The term dualism the most often associates with the name of the French scientist and philosopher Rene Descartes who discussed the difference between mind and matter in his works. Today the relation between mind and matter, body and soul remain the issue for active discussion: we cannot state with confidence whether it is solvable or not, but at the moment, a single answer has not been found
However, while centuries ago relation between mind and matter was discussed from the angles of philosophy and religion, today science has joined in with the conversation : researchers try to study the relationship between mind (our thinking) and matter (our brain) using scientific methods. Some of the approaches to this problem are pro-dualist , while other ones oppose the dualist ideas. In this essay, we review modern dualist ideas in science and religion. We discuss different views on mind and matter, without supporting or disproving them.
First, let us discuss how relations between mind and matter have been presented in religions. No doubt, Descartes was not the first person to introduce the ideas of dualism. Centuries ago, dualist views could be seen in different world religions. In his (2009), James M. Nelson states that we can see bright manifestations of dualistic ideas in Hinduism, especially at the early stages. Particularly, Hinduism implies that the physical world which is the sense that our body has, and the spiritual reality which refers to a humans mind, are separated (p. 79). The author refers to the early Vedas and Samkhyas ideas. However, the author points out that gradually, the nondualist ideas had been developing in Hinduism. Today, we cannot state that Hinduism is a dualistic religion. Nondualist ideas have influenced schools of Hinduism, particularly, later yoga schools.
Nelson also studies dualism in Christianity. He mentions two contexts of dualism in Christian thought that existed in the Middle Ages: good-evil dualism and body-soul dualism (p.95). Both ideas were historically popular; however, despite certain disagreements existing about these issues, Christianity nevertheless tends to reject them, says the author.
Thus, we see that in different religions dualist and nondualist ideas compete historically. However, today we should study this issue not only from the angle of religion; science has also joined the discussion of the relation between mind and matter. For centuries, science and religion interacted and influenced the development of each other. That is why speaking about modern dualism and religion, we cannot omit science.
First of all, science tries to evaluate ideas that we can find in different religions. Clayton (p.318) says that there is hardly good evidence that biblical anthropology does not treat a mental substance as the essence of humanity . In turn, Churchland (1989) criticizes substance dualism based on neurophilosophy. The author outlines the problems with substance dualism, for example, interaction between two radically different kinds of substance (p. 318), and inability to explain the unity of consciousness (p. 321).
At the same time, scientists do not limit their study to discussing religious views: they develop their positions about dualism. Nelson formulates a set of questions that refer to dualism as a mind-brain problem (p. 176). From the dualistic perspective, the brain refers to the physical world , while the mind is intangible. The question arises: how do the brain and the mind relate to each other? Today scientists demonstrate different approaches to this problem.
Ian Barbour studies modern dualism in his (2002). He provides a review of different views on the mind-brain problem. Particularly, the author emphasizes that the positions of the body/soul dualism become weaker, though some researchers continue supporting it (p. 79). At the same time, he says that the discussion of the issue can be much broader. One of the possible approaches to discussing the issue is expanding beyond the body/soul dualist dimension: the author mentions the developmental view , which implies that as the body develops, personhood develops as well (p. 65). Though according to Barbour, this view also has its weak points, it is valuable in terms of giving the opportunity not to choose between materialism and body/soul dualism, but to discuss a holistic view of persons with a hierarchy of levels (p. 71).
Another view on the mind-brain problem is an emergent phenomenon of brain . It implies that mental events should not be boiled down to physical processes, and they are broader and require other categories, other levels of discussion (Deacon, p. 108). Besides, some researchers support the idea that the mind is a property of the universe (Nelson, p. 176), which is consonant with definite religious traditions (for example, Hindu).
There are also attempts to settle the conflict between science and religion and integrate. Mark Graves says that one should not necessarily take one side and dismiss the other ; it is necessary to study cognition not limiting to studying the brain. When one studies cognition in a Christian body, no conflict exists , says the author (p. 7).
Thus, nowadays dualism remains a discussed issue. Though science and religion are in perpetual competition, the more advanced science becomes, the more complicated the discussion becomes. Today it is difficult to say whether one-day religion and neurophilosophy will agree or not.
References
Barbour, J. G. (2002). Nature, Human Nature, and God. Minneapolis: MN Fortress Press.
Clayton, P. (2007). Toward a Constructive Christian Theology of Emergence. In N.C. Murphy (ed), Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Churchland, P. S. (1989). Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Deacon, T. W. (2007). Three Levels of Emergent Phenomena. In N.C. Murphy (ed), Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graves M. (2008). Mind, Brain, and the Elusive Soul: Human Systems of Cognitive Science and Religion. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
James, N. M. (2009). Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. New York: Springer.
A philosophical position called Natural Law Theory contends that nature contains an inherent moral law. In her work, Yvonne Raley examines the underlying ideas of this theory, examining its historical roots, core ideas, and ethical dilemma consequences. Raley claims that the origins of the Natural Law Theory can be found in the writings of Aristotle and his idea of teleology or the evaluation of purpose. However, the medieval theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas developed the most significant variant of this theory. Aquinas argued that, besides heavenly revelation, humankind could infer immutable moral principles from reason, nature analysis, and other sources.
The idea that there is an instinctual order to the universe that symbolizes the designs of a divine creator is one of the central principles of natural law theory. This sequence can be applied to moral problems through reasoning. For instance, homosexuality is regarded as immoral because it does not entail the possibility of procreation, which is the natural objective of human sexuality.
Raley proceeds by pointing out that several ethical orientations, such as opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage, have been supported by the theory. Nevertheless, the theory has also come under fire for its dependence on a specific conception of nature and its propensity to confuse normative claims about what should be with descriptive claims about what is. Natural Law Theory is criticized for being too rigid and failing to consider the intricacy and variance of human experience.
