Rene Levesque

Rene Levesque
In 1976 Rene Levesque won the provincial election and became premier of Quebec with his party,
Parti Quebecois. The separatists wanted to strengthen the French language and didn't care about
official bilingualism. So not long after taking office, the Parti Quebecois passed Bill 101, which is
also known as the Charter of the French Language. It decreed that French was the single official
language of the province of Quebec and that employees of the government had to work in French.
Outdoor commercial signs had to be in French only and the children of immigrants would have to
go to French schools. The Quebecois likes this new law because they thought their language and
culture was becoming endangered. Birth rates in Quebec had gone down and the ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Assembly then put pressure on political leaders to legally recognize Aboriginal rights. This led
to Aboriginal rights being entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Bill C–31 being
passed in 1985. This gave Aboriginal councils the power to choose who could live on Aboriginal
reserves, which was a decision previously made by the Department of Indian Affairs in the federal
government. People then started to argue for Aboriginal self–government so that they could manage
recourses, culture, educations and their justice system. Then they could deal with health concerns
and social issues within their communities. Initially this Assembly benefitted the First Nations
peoples but distanced Aboriginals from other Canadians. By highlighting differences in rights and
governments, anger would have erupted among Natives. They would have resented those who
wouldn't allow them their rights. On the other hand though, once they achieved some of their goals
and observed that other Canadians could give in to their reasonable demands, their relationships
with other Canadians would have improved. So, on the whole this Assembly was effective at
improving Aboriginal and Canadian relationships with its successes and creating slight tensions with
protests for
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Language and the Destiny of Man
Ştefan Afloroaei / Descartes and the "metaphysical dualism"
Descartes and the "metaphysical dualism": Excesses in interpreting a classic*
Al.I. Cuza University of Iasi
Abstract The article focuses on one of the most serious accusations brought against Descartes and
modern philosophy, namely "the dualism of substance". The accusers claim that the human body
and soul were viewed as completely separate; consequently, their relationship as such and the united
being of man become incomprehensible. As has been shown above, the idea of the separation of the
soul from the body did not originate with Descartes; it was formulated much earlier, and repeated by
a disciple of Descartes', Henry Leroy, known as Regius. When Descartes became aware of ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I will attempt to discuss below how a famous locus obscurus, "the Cartesian dualism", emerged and
has remained prominent to this day. It can only be properly understood, I believe, in connection with
the emergence in the modern world of certain modes of intersubjective life, such as communication
in the scholarly and academic environments. To this end, I will call attention to one the most serious
accusations levelled at Descartes and the entire modern philosophy, i.e. "the dualism
106
Ştefan Afloroaei / Descartes and the "metaphysical dualism"
of substances": the human body and soul have been understood as being two completely separate
substances. Consequently, both the relationship between them and man's lived presence would have
become totally incomprehensible. It was claimed that this dualism of substances was the
unmistakable symptom of metaphysical thought, which would possibly mean that the very presence
of metaphysics is indicative of a serious case of misapprehension or deviation1. However, the very
idea of "Cartesian dualism" may be viewed as a locus obscurus in the philosophical thought. It is an
obscure place not only because it has been inadequately examined or debated. Rather because recent
history has accepted it completely as the symbolic thesis of a whole tradition of thought. Therefore,
it is not surprising to find references

The Quiet Revolution
The Quiet Revolution The purpose of this paper is to analyze the aspects of The Quiet Revolution on
Quebec, and how the changes implemented by Lesage made Quebec the province it is today. The
Quiet Revolution was only quiet at name; it triggered many conflicts that appeared in Quebec. The
province began to move away from Catholic Church with the help of nationalists, leaving Quebec
reformed and quite different from how it was before the 1960's. Before the Quiet Revolution,
Quebec was majorly formed of rural population. They believed that rural was much better than
urban, but due to large families and the lack of good land, it pushed most Quebeckers to move to the
cities. By 1921, half of Quebec's population was urbanized. Manufacture ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One of the major accomplishments by the government in the economic sector was the
nationalization of private electricity companies, an idea that was introduced by Rene Levesque, a
minister of natural resources. The government of Jean Lesage encouraged industrialization,
promoting investments and guaranteeing economic benefits through the buy–Quebec policy, all
these objectives were met when Hydro–Quebec became the symbol of success and economic
resources. The creation of "caisse de depot et placement du Quebec" triggered the creation of the
Quebec pension plan, which immediately grew to billion dollars. Quebec's favorite slogan that had
huge improvements was the "maîtres chez nous" (masters in our own house) which promoted and
influenced federal–provincial relations. The demands that were imposed by Lesage were largely
met. "Lesage forced the federal government to accept Québec 's withdrawal from several cost–
sharing programs and to compensate Québec fiscally (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2012)".
Therefore Quebec was the only province that had the right to withdraw. Thus, the conflicts then rose
between the English Canadians and the French Canadian. "The federal Pearson Liberal government
established the Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, which warned that Canada
was passing through the greatest crisis in its history (The Quiet Revolution Changed Quebec
Forver). Pearson liberal

Descartes And Hume Essay
There are three ways in which one is able to find truth: through reason (A is A), by utilizing the
senses (paper burns) or by faith (God is all loving). As the period of the Renaissance came to a
close, the popular paradigm for philosophers shifted from faith to reason and finally settling on the
senses. Thinkers began to challenge authorities, including great teachers such as Aristotle and Plato,
and through skepticism the modern world began. The French philosopher, René Descartes who
implemented reason to find truth, as well as the British empiricist David Hume with his usage of
analytic–synthetic distinction, most effectively utilized the practices of skepticism in the modern
world.
René Descartes was the first philosopher to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For in Descartes terms, it was plausible to doubt that one has a body, but impossible to doubt the
existence of one's mind; therefore "...self and mind must be identical" (Palmer 162).
Hume on the other hand, took a different approach to the idea of self. He believed that there in fact
was no such thing as selfhood. Instead he asserts that "it must be some one impression, that gives
rise to every real idea. But self...is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions
and ideas are supposed to have a reference..." (597). By this he implies that in order to form
concrete ideas, ones impressions of pain, pleasure, joy, etc. must be invariable throughout time.
This, Hume states, we know without a doubt to be impossible. Passions succeed each other over
time and give rise to new passions, therefore "...it cannot be from any of these impressions...that the
idea of self is derived, and consequently there is no such idea" (597).
Although like Descartes, Hume practiced the art of radical skepticism, he felt that if he could not
utilize his senses to prove something it was meaningless. Hume continued development of Leibniz's
analytical–synthetic distinction, or in Hume's words "...a distinction between relations of ideas and
matters of fact" (Palmer 197). Analytical propositions are true by definition and are a priori, and
therefore necessarily true. Synthetic propositions are not true by

Descartes' Epistemology
Epistemology
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Carefully explain Descartes' cogito and his attempt to build his knowledge structure from the ground
up. (Be as succinct as possible.) Does Descartes succeed or fail in that attempt? Justify your answer
in full.
Descartes' Epistemology
This essay attempts to explain Descartes' epistemology of his knowledge, his "Cogito, Ergo Sum"
concept (found in the Meditations), and why he used it [the cogito concept] as a foundation when
building his structure of knowledge. After explaining the concept I give a brief evaluation of his
success in introducing and using this cogito as a foundation. Finally, I provide reasons why I think
Descartes succeeded in his epistemology.
The First ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The argument, as Descartes presented, does not give a valid reason for the existence of the body or
anything else in the physical world, so we cannot accept that bodies exist. Neither does the cogito
account for the existence of other minds as that would entail knowledge of the physical world where
other things exist. The cogito concept does however; give a valid argument for the existence of the
mind or a thinking thing that exists independently of the body. In his novel Think, Blackburn
explains the cogito concept as a means of justifying the core of one's existence as thinking, we
accept that thought exists not a 'self' (Blackburn, 2001:20). I agree with Blackburn because his
[Descartes'] concept serves well to prove that we exist as thinking things and even if we were to
discard any a priori or a posteriori knowledge, we can still endorse the cogito. The cogito concept
stands regardless of empirical knowledge because it suggests the existence of thought without
actually linking it to the body (which constitutes a sort of empirical way of acquiring knowledge
through the senses). In addition, it can be accepted without any a priori knowledge since Descartes
only introduced it after concluding that he knew nothing, and could only accept knowledge of his
own existence as vindicated.
To assess Descartes choice of foundation I will raise some questions that implore an explanation
regarding the

