Part I: Descartes, Hume, and Kant
Descartes conceives the self by application of the principles of dualism. He says that, the self cannot exist on its own. He believes that, the understanding of human beings has a direct link with God. Human beings are as a result of metaphysical events that relate the mind with the idea of God. Through God’s intervention, people are able to identify themselves. The human mind makes decisions that are directly proportional to the inspiration from Gog and the cognitive responses that follow the directives from God. In essence, Descartes goes on to add that, at no point can the self autonomously exist. However, Homes rejects this Cartesian conception of the self by Descartes in the following angles; it is not possible for nature to be appreciated in the way Descartes puts it. In this regard, it is not possible to disentangle the body from the mind (Fuss, 2009). At the same time, Hume states that, the invocation and inclusion of the idea of God into the concept of self is on mere fallacious grounds. He does not advocate for the presence of God because, there are no proper justifications to the proof that God exists. Hume was of the position that, the human mind and body are the two aspects that makeup the self. His belief and conception of selfhood rests upon the upholding of the body and mind as elemental aspects that dictate self.
Part II: Beyond dualism
Identity theory of the mind states that, the mind and brain are interlinked. They function and operate alongside each other. Human actions are directed by the brain. At the same time, the brain is guided by the existence of different parts in the facilitation of various roles. In essence, the Cerebellum does the role of performing the cognitive aspects of the brain. The physical is intricately connected to the mental position of a person. As a result of the effects of identity theory, problems associated with Dualism are brought to book. Dualism was not comprehensive and fulfilling in what it advocated for.Dualism dictates that, the mind and the physical body have two irreconcilable properties. The phenomenon, however, assumes a new shape as a result of the fact that, the identity theory gives credit to the association that exists between the physical body and the mind. A person cannot autonomously exist without the collaborations and associations of the body and the mind (Kim, 2011). The identity theory has the weakness of denying non-physical properties that cannot be reduced. Eliminative materialism dictates that the mental states created by the mind do not exist in the real sense. Mental states opined by Descartes are also challenged by the applicability of eliminative materialism. The difference between the Identity theory and Eliminative materialism is in the ideal about mental states. Whilst the identical theory dictates that mental states are significant; it follows that, proponents of Eliminative materialism do not adduce to that idea about mental states.
Part III: Subjectivity
Sartre’s existentialist aspects of human nature dictate that, human beings are autonomous beings in all that they do. It also follows that, their liberties and freedoms should be well adhered to and respected. Human beings are entitled to make their decisions bearing on their rational minds. Free choice is what underlies this principle. It is significantly important to note that, these events differ from the position held by nature characterized by non-human beings. By saying that existence precedes essence, Sartre’s meant that, from origin and the cradle of the existence of human beings, people are entitled to make free choices and decisions in matters that are to their relevance. Freedom is also interconnected to this assertion by Sartre from the fact that, freedom is not directed from an oppressing front. It is self-driven and directed towards personal choices. Bad faith refers to the art of doing things with an ill motive. On the other hand, to live authentically or sincerely means living while adhering to all social aspects that are expected of you (Flynn, 2010). It also involves making the best out of the provided for opportunities as a result of free will.
Part IV: My View of Mind and Self
In my opinion, mind and body dualism can be solved when due regard is placed upon what the mind can do. In such cases, the mind should act in a position that reflects on the body. Body dualism makes reflections on the position that God holds on our minds and the impacts of the manifestations of what the mind thinks about and reactions exercised on the body. Dualism can be saved from the notorious problems that face it in the following ways; a proper course and proof of the existence of God should be established. Instances of vague and inconclusive ideas should be done way with as it regards dualism (Mead, 2009). From the objects that entail dualism, it is crucial to note that, the human mind cannot exist without the influence of some superior power. Similarly, I will overcome my alternative difficulties by relating body dualism with identity theory. At this instance, I will be able to handle and with everything with ease.
Flynn, T. (2010). Sartre and Marxist Existentialism: The Test Case of Collective Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fuss, P. (2009). Five philosophers: Aristotle, René Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant [and] William James. Chicago: Odyssey Press.
Kim, J. (2011). Philosophy of Mind. New York: ReadHowYouWant.com, Limited.
Mead, G. (2009). Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.