The Individual Versus His Environment In The Stranger And...

The Individual Versus His Environment in The Stranger and...
The Individual Versus His Environment in The Stranger and Grendel Due to the multifaceted nature
of literature, analysis thereof is prone to generalization. One of the most grievous generalizations oft
encountered involves failing to distinguish between a character and the novel it inhabits. Take John
Gardener's Grendel and Albert Camus's The Stranger, for instance. It's far too easy, when analyzing
for dominant ideologies, to slap them both with the label of existentialism and be done with it.
However, closer scrutiny indicates that whilst both Meursault and Grendel are existential heroes,
Grendel, unlike Meursault, exists in a solipsistic universe that runs contrary to his ideology and
thusly never experiences the catharsis that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Camus's The Stranger, we have the platonic ideal of a book designed to promote a certain
philosophy. In John Gardener's Grendel, however, the message is not so clear–cut. Grendel, the ill–
fated anti–hero of the John Gardener novel which bears his name, acts primarily in the manner of an
existentialist hero. He embraces his alienation, spending the majority of his time alone; he
frequently evokes the absurd to mock those who would try and bring false meaning to a meaningless
world; and though he meets characters who embody different ideologies, all trying to influence him
towards one philosophy or another, his final whispered curse has a heavily existential flavor. But
though Grendel may be an existentialist hero, Grendel is a hostile environment for existentialism to
thrive; you see, Grendel does not live in an existential world, like Meursault does. Grendel's
universe is solipsistic, and because he never embraces this fact, there can be no catharsis for
Grendel. Though solipsism and existentialism may appear similar at first glance, closer inspection
reveals them to be philosophical oil and water. For conclusive proof that these ideologies do not
play well together, we need only recall the previously–quoted passage from Existentialism is a
Humanism, "The other is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have
of myself." If this is so, then living in a solipsistic universe
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Summary Of What Does It All Mean By Thomas Nagel
In Thomas Nagel's book What Does It All Mean, Nagel shares his view on several different topics.
The first topic we will discuss is our perception of reality. Nagel describes several different beliefs
about the reality that we live in and the reasons for those beliefs. After discussing reality, we will be
discussing arguments about free will and whether or not human beings actually have the ability to
make their own decisions. In the end, it all comes down to one big question. What is the meaning of
life?
Questioning Perception
According to Nagel, it is impossible to know if anything that one experiences is actually part of
reality. This theory could appear enticing to some because that would mean every experience we
have encountered never ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Even though this is unsettling for Nagel, it makes sense that specific actions in the past can cause
specific actions in the future. For example, an animal has the choice to catch its prey and consume it
for its nutrients. The animal knows that if it doesn't eat that it will die; therefore, it will go after the
other animal. The animal could also choose to not chase the prey. Maybe from past experiences, the
animal knows that if it tries to chase its prey that it will get tired and maybe even dehydrated. As a
result, the animal could think that the temporary solution for the absence of pain is greater than the
overall better solution which would be to eat and live. The other animals surrounding the lazy
animal will see with time that if they do not hunt for their food that they as well will die due to
sluggishness. As a result, they will hunt for their prey because prior knowledge influences their
motivation to stay alive. This shows that one's prior knowledge and experiences are a major
influence on the actions that they perform within their present time. This could also imply that, since
their actions are influenced from past experiences and knowledge, their actions are predetermined

How Does Robert Heinlein Use Solipsism In All You Zombies
Robert Heinlein was an American science fiction writer often known as the "dean of science fiction
writers". Though sometimes his works were controversial, he was one of the greatest science fiction
writers for many decades. The most twisted time travel paradox was arguably imagined by Heinlein
when he created the classic short story, "All You Zombies". In "All You Zombies", Heinlein uses
symbolism and solipsism to expand on his usage of paradoxes within the story.
There are many paradoxes that Heinlein touches upon in "All You Zombies", one being the ability to
travel through time. Time traveling would allow a character to arrive at a time that the character is
already in, causing there to be two of the same character at once. This scenario occurs in "All You
Zombies" when the bartender approaches a young man who appears to be feeling very sorry for
himself. The paradox is revealed later in the story when the same young man discovers he is all the
characters mentioned within the story. The time travel paradox in "All You Zombies" is symbolized
by the ring that the bartender wears. The ring consists of a snake consuming its own tail,
symbolizing the time travel paradox. With no ending or beginning, like the ring, time through time
travel ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the end of the story, Heinlein uses the idea of solipsism when he writes, "I felt headache coming
on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once–and you all went away"(9) and
"You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me–Jane–here alone in the dark. I miss you
dreadfully!"(9). This shows that the bartender is completely aware of the fact that he is all of the
characters in the story. Solipsism creates a lonely life for the bartender and causes him to travel back
in time to tell his sad story to someone. Being that only he himself could understand, he traveled
back in time to relay it onto