Natural Law Theory continues to be a major ethical framework in modern philosophy and theology despite its drawbacks. It offers a logical framework for determining moral principles founded on divine revelation and natural order. However, applying it to particular ethical issues requires a careful evaluation of opposing values and viewpoints.
In conclusion, the Natural Law Theory asserts that one can deduce objective moral principles from a natural order that reflects a divine creators purposes. The theory has been criticized for being conservative and having a limited understanding of nature. It raises important questions about the function of logic, tradition, and diversity in moral decision-making by its implementation to ethical problems.
Contemporary philosophical schools of thought about self-cultivation hinge on the works of various philosophical thinkers, such as Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi, and Zhuangzi. These philosophers have had different assumptions and approaches about life and about the process of self-cultivation. They have expressed these arguments based on different conceptions of ethics, epistemology, spatial inferences, and temporal assumptions of self-cultivation. In the context of this essay, we present the concept of self-cultivation as the process of a human being acquiring new knowledge and using the same to inform his/her actions. The basic assumption we use in this definition is that people always want to better themselves, or live their lives in a noble and ethical way.
Building on the above definition, in this paper, we review the works of Confucius and Zhuangzi as two major philosophers who have informed Chinese thinking of self-cultivation. In this text, we show how these two philosophers comprehend and explain the concept of self-cultivation and how they encourage people to live their lives within different ethical, moral, and spatial inferences. We also compare how the views of the two philosophies differ and contrast to have a more holistic understanding of where their views merge, or differ, in thought. The last section of this paper explains the larger conclusions drawn from this comparison and contains a self-assessment process that reviews the process involved in undertaking this review.
In the Analects (Confucian)
In the Analects, Confucius argues that human beings are identical at birth; however, based on their environments, values and beliefs, they grow up to be different. He explains this concept by highlighting the Junzi, which literally means a noble person. A translation of the same concept draws our attention to the concept of the profound person, which is also a direct translation of the Junzi. The opposite of this person is the small person, who is often motivated by profit. Relatively, this description points out that the actions of the profound person are guided by moral principles, while the actions of the small person are informed by the pursuit for profit. Therefore, the Junzi is the profound person because he manifests traits associated with ren (jen). They also manifest the quality of the Yi (i) in their actions. These two factors are the main graphic elements in the description of the works of Confucius.
Many people often misunderstand the concept of the ren to mean how people should treat one another. Understandably, it is easy to see why they may do so because the concept of the ren is abstractly termed as the ability of human beings to be benevolent or humane. However, such a description is shallow because the concept is mainly instructive. If we take this understanding to be true, we find that the concept of the ren could abstractly mean co-humanity. How the Junzi treat other people highlights the key tenets of Confuciuss model of self-cultivation, which is depicted, by a hierarchical model of relations. To highlight this fact, Confucius says the Junzi is like the wind, while the small person is like the grass. When the wind blows, the grass bows.
In sum, ren means an attribution of agents, while yi mostly refers to the motivation for peoples actions. In the second category of self-cultivation, we find that peoples actions are defined by what is fitting, or righteous, in the eyes of one person. This understanding helps to ascertain the link between different terms that Confucius uses in his analogy. The terms are li, de, and junzi. Using this analogy, we find that the Junzi helps to identify the moral force that should persuade people to take specific actions, depending on what they deem fit or right. Here, what is fitting simply means what is morally of socially acceptable. By identifying these actions, ren manifests. In other words, the virtue of co-humanity manifests in a co-dependent way where many people need one another to survive, or where people need to develop co-dependent relationships to thrive. Two passages in the Analects article explain the above narration. One of them is representative of Confuciuss understanding of the path towards self-cultivation, which he increasingly used, in 15 century China to advance his moral and philosophical ideals. This passage appears below.
From the age of fifteen on, I have been intent upon learning; from thirty on, I have established myself; from forty on, I have not been confused; from fifty on, I have known the mandate of Heaven; from sixty on, my ear has been attuned; from seventy on, I have followed my hearts desire without transgressing what is right.
The other passage in the Analects article that emphasizes the same point says, The Masters Way is nothing but other-regard and self-reflection.
The first passage above shows a long-term view of what self-cultivation is all about. For example, in the article, Confucius chronicles the process of self-cultivation that occurs from a persons teenage years up to their old age. Throughout these stages, five stages of self-cultivation occur. The first stage includes a metamorphosis from intention to learning. Intention is zhi and learning is xue. The second metamorphosis happens from knowing the mandate of heaven, which is defined by the concept of Tianming to undertaking desired actions, which is defined by the process of yu. The last stage involves turning what is desired to what is right (yi).
Zhuangzi follows Confuciuss teachings by using the above principles to depict his understanding of self-cultivation. His remarks and arguments have mostly been a summary of his philosophy (Dao). Nonetheless, intricate details of his teachings will appear in later sections of this paper. Comparatively, Confucius has taught the concept of the other regard, which is defined by the concept of zhong. His other teachings have focused on explaining the concept of self-reflection, which he explicitly mentions as shu.
When highlighting the concept of the other regard, Confucius simply alluded to the concept of loyalty, which a ruler, or somebody in authority, may enjoy. In the fullness of the term, Confucius confers the meaning of loyalty based on how people interact with one another and, more importantly, how people in authority would relate to those who are subject to their authority. While explaining this fact, Confucius says that self-reflection is an important part of self-cultivation. In fact, he points it out as a golden rule. Within this framework of discussion, he also says that people should refrain from participating in actions that are detrimental to other people because they would not want the same to be done to them. It is only through self-reflection that people can truly understand the magnitude and effects of their actions towards other people. Indeed, people should not think that what is undesirable for them could possibly be desirable for others.