Descartes and the Mind Essay
The topic of the mind and how do we know has been around since the beginning of time.
It is one of those questions that will most likely never be answered. I mean, the mind itself is so
perplexing that we are still learning stuff about it daily. One question that Descartes proposed was
"how do we know?" we still are pondering this one today. We ask it almost every day, maybe not in
that way but in some form or another. So honestly, how do we know? Whenever Descartes started
studying about the mind he denounced all of his previous opinions and started fresh. He first stated
that "knowledge is seen as a building in which all the superstructure is resting on a foundation, and
the building is only as strong as its foundation" ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
So he began to ponder on how to prove that he truly did exist. He finally came up with this:
"Thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am; I exist – this is certain. But for how
long? For as long as I am thinking; for perhaps it could also come to pass that if I were to cease all
thinking I would then utterly cease to exist. At this time I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I
am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or
reason – words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant. Yet I am a true thing and am truly
existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thinking thing" (Meditation II 31).
So in proving that he existed he also proved who he was or who we are. We are "thinking things"
things that can function as long as we think, but the moment that we stop thinking is the moment
that we no longer exist. So is that the moment we die? Or is it something entirely different? So
through this he proved that anything that he cannot doubt then that is what he is. And whatever he
can doubt, then he is not. He now had the knowledge of knowing about himself of who and what he
was.
But there was a problem with this, that even though one doubted something then it could still be
true. One could doubt that he/she won a race even though they did win. Even though

Essay on Descartes
In the Meditations, Rene Descartes attempts to doubt everything that is possible to doubt. His
uncertainty of things that existence ranges from God to himself. Then he goes on to start proving
that things do exist by first proving that he exists. After he establishes himself he can go on to
establish everything else in the world. Next he goes to prove that the mind is separate then the body.
In order to do this he must first prove he has a mind, and then prove that bodily things exist. I do
agree with Descartes that the mind is separate from the body. These are the arguments that I agree
with Descartes. In his six Meditations, only four contain his argument about corporeal things and
establishing himself as a thinking thing. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Say one imagines x, imagining x equals understanding x plus being aware of x by his judgement.
Descartes says that a triangle can be imagined, but a chiliagon (thousand–sided figure) can only be
understood. A "peculiar sort of effort" is required to imagine, beyond what is required to understand.
Now he attacks the notion of bodies existing. He says, "The way of thinking that I call ‘sense' give
us a reason to think bodies exist?" Descartes attacks this the answer of this question in three ways:
to repeat what was formerly believed and the grounds for them, to consider why they were brought
into doubt, and to determine what must now be believed. Regarding the first point, a long list of
beliefs is given: my body, pleasurable effects, appetites, primary and secondary qualities, and
different bodies. He then goes on to say that since it seemed impossible that they came from himself,
it remains that they came from other things, and the only kind that to his mind are those which
resemble the ideas themselves. He also says the one's own body seems in a privileged position, in
that one can never separate one's self from it, and it is the seat of appetites, feelings, pleasure and
pain. There is no evident connection between feelings of hunger and the nourishment of bread. He

Essay on Descartes
Rene Descartes was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of the philosophy. Born in
1596, he lived to become a great mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. In fact, he became one
of the central intellectual figures of the sixteen hundreds. He is believed by some to be the father of
modern philosophy, although he was hampered by living in a time when other prominent scientists,
such as Galileo, were persecuted for their discoveries and beliefs. Although this probably had an
impact on his desire to publish controversial material, he went on to devise works such as the
Meditations on First Philosophy and the Principles of Philosophy Aside from these
accomplishments, his most important and lasting mathematical work was the ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
How can I doubt something if I do not exist. By the same token, maybe I am deceived into thinking
I don&#8217;t exist by some other entity. But then I must exist for it is I who is being
deceived. This is the basic premise of Descartes&#8217; famous Cogito Ergo Sum
&#8211; I think therefor I am. Here Descartes is not saying anything about what we are here,
just that we are. Next his desire is to find out exactly what he is. Well, Descartes states, if I exist, for
how long do I exist? I exist for as long as I think, and if I cease to think, then I shall also cease to
exist. Therefor, I am nothing but a thinking thing &#8211; that is, a thing that
&#8220;doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses.';
Although saying he is all of these things is indeed a bold statement, Descartes feels that in his
attempt to prove that he exists he has done all of those things, therefor they must be a part of what
he is.
Descartes wants to show that &#8220;nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently
than my own mind.'; He starts of with an example of a piece of wax. It seems that this piece of wax,
or any corporeal thing for that matter, is more distinctly known by me than exactly what it is that I
know. However, we do not really grasp what the wax(or any corporeal object) is through seeing,
touching, or imagining, but rather by way of reason &#8211;

Essay on Descartes' Meditations
Descartes' Meditations
The way Descartes chose to write this piece literature captivated me. Descartes was a very
intelligent man who wanted to make sense of the world he lived in. The format he used was unusual.
It seems to me that he may have used this format, which is a replication of the book of Genesis in
the Bible, to have a deeper and more profound impact on the reader. There are many similarities
between Descartes' Meditations and the first book of the Bible, Genesis. For example, Descartes'
Meditations was written one day at a time, just as God had created the world one day at a time.
Furthermore, the order Descartes' daily writings took resembled the same order the Bible had for the
creation of the world. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The issue of our physical bodies can be argued in day seven of God's creation, when He created man
in His own image. Meditation Two in Meditations discusses the nature of the human mind.
According to the Bible, on the second day of creation, "God made the firmament, and divided the
waters from the waters. God called the firmament Heaven." (Bible Gen. 1:6) Descartes demonstrates
his belief that the mind is free. This meditation is my favorite. In the beginning of it, Descartes
seems so confused and lost. He questions every little thing around him and within himself. I recall a
time in my own life when I felt like that. It was scary when I read this, for it brought back some very
terrible memories of my time going through menopause! I, too, had questioned some of the exact
same things he was questioning. My doctor informed me that I had a chemical imbalance in my
brain due to the lack of estrogen my body was used to. Given my own personal experience, I see
Descartes' meditation in two ways. Perhaps Descartes also had some mental disorders, or else my
doctor was wrong and I had reason to feel the way I felt. Perhaps the lack of estrogen in my system
made me see things more clearly. I seriously doubt the latter explanation. However, in this
meditation, Descartes is separating the mind from the brain, just as God had separated the waters
and sky, and created Heaven. I think this meditation was, in almost every way, similar to day two in
Genesis.