Examples Of Nihilism In Grendel
To live or to die, in the end they both amount to the same thing: Uselessness. In John Gardner's
novel, Grendel, the title character is an outcasted and confused beast, who desperately searches to
identify the predetermined life he is meant to live. In his futile attempt to distinguish this life,
Grendel encounters a conflict with the universe; falling in and out of human philosophies until
finally deciding that nothing matters and it is better to die than to continue searching. Grendel falls
victim to the philosophies of Solipsism, Nihilism, and Absurdism; theories humans, such as the
Shaper and Unferth, use to give meaning to life, by placing his trust in those who hate or wish to
corrupt him. He becomes his own enemy by falling victim to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
After meeting with the Dragon and being given an immense amount of knowledge, Grendel walks
away with only one thing, he must be the monster humans need to survive, "Whatever I may have
understood or misunderstood in the dragon's talk, something much deeper stayed with me, became
my aura. Futility, doom, became a smell in the air, pervasive and acrid as the dead smell after a fire"
(Gardner 75). The dragon sought to assist a lost soul, yet when he realized Grendel was not
understanding his lessons, he took an opportunity to create a monster. Grendel finally accepts this
answer to his question of "how should I live", yet it sinks him deeper into a Nihilistic way of
thinking. He begins to understand that life had no real value, neither do the humans surrounding
him, " It leads gradually to his increasing isolation: he finds fault with all the great human values
(and the fault is legitimate; nothing in this world is perfect...)" (Gardner's Letter). However, this life
of destruction is pointless and begins to bore Grendel. Both of his encounters with Unferth
demonstrate how "over it" Grendel has become. Rather than entertain Unferth and fight, he decides
to have fun and mock him instead, " And now I was raining apples at him and laughing myself
weak." (Gardner 85). This interaction with a man who is supposed to encompass all human values,
leads Grendel to doubt the words

Solipsism In The Fight Club
From the beginning of the Fight Club, Tyler's apparent purpose, in the forming of Fight Club and
Project Mayhem, was to bring the narrator to rock bottom in order to take him out of the
unsatisfying everydayness of his life. The narrator develops a form of solipsistic therapy that allows
his own mind to find a way to heal himself. In this way, he learns that in order to start over in life he
needs let go of all his physical possessions and begin again with nothing. Once he hits rock bottom,
there would be nowhere left to go but up. In addition, he initiates Project Mayhem in an attempt to
create as much chaos as possible in order to spread his therapy further. This type of therapeutic
strategy is similar to the methodology of crossfit training, which focus on specific areas of weakness
in training. This therapy employs a form of personal solipsism in order to confront the narrator's
issues, because Tyler knew that only he was able to control and understand his own conscience. The
first step towards Tyler's downward spiral in his life, which also led him to start joining therapy
groups, was when the narrator was denied any medication for his insomnia by a doctor. After the
doctor refused to acknowledge his suffering, Tyler realized that he would find no solace in asking
for help, and he reacted to this by relying on personal solipsism to help himself. The form of therapy
that he develops, which would initially establish the first Fight Club, was based around the theory
that

Descartes Position Of Epistemology
Epistemology examines the power of knowledge in a variety of subjects, such nature and human
behaviour. Epistemological solipsism is the theory of this knowledge, which brings forth the idea
that the only mind any person can only be certain of, is his or her own mind. Descartes spent a great
deal of focus on the mind, and is probably most famous for his conclusion of "I think, therefore I
exist". But what does he mean when he says "I think", and how does it relate to this theory that the
only mind an individual can be certain of is their own? This paper will divulge into the basis of
Descartes' statement, as well as discuss the proposition of Descartes' position of epistemological
solipsism, to explain Descartes' position of the multiple methods of knowledge and truths. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He begins by with the premise of the testimony of others, and outlines numerous ways in which
accepting the testimony of others can be detrimental. He also makes an analogy to beeswax as a
human body in order to add to his explanation of the physical and sensory worlds. Descartes uses his
perceptions of the sensory world, and the ability to doubt the existence and thought of everything
around him. Through this doubt, he is able to deduce that there is the ability to be certain of one
thing: that the only mind he can be certain of is his own. These proofs work for the position
Descartes has with regards to epistemological solipsism, while demonstrating that his proposition
can be proven to be sound through the level of thought he had put into developing this proposition.
It is because Descartes holds a high value to knowledge, as well as understanding the source of this
knowledge, that he can be seen as an epistemological solipsist. By allowing himself to question the
ideas that he had not previously doubted, he was able to expand his mind, and arrive to the
conclusions outlines in both Meditations One and