Based on this analysis, correctly, we could argue that Confuciuss concept of the self is deeply reflective in the sense that it strives to change the relational component of human interaction without outer virtue. In an unrelated analytical lens, we could argue that the Confucius concept of the self is that which compares itself with the moral framework of the society to identify areas of conflict or mergers. This concept of the self seeks to maximize ren through apprenticeship to li. The aim is to exercise de in a way that befits a Junzi. This philosophy is rarely contradicted in Chinese philosophical schools of thought because the Chinese rarely suffer from a mind-body problem. Different researchers have investigated this fact. One of the most prolific researchers to have delved into this discussion is Herbert Fingarette. This researcher has argued that there is no dichotomy between the inner and outer self. Therefore, the Confucian principles highlighted in this paper do not only apply to the self, but the society as a whole. In other words, the Confucian principles of self-cultivation also apply to social and cosmic aspects of a human being.
Zhuangzi
In my reading, I established that the philosophical teachings of Zhuangzi about self-cultivation were largely borrowed from Confucius principles. In his teachings, Zhuangzi presents a holistic philosophy of life. He tries to present a pure form of the self, which is devoid of the artificialities of socialization. Although his text appears complex, mythical, and poetic, it argues for the cultivation of our ancestral potencies and skills. The outcome is the ability of human beings to live simple, but fulfilling lives. Nonetheless, this philosopher does not assume that all people are bound to agree on the same school of thought because people come from different cultures and philosophical schools of thought. He also recognizes the fact that there is an inherent lack of an independent metric for evaluating the different cultures and philosophical thoughts. Therefore, when presenting his views of self-cultivation, he encourages people to have an open-mind, or to have a common understanding of philosophical matters without advancing a common system of comparative evaluation. Consequently, he encourages people to maintain a provisional and pragmatic attitude towards philosophical matters pertaining to self-cultivation.
Holistically, the teachings of Zhuangzi point out the fact that the process of self-cultivation needs to happen within the framework of what nature would allow. The philosopher enshrines some of these principles in the concept of Daoism, which promotes two descriptive claims. One claim is that ethical principles based on formulas and concepts are inherently flawed because they are not hinged on nature and its constituents. The second claim is that conscious deliberation cannot yield fruitful outcomes (by itself) when it comes to self-cultivation. The premise of this argument is hinged on Zhuangzis teachings, which encourages people to create the right conditions for creating spontaneity, as opposed to pursuing spontaneity as a goal in itself. He encourages this path of self-cultivation because he believes that the mere act of pursuing spontaneity is self-defeating.
Zhuangzi also encourages those who subscribe to his school of thought to go beyond their primary focus by trying out new things, or shaking up social norms. He termed this concept as the Yao, which means distance or going beyond. Abstractly, this statement means going beyond the familiarity of matters, which may be contextualized in social norms, beliefs, values, and such-like frameworks of social control. Zhuangzi proposed the concept after seeing that many people were afraid of going beyond what they already knew, or trying out new things that were beyond their primary framework of understanding, or knowledge. Therefore, people need to outstretch these limitations if they are to understand the nature of things. They also need to do the same to have fruitful interactions with other people.
Zhuangzi highlights the importance of understanding the limits of human beliefs when espousing the importance of self-cultivation. He says that human beliefs and values often change and limit peoples actions, based on what they know; however, knowledge does not have the same limits as values do. Therefore, people should strive to expand their knowledge base at all costs. He highlights this fact in a passage, which says,
Your life has a limit, but knowledge has none. If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger. If you understand this and still strive for knowledge, you will be in danger for certain!
Conclusion
The views of Confucius and Zhuangzi about self-cultivation are similar in the sense that they were both borne from a historical time of social chaos in Asia. However, their differences on the same concept (self-cultivation) emerge from their different worldviews. The fundamental point of departure emerges from their conception of how people should approach worldly things. Confucius argues for the participation in worldly affairs, presumably to impact social change, while Zhuangzi argues for the retraction from a busy and worldly view to a more personal one that is in touch with nature. Confucius wanted people to participate in social change by reforming the conception of self-cultivation. He aimed to meet this goal by encouraging people to return to the rites.
Zhuangzis philosophy on self-cultivation differs from those of Confucius because he is not concerned with societys issues, but family issues. In other words, Zhuangzi encourages people to embrace their free will/spirit and not worry much about what society thinks. Although these views highlight significant differences between Confucius and Zhuangzi, their different schools of thought merge on the premise that both of them appreciated the need for self-cultivation and underscored the importance of evaluating this concept as a prerequisite for personal growth.
Self-Assessment
In one sentence, what is your central argument?
My Central argument is that Confucius was more inclined towards pivoting his concept of self-cultivation on worldly goals, while Zhuangzi focused on encouraging the masses to turn away from the world and focus more on themselves, or what nature had to offer.
In one sentence, why is it worth arguing for? What is at stake?
It is worth arguing for some of the principles highlighted in this paper because different philosophers have unique schools of thought about self-cultivation and, depending on ones culture or beliefs, it is easy to get lost in the complexities of life if one lacks a common direction.
If you had additional time to work on this paper, would you want to change it? Explain.
Yes, if I had additional time on this paper, I would have reviewed how the philosophies of Zhuangzi and Confucius related with the works of other philosophers, such as Mencius and Xunzi, who have explained the concept of self-cultivation as well.
Bibliography
De Bary, Theodore, and Irene Bloom. Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
Fingarette, Herbert. Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc., 1998.
