is looking in the wrong place for the self? What does Kant think the self is? According to David Hume, there is no such thing as a self. He argues that the intimate feelings that cloud human beings are sufficient to distract us from the notion of the self. On the contrary, they have been seen to reinforce this fallacious notion. Hume is of the opinion that, if at all the idea of self-exists, then it should pass for a clear and intelligible concept. To pass for that, then the mythical self should be stemming from one impression that gives rise to every real idea and the impression should manifest consistency in our lives. It is from this background that Hume concludes that there is no self because the impressions prevalent in life are not at all consistent. Emotions such as pain and grief, pleasure, etc. are constantly succeeding each other thus do not provide a foundation for the assumption of a self. Immanuel Kant has slightly different opinions about the self. According to him, to discover the self, there should be careful consideration of the experiences that accompany self-review (Haldane et al. 290). He observes that we are able to divert our attention from the things that we do and focus that attention on watching ourselves do the same things. The major emphasis is to criticize and analyze our reactions given a situation to determine who we really are. In an interesting perspective, Kant expresses his opinion that to exist as a human being, one needs to be capable of being self-conscious and not merely existing self-consciously. In other words, distancing themselves from the activities and experiences and being able to review them or watch them is the most plausible approach to discovering self. What does Sartre mean when he says that existence precedes essence? How does this make human existence difference from the existence of inanimate objects like dry-erase markers? What is the place of nothingness in human existence? What is the relationship between nothingness and freedom? Sartre is of the opinion that existence precedes essence. Existence preceding essence refers to the phenomenon that is man coming into being and existing before defining himself afterward. Sartre was convinced that human beings define and shape their own beings through the pursuit of their own personal and individual choices, but before the purposeful directions, the individual needs to exist first of all. They need to be. The existence before essence principle is crucial in explaining the distinction between human existence and the existence of inanimate objects. Human beings come into existence, but henceforth they define who they want to be by the purposeful pursuit of their wills. A human being will make decisions and choices that predispose them to the kind of existence that they want to embody. On the other hand, the inanimate objects lack this deliberate causal factor and are for the most part at the mercy of the environment or remaining in the original forms in which they came into existence. The element of essence is missing in inanimate objects whereas it is very prominent in humans. Nothingness refers to the inability of a man to cause his own existence. It refers to some element of metaphysical being that is supposed to conceive the existence of men before the definitive life of man is directed by his own will. Nothingness leads to the existence of men without and predisposes men to the world after which everyone becomes responsible and takes charge of their own self. Explain the dreaming argument and the evil demon argument in Descartes Meditations. What is each of these arguments supposed to show about the state of our knowledge? What is the one thing that remains certain even if both of these arguments are correct, according to Descartes? According to Descartes, two individuals may differ in the color of an object or the shape of an item (Haldane et al. 288). Color and shape seem so obvious yet people may have varying opinions about them. That is the premise of one of the Descartes meditations on doubting that lead to the dreaming argument. He finds himself questioning the very existence of the set of beliefs he previously held to the extent that he suspects he doubts his wakefulness. He wonders whether his meditations by the fireplace could just be a dream because of the level with which his doubts had escalated. To create a conclusion to his meditation, Descartes arrives at a supposition that there exists an evil genius who is constantly deceiving him to perceive the world as it was (Haldane et al 300). Because everything was a deception, he undertakes to consider the heavens, the skies, the earth and everything that was to be an illusion and a deception orchestrated by the evil genius. Descartes was so convinced of the deceptions of the evil genius to the extent that he did not consider the flesh and the blood in his veins to be real. Both of the above arguments of Descartes were geared to showing the shortcomings of imbibing knowledge without criticizing its authenticity. Descartes wanted to show that for a truth to be accepted as a truth it should have a basing that is undisputable or at least defend its own truth. Much as he doubted almost everything, Descartes did not doubt his own existence because then he would have lived to doubt it. It comes out very clear that what Descartes accepted as a truth was tested and defendable and not just a fallacy. Is it possible to say that a synthetic clone of a loved one that has been technologically made to behave like the loved one has now become the loved one? Or is there always a difference between the two? If so, what would this difference be? Modification of a clone no matter how close it resembles the original loved one, cannot replace the loved one or be said to be the same as the loved one. According to Hume, we ascribe identity because of perceptions and tolerance of minute differences that are seen not to impose major changes in an individual or item such as a haircut (Haldane et al. 296). Mere resemblance and spatiotemporal continuity do not guarantee identity. Therefore, the death of a person can never be seen to be undone because the existence of a clone. Hume points out that a seeing a tree now and seeing the same tree in the next five minutes is not sufficient to ascribe the same identity to the tree. The tree in the next five minutes has undergone massive cell replication that transforms its identity. At the time of the death of the deceased, his body’s composition is not at all the same as that of the clone. There is a significant difference in their genetic makeup and even in the mannerisms they exhibit no matter how small the difference. More than that, whereas the clone is in the present and has psychomotor capabilities, the loved one is an identifiable entity separate from the clone, and his existence termed out. In fact, they cannot be said to be the same because they are not even aware of each other’s existence. They are two separate identities existing at different times. In a similar vein, the clone learns the ways of the deceased to the point where both are indistinguishable. Being indistinguishable does not mean that there are no differences but only means that the differences are too minute to be noticed. The clone and the deceased remain inevitably with different identities. According to the Greek philosopher Epicurus, Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist. If this is true, why are so many people still afraid of death? What are people really afraid of when they claim to fear death? What does this show about the gap between our desires and the nature of reality? Death is a not a characteristic of the living. It should, therefore, not be feared because it is not to be experienced but to be seen by the living. For as long as it does not affect the living, their living should not be perturbed by thoughts of that which has no potential for affecting the living. More than that, there is very little human beings can do to death as it’s certain. It, therefore, beats logic to fear death or focus energy on its being. However, many people are still ineptly afraid of death because of several reasons. First, there is the fear of an unknown future. Scanty knowledge about the metaphysical world and the divine being make people want to cling to the known. By so doing, they prefer immortality to death and start exhibiting phobia for death. Additionally, there is the fear of losing life as it is known on earth. Probably, the lifestyle, the wealth, the entertainment, etc. make individuals relish the perpetual existence of life on earth. Finally, there are those who fear the death process itself. Death conquers all even the brave and mighty. It is a fright to imagine what transpires during the death process. It appears more as a battle one is sure to lose thus extremely intimidating. When people claim to fear death, they are actually afraid of the unknown after death. They are afraid of the freaky images of a dead man in a coffin waiting to be pushed from the face of the earth without company. It looks extremely lonely and unappealing to be cut off from the society and friends. Death exposes the incongruence of human wishes and nature’s reality. It shows that in spite of the exploitations of nature by man, man is still by far at the mercy of nature and cannot do much to redeem himself. Works cited Haldane, Elizabeth, and G.R.T Ross. 1911. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. . Read More