Canadian Politics: René Lévesque
The years following the Second World War were bleak in regards to Canada's future as a country,
with the public and politicians alike set against each other, but soon a Québec man by the name of
René Lévesque entered journalism, and then politics, voicing his views for all to hear, with great
success and vigour. Though obstacles presented themselves often in his life, he changed the views of
Québec, Canada and the world as a whole. René Lévesque was a passionate and charismatic
politician who greatly contributed to post–war Québec and even today through his beliefs in
separatism, founding the Parti Québecois and passing Bill 101.
Born August 24th, 1922, René Lévesque grew up in a small costal town by the name of New
Carlisle, where he ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Surprisingly, in 1976, the Parti Québecois won the provincial election with 71 seats (The Canadian
Encyclopedia)! Only three years after reaching the worst point in the history of the party and René
Lévesque's career, he turned around his party's political disaster, which was an amazing turn around.
This resulted in Parti Quebecois' first term, in which Bill 101 was suggested and passed in Canada.
Introduced in 1977, Bill 101 was suggested, a law which "which formalized the status of French as
the official language of Québec, [...] excluded English from the provincial legislature and courts"
and restricted English schools to anyone other than families had attended English schools in
Québec. French schooling became mandatory for English–speaking immigrants, even Canadians
from other provinces (The Canadian Encyclopedia). Despite overwhelming public support, still
many Canadians were against the passing of the new bill, and even after its passing as an official
law of Québec, courts would declare many of the laws "contrary to the Constitution". Later, in 1979,
René tried to uphold his party's goals and suggested an independent Québec that was still tied to
Canada economically, but followed none of Canada's national laws. A referendum was set for May
20th, 1980, but the sovereignists only gained forty percent of the vote (The Canadian Encyclopedia).
Despite

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Dualism
Dualism is the belief that reality consists of two different, separate substances: that of the mental and
that of the physical. "In philosophy of mind, the belief that the mental and physical are deeply
different in kind: thus the mental is at least not identical with the physical." It directly opposes
materialism, as dualism dictates that the mind is unidentifiable to the body, as opposed to stating that
the mind and body exist as one. The concept of dualism is not only fundamental in philosophy, but
also affects our thoughts on science, religion and psychology: for example, if a convincing rejection
of dualism can be formulated, the materialist approach of modern science will be vindicated. If,
conversely, dualism can be convincingly ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Aquinas agreed with the Artistotlean notion that when the soul entered the body it animated it and
gave it life; calling it anima. Moreover according to Aquinas, the soul operates independently of the
body and it cannot decay; for only things that can break into parts can decay, Thus, following
Aquinas' argument, the soul is able to survive death. He also said that through the link with a
particular human body, each soul becomes individual. So, even when a body dies, the soul that
departs retains the individual identity of the body to which it was attached. Despite this earlier work,
there was still no explanation of how the soul and body worked together, if at all. This was until
Descartes (1596– 1650) who provided the fundamental writings on dualism with his work
Meditiations on First Philosophy. Indeed, he is considered "the father of modern philosophy" and his
Meditations lead to the school of dualistic ontology known as Cartesian Interactionist Dualism,
which still inspires much thought and extension by modern philosophers today. Descartes defined
the 'mind' as "all the feelings and sensations that he could describe, but which he could not locate
physically". He then furthered this by saying that the mind is everything that is non–physical. "Then
without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can
never cause me to be nothing so long as I think I am something... it might possibly be the case if I
ceased

Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy
In Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes does and experiment with wax to try
to prove that things actually exist in this world. This essay is going to prove how we can tell that
things actually exist and what can perceive the wax. Rene Descartes starts off with a description of
the wax so he can prove to us the changes that will happen throughout his experiment.
"Let us take, for instance, this piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb; it
has not yet lost all the honey flavor. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was
collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and cold; it is easy to touch. If you rap on
it with your ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He then tells us his final perspective on how he perceives the wax. "It remains then for me to
concede that I do not grasp what this wax is through the imagination; rather, I perceive it through the
mind alone." (Descartes, 22) He ends his argument on how he perceives the wax with telling us that
it is not our imagination that grasps all of the perceptions of the wax, but the mind that does it. Rene
Descartes just proved to us that our imagination is not able to grasp all of the perceptions of the wax
but the mind is. After proving that theory he suddenly starts to doubt his proof. "But meanwhile I
marvel at how prone my mind is to errors." (Descartes, 22) He states that his mind is prone to
making errors. For example; "For we say we see the wax itself, if it is present, and not that we judge
it to be present from its color or shape." (Descartes, 22) He thinks a mistake our minds make is
when we judge that it is wax by just looking at it and not paying any attention to any of the forms.
For this reason he is claiming that he still is not sure that the mind can actually perceive the wax due
to it making mistakes. Back to what Rene Descartes said earlier about the imagination not being
able to grasp all of what we need to perceive about the wax. He told us the imagination was unable
to grasp it all but now

Essay about Empiricist vs. Rationalist
Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience.
Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used
by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays
"The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of
knowledge.
Locke discards the suggestion of innate ideas. Locke believes that if we always had innate ideas, it
would be impossible for us not to perceive or be aware of them. He believes that if there were innate
ideas then they would be universal ideas present ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes as a rationalist believes that knowledge comes from the mind alone. During the First
Meditation, Descartes came to the conclusion that there must be some kind of evil deceiver that
"leads him to a state of doubt" (Descartes 77). Descartes starts out with the fact that distant
sensations are subject to doubt and uncertainty. He then goes on to try and cast doubt onto close
sensations. Descartes starts off by stating that close sense perception must be certain because we are
not crazy, and only a insane person would doubt what was right in front of them. Descartes then uses
the dream argument to cast uncertainty on close sense perception because "they are as lively, vivid
and clear as reality is when we are awake" (Descartes 76). Descartes then states that geometry and
math are certain. "For whether I am awake or sleeping, two and three added together always make
five, and a square never has more than four sides; and it does not seem possible that truths so
apparent can be suspected of any falsity or uncertainty" (Descartes 98). Descartes comes to realize
this certainty because math, geometry, and the simple sciences can be understood and proved
through logic and reasoning. He then uses his Deceiver Argument to cast doubt on close sensations.
He questions how we know for certain that God is good, and how we know that

Descartes, Hobbes, and Pascal Essay examples
Descartes, Hobbes, and Pascal During the 17th and 18th century, religion, religious beliefs and most
of all the religious leaders played a very influential role in the direction of politics. This was also a
time when religion and politics played a large role in the direction of what was accepted as a result
of the new discoveries in the natural sciences and in a time when there were some very influential
writers, philosophers, scientists and mathematicians. At the time, these people were considered to be
very radical and revolutionary because of some of their beliefs and this often times led them to be
highly scrutinized, criticized and sometimes even punished by the legal system. Now in the 21st
century, these views that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In it, Descartes talks about the existence of the human beings and the existence of God. He gets
himself to doubt everything and then assumes that doubt does exist. That is how he reaches to the
conclusion of "Cogito Ergo Sum", which means, "I think, therefore I am". He realizes that if he can
think, then he also exists, and he uses this also to prove the existence of God. He says that the body
and the mind are two separate entities and the only thing that unites them is God. Descartes was
very flattered to know how much people appreciate his writings and he assured that he probably
would have had a better time with the church nowadays because they are more open minded. In the
past, although Descartes believed in God, the Church did not like him a lot and that really depressed
him. He realized that nowadays, the Church is not as strict as before because science has taken total
control over the people and now is much more respected than before. As we can see, as time has
gone by, he continues, science has divorced from the church and it seems that soon it will become
like a separate religion because he was amazed how much people believe in all of the science's
claims. The next author that will talk about is Thomas Hobbes. As we all know, he was the writer of
the famous Leviathan, which was written in England on 1651. In his writing, he presents us a bleak
picture of human beings in the