Christopher Nolan's Inception Essay
My analytical essay explores the subjectivity of reality and illusion via a postmodern and
philosophical critique of Christopher Nolan's film Inception (2010). It incorporates postmodern
concepts such as semiotics and hyperreality, as well as philosophies including epistemology and
empiricism (based on my independent investigation of solipsism) in an endeavour to answer
metaphysical questions about our concept of reality. Moreover, it also capitalises on the study of
Nolan as an auteur and Science Fiction conventions whilst exploring the relationship between
dreams and memories.
The Extension 2 English course has provided me with the opportunity to capitalise on my strengths
as a critical writer but also to express my creativity as I compose a critical response that aims to
explore the interplay between reality and dreams (illusion).
The intended audience for this analytical essay and critique of Nolan's Inception includes any
contemporary audience with an interest in understanding Inception, the sci–fi genre, the postmodern
and those with or without a philosophical background. Just as Plato had endeavoured to
metaphorically help his audience "escape from the shadows of the cave" (see Plato's Allegory of the
Cave) by using philosophy, this analytical essay was composed with the purpose of helping you
escape from the shadows of the cave also.
The analytical essay begins with explaining the necessity of interrupting the status quo, as to help
the masses question the nature

Analysis Of Jackie Lea Sommers's Truest
"Truest" by Jackie Lea Sommers is an overly romanticized, poetic, small–town love story.
Ironically, "Truest" is one of the most dishonest novels I have ever read, and I have read a number of
them. Jackie Lea Sommers is well known for running a blog on poetry, social justice, and mental
illness. In 2013 she won the Katherine Paterson Prize for Young Adult and Children's Writing. She
lives in Minnesota, which she loves dearly. She suffers from extreme OCD, which is what a large
portion of her blog is dedicated to. Other than that, she is very religious, and holds a very close
relationship with Jesus Christ, crediting him with her success as an author. Her personal favorite
author is C.S. Lewis. Her main inspiration for Truest came from personal experience with mental
illness, and the urge to share her story. Truest features a mixed array of likable and quirky
characters. The star of it all, Westlin, is a small town girl who thinks she has everything figured out
in life. She has a set–in–stone plan for her summer; detailing cars, going to church, hanging out with
her boyfriend, reading books, and listening to her favorite radio news show called August Arms. She
sees herself as a plain girl, lucky to be where she is. She holds a very close relationship to her father,
the town's priest and savior, and overall she's accepted the role as the 'pastor's daughter'. Everything
is perfect, until she meets the twins. Silas and his stranger sister Laurel,

Empathy Essay Outline
Presenter Sheet; Outline
Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, 'Foreword' and 'Chapter II. The
Essence of Acts of Empathy' (pp. 1–35).
1. Intro
2. Objective
a. Stein's object of inquiry is to designate the basic essence of empathy.
b. A foundation not based on existing conclusions.
c. What is the basic structure of empathy?
d. "I recognized this basic problem to be the question of empathy as the perceiving [Erfahrung] of
foreign subjects and their experience [Erleben]."
3. Following Edmund Husserl's phenomenological reduction
a. Suspension or Bracketing
b. Natural Attitude
c. Radical Doubt
d. Leaves us with the experience of phenomena
e. Without positing existence.
f. We do not have indubitable knowledge of the "I" through memory of the past as Stein explains (as
we can be deceived ie: "My whole past could be dreamed or be a deceptive recollection." ) Therefor
this must be excluded as per Husserls bracketing or suspension.(Because there is doubt). The only
way we come to know "I" is in phenomenon, "'I' am in experience and only in it. Because the
experience is indubitable, the "I" becomes ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Stein intends to avoid identification or confusion of the individual consciousness experiencing
empathy and the consciousness with that of the person of toward the empathic intention is directed.
As stein notes if the two subjects were to become one the condition for empathic apprehension
would be invalid. So one does not directly enter the mind of the "other". "I" of the empathizing
subject must retain its monadic character while it is submerged in the foreign experience. To
suppose the boundaries separating one consciousness from another collapsed is precisely one way of
failing to be empathetic. If one can enter the mind directly of another, then it breaks down their "I".
What makes us individual and not one mass consciousness is the inability for others to directly enter
into our experience. This can become tricky because it tends toward the paradox of