Knoblock, John. Xunzi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.
Mencius, Mengzi. Mencius. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2005.
Zhuangzi, Zhou. Zhuangzi: Basic Writings. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.
It is never easy to figure out where kami can possibly lurk. Sometimes a travel back in time can reveal the moment when kami entered ones life; in other cases, the presence of a kami is way ahead, in the distant future. There are cases when kami has recently been around, and it takes very little time to spot it; however, there are cases when people realize that kami has actually never left it has always been there for the given person.
Speaking of my own experience of meeting a kami, I must admit that in my life, the presence of kami could be spotted in the cases when I had to make complicated life choices. Even though no weird imagery could be detected, nor could I claim for sure that I had a specific vision, I state with a considerable amount of certainty that kami takes active interest in my life and its major events.
It is quite peculiar that in my case, kami prefers to occupy the higher parts of the premises, whether it is a block of flats or any other building. Despite the fact that I cannot actually see it, whenever there is a need to make an important choice, a kami will always take its place somewhere up above, in the upper corner of the room; at least, this is where I always tend to look whenever I have to decide on something. Even though I tried looking in a different direction, I still ended up lifting my eyes dreamingly, as if waiting for the answer to appear on the ceiling.
It is also quite weird that the presence of kami is revealed to me with the help of sounds one might think that it is the rustle of leaves on the window, yet I know perfectly sure that someone is giving me a hint on which choice to make. Sometimes the signs that kami gives are much more obvious e.g., there is a sound of something falling, or any other loud noise; anyway, the spirit clearly shows that there is a message to be heard.
Despite the tradition, I rarely welcome kami as a matter of fact, it was only recently that I learned how to name the weird phenomenon described above. However, I believe that kami should be welcomed in the traditions of the country, which the spirit originates from, i.e., Japan. Therefore, I suppose that it would be a good idea to light up a lantern to show kami that it is welcome to be seen together with me whenever I go.
Therefore, in my life, the presence of a kami was most evident when I faced a complicated choice or when I faced a difficult dilemma to solve. Even though a kami never actually showed, I felt as if I were under someones guidance. Indeed, taking a look back at the definitive choices that I have described above, I have to confess that I was never actually sure of the consequences of my decisions in these cases; hence, I relied mostly on luck.
Despite the fact that in the above-mentioned cases, I never knew for sure what the outcome was going to be, my choices proved right in the end. On the one hand, the given examples can be attributed to luck; on the other hand, as I have mentioned above, in each case, I felt an unusual surge of spiritual energy, which could be interpreted as the presence of a kami, a wise spirit who would never let me down.
As people lived in a natural way before joining the social contract, they should have the same freedoms and rights as before so that the legislative power does not limit in any way their natural rights and intentions. At the same time, the legislative power should be designed to restrict human beings from negative impact from other people because the intentions of some people may be negative towards others leading to destruction and lack of negotiations. As suggested by John Locke in The Second Treatise, the legislative power cannot be absolutely arbitrary (par. 135: 61). However, not following the regulations of legislative power can be destructive for society itself.
The nature of human society can be explained by the rights and freedoms and certain limitations imposed by the legislative power, which is aimed at regulating and controlling the way the power is exercised in society by this or that citizen. In other words, an individuals power may be excessive, while the legislative power is called to remain in balance with the powers of individuals in a society.
Destruction of society can be performed by destroying every member of this society by enslavement, impoverishment, or any other harm brought to an individual and his/her family. In other words, the legislative power should be designed according to the natural laws and Gods laws that can properly govern society. As Locke claimed, the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men (62) being the basis for legislative power.
Legislative power and access to regulation
In the state of nature, no man had arbitrary power over himself and could not exercise any kind of power over others; so, the legislative power turned out to give no more access to regulation to a man than he had in the state of nature.
The state of nature was the period when no formal society existed, and every man could govern and regulate his life as he wanted. However, he had no arbitrary power to regulate his own life and the lives of other people because the natural laws prevailed. As such, the legislative power brought no more limitations to the governance of peoples lives than they used to have in the state of nature.
Legislative power and limit of human power
No arbitrary power was available for a man in the state of nature in terms of life, possession, and freedom; so, the legislative power was aimed at not limiting the power of man over possession, liberty, and life more than it was in the state of nature.
The legislative power did not exist in the state of nature, though people had no power over their lives. As such, people should not be given more power in a society with the help of exercising legislative power, according to Locke, than they had in a natural state when they enjoyed no power. In this case, the legislative power is aimed at restricting people no more than in the state of nature and empowering them no more than in the state of nature.
The legislative power should have preservation functions and be based on the principles of pubic good to be valid for governing peoples lives that live in a society.
As people used to live according to the laws of nature and their lives were peaceful regardless of their limited power to govern their lives and lives of other people, the legislative power should have preservation functions as well. The public good should be the main principle of exercising power in society because society is a unit that should be properly maintained. As such, the preservation of people from harming themselves to each other is the main function of legislative power in a society.
The laws of nature were the primary source of power and knowledge for people who lived in the state of nature. As such, the legislative power should be designed according to those laws as they were peaceful, and no harm was intended. The absence of destruction in a society under the legislative power may be based on the natural laws as it used to be in the state of nature.
The legislative power should not be aimed at destructive activities directed against the members of society.
Works Cited
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government: And, a Letter Concerning Toleration. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications, 2002. Par.135: 61-62. Print.