Essay about Rene Descartes
Rene Descartes was born on March 31, 1596 in La Haye Touraine, France. Descartes was
considered a "jack of all trades", making major contributions to the areas of anatomy, cognitive
science, optics, mathematics and philosophy. He has been referred to as the father of modern
rationalism, soldier of fortune, scholar, pilgrim, traveler, and a firm adherent of the Roman Catholic
faith. He was educated at the Jesuit college of La Fleche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age
of eight years, just a few months after the opening of the college in January, 1604. At La Fleche,
Descartes formed the habit of spending the morning in bed. His health was poor and he was allowed
to remain in bed until 11 o'clock in the morning. This habit and custom ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It was at this point that he began to seek a unified science of nature. After two years in Holland he
joined the Bavarian army. It was during this time with the army that Descartes wandered through
Europe seeing parts of Hungary, Germany, Italy, and France. During his travels to Paris he made
contact with Mersenne. This was an important contact because it kept him in touch with the
scientific world for many years. In late 1628 he gave a speech in Paris in which he argued that the
sciences must be founded on certainty. He was encouraged by Cardinal Pierre de Berulle to develop
his own philosophical system. By 1628 Descartes tired of all the traveling and decided to settle
down. He gave much thought to choosing a country that suited his nature and decided on Holland.
He felt Holland would offer him seclusion and more intellectual freedom. Soon after he settled in
Holland Descartes began work on his first major treatise on physics, Le Monde, ou Traite de la
Lumiere. This work was near completion when he received the news that Galileo was condemned to
house arrest. He decided not to risk publication. His work, the world's first extended essay on
physiological psychology, was published after his death. While in Holland Descartes had a number
of scientific friends, they encouraged him to publish his ideas. Although he was adamant about not
publishing Le Monde, he did write and publish in 1637 a treatise on science under the

Descartes and God Essay
Descartes and God
Everywhere in this world there are debates on many things. Logic is often employed in order to
understand and come to an agreement on these debated topics. One such topic, which is arguably the
greatest topic of debate occurring in modern day, is the existence of God. Sure, many people believe
in some sort of higher being, but how many of them try and use logic and rational thought to prove
the existence of God. Many probably, however we will only look at one such person. Rene
Descartes attempts to use his own logic to come up with the conclusion that a perfect being does
exist and that being is in itself God in his book Meditations on First Philosophy. We must first look
at the background of Descartes thought ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The only true thing that cannot be doubted is that he himself doubts and thus exists (at the least as a
thinking being), hence his "Cogito ergo sum". Through this rational, "cogito ergo sum" meaning, " I
think therefore I am," and furthermore, "I am, therefore I exist", Descartes rationalize his own
existence. Thus his existence is that of an innate nature, however, Descartes also uses the idea of
God as an innate idea as well. Is this possible, can he have an innate idea of an external being?
Descartes begins his argument, of the existence of God, with the only thing he knows to be true; that
through doubting, he must exist. By knowing he doubts he therefore does not know everything. This
makes him imperfect. However, to know that he is an imperfect being he must therefore have an
idea of what is perfection. And by having that idea, because he is finite and cannot come up with
such an idea himself, a perfect being must exist– God. Knowing that he has an idea of perfection,
Descartes continues to prove God's existence by assuming everything must have a cause. This is
known as the Principal of Sufficient Reason. Descartes views God as an innate idea, as is that of his
own existence. The problem with thinking that God is an innate idea is that it does not include the
ideas which others have of God. One would assume that if God were an innate idea, one that was
planted in the mind, then all ideas of God would be the same. An instance where God is very
different

Thomas Aquina's vs. Descarates Essays
THOMAS AQUINA'S V. DESCARATES Meditation III Several hundred years ago, two great
philosophers Thomas Aquinas's and Rene Descartes used the method of ontological argument for the
existence of God and used intuition and reason alone to get to each other's theory. Rene Descartes
wrote out several mediations, but the one we're going to touch base on is meditation III that he wrote
in the 1600's; While Thomas Aquinas's wrote his five proofs of God in 1270 that specifies God's
existence in each proof; the one that gives the best argument is the existence of God in his III proof.
While both philosophers provide great information about their reason about God, Thomas Aquinas's
and Rene Descartes both attempt to prove the existence of God, but ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen
that had to be someone, so that is God. Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the
First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover
(a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers
used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used
different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion
that God does "exist". I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time
difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around
the 1200's while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600's. There is a
big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion So in the
end, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes both attempted to prove the existence of God, but they
differ in respect to the different thought processes to obtain the existence of God. An still to this day
both Philosophers are regarded as key factor in the world of philosophy and their arguments were so
influential that they were able to land a spot in our textbook "THE GREAT CONVERSATION". But
thanks to these gentlemen and their contributions to their works were able

The Republicn and a Brief History of Philosphy
In The Republic there are six reoccurring themes education, justice, specialization, philosopher–
king, soul, and truth. Plato uses justice though as the folk point and the remaining five trace back to
justice. Socrates defines justice as "that one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which
his nature was best adapted" (Plato 123). Socrates then goes to discuss the three parts to the soul, "A
man reasons, we may call the rational principle of the soul, the other... may be termed the irrational
or appetitive" and then there is the spirit (Plato 130). Kant proposes that justice "says that only good
people should be happy, and happy in proportion to their goodness" (Gustafson 67). Plato and
Socrates saw justice as giving what is owed, while Kant saw justice as being happy in proportion to
their virtue. Yet each strived for justice and look to eliminate the injustices in the world. These
themes and ideas were not just something that once occurred and then no one thought of again.
These themes still play a role in everyday life, some more predominate then others but apparent just
the same. In the film Crimes and Misdemeanors the view is introduced to a group of people with all
different struggles. As the movie progresses the characters dive deeper into their hardships, and
some may never be able to get out of them. This film deals with many of the ideas that Plato speaks
about. The theme of justice is one that is featured as the most important in the film. Secondary to

Descartes' Meditations Essay
Descartes' Meditations
In Descartes' meditations, Descartes begins what Bernard Williams has called the project of 'pure
enquiry' to discover an indubitable premise or foundation to base his knowledge on, by subjecting
everything to a kind of scepticism now known as Cartesian doubt. This is known as
foundationalism, where a philosopher basis all epistemological knowledge on an indubitable
premise.
Within meditation one Descartes subjects all of his beliefs regarding sensory data and even
existence to the strongest and most hyperbolic of doubts. He invokes the notion of the all powerful,
malign demon who could be deceiving him regarding sensory experience and even his
understanding of the simplest mathematical and logical truths in ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Human beings are capable of simultaneous thought, this is best illustrated when a person is
dreaming as the person will be receiving sensory data from both the external world and from the
dream therefore the human is thinking on more than one level at a time which could result in there
being two existence's. A further Cartesian response could be that the level of thought or the amount
of thought is irrelevant, all that is important is that the thought is being generated by the one
individual, therefore it is the one individual that exists. It is seemingly impossible to criticise the
cogito argument as every time it is presented to our mind we are forced to assent to it, it may be the
case that this argument is infallible or at least indubitable, Descartes therefore has convincingly
overcome his doubt of his own existence.
Now that Descartes realised that he was a thinking being he focused his efforts on trying to prove
the existence of God for this Descartes has two arguments based on a priori reasoning, the
Ontological argument and the Trademark argument.
Descartes first argument for the existence of God is known as the Trademark argument. The
argument states that we all have the idea of God in our head ('...there is a real and positive idea of
God or of a Being of supreme perfection to my mind...') as we are not able to