An Analysis of Solipsism in Kant’s Critique of Pure...
An Analysis of Solipsism in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
My goal is to examine solipsism and discover how Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism could
be subject to a charge of being solipsistic. Following this, I will briefly review the destructive
impact this charge would have on certain of Kant's positions. After the case for solipsism is made, I
intend to describe a possible line of rebuttal from Kant's perspective that could be made to the
charge.
The issue of solipsism is intriguing in that it seems to be universally rejected as a basis of
metaphysics. Yet, the modern tradition has had difficulty supporting this rejection. Antony Flew
defines solipsism as, "The theory that I am the sole existent. To be a solipsist I ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Thereafter, the modern tradition was challenged to prove the existence of an external world and the
existence of other minds. "Once we concede...that the immediate objects of sense experience are
mind–dependent (ideas, impressions, sense data, etc.), it is indeed questionable whether we can
argue validly to the existence or nature of a mind–independent external world." (Flew: 330)
Within the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant affirms that our capacity to perceive objects in the external
world is dependent upon the subject's imposition of certain conditions of the possibility of
experience. Time, space and the categories are among these. Thus, human beings are capable of
viewing only the appearance and not things as they are in themselves.
Now a thing in itself cannot be known through mere relations; and we may therefore conclude that
since outer sense gives us nothing but mere relations, this sense can contain in its representation
only the relation of an object to the subject, and not the inner properties of the object in itself. This
also holds true of inner sense, not only because the representations of the outer senses constitute the
proper material with which we occupy our mind, but because the time in which we set these
representations, which is itself antecedent to the consciousness of them in experience, and which
underlies them as the formal condition of the mode in which we posit them in the

Analysis Of The Book ' 1984 ' By George Orwell
1984 was written by British author George Orwell. The main character is an average man by the
name of Winston Smith. Winston does not agree with the ideals of the party; this gets him arrested
by the thought police. 1984 proclaims what could happen if people just let the government do all
their thinking for them. 1.In the world of 1984, what is considered orthodox is not the same as the
actual world. In the book in order to be considered orthodox one must never question the party or
have any individual thoughts of their own. Winston was not willing to conform to the society around
him, at least not till the end. O'Brien tortured Winston, so he would believe everything that the party
told him. In the end of the book, Winston had become a completely orthodox person. 2. Solipsism is
the theory that only the self exists. Winston is tortured by O'Brien; O'Brien is trying to get Winston
to stop believing in the outside world. However, he insists that he is not trying to get Winston to
believe in solipsism. 3. The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism is the name of
Goldstein's book. Goldstein is the leader of the underground society against Big Brother; this society
is often called the Brotherhood. Goldstein wrote about the Party's three slogans and their meanings.
He explained the totalitarian government and also mentioned that the government does not care for
the people past them being obedient, mindless robots. 4. Throughout the book many unique words
are used;

Idealism And Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
Berkeleyan Idealism and Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
Jorge Luis Borges' short work of fiction titled "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" grapples with many
philosophic issues. In the main, this short story deals with the philosophic notion of subjective
idealism as posed by George Berkeley's Treatise Concerning Principles of Human Knowledge.
Within this essay I argue that, while he acknowledges the presumed irrefutability of Berkeley's
argument, Borges' "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" aims to disparage both totalitarianism and
Berkeleyan idealism by drawing an analogy between the two via his literary creation of the fictitious
world of Tlön.
The notion of subjective idealism, within western philosophy, is credited to the 18th century
philosopher George Berkeley. In his most notable work regarding this system of metaphysics, a
Treatise Concerning Principles of Human Knowledge, Berkeley holds that nothing exists outside of
the immaterial ideas within minds. "Esse est percipi" or "to be is to be perceived" (Berkeley,11).
Berkley's form of subjective idealism is able to avoid the problem of solipsism by his holding that
the totality of perceived ideas reside in the mind of God. This monistic system of metaphysics runs
contra to the earlier works of Locke and Descartes whose relative theories assumed a dualist stance
concerning metaphysics. The philosophic relevance of subjective idealism is conveyed by Borges in
"Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius," when he cites David Hume who held "that

Rene Descartes Trademark Model
Rene Descartes Meditation 3 [Philosophy Tube. 2015. Descartes' Trademark Proof of God –
Philosophy Tube. [Online]. 22 August 2015. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=PdND4B76dvc] Trademark argument and YouTube Philosophy tube (insert link). I would argue
that Descartes had the knowledge of God before his hypnotises so I conclude its the reality that gave
him the information of God (He learnt it though experience of reality) and not God himself, if he
exists giving him this information thought the trademark agreement. Here I would like to include my
hypothesis. I must, first start at the beginning, we must first define the question into its premises. of
which are; Does [noun] exist? , Does a [singular] deity exist? and Does