Through the course of history, many outstanding philosophers changed peoples world understanding. Such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, Kant, Freud, and others contributed to social development and explored different philosophical issues of human nature. These distinguished personalities works are appreciated and applied even today. People have their unique life philosophies and often discuss superficially philosophical issues during conversations. However, there are only a few people who are keen on philosophy. This number is small because philosophy is a complicated subject to explore. Moreover, there are dangerous consequences that can appear as a result of careful philosophy exploration. The change of character, social rejection, and ultimate despair can be possible negative implications of the philosophy investigation.
Critical continuous thinking and analysis of peoples behavior are the essential criteria of philosophy exploration. The person who desires to investigate this field also should be ready to read and comprehend a vast number of complicatedly written literature. Each outstanding philosopher used uniquely particular aspects of terminology and writing language (Cottingham, 2021). Therefore, it will be challenging to explore even famous philosophical concepts. The massive variety of the different philosophers opinions can have a significant impact on the person. This influence can be both positive and negative because it depends on personal understanding of such changes. People are highly influenced by the opinions they read and analyze; thereby, philosophy-devoted people will develop a diverse worldview (Cottingham, 2021). They also will be able to explore other people critically thanks to the gained knowledge. Even though such development can be considered a positive change, the profound knowledge, when misused, may lead to narcissistic behavior.
Moreover, people may even humiliate others due to a deep understanding of the philosophical laws. Even though the philosophy exploration also causes various positive character changes, there is a high possibility that an arrogant attitude towards others appears. These changes provoke the second reason why studying philosophy is dangerous. Most philosophers tend to question and analyze even minor details to find the truth (Cottingham, 2021). As a result, they can understand the thing other people want no one to learn about. Philosophers can be unbeneficial for others to communicate with because of the risk of being exposed. Moreover, there are concepts and life truths that people avoid learning about because they fear losing the meaning of life. People feel insecure communicating with philosophers who have a profound understanding of lifes negative and positive aspects.
People studying philosophy can be left alone in their unlimited exploration of human life. They will be hurt by the unjust attitude of other people who are scared of the truth. This process harms the mental state and can even cause mental breakdowns or even suicidal attempts. Confused by various philosophical interpretations of life, people can eventually lose meaning and feel desperate to communicate with others. The knowledge requires the profound ability to accept any horrifying truth and find the strength to live on in much wisdom is much grief (Cottingham, 2021). Therefore, the philosophy exploration can lead to the despair caused by a clear understanding of the worlds functioning.
Studying philosophy is a fascinating and, at the time, morally complicated process. Before engaging in this field, people should explore all the possible negative implications and decide whether they are ready to cope with such consequences. Probably they will be prepared to find the solutions to the appearing problems. Thus, there are many reasons why studying philosophy is not as beneficial as it seems at first glance. Mostly, these reasons are connected with the responsibility people have to accept due to gained philosophical knowledge.
Reference
Cottingham, J. (Ed.). (2021). Social media and communication Western philosophy: An anthology (3d ed.). Paperback.
The view of Heraclitus regarding the nature of reality
Heraclituss argument on the non-existence of reality is a contradiction of anything that is perceived as permanent (Moore & Bruder, 2013). Heraclitus believes that change only happens under a cosmic order. In this regard, everything exists as a single entity, as well as the opposite of the same.
The view of Empedocles
Empedocles agrees that change is real, but the components of the changing objects remain unchanged. Empedocless argument seeks an explanation of why change happens (Moore & Bruder, 2013). Empedocles uses the example of earth, air, fire, and water to explain objects of change. On the other hand, Empedocles uses love and strife to explain what causes the change in reality.
The view of Anaximander
Anaximander argues that the source of all things cannot be merely based on physics. Anaximander agrees that there are forces beyond human understanding that determine the existence of things.
The views of Parmenides and Heraclitus
Parmenides and Heraclitus have different explanations of reality. Heraclitus argues that reality is ceaseless while Parmenides views the same as unchanging (p. 33).
The views of Protagoras
Protagoras views are that moral relativism is best analyzed through man. In this regard, mans moral conduct and actions can only be based on knowledge, temperance, and courage.
The views of Pythagoras
Pythagoras believed in orderliness and harmony of things. In this regard, the use of numbers to enumerate change of things sequentially shows the connectivity of the same to other universal elements (Moore & Bruder, 2013, p. 25).
The views of Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras argues that what is perceived as reality is created by the human mind (p. 29). Anaxagoras arguments try to relate mind and reason. By using the concept of preponderance, Anaxagoras argues that the mind in itself is made of particles and atoms. thus, the ability to conceive actual physical things in the universe.
The early Greeks who had a reasonable conception of the nature of reality
The Atomists led by Leucippus and Democritus approach to reality is reasonable. The Atomists approach has been rendered by metaphysic as true regarding atoms, motion, free will, and determinism (p. 32).
Platos criticism of the views of Protagoras
Plato argues against Protagoras views that knowledge is absolute. Plato views knowledge as a combination of sensible perceptions, thus making the same relative (p. 43).
How Plato claims people can know the Forms
Plato argues that people can now the Forms as a way of deriving absolute truth and becoming wise. The shadows and the unchanging Forms explain ways of knowing the Forms. Ignorance hinders absolute truth while love makes people perfect in true knowledge (p. 45).
Aristotles notion of the 4 causes
The four causes are material, formal, efficient, and final. The causes are instrumental in explaining how substances are formed and change. The causes explain why a change in the formation of substance is directed to a distinct objective or end (p. 65).
Aristotles 10 categories
The ten categories are substance, quantity, quality, relationships, place, time, posture, constitution, passivity and activity (p. 67). The categories are instrumental in understanding the essence of the existence of a being or substance. The categories also aid in analyzing the function of a being (p. 68).
Aristotles third man argument and theory of forms
Aristotles Third Man Argument asserts that there must be additional Forms that bond with the circularity of Form. In this context, Forms are considered universal, depicting that there is more than one particular that can be used in describing an individual, thing, or substance (p. 69).