Essay on The Scientific Revolution and The Enlightenment
The Scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries changed the way that people views the
world. Scientific philosophers such as Galileo and Descartes threw out the old teachings of the
church and challenged them with new ways of thinking. These men sought to prove that rational
thought could prove the existence of God. They also challenged that it was an understanding of a
series of rational thoughts, not faith, would bring understanding of how the world worked.
Traditional ways of thinking were ultimately challenged by logical and sensible rationale. Galileo
Galilei was an Italian philosopher born in 1564. As an adult, he didn't believe the universal
geocentric theory of the planets and heavens which was established by the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Galileo stepped backed and worked on a book, which gave the arguments that for and against the
heliocentric theory. When he finally published the book, he was persecuted for heresy by the
Catholic Church and sentenced to house arrest in 1663. While under house arrest, he did studies on
falling object and their acceleration to the earth. The Catholic Church later apologized and
acknowledged that Galileo was treated unfairly in 1992.There is now a statue of Galileo inside the
Vatican as a monument and an attempt to make amends. Scientifically, Galileo will be remembered
for invention of the telescope, which allowed astronomers, sailors and other view the heavens and
seas, which fed their own theories. He used his own invention to discover the four moons of Jupiter,
the mountains and craters of the moon, and sunspots. His work on falling objects led to gravitational
studies and mathematical theorems which are on a basic level, physics. Experimentation was used as
a means to prove the laws of science along with the mathematical theories. Math, according to
Galileo, was the only infallible form of logic. If a mathematical law could be formed from an event,
then it was a logical, rational event. His breaking from the Catholic Church, voicing his findings and
staying with his convictions broke the traditional way of thinking that the Church was the end all
and be all of all things. In the end, he was proven right for most of his beliefs and vindicated for his
suppression.

Women in the Math World Essay
Women in the Math World
Works Cited Not Included Math is commonly known as the man's major. Many college math
professors are men and the same goes for their students. "One study revealed that women accounted
for 15% of students in computer science, 16% in electrical engineering,. . . Gender splits in the
faculty were similar" (Cukier). There are few women that have made an impact on the math society
compared with the number of men. A person can ramble off names such as Isaac Newton, Albert
Einstein, Pythagoras of Samos, and Jean–François Niceron. Where are the women mathematicians?
This paper will examine the lives of women that have made an impact on the world of ... Show more
In 1825, she began an experiment on magnetism that lead to a her paper entitled 'The Magnetic
Properties of the Violet Rays of the Solar Spectrum'. The paper was presented in front of the Royal
Society, where she became the first women to present to the Royal Society. This paper was later
disproved however it was a starting point for her career in mathematics and for women in the field.
In 1827, she started what would become her most successful study. Lord Brougham convinced her
to "write a popularized rendition of Laplace's Mecanique celeste and Newton's Principia" (Cite). The
paper was publised as 'The Mechanism of the Heavens'. Her paper was so successful, "a portrait bust
of her was commisioned by her admirers in the Royal Society and placed in their great hall" (Cite).
She went on to write many more books on mathematics which earned her election to the Royal
Astronomical Society as the first women. Mary Fairfax Somerville lead the pathway for women in
the man's world.
Maria Gaetana Agnesi was destined for a life in mathematics, being born on May 16, 1718 to a
professor of mathematics. "She was recognized as a child prodigy very early; spoke French by the
age of five; and had mastered Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and several modern languages by the age of
nine. At her teens, Maria mastered mathematics" (Cite). Her days of a child were

Essay on Certainty is Decartes' Discourse of Method
Rene Descartes' overall objective in publicizing "Discourse of Method" is to developing
a new system of knowledge that is free of prior prejudices for establishing the truth of
things. In Part 4 of the book he explains the philosophical basing (the meditations) for
establishing the new system. These meditations were based on the epistemological
theory of rationalism: that is if someone truly knows something then they could not
possibly be mistaken. He goes on to provide solid argument for his ideas. In Meditations
he comes to term with three certainties: the existence of the mind as the thing that thinks,
the body as an extension, and God as the supreme being. He attests that he came to these
conclusions ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Besides, many of us, at one point in our lives, have wondered this very philosophical
question: Am I dreaming? Yet, even now, most of us would claim that we are awake;
however, while in a dream, on one actually believes that they are actually sleeping.
Nevertheless, Decartes doesn't concretely prove that we are dreaming. He doesn't have
to. Instead, he merely raises the point that, at any moment, we may be dreaming. Just
by presenting this simple possibilty, Decartes successfully destroys all of our sensory
beliefs.
By proposing the "Dream and Illusion theory" Decartes is able to judge and
maintain that all his former beliefs as false. Using doubt as a tool, he is able to clearly and distinctly
perceive the idea of mind. The mind represented by "I". Inorder to proof his idea of "I" did not

represent the self as in physical appearances he proposes the following statement, "Thus this, "I",
that is to say the soul through which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body and is even
easier to know than the body, and event if there there were no boy at all, it would not cease to be all
that it is" (Cress, pg–19). Through this, he is able to reach the conclusion even though all things may
be doubtful, the fact that we doubt is not doubtful. There is doubt, thinking; which is certain. It the
doubt is

How Successful Are Descartes' Arguments for the Real...
How successful are Descartes' arguments for the real distinction of mind from body? Upon which
problem would you put the most weight? Descartes says the mind is distinct from the body, or
anything physical for that matter. He says, a thinking substance is nonphysical or spiritual in nature
(mind), and an extended substance is physical, but not capable of consciousness or thought (body).
However, this very claim is also his biggest problem as his mind – body interaction has many
critics and to some, can seem invalid. This is mainly due to the challenge by those who ask how
mind and body can interact if they are two different substances altogether. Over Descartes' period of
teaching, he has conceived many arguments to support his view of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes' continues with his argument of simplicity. "When I think about my mind—or, in other
words, about myself insofar as I am just a thinking thing—I can't distinguish any parts; I understand
myself to be a single, unified thing. Although my whole mind seems united to my whole body, I
know that cutting off a foot, arm, or other limb would not take anything away from my mind."
Descartes argues that the mind is indivisible because it cannot be broken down and does not have
extension. The body, as an object that can move and take up space can be divided in to many things
whereas the mind is one complete substance that does not have extension and is non –spatial. Since
the mind and body are different substances with different properties, they must be able to exist
independently as they must not be the same thing. Leibniz' Law supports the argument and shows
that the mind and body are not the same because they do not have all of the same properties. "We
cannot conceive of half a soul, as we can in the case of any body, however small." The mind has lots
of feelings and idea, but they are all intertwined into one indivisible mind. However, if this is said,
then cannot we say the same for the body, that the body and mind, different as they are, are also
closely intertwined to one another? With Descartes saying that if his leg was to be cut off, nothing
would

Zombie Argument
Charmain Rantsieng
Philosophy Essay (20 March 2013)
RNTREF002
Essay topic three
The important problems of the mind module are: how do we understand the nature of mental events,
their relation to the physical world and physical events and fundamentally the problems with other
minds. This essay essentially serves to evaluate whether the Zombie argument against Cartesian
Dualism is sound by: criticising the Zombie argument through analysing the validity of each
premise of the Zombie argument, defending the Zombie argument against one of its objections and
responses from the Cartesian Argument by analogy. This essay will offer reasons to believe the
Zombie argument by contrasting it with the strengths and weaknesses of the Cartesian ... Show more
Therefore one can trust that because one thinks one exists; this leaves each of us with his/her own
mind (Blackburn, 1999: 49). Premise two states that we can and do know that other people have
minds, this can be based on the interactions we have with other people. The fact that someone else
can love you back and you can feel it makes it possible that they are connected to your mind in the
mental realm which can only mean that they do have a mind. Based on the fact that it is difficult to
conceptualise that one may be the only existent being makes it open to believe that one is not the
only one existent– other people do exists and therefore they have minds. Premise two therefore is
valid which diminishes what is presented in premise one about Cartesian Dualism that we can never
know that other people have minds. Premise three therefore lawfully, following from premise one
and two that with the validity presented in previous premises, states that Cartesian Dualism is false.
The reason why it can be believed that the Zombie argument is true is that we can know that other
people have minds based on experiences, having mutual feelings as other people and same reactions
as other people. This shows that they are conscious and they do have minds because their reactions
are triggered by their mental events which determine how they should react.