The Simplicity of Solipsism Essay
In life, there's much that seems confusing. We always want simple explanations for everything, but
there are some theories that simply don't possess an "easy way of putting it." Many of these theories
are used in literature; examples include nihilism, existentialism, and monism. However, there's one
theory that's particularly interesting: solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists, or can be
proven to exist, except one's own mind and the creations of it (Glossary). Solipsism is a very old,
and often misunderstood, theory. Although it's used in literature, in books such as Grendel by John
Gardner, solipsism also occurs in everyday life. However, it's not always easy to find. If we wish to
do so, we must to take time to ponder. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts,
experiences, and emotions other than his own" (Thornton). This states that a solipsist doesn't
necessarily believe only he or she exists, although it's possible. More precisely, the person is able to
acknowledge that others' thoughts, emotions, etc. may exist, however he or she can't find real proof
that anyone but him or herself subsists. Concisely, a true solipsist comprehends, for example, the
word "pain" as "my pain." The person cannot perceive how this word is to be applied in any sense
other than this exclusively egocentric one (Thornton). Although there has yet to be a person who has
considered him or herself a solipsist, there is a type of person who could be thought of as one: a
child. Children below age six perceive the world differently than we do. "The infant sees the world
as populated by objects which come in and out of view, [...] therefore, [...] in and out of existence.
Epistemically the infant's world is utterly solipsistic" (Flanagan 144). When we think about it, this
makes sense. A child doesn't care about something unless it's in his or her sight, since it's all that the
child knows to exist at that moment. Everything in the child's universe is whatever he or she
perceives it as in any given instant. For example, a child "will not search for a treasured rattle

Thomas Nagel What Does It All Mean Summary
Christine Fleitas Thomas Nagel introduces intriguing questions of philosophy in his book, "What
Does It All Mean?" Throughout the book, Nagel brings up controversial topics and problems that are
dealt with in our everyday lives. This book takes your mind into another world, questioning the
meaning of our existence and investigating the unknown because we believe that there is more out
there than meets the eyes. First, Nagel presents us with a controversial topic that makes you question
your own beliefs and thoughts towards something we have known to exist. Secondly, Nagel presents
to us free will and whether or not we even have any, or if it has already been predetermined making
it inevitable to decide our own path. Lastly, Nagel presents the most thought of question, "What is
the meaning of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If you were to take determinism as a true representation of life, then that would mean choosing the
BMW was already meant to occur and the Honda was never really an option for you. This view may
be a little tricky to comprehend, as it is hard to grasp the whole idea of it. Nagel expresses his view
on this topic, stating that if determinism were true, there would be serious consequences. Diving in
to this view, we can argue that every event is already determined in advance, leaving no room for
possibility anywhere. If for instance, your friend Bryan were to borrow your clothes without
permission, there would be no point of blaming him for his actions since it was already determined
he would do such a thing. This concept is controversial because if everything was already
determined, then who would be held responsible for their actions. If you were to apply this then it
wouldn't be right of you to pick a fight with Bryan since the future is already determined and there is
no wrong doing on his

Why Is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein A Supporter Of The...
There is some debate on the true purpose behind Mary Shelley's legendary novel Frankenstein.
There are those that believe Mary Shelley was a Supporter of the Romantic Movement and that her
work challenges the, previously accepted, neoclassical beliefs of avoiding extremes. However, there
seems to be more evidence showing that Mary Shelley, in fact, reinforced neoclassical values.
Rather than making her main character, Frankenstein, a tragic hero, glorifying his faults, and
ultimately supporting the Romantic Movement, Shelley scrutinizes Frankenstein for his errors. Also,
perhaps because of Shelley's Neoclassical ideals, Frankenstein reveals himself as a solipsist time
and time again throughout the novel. Mary Shelley's exemplifies Frankenstein's ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
It begins with the death of his brother, William, and continues on. Eventually, all those who
Frankenstein holds dear die at the hand of the creature. Because these deaths are cause by the
creature Frankenstein created, he personally feels responsible. Yet, despite this he refuses to admit
his faults at the risk of humiliating himself. He states "she died for it; and I am the cause of this–I
murdered her. William, Justine, and Henry–they all died by my hands.'...I am the assassin of those
most innocent victims; they died by my machinations" he continues on to say "I avoided explanation
and maintained a continual silence concerning the wretch I had created. I had a persuasion that I
should be supposed mad, and this in itself would forever have chained my tongue" (228). This is just
another occasion in which Frankenstein is showing his true solipsism. In reflection, he knows he is
responsible for the death of his loved ones but he avoids confessing his creation of the creature
because he doesn't want people to think he is mad. Frankenstein seems to put his status before being
honest and keeping his loved ones safe. If it weren't for his ego, and his self–containment he would
not have strayed from the middle path, he would not have created the creature, and his loved ones
would still be

What Is Bonjour's Argument?
Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two
intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will
lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming
from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes
impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the
relationship between the two arguments.
BonJour begins his first part of the dialectical argument by reflecting on the nature of knowledge
and experience (4). BonJour holds a broadly foundationalist perspective in which certain beliefs are
basic (4). These beliefs ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For any argument, the intended conclusion will either be within the premises or it will not (BonJour
6). If it is included within the premises it will simply demonstrate that the whole process of
argumentation is unnecessary (BonJour 6). This would defeat itself and undermine the whole
concept of discourse itself. If the conclusion is not among the premises than it must be a priori
(BonJour 6). Only if we accept the conditional that premises lead to the conclusion, can we have any
discourse at all, and this can only be done through a priori justification (BonJour, 6).
BonJour manages to defend the claim that a priori justification is necessary in order to avoid a
severe, indefensible skepticism and demonstrates that any argument against a priori justification
would undermine itself. This dialectical argument demonstrates that a denial of a priori justification
is not only unsatisfactory, but impossible for the sake or argumentation. An empiricist critic could
only appeal to pragmatism while accepting skepticism or surmount the impossible task of empirical
justification of inference. This dialectical argument is by far BonJour's