Platos view of Forms with Aristotles view of forms
Plato asserts that Forms exist in circularity and independently. Aristotle argues that Forms are not independent and share particular things and elements that imply an aspect of universality.
Aristotle says Everything which comes into being is brought about by something [else] if that were the case, would existence not be a paradox, as Gorgias points out?
No, Aristotles argument is correct based on the cause and effect relationship concept (p. 70). Aristotles use of the discursive argument is correct since the world is imperfect based on human life and experiences (p. 70).
Reference
Moore, B. N & Bruder, K. (2013). Philosophy: The power of ideas (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Socrates was a Greek Athenian philosopher who was known for his contribution to western philosophy. His students, Xenophon and Plato, accounted for most of his work in some of their dialogues and writings.
He is credited for his contributions in ethics. In the dialogue, Theaetetus, Socrates gets into a serious discussion with a student of Protagoras on knowledge. A similar discussion is witnessed in Russells book The Problem of Philosophy. Protagoras defines his statement that man is the measure of all things by arguing that truth is relative and depends on an individual.
To illustrate this he gives an example of a blowing wind where an individual can only feel the warmth in the wind if he or she has a temperature which is lower than that of the wind and vice versa (Burnyeat , 12). Similarly he uses this argument to defend his opinion on knowledge. According to Theaetetus, knowledge is perception, an opinion that is disputed by Socrates. Socrates puts it clear that knowledge is an opinion that is beyond stimulation of the senses.
Theaetetus, being a student of Protagoras, must have shared the same definition of knowledge with Protagoras. At the same time the theory of Protagoras has implications of perception being true. A large part of the conversation is about setting up definitions of knowledge and science.
The conversations move from lower to higher stages with three main clear issues of discussion. These issues are reasoning, opinion and perception and they are thoroughly examined. Socrates first removes the doubt and confusion that exists between types of knowledge and the idea of knowledge. Theaetetus defines knowledge by giving an example of knowledge. This quickly finds rejection by Socrates with the argument that it is not sufficient enough to define something by giving an example of that thing
He compares two sensations and argues that this has implications of a higher principle beyond knowledge. This principle resides in the mind meaning that knowledge is a true opinion. It is possible for an individual to be able to sense something that he or she does not know. While at the same time one can have the knowledge of something that he or she cannot feel or sense in any way.
For instance, according to Socrates arguments, you can know that a friend or anybody you recognize is standing next to you when you see them there. If you close your eyes immediately you cannot see them but you are able to know that they are still there meaning that knowledge is a mere opinion that is viable and true at the same time it is beyond sensation.
Socrates expounds further on his position by asking Theaetetus if it is true that whenever we see or hear things we already know them. It is impossible to assume that someone can know a foreign language he has never heard before by hearing somebody else speaking it. Yes it is true that it is possible to hear the words but one cannot know what is being said (Burnyeat , 162b).
Socrates clearly disputes the definition of knowledge as perception. Since perception is as a result of stimulation of the senses, and the senses only give us the appearance of objects not there reality (Russell , 7), then it is wrong to consider perception to define knowledge. Similarly knowledge cannot be derived from our daily experiences because we experience through perception and feelings.
But however it has been agreed that experience to some sense can derive knowledge and at the same time, perception is not only the sensory stimulation or awareness of things (Russell , 4). Sometimes we could perceive divine things. There are several deceptions that can come as result of perception.
Russell in his book uses an example of a table and critically analyzes it in terms of the change in appearance as a result of change in condition. If the lighting condition is changed, the table changes its color. This creates distrust in what our perception, in this case the eye, tells us. All these changes in appearance with changes in condition may claim to be the reality. So we are uncertain of what exactly is real.
Protagoras explains knowledge as perception and expresses it alternatively as man being the measure of things meaning that all men judge what is. Knowledge depends with the individual and he explains his definition with an illustration of a cold wind that blows on an individuals face.
The difference in perception of the coldness of the wind depends with the internal temperature of the individual. If Protagoras admits that all opinion judged by man to be true then any opinion against his own is also true. But however Socrates refuses to agree that the opinion of Protagoras to be true
He disputes the claim by saying that the word is used in this statement implies appears and appears implies feeling. It is incorrect to refer to perception, appearance and feeling as being. Being is a phenomenon that exists beyond the natural sensation.
It involves the mental and mind and knowledge is more than perception meaning there is no way that we could have a true opinion by relying on our feelings. We can only perceive using one means or instrument at a time. We cannot use our ears to see a color neither can we use our eyes to hear any sound. Perception is limited to the power used for perceiving but knowledge is beyond these instruments of perceiving.
The only sure thing that we can know we know is nothing, according to Socrates. He says that his wisdom is limited by his ignorance. He was of the opinion that wrong doing is as a result of ignorance and the people who do wrong are only doing it from ignorance. Personally such an opinion is incorrect.
Every action of human beings is not as a result of ignorance but choice. People make choice to do what they want whether wrong or good. Wrong actions are defined wrong because they are deficient of love. According to Socrates love seems to be that one thing that he consistently knows. He refers to love as the concept of loving wisdom. Socrates loved wisdom because he linked wisdom to philosophy.
Still on the dialogue of Protagoras, Socrates explains that all is motion and motions takes part in two forms: passion and action. From these two forms, infinite concepts and ideas are created and sense is given birth. The eye is designed to sense whiteness while objects are filled with the sense of whiteness.
The object gives birth to sensation of whiteness while the eye gives birth to whiteness. There is no other element that can produce a similar effect meaning that things are not, but instead they become. Hence there is no name that can really define something.
