Let me preface this post by saying I know its long, but if you like philosophy you might like this. We had to write a 400+ word response to this/these question(s) for intro to philosophy. The professor commented on my answer in blackboard with Got a bit trippy there... (Q) One of the main problems for Descartes Interactive Substance Dualism was the Problem of Other Minds - which is that he seems to have made it impossible for his theory to account for the existence of minds (res cogitans) other than his own. Keeping this in mind, I want you to answer these questions as best as you can: What is a persons identity? What does it mean to be or have a self? What kinds of considerations factor into the constitution of a persons character? Are identity, self, and character all different words for the same or similar ideas? How do the concepts of sympathy and empathy relate to selves? How is the way we know ourselves different than how we know others? (A) A persons identity and self are both the same and different. Self has multiple definitions. A persons identity and self are who the person is. A combination of the persons sentience, and being known as themself, and not the person beside them, what they look like, and all of their bodies reactions and feelings, or lack thereof are a persons identity and self, although one thing needs to be changed about that definition or else as soon as you say feel something you didnt feel a minute ago, you would change who you were. A persons identity, and self is simply that definition with an unknown standard deviation. A person is themself to themself as long as they recognize that, and only up to that point, and they are themself in a different individual way to each individual person as long as that individual person recognizes that. You may always be yourself, but you might not always be yourself. It is impossible to effectively define well anything with intent of a lasting, or 100% true definition, because it is ectremely easy for the definition of something to be changed. Even if we view a word as something that will always mean the same thing, we can still only use it with hopes it does not change. There is no solid way to define anything. Anything we know cannot be truly known 100% of the way, simply because we have to associate that knowledge with something, whether it is a word, or experience, or something else, and the very instant something is associated with something else, it becomes corrupt, and cannot be fixed back into an incorrupt state. (This next sentence may seem broken and hard to understand, but I mean exactly what I write. also use the first instance of anything as a psuedonym for ANY possible way that something can be experienced) As soon as we anything anything, it is not and cannot ever be its truest, most correct form to us ever. We will not ever know anything in its true form in actuality, we just have to set a standard, accept it, and build off of it.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 04:14:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015