Nozick's Theory Of False Reality
Our perception of the world around us is entirely dependant on the validity of reality. Our world
could be produced or simulated by some sort of machine, or life is actually just a dream someone
dreamt up one night. Reality is dependent on our perception, which is affected by what truly exists.
Meaning that if we, as a single person, are the only thing that actually exists, then that proves that
reality is indeed not real. But considering this point is considered Solipsism, there's enough evidence
to go against it. Disproving solipsism is the key to support the idea that reality is real. The
philosophical theory of a false reality can be traced all the way back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave,
where 3 prisoners are trapped in a cave and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
And if that is the case, then there is a good chance that other people don't exist as well. Of course,
even if the world around us isn't true, humanity could all be under the same illusion. As Hilary
Putnam puts it, "Instead of having just one brain in a vat, we could imagine that all human beings
(perhaps all sentient beings) are brains in a vat (or nervous systems in a vat in case some beings with
just nervous systems count as "sentient"). Of course, the evil scientist would have to be outside? or
would he? Perhaps there is no evil scientist, perhaps (though this is absurd) the universe just
happens to consist of automatic machinery tending a vat full of brains and nervous systems. This
time let us suppose that the automatic machinery is programmed to give us all a collective
hallucination, rather than a number of separate unrelated hallucinations. Thus, when I seem to
myself to be talking to you, you seem

What Is Solipsistic Little Godism In The Crimes Of Gabriel...
In "The Crime of Gabriel Gale" by G. K. Chesterton, Chesterton demonstrates solipsistic little
godism through the young character Herbert Saunders, a seminary student and new–found
solipsistic little godist. Solipsism is defined as the belief in only two things: one's own existence and
what they are presently imagining. A solipsist does not believe that the outside world is actually
there, he just believes that he imagined it. Extreme solipsists may be referred to "solipsistic little
godists," as they wholeheartedly believe that they created their own interpretation of the world and
are therefore in control of everything that happens. One may be a solipsist without being a little
godist, but being a solipsist is prerequisite for one to be a little godist, as little godism is an extreme
form of solipsism. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To interpret the premise that no one enjoys suffering, one must objectively define suffering. Gale
chose to pitchfork Saunders to the tree because he felt that it was a situation Saunders would never
place himself in by choice, as it was uncomfortable and potentially life–threatening, had a tornado
ensued or if lightning struck the tree. However, Gale could not possibly know with absolute
certainty that Saunders would never choose this for himself. Gale and Saunders were not close
friends prior to this event, and Gale could never possibly guess Saunders' future desires or
preferences. If Saunders secretly enjoyed thunderstorms, or pitchforks, or being suspended from a
tree, this method of "proving" that Saunders is not a Little God would not work; rather, it would
only reinforce Saunders' beliefs. Therefore, this treatment is contingent on the belief that Saunders
does not enjoy the situation Gale placed him in, which Gale could not possibly know at the time.
Ultimately, this treatment worked mostly due to a lucky guess on Gale's part, not an objectively,
absolutely true idea of

Grendel's Idiotic War
In the first chapter of Grendel, we are presented with a natural philosophy that the world is a
constant ongoing cycle, otherwise known as orphic philosophy. At the very beginning, Grendel
shares with us that it is "the twelfth year of [his] idiotic war", and judging by his next sentence, "The
pain of it! The stupidity," he does not seem very happy about it. War is a very repetitive cycle of
battle after battle, and from this we can infer that this year of Grendel's war will not be very different
from the prior eleven. One particular element of this war that seems to never change is an old ram.
As Grendel confronts the old ram and tries to get him to leave, he becomes angered by the ram's
stupidity and speaks about how it has been like this ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One night, while Grendel is watching the mead hall, an old blind man with a harp, the Shaper,
shows up and plays for Hrothgar, the king, and his people, the Danes. "He would sing the glory of
Hrothgar's line and gild his wisdom and stir up his men to more daring deed, for a price... He sang
of battle and marriages, of funerals and hangings, the whimpering's of beaten enemies, of splendid
hunts and harvests. He sang of Hrothgar, hoarfrost white, magnificent of mind" (Gardner 42–43).
The Shaper sang of the people's history and seems to, as Stromme puts it, "create an order out of
pointless accident". This is where Grendel's solipsism is challenged, he is no longer just thinking of
his own existence as the only one that exists, he is now excepting the existence of Hrothgar, the
Danes, and the Shaper. "When he finished, the hall was as quiet as a mound. I too was silent, my ear
pressed tight against the timbers. Even to me, incredibly, he had made it all seem true and very fine"
(Gardner 43). The Shaper sings in a way that mesmerizes the Danes and even Grendel, and he puts
the pieces of history together to argue that it was a great and honorable past. What the Shaper
represents and how he speaks of the world and things resembles most the philosophy of sophism. "...
Sophists... were so skilled at