Descartes’ Cogito Argument Successfully Shows the Evil...
Does Descartes' Cogito argument successfully show that the Evil Demon Argument is unsound? In
this essay I will attempt to show that the philosopher, Renè Descartes' Cogito Argument successfully
proves the Evil Demon Argument to be unsound. By an analysis of the structure of the arguments
and what they prove, I will show the evil demon argument to be unsound. An argument is unsound
when the premises as false and the argument is invalid. This analysis of both structure and content
will eventuate in objections on the aforementioned categories. To take any of Descartes' arguments
in consideration I have to understand why he started his meditations in order to prove Gods'
existence and to gain clear and distinct knowledge. At the same time of his first meditation he was
engaged in a raging war within Europe and lost some his close family members (Smith, K., 2014),
he too was at risk of death – all because of certain religious beliefs. It is easy to understand that he
wrote all of his meditations in order for himself to be sure of dying for what he believed in.
Descartes' first meditation works in three stages: at first he tries to show that he does not have any
empirical knowledge, meaning he does not have any knowledge based on his senses since he proved
that his senses could possibly be deceiving him. He then says that it does not rule out his 'a priori'
knowledge which is knowledge that does not require observation or experience but it is rather
mathematical

Descartes, Leibniz, And Spinoza Essay
If these great thinkers (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were to discuss instead the soul's
connection to the body, what might each say (both on his own behalf and in response to the other)?
Would they find any places where they might agree? If not, why not? (These are, after all, smart
guys!)
Though this sort of meeting would strike me as a debate with as furiously disparate and
uncompromising ideals as one would find in a meeting of Andrew Weil, Jerry Falwell, and David
Duke, I expect that the philosophers would find some surprisingly common ground. Descartes, the
Christian outcast, Spinoza, the Jewish outcast, and Leibniz, the creative mathematician all
acknowledge that what we know better than ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although Descartes' claims of the body's necessary existence follows from the cogito – if the mind
exists, then it must exist in contrast to other, external things – I presume that both Spinoza and
Leibniz would take the opportunity to point out that Descartes presupposes the existence of the god
that necessarily created his body and mind before speculating on whether or not his body and mind
exist. Nice claim, bad explanation.
Spinoza's staunch, pantheistic monist view of the world establishes that the mind and body are not
separate entities in themselves, but only two of an infinite amount of attributes of the same and only
substance in existence – God. One can relate this reasoning to two attributes of a red–hot poker –
red and hot. Does this entail that red and hot are always dependent on a poker and that they are in
essence the same thing? Although this is not a likely conclusion, Spinoza raises the important
question of how far we can analytically separate parts of a world that are always interacting with
each other. Try getting a metal poker to glow red without heating it, or heating a poker without
eventually having it glow red. This is improbable, albeit possible in theory. The mind and body may
be two separately identifiable things, but one will more than likely find the two cooperating with
each other as attributes of the natural world.
Such cooperation

Rene Descartes and John Locke
Rene Descartes was a highly influential French philosopher, mathematician, scientist and writer.
Many elements of his philosophy have precedent in late Aristolelianism and earlier philosophers like
St. Augustine. Descartes was a major figure in 17th century continental rationalism, later advocated
by Baruch Spinoza and opposed by the empiricist school of thought consisting of Locke, Berkeley,
and Hume. His most famous statement is: Cogito ergo sum, translation in English I think therefore I
am.
Descartes employs a method called metaphysical doubt, sometimes also referred to as
methodological skepticism: he rejects any ideas that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in
order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Locke said at birth, the human mind is a sort of blank slate on which experience writes. Locke
claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience. The term idea
stands for whatsoever is the object of the understanding, when a man thinks. Locke thinks we are
born with a bunch of faculties to receive abilities and to process the content once we gain it. For
example, the mind can engage in three different types of action in putting simple ideas together. The
first of these kinds of action is to combine them into complex ideas. Complex ideas are of two kinds,
ideas of substances and ideas of modes. Substances are independent existences. Beings that count as
substances include God, angels, humans, animals, plants and a variety of constructed things. Modes
are dependent existences. These include mathematical and moral ideas, and all the conventional
language of religion, politics and culture. The second action which the mind performs is the bringing
of two ideas, whether simple or complex, by one another so as to take a view of them at once,
without uniting them. This gives us our ideas of relations. The third act of the mind is the production
of our general ideas by abstraction from particulars, leaving out the particular circumstances of time
and place, which would limit the application of an idea to a particular individual. In addition to these
abilities, there are such faculties as memory which allow for the storing of

Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First...
Comparing Knowledge in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume's An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding,
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would
answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two
philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can
be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The
distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept
of the divine.
Descartes is a prime example of a rationalist. Descartes begins his Meditations on First ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Once the certainty of Res Cogitans is developed, clear and distinct perceptions are replaced with
clear and distinct ideas. It is these ideas from which Descartes derive knowledge, including the
existence of Res Extensa (corporeal things). Therefore, Descartes, a rationalist, derives his
knowledge from ideas and reason, all of which stem from an instance of natural light.
The empiricists, however, do not believe in natural light and therefore do not hold knowledge to be
derived from these innate ideas. David Hume is one of these empiricists. Hume was a scientist and
an atheist; his occupation and beliefs disallowed him from holding innate ideas to be a valid basis
for knowledge. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume points out a hierarchy that
exists among ideas and impressions: "the most lively thought is still inferior to the most lively
impression" (Hume: 10). Hume also establishes that for all of his ideas he can trace them back to
impressions, those for things which he has not had impressions of he cannot have an idea. "What
never was seen, or heard of, may yet be conceived:" (Hume: 11) "A blind man can form no notion of
colours; a deaf man of sounds" (Hume: 12).
From these impressions and ideas stem two kinds of knowledge: relations of ideas and matters of
fact. Relation of ideas are a priori and do not need to be

Voltaire and The Enlightenment
The eighteenth century was a crucial changing point in the European history because of The
Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was revolutionary because of Voltaire, a writer that used his
ideas to attack the established Catholic Church, and to propagate the freedom of religion, scientific
thoughts, skepticism and experiential philosophy.
Voltaire was born in 1694, a year that was under the regiment of Louis XIV. At that time, the
aristocracy ruled France in an extreme way that most commoners were struggling in poverty. From a
middle–class family, Voltaire did not like the political environment of France and the aristocratic
system. As a well–educated and intelligent student from the college of Louis–le–Grand, he became a
secretary for ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
By this storyline, Voltaire wanted to tell the French aristocracy that they did not have any heritage.
Once they were expelled from their current positions, they needed to live as commoners, or maybe
suffered more because they had never done anything in the castle.
Even though Candide was expelled, he was still very happy because he always believed in
optimistic philosophy. He learnt the philosophy from his teacher, Panloss, a parody of the
contemporary philosophers in the seventeenth century that always argued about the metaphysics,
which had no use in the real world. Also, the optimism was a satire from the philosophy of Leibniz,
a popular philosopher around that time. The optimism was widely used in the Christian churches to
tell people that life was always full of happiness because the perfect God created the world. Human
beings suffered in the world because they did not see the greater purpose from God. The sufferings
were only trials and in the end the human being would still deserve ultimate happiness. After the
Lisbon's earthquake, which killed more than 30,000 people, many of who died because they were
just praying to the God without actually doing anything, Voltaire was very angry about the situation
that the priests in the church did not help people, but led them to sit in the church and pray.
Therefore, he wanted to attack this philosophy, so in Candide he described the horrible