Socrates never used to refer to himself as a wise man in fact he says that he has no wisdom of his own and he is only offering the wisdom of men. His intention in the dialogue is to deliver Theodorus and Theaetetus of something. Personally, his explanation on the falseness of perception is very true and has a strong ground. Madness and dreaming are cases where perception does not hold. We spend a huge part of our lives a sleep and dreaming.
Dreaming not only occurs when we sleep but it is possible to day dream in full consciousness. It is also not verifiable if at this very instant we are dreaming or not dreaming. Mad men when they fantasize, do they having a true opinion or false opinion? There are different perceptions produced in every patient. Socrates explains this by illustrating that he may be sick or well. When he drinks his favorite wine when sick, it tastes different from the moment he drinks the wine when he is well. It actually tastes better when he is well.
To criticize Socrates arguments, it seems that he relies mostly on dispute rather than reason to put across his points. He seems to be attempting to trip opinions that he does not agree with. He fails to recognize that dispute and reasoning are not the same thing and there is a distinction between the tow.
With reasoning, some one makes an effort to understand an opinion before beginning to identify errors made in that argument. Most of his explanations to dispute Protagoras were based on one aspect of sensation which is the sense of sight. Other critics of Socrates identified him as not as a proponent of philosophy but some one with bad intentions of undermining the society of Athens.
Socrates also had some good virtues that personally I tend to identify with. He believed that people should spend more time trying to develop their lives rather than accumulating material wealth which is absolutely useless. He always encouraged people to be focused on building friendship and truth in their communities. He ended up becoming a philosophical martyr because of sticking to his believes. In most of his teachings, he emphasized that virtue is the most expensive of everything.
Works Cited
Burnyeat, Myles. The Teaetetus of Plato. Trans. Jane Levett. Hackett: Indianapolis, 1990.
Russell, Bertrand. The Problem of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press, 1912.
I think the significance of metaphysic in philosophy is to explain the meaning of things that do not change (real). Given the role the soul has played throughout the history, I am affirmative that there exists a soul. The concept of the soul may be questionable in the modern world, but if people attended more closely to their mental life, then they could understand soul as the clearest idea of all. According to metaphysics, people are identified with the soul or the immaterial part in contrast to the body (material part). Descartes believes that human mind, compared to animal minds, exists outside of nature, thus, making human to enjoy free will (Nadler, 2006). However, I think free will is the only possibility for a substance, and since God is the only substance (Nadler, 2006), people do not have free will.
Epistemology
We claim we know many things such as the first president of U. S is George Washington, water is liquid, and ice is cold. People have different knowledge, and sometimes we claim to know some things that we really do not know. Philosophers have insisted that there are two kinds of knowledge (Baker, 2000). First, Knowledge can be experienced through feeling of seeing something. This after experience knowledge is referred to as posteriori knowledge. The second kind of knowledge does not come from experience, but instead, it is intuitively supplied from reason like mathematical models and logical truth. This kind of knowledge is referred to as priori knowledge (Baker, 2000). Another experimental knowledge involves memory and testimony. However, since faith is a belief without experience, I would not consider it as knowledge.
Ethics
As much as I want to act appropriately, it is not always easy to do the right thing. Most of the time I strive to be good, or at least work towards becoming a better version of myself, but am unsure of how to translate this abstract goal into my daily actions and decisions. I have adopted rules and principles to abide by and set goals to work towards, yet still I get caught in moral dilemmas about how to act in a certain situation or context. Intuitively, I understand that these rules and principles are the good beginning point but eventually, I fall short when it comes to certain actions that a situation demands.
In this situation, I appeal to the Aristotelian conception of Virtue Ethics (Bourgeois, 2003). Virtue ethics posits that the good life extends beyond feeling happy and experiencing pleasure (Feldman, 2004). Flourishing consists a state of being where peoples character is aligned with and their ability to live well with reason and moderation. Therefore, living well is a process in which human beings develop their characters through cultivating the virtues to become the best one can be according to ones individual human nature.
Aesthetics
The concept of beauty is slowly changing from being an objective element of art to a subjective character of perception. Philosophers such as Hutcheson remained rooted in objective formal properties in the eighteenth century (Kauffman, 2008). However, the nineteenth -century philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer believed that beauty no longer resides in the object but in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be beautiful (Kauffman, 2008). It just depends on directing aesthetic attention. In contemporary aesthetics, I believe objective-subjective dichotomy of insight is closely related. When judging a visual complexity of art, I tend to assess the subjective aesthetic judgement of preference (how much an image is liked) and quality (how good a work of art is).
Political philosophy
Provided with events of corruption and existence of tyrants in some of the countries in the world, I believe democracy is the best kind of government system. In an oligarchy form of government, the military often works with dictators and corrupt governments to suppress and terrorize citizens. The concerning trend of police lashing out at citizens has been witnessed in many countries (Winters & Page, 2009). There is sadness that comes along with the realization that we as people have always known what our duty is as democratic citizens, but most are unwilling to expand the energy to do so. From this context, it is hard to see how democracy will ever succeed longer than the collective memory of the populous.
Social philosophy
Society is an interesting concept. A society can be perceived as anything but a particular individual. For instance, when a region is referred to as a religious society, it is perceived that people go to church. Thus, people in that society are religious. In such context, the society is observed as an individual. However, society appears to be more than just collection of people. When we say a society is a democracy, it can be concluded that it is divided into economic class. The individual in a democratic society may not be violent. In this context, the society as a whole has properties that the individuals do not have.