Philosophical Beliefs InGrendel, By John Gardner
While facing the death penalty for his criticism of Greek gods, ancient philosopher Socrates once
said "An unexamined life is not worth living". Socrates' belief in the necessity of scrutinizing life
can be found throughout history, in the form of philosophy. In his novel Grendel, author John
Gardner depicts the journey of the main character Grendel through a variety of philosophical beliefs.
Grendel frequently examines the philosophies he comes across, in order to determine what would be
most practical in his life. Through his interactions with other characters, Grendel is exposed to the
philosophies of solipsism, sophism, and nihilism, and ultimately rejects the former two as
preposterous and destructive while accepting the latter due to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As a result of Grendel's perception of the Shaper as harmful, sophism is depicted as a destructive
and valueless ideology. Walking through the forest, Grendel remarks that "[The Shaper] stares
strange–eyed at the mindless world and turns dry sticks to gold" (49). The phrase "stares–strange
eyed at the mindless world" highlights the Shaper's ability to alter reality. In essence, the Shaper
practices relativism, the belief that there is no objective truth. Since relativism is a key component of
sophism, the Shaper is a sophist. By turning "dry sticks to gold," it is clear that the Shaper's intends
to use his role as a sophist in order to benefit his audience; however, his impact is anything but
positive. While pondering the significance of the Shaper, Grendel states "[The Shaper] built this hall
by the power of his songs: created with casual words its grave mor(t)ality" (46–47).The Shaper uses
his position as a sophist to influence Hrothgar to create a grand hall– a seemingly positive effect.
Grendel, however, foreshadows the negative repercussion of the Shapers actions through his subtle
phrasing of "grave mor(t)ality". The foreshadowing turns out to be true, as the hall eventually
becomes the epicenter for almost all killings conducted by Grendel. The Shaper is directly
responsible for this suffering as he caused the construction of the hall. Although the Shaper might
have had positive intentions as a sophist, Grendel depicts him

Language And Synthesis Essay
Writers use specific literary devices such as analogy, juxtaposition and syntax to help shape the story
in a meaningful way. Also it allows for the reader to have clear understanding towards the
argument.In order to help the reader fully comprehend the plot, they must be a wear of sentence
fluency and structure in order to add pursasive emphasis to the text. By juxtaposing the argument
with another idea, it will relate one's senses and illustrates the aspects being compared. An author
also use analogies to bring a more personal connection from the text to reader and direct them on
how the author intended for them to feel.
A great writer will use an analogy to further the argument and allow the reader to better recognize
the connection. An ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the essay; Delivering Lily, Phillip Lopate commented that, "It would be like asking a blind
woman to waltz" (Lopate 427). First off by juxtaposing these two concepts it gives the reader a
deeper understanding of what they are going through. As a result it just created an effect that the
author was going for which was how one will now be able to picture the situation, without having
and prior experience to it. Besides the blind woman may not physically be able to see but that does
not mean that she will not have the knowledge about the basics of waltzing. Similarly Lopte also
brought up the point of how,"Detachment stands midway between two poles: at the end solipsism; at
the other wisdom" (439). The human mind will always allow room for doubts, giving us more grace
when one tries to understand how wisdom and solipsism go hand in hand. Clearly showing how
different these two are allows for reach two specific traits to be pulled out that will cause for a
deeper meaning. An author will use juxtaposition to help draw the reader's feelings into what is
being contrasted and illustrate the overarching