Self-Identity Qualities
Identity is defined as the qualities that distinguish one from someone else. Thus, self– identity is
how one characterizes themselves as an individual. This may at first seem easy to conclude. One
might say I am me because I look in the mirror and recognize myself. Or, I am me because I possess
a mind and memories unique to me that cannot be replicated by another in the same perspective.
However, the body and the mind undergo constant change throughout life, so how can they be
attributed to one's "sameness"? I have arrived at the problem of self–identity, what makes one
person the same over time? I assert that in addition to the presence of unique physical and mental
substance, in each person is a constant factor that cannot be altered. I shall show that the problem of
self–identity is solved with both the existence of a soul as well as psychological makeup; X is the
same as Y so long as X possesses the same soul, body and consciousness as Y.
Descartes theory of dualism supposes that there are two fundamental substances. The body is an
example of a material substance, as it can be defined by its dimension, shape, movement, and other
extensions. However, an immaterial substance like the mind cannot be defined by such concepts, nor
can it be interpreted from sensory data. Descartes argues that the mind is the soul, as it cannot be
altered by physiological means and ascribes its place in the pineal gland. Though I agree with
Descartes distinguishing of the mind and body, I do

Personal Identity
Personal Identity REFERENCE: Perry, Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality.
. Thesis .
Identity refers to "a relation that everything has to itself and to no other thing", and our perception of
personal identity is the knowledge that we are ourselves, and who we have been – basically, that I
am the same person I was last week, last year, etc. Leibniz's Law states that if one thing (A) is
identical to another (B) at one given point in time, they share the exact same properties, making
them the same, one thing (A = B).
In this paper, I will argue that the Memory Theory of Personal Identity is the closest to the truth. I
will do so by showing that the opposing theories – Body and Soul Theories – have evident flaws and
that the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
371). This responds to the objections raised by Thomas Reid in the 18th century (Shoemaker, 2008,
p. 340), however, the Memory Theory did require a modification to include the possibility of
temporarily forgetting the experiences of an earlier person–stage, "as long as one has the potentiality
of remembering it" (Shoemaker, 2008, p. 340). In the conversations held by Gretchen Weirob, Sam
Miller and Dave Cohen in Perry's 'Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality' (Perry, 1977), this
concept is addressed in depth. Miller relays a chapter written by Locke – "the relation between two
person–stages or stretches of consciousness that makes them stages of a single person is just that the
later one contains memories of an earlier one...I can remember only my past thoughts and feelings,
and you only yours...take this relation as the source of identity" (Perry, 1977, p. 343). These
concepts are logical possibilities in my opinion, and are far less unstable than those presented within
the Body/Soul Theory, as these concepts do not require the senses of others, but the individual's first
person perception of their personal identity.
Another argument against the Memory Theory involves it's circular nature if fake memories are
implanted within a person who did not actually experience what the memories are about, and only
'seems to remember', via brainwashing for example.
The above diagram shows the

Essay on Rationalism vs. Empiricism: The Argument for...
There are two main schools of thought, or methods, in regards to the subject of epistemology:
rationalism and empiricism. These two, very different, schools of thought attempt to answer the
philosophical question of how knowledge is acquired. While rationalists believe that this process
occurs solely in our minds, empiricists argue that it is, instead, through sensory experience. After
reading and understanding each argument it is clear that empiricism is the most relative explanatory
position in epistemology. To begin with the question of rationalism versus empiricism, it is
important to understand, first, what it is that rationalists argue. This school of thought infers that all
knowledge comes from within, an innate source that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ultimately, Descartes' "radical doubt" challenges how we look at the mind and how it represents us
with information and knowledge. He uses his radical doubt theory to explain how the information
that we receive through our senses is distorted and can not be utilized as a means of knowledge.
Essentially, Descartes is questioning reality and the risk of deception that it poses in the process of
acquiring knowledge. Although Descartes makes a valid argument in regards to the nature of reality,
there is a huge discrepancy with his theory of "radical doubt" in regards to epistemology; how can
there be a question of reality at all when all knowledge is, according to rationalists, innate?
Empiricism, in contrast, argue that the rationalists' idea that all knowledge is present at birth, from
such an innate source, is invalid . Instead, they argue that knowledge is attained through sensory
experience. Empiricists also find problems with the rationalists' mathematical and logical model of
knowledge. They argue that these claims, as well as their stand–point on absolute truths, do not
provide us with any new, viable, information alone. The problem with this is that rationalism can
only provide us with information that is already known. Unlike rationalists, empiricists rely on
synthetic statements. A synthetic statement

Metaphysics Essay
Metaphysics
Metaphysics can be defined as an attempt to comprehend the basic characteristics of reality. It is in
fact so basic that it is all inclusive, whether something is observable or not. It answers questions of
what things must be like in order to exist and how to differentiate from things that seem real but are
not. A common thought is that reality is defined as what we can detect from our five senses. This
type of philosophy is called empiricism, which is the idea that all knowledge comes from our senses.
An empiricist must therefore believe that what we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear must be real
and that if we can not in fact see, touch, taste, smell, or hear something, it is definitely not real.
However, this is a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Other people do not believe in it. Another important aspect of metaphysics is that reality is separate
from our minds. We can not affect or change things just by thinking about them. However, some
metaphysicians believe that our feelings are more real than what we can sense because our feelings
are first–hand and come from our body. They must in fact be real because we are more aware of
them. Metaphysics basically describes what people do everyday in their lives. People have a
constant need to differentiate between what's real and what's not. In our everyday life, we are faced
with appearances and materialistic things. Metaphysics can even relate to beauty. What's beautiful to
one person may be repulsive to another and vice versa. Beauty is something that we can see, but it's
not a physical object that can be sensed. Does this mean that it is not real? Empirically, yes. As
people get older, they can better distinguish between real and not real. As stated in the textbook, a
person must balance reality and their dreams, goals, etc, because both things are important. Fantasy,
such as our dreams and goals, are part of being human and for some people, it is a purpose of life. If
we only lived in "reality," there would be nothing to strive for because everyone would live based on
what we know from our five senses. As long as people can keep a balance between the two, they can
live a "normal" life in which they know what's real, but they can

Essay about Descartes’ Cogito
Descartes' Cogito It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes' Cogito argument and his
skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have
on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes' brings to bear on small
and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito
argument, Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" (it should be noted that this famous
implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication
taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning
underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Descartes attacks the possibility of certainty with regards to the existence of small and universal
elements with the possibility of our thoughts being altered by an omnipotent deceiver. In paragraph
nine, he states, "How do I know that he did not bring it about that there be no Earth at all, no
heavens, no extended thing, no figure, no size, no place, and yet all these things should seem to me
to exist precisely as they appear to do now." His point is that this omnipotent evil deceiver could
create in our minds an understanding of mathematics and logic that is at odds with reality, causing
us to construe everything wrongly. Thus Descartes ends this final and devastating doubt with the
preliminary conclusion that everything he perceives can be called into doubt. Descartes answers his
seemingly hopeless skepticism from the first meditation with the Cogito. The basic point of his
Cogito argument is that for me to either perceive awry, or even to doubt my own existence, I must
exist. It is, as Descartes says, "'I am, I exist' is necessarily true every time it is uttered by me or
conceived in my mind (Med2, par3)." He makes two arguments for the Cogito in his second
meditation. Descartes arrives at the Cogito through the notion of an omnipotent deceiver actually.
He starts to question his own

