Classical Questions of Philosophy - Assignment Example

Final Exam Study Questions David Hume rejects the idea of self - which is existing over the long run. There are only sensations or perceptions that change every moment they are being perceived. The basic claims by him would be provided below. 1. All thoughts are eventually gotten from impressions. 2. Along these lines, the thought of a continuing "self" is at last got from impressions. 3. Yet, no impression is a continuing thing. 4. Along these lines, there cant be any continuing thought of "self." Hume requests that we consider what impression issues us our idea of self. We have a tendency to consider ourselves selves—stable substances that exist over the long haul. However, regardless of how nearly we inspect our own particular encounters, we never watch anything past a progression of transient sensations, feelings and impressions. We cannot perceive ourselves, or what we are, in acohesive manner. There is no impression of the "self" that ties our specific impressions together. At the end of the day, we can never be specifically mindful of ourselves, just of what we are encountering at any given minute. Despite the fact that the relations between our thoughts, emotions, etc, may be followed through time by memory, there is no genuine confirmation of any center that unites them. This contention additionally applies to the idea of the spirit. Hume proposes that the self is simply a bundle of perceptions, similar to connections in a chain. To search for a bringing together self past those discernments is similar to searching for a chain separated from the connections that constitute it. Hume contends that our idea of the self is a consequence of our regular propensity for crediting bound together presence to any accumulation of related parts. This conviction is regular, however there is no intelligent backing it. Kant says that any thing has its predicate; and the predicate always has a subject. His view on self differed from Hume’s, as he distinguished consciousness of self and psychological states of apperception. Yet self is not a concept; but the “indication of an object of the inner sense, as far as we know it by no further predicate” (Kant). Self is not a predicate to any other thing. The connections provided by Hume seem to be irrelevant, according to Kant. 2. Sartre said that existence precedes essence. The presupposition of this claim is that there is an essence of anything. For example, any material thing, like markers, has the idea of it before it is being created. Creator realizes the need and purpose. Thus the essence appears to be before existence. Essence may vary – thus actually innovations appear, involving new features to the object, which are different from primary essence concept. The difference between inanimate objects and human is that human exists and determines own essence by own existence. There is something godlike in creating own essence through the existence – even though Sartre was an atheist. Sartre stated the concept of nothingness as crucial prerequisite for freedom. But yet people are obliged to do conscious choices continuously during their lives. It is observed as usual struggle and suffering yet every choice made causes limitations somehow due to its consequences, leading to some identification and destiny a person is tend to follow and fulfill. Intellectual freedom is contrary to choices that tend to lead to some restrictions. There is a recipe by Sartre regarding fulfilment – which says one can escape from all the quests by completing them. However, Being and Nothingness concepts inevitably coincide in people’s lives. There is a usual fight within people’s lives as one side requires accomplishing peacefully own social roles’ obligations and typical actions accordingly (being); while another aspires to act spontaneously, basing on nothing, according to no roles – searching new paths (nothingness). 3. The dream argument is the hypothesis that dreaming gives preliminary proof that the faculties we trust to recognize reality from dream ought not to be completely trusted, and hence any state that is reliant on our faculties ought to in any event be precisely analyzed and thoroughly tried to figure out if it is truly reality. These are the two presuppositions that lead Descartes to establishing this dreaming argument within his meditations: 1) when we are dreaming it is hard to distinguish exactly, whether we are dreaming or not; 2) 1) when we are awake it is hard to distinguish exactly, whether we are dreaming or not. This arguments leads to the conclusion that things we perceive by sensory perception must not be trusted completely with no doubts. Other than accepting that the God is deceptive, Descartes proposed evil demon argument. He suggested there is somebody as omnipotent as God he personalizes all the deceptions; he is clever and causes illusions to distract the perception and thus lead to necessity of doubts regarding the entire material world; body and all the sensory perceptions are not valid. In this manner, one is motivated to uncertainty the totality of what all the senses tell him or her know and even it is true for mathematics knowledge. Since the wellspring of our insight cannot lie in the sense, Descartes must figure out how to remake the structure of learning upon material he can discover inside the substance that he could call his own mind. The principal thing he can make sure of on the premise of this alone is his own existence. Accepting the fact of the deceiver’s existence leads to the point that being deceived, I exist. Existence is the only sure fact. It is attainable through recognition of own thinking – "I think, therefore I am." 4. Losing beloved ones is a tragedy and everyone suffers in such case and wants him or her back. But in case all the outer characteristics be presented it is not the same person; it is a doll with artificial intelligence. If this point would be observed from Hume’s perspective that we a the bundles of perception, such rebirth may be observed as something valuable – as perceptions we obtain would be similar to those we used to while we were together when he or she was alive. It seems a little bit egoistic as we can seemingly obtain emotional and physical pleasure from communication with that person. Descartes would reject it, as those perceived by senses is deceptive; it is not that person. Kant also would deny it. There is a soul within, the consciousness. True love is not about the beauty or voice or appearance. 5. The fear of death is acknowledged to be a kind of innate feature of human existence. Yet if death comes anyway, there is no point of being afraid of it as it cannot be avoided. Epicurus clearly said “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” Thus people are afraid of not death actually. They are afraid of losses of that they identify as themselves or the property they seemingly obtain (including people they love) – as the idea of the end of particular perceptions and feelings seems to cause severe suffering. Some, especially rich people, are afraid they would lost the pleasures they gain from own prosperity and fruitful desires they mat accomplish; other follow just mundane desires and pleasures – like sex or food. Usually people are afraid of losing of feeling love to their close people – spouses, family and friends. Another aspect they fear is pain. The end of life is connected with pain usually. There are people who die without pain but it is rather rare if compared with others. Works cited Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that can Qualify as a Science. No. 53. Open Court Publishing, 1902. Read More