References
Baker, L., R. (2000). Persons and Bodies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bourgeois, W. (2003). Persons: What philosophers say about you? Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Feldman, F. (2004). Pleasure and the good life: Concerning the nature, varieties, and plausibility of hedonism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S.A. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York: Basic Books.
Nadler, S. (2006). Spinozas ethics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winters, J & Page, B. (2009). Oligarchy in the United States? Perspectives on Politics, 7, 731-751.
The Webster dictionary defines good as that which is virtuous, pious and excellent and evil as that which is morally wrong (Strodtbeck, 1990). For many years, psychologists, scientists and philosophers have been grappling with the challenge of identifying if man is inherently good or evil.
Attempts to answer the question effectively are faced by a lot of setbacks since the nature of human beings has been analyzed using different perspectives. The debate has also attracted contradictory evidences from different scholars; For instance, Jean-Jacque Rousseau believed that, by nature men are good and that, all evil they may have is attributable to influences of the corrupt society.
In contrast Thomas Hobbes viewed mankind as being driven by instinct or passion with intentions of achieving self-preservation. The underlying principles used to determine whether an individual is either good or evil include values, beliefs and morals. These principles form the basis of an argument as to whether human beings are inherently evil or good.
What makes a man distinctly human is his ability to reason. The holy bible portrays man, as a creation made of Gods image, hence inherently good. However, both the Christians and Jews commonly agree that man fell from Gods grace when he failed to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit of good and evil and thus became evil (Tannanbaum,1996). Human beings seem to posses some inner instinct to do evil, but the desire to do what is good also seems to be present in most of what they do.
There is an inner spirit of being good that dwells in all men, and therefore most people dont like doing anything unethical . Some scholars argue that, all men are born being good but because the people who bring them up do evil to them, they also become evil (Strodtbeck, 1990). The surroundings through which a new born child is raised greatly determines how the child behaves later in life.
The moral, an individual receives through the upbringing process greatly determines the path one chooses to follow by either being good or bad. For a man to be good he merely needs to be brought up in a very good atmosphere that is free from influences of the bad corrupted society (Tannanbaum, 1996).
Although the idea of bringing up a good man by ensuring that the society is free from all forms of evils and corruption seems good, history has shown that in real life situation things dont work out as expected (Strodtbeck, 1990).
Some of the people who have shown the worst kinds of evil on earth were born and raised in very good environments .Hitler was brought up in an extremely cultured society, but played the piano together with his minion at night after heartlessly killing very innocent people. Although he was privileged at a young age, many consider him to be the most evil person who ever lived.
The ancient kings and rulers, who were treated, worshipped and given all sorts of undue love, such as Nero, are among the most evil people recorded in history. Such people used their position and kingdom for purposes of having any fun they wished to have, they never cared for the other men as long as their fun was never disturbed (Whyte, 1998). This kind of people therefore disapproved the fact that good environment was not necessarily enough in keeping man from being evil.
Others argue that, a man looks at evil in his surrounding and believes that, it is the only thing one is naturally required to do. This argument is often used to explain the behavior and character of people like Nero and Hitler, although Hitler at some point in life almost became a religious leader and Nero presided over a throne which was once ruled by Julius Cesar, one of the biggest rulers in history who although not entirely a good person, was by far among the righteous rulers of his time (Tannanbaum, 1996).
The bible justifies this claim in psalms 34:15 when David tells the Christians to move away from evil and instead do good. This seems to support the idea that man becomes evil through interacting with the environment and therefore should turn from evil to doing good. In other words, when a person interacts with evil so much, the probabilities of being bogged in it are very high.
The pen sexuality theory holds that, while man thinks that he is making conscious decisions, he is actually driven by subconscious motives hence human beings are free to choose between evil and good.
Due to this fact, some sociologists regard man as a product of evolution (Whyte, 1998). His genetic heritage shapes his behavior and character. The human nature is generally governed by self-interest which is greatly controlled by the genetic predisposition.
Recent studies in Neuroscientific findings revealed that human beings are primarily driven by emotions rather than reason in doing good or bad (Strodtbeck, 1990). Yet, since mans behavior and psyche are products of the surroundings, with deliberate efforts and under favorable environment one is capable of doing what is morally accepted beyond the limits of an individuals genetic coding.
Dostoyevsky in his novel crime and punishment states that human beings are born with some form of vague evil that reveals itself naturally like pleasure, pain or any other kind of an urge a person may feel. He believes that evil thoughts are inexorable and inherent, a major component of the human mind that cannot be erased through sheer will and force (Tannanbaum, 1996).
In addition, Dostoyevsky demonstrates that, societys acknowledgement of evil does not necessarily make its members shun from doing what is considered to be evil. Following this argument one can easily come to a conclusion that man is inherently born evil and some time in life will inevitably fall to some degree of committing evil. Charles Darwin argues that the morally upright men might not perform better than the immoral ones but a group of moral people is to be treasured than a band of immoral pirates (Strodtbeck, 1990).
In conclusion, the question of whether man is inherently good or evil can only be answered within a specific context. Actions are considered as either good or bad according to the culture, religion or environment in which there are performed (Whyte, 1998). What is considered as bad or unacceptable within one culture could be acceptable in another hence variation in interpretations of good and evil.
Some practices are deemed as evil while others are deemed as good depending on the observers conclusion. Therefore good and evil are subjects to individuals interpretation. People are neither evil nor good and they behave in the way they do, whether in a morally accepted manner or not with intentions of surviving.
References
Strodtbeck, F.(1990).Evalution of man:the concept of good and bad. Talent and society,16(20),154-162.
Tannanbaum, R.S.(1996). Values, man, and organizations.California:University of California press.
Whyte, W.H.(1998). The organization man. Pennsylvania:university of Pennsylvania press.