Descartes’Arguments for the Real Distinction of Mind and...
Descartes' Arguments for the Real Distinction of Mind and Body
Descartes argues has three main arguments for minds and bodies being two different distinct types
of substance. These are known as arguments for substance dualism and are as follows.
* The Argument from doubt : Descartes argues that while he could pretend or think that he had no
body and therefore did not exist in any place, he could not think or pretend he had no mind, as
merely having a doubt that he had a mind proves that he does.
* The Argument from Clear and distinct understanding: Descartes argues that if two things can be
separated even if only by god then they must be two different things. Descartes ... Show more
Further more the mere doubt that you exist is proof that you in fact exist as how can you doubt
something unless you are existing. "I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded. But there is I know
not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is
constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am
deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long
as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being
maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum ) I am, I exist, is necessarily
true" (Descartes Meditations, II, p16,17). Descartes's also says that clear perception, clarity and
distinctness are present in the cogito, he says that these qualities are essential in being sure of
anything. Clearly perceiving something might mean that you think you are sure of it but you could
be wrong, Clarity and distinctness of perception means that you recognise the reasons for the claim
made by clear perception for what you believe to be true being true, Descartes called this the mark
of knowledge. Together the cogito and the mark of knowledge set a firm foundation for all of
Descartes's conclusions by showing that he and all of us exist and that we can be certain about
things we

Anthem Essay
Anthem Essay
As one reads Ayn Rand's significant quotes from the story of anthem, there is always a main theme
that is trying to escape, just as Prometheus escaped in her story. All three of the listed quotes work
as a trio to sing that We; as society, works to defeat individuality. The quotes emphasize that we
cannot survive without individualism and being alone brings out our unique personalities. It is true
that all the quotes work as one, but at the same time they have their own individualism. Each quote
holds a purpose of its own and the author wants to express the quote to each persons understanding.
Rand's quote, "The word 'We'... crushes all beneath it, and that which is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When he makes himself happy he feels as if he has completed his mission in life. "My happiness
needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end." This
quote is Prometheus' statement to society that he does not care about making everyone better, but
that he cares for each person to individually improve themselves. Prometheus wants every person to
find the happiness within themselves.
"I think. I am. I will." A quote by Ayn Rand that is similar to Rene Descartes quote, "I think
therefore I am." This quote tells society that Prometheus can do anything by himself. He does not
need the "we" of society to complete a task. Prometheus can think independently and wants to
express himself as one individual. "I will," illustrates that he will and can do anything. Prometheus
believes, just as Rene Descartes does, that if he can think by himself, he is able to live by himself.
As he is alone he is thinking by himself, therefore he is alive and able to express himself as he truly
is.
The main quotes of Anthem were written with a real purpose. Ayn Rand had the mission to write
these significant quotes so that each person would make their own meaning out of them. Rand
longed for someone to allow their individualism to bring these quotes to life with these quotes, do
not listen to what theme society has placed

The Dream Argument by Rene Descartes Essay
One of Rene Descartes's most famous arguments, from his not only from his first meditation but all
of the meditations, is his Dream Argument. Descartes believes that there is no way to be able to
distinguish being in awake from being in a state of dreaming. In fact you could actually be in a
dream right now. Rene Descartes's theory that one is unable distinguish being awake from dreaming,
as interesting as it is, can be at times a little farfetched, along with a few contradictions to himself,
Descartes's dream argument does not entitle himself to any sort of claim.
Descartes wrote the Meditations on First Philosophy were first published in the year 1641 in Latin.
There are six total Meditations that Descartes had written. One thing that ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It is deception from the sense that causes this mistrust for Descartes and brings forth the Dream
Argument. The human senses as well feel very real, just as they do in reality, and this is one of the
first things that have Descartes question the differences between being awake and dream. Due to the
trust issues it he becomes unsure of whether he is dreaming or not. When it comes to dreaming
Descartes thinks that there could possibility that some certain God that may have easily deceived
him in falsely believing in things could appear to be correct but are not. However Descartes says
that it God is described as a supremely good being (Descartes, 21). God has always been a being
that is worshiped and why would so many people worship an evil God if he brings no positives to
their lives. Descartes however is not 100 percent positive on whether God is being deceptive or not
being deceptive. James Hill says that "[the] key move that Descartes then makes is to highlight the
lack of insight one has into one's condition when dreaming. It is this lack of insight, and Descartes'
way of interpreting it, which forms the backbone of the dreaming argument" (Hill, 2). To shorten
that down, the minimal explanations to why and how dreams occur is the foundation for Descartes's
Dream Argument.
The main idea of Descartes is that there is no difference between being awake and dreaming.
Descartes says there are no definite signs to differ dreaming from being awake. You could be
possibly

Descartes Skeptical Argument And Reponses By Bouwsma And...
Descartes' Skeptical Argument and Reponses by Bouwsma and Malcolm
In this essay, I will examine Rene Descartes' skeptical argument and responses by O.K. Bouwsma
and Norman Malcolm. I intend to prove that while both
Bouwsma and Malcolm make points that refute specific parts of Descartes' argument in their
criticisms, neither is sufficient in itself to refute the whole. In order to understand Descartes'
argument and its sometimes radical ideas, one must have at least a general idea of his motives in
undertaking the argument.
The seventeenth century was a time of great scientific progress, and the blossoming scientific
community was concerned with setting up a consistent standard to define what constituted science.
Their science was based ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
More significantly, Descartes implies that all consciousness could actually be a dream state, thus
proving that the senses can be doubted. The dream argument has its intrinsic problems, however.
One, is that images in dreams can be described as "painted images".2
In other words, a dream image is only a portrait of a real–life object, place or person. If we are
dreaming then it is implied that at some point we were conscious and able to perceive these things.
If we are able to perceive these things then we must admit that we have senses and that our senses
are, at least in part, true. This was exactly what Descartes was trying to disprove, and it was one
reason he abandoned the dream argument.
The second problem with this argument is that it points to mathematics as a point of certainty. I
believe Descartes best explained this in his own words:
"[W]hether I be awake or asleep, two plus three equals five and a square does not have more
than four sides: nor does it seem possible that such obvious truths can fall under the suspicions of
falsity."3 Even when we are dreaming, the laws of mathematics and geometry hold true, but
they can not be Descartes' point of certainty for a simple reason; these abilities that Descartes
believed were innate still had to come from somewhere. If they are in our heads when we are born,
someone had to put them there. Descartes' question is who, and he comes up with

Do Animals Have Minds?
Humans have for centuries pondered on the mind, its existence, its beginning, it's limit, it's
substance, and fought many different arguments against them all. But how do we know if any
animals have a mind? Is intelligence unique to humans? Professor Donald Griffin has pointed out
that "consciousness is not a tidy all–or–nothing entity, it varies with age, culture, experience and
gender. And if animals have conscious experiences, these presumably vary widely as well." If
humans have minds, it must be possible that animals also have minds. And though no one would
believe that earthworms and earwigs have thought processes like our own, it has been proven that
chimps share 98% of genome with humans. Chimps have also shown that they can lie ... Show more
By saying this we would have to wonder why other animals have not also adapted to our level. What
could be stopping them? If we are all made of the same chemicals what has held the others back and
why are we the only creatures to make it this far? There are many strong counter– arguments to
animals also having minds. We would have to wonder what else could be making the difference, and
only by stepping totally out of a materialist view and into a realm beyond science can we begin to
figure this out. Rene Descartes through the Cartesian method of thinking from the very foundations
of what he was sure, established ultimately that he is thinking, that it is the only thing he is sure of.
We can only be sure of what is self– evident. He argues that 'the senses are not designed to give us
knowledge at all, but are rather meant to help us move through the world in a very practical way'. So
can we be sure at all that animals have minds, as intellect may be the only truth and we can not
communicate clearly enough with animals to know this? Most animals rely on their senses rather
than judgement (something tested by science in various tests on animals), something which
Descartes believes separates humans from animals. And if senses are not at all a help to the mind but
a guide for the body to move through life in a practical way, animals surely do not have minds, as
they are lacking the ability to judge.
In evaluating these two arguments, I would

Rene Levesque

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Amber Moore

More from Amber Moore (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rene Levesque