Summary Of The Sexual Solipsism Of Sigmund Freud
Chapter 4: Friedan discusses early American feminists and how they fought against the assumption
that the proper role of a woman was to be solely a wife and mother. She notes that they secured
important rights for women, including education, the right to pursue a career, and the right to vote.
[11] Chapter 5: In this chapter, called "The Sexual Solipsism of Sigmund Freud", Friedan, who had
a degree in psychology, criticizes Sigmund Freud (whose ideas were very influential in America at
the time of her book's publication). She notes that Freud saw women as childlike and as destined to
be housewives, once pointing out that Freud wrote, "I believe that all reforming action in law and
education would break down in front of the fact that, long ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Friedan says that this change in education arrested girls in their emotional development at a young
age, because they never had to face the painful identity crisis and subsequent maturation that comes
from dealing with many adult challenges.[11] Chapter 8: Friedan notes that the uncertainties and
fears during World War II and the Cold War made Americans long for the comfort of home, so they
tried to create an idealized home life with the father as breadwinner and the mother as housewife.
[13] Friedan notes that this was helped along by the fact that many of the women who worked
during the war filling jobs previously filled by men faced dismissal, discrimination, or hostility
when the men returned, and that educators blamed over–educated, career–focused mothers for the
maladjustment of soldiers in World War II. Yet as Friedan shows, later studies found that
overbearing mothers, not careerists, were the ones who raised maladjusted children.[11] Chapter 9:
Friedan shows that advertisers tried to encourage housewives to think of themselves as professionals
who needed many specialized products in order to do their jobs, while discouraging housewives
from having actual careers, since that would mean they would

Arguments For And Against Scepticism
Scepticism can be defined as 'A view that doubts whether any of our beliefs can be supported by
adequate or sufficient evidence.' (Richard H. Popkin, 1993, p. 182). This essay will be discussing the
arguments for and against the practise of scepticism. It will be focusing on the ideas of Socrates,
Descartes, Hume and Wittgenstein and it will elaborate on how their opinions on scepticism
contrast, in part, due to their historical setting. It will clarify and identify scepticisms role in society
and the changing role of philosophy from ancient to modern times.
Socrates began a revolution in philosophy when he 'called philosophy down from the heavens'
(Popkin, 1999, p. 23). He challenged the moral complaceny of his fellow citizens in Athens. He
embarressed them with their inabililty to answer questions such as ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
To define scepticism would go against its very principle as that definition could very well be
doubted as its true form which in turn shows the primary flaw of scepticism itself– to question
everything is to never move forward on a basis of acceptance. Therefore scepticism should be used
sparsely as questioning does help us move forward as a society. For example questioning medical
practices can help to advance a field by investing in new studies. Hume's "science of man" principal
is an example of how investing moderately in scepticism can help society. If there was an absence of
sceptics in the world we would be stuck in a never ending circle. Scepticism helps to influence
others with an opinion that may not always be the most popular. Wittgenstein gives examples just
how far scepticism can go with his arguments against Solipsism. This is the danger of scepticism;
this chosen isolation from the rest of humanity can lead to the beginning of cults and sects which
can have disastrous impacts on society. Scepticism in its finest form, is when it is balanced and used
with some common

The Nine Satanic Beliefs
Satanists are Atheists with humanist philosophies. Members of the Church of Satan believe that all
gods were created by man. So their belief is, by worshiping these invented gods, religious folk
actually worship human inventors. The Church's belief is that we, as humans, are responsible for
ourselves and not to a god. Members value characteristics such as pride, liberty, and other human
traits that some religions consider inappropriate. The Church aims to end the clash between religious
policies and natural inclinations so that members can live without guilt for doing these human
instincts and desires.
The Church of Satan was founded in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey. The religion began in San
Francisco and, over time, spread throughout the entire ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This means that responsibility and trust will go to those who are responsibility instead of going to
leeches who abuse their power. Leaders are determined, not by titles, but by their actions and
accomplishments. Real power and responsibility should be given to those who can wield it and not
to those who just demand it.
The seventh statement is, Satan represents man as just another animal. Satan represents man as just
another animal, sometimes better, sometimes not better than those that walk on all–fours. Elevating
the human species as instantly superior to other animals is just blatant self–deceit. While our
intellect as allowed us to accomplish fantastic things, which should be appreciated, it can also be
credited with terrible acts of cruelty throughout our history.
The eighth statement is, Satan represents all of the so–called sins. This means that all the so–called
sins, that lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification, that breaks a moral or religious law,
aren't actually bad and Satanism is strictly against following such herding. When a Satanist avoids a
certain action, it is because of personal, concrete, reasons. Not because the bigger groups deem it
bad. And when a Satanist realizes and action that they indulged on is wrong, the response they are
supposed to have is to accept what they did is wrong, learn from it, and not do it again instead of
beating yourself up for the

Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?
"I think, therefore I am," is a famous quote by René Descartes who is a French philosopher,
mathematician and scientist. Moreover, she is known for making the Cartesian coordinate system.
The quote centers on the idea to prove of someone's existence and to know whether or not any of the
physical objects or surroundings are an aspect of reality. The meaning of the quote was to provide
reassurance for Descartes that he did, in fact, exist as a result of his ability to think; otherwise he
would not.. Similarly, based on this ideal of existence, many popular mainstream films, such as "The
Matrix," by Andy and Lana Wachowski, and "Inception," by Christopher Nolan were produced. The
mission objective is to determine what reality is and whether ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the novel, there is great religious influence in the form of Mercerism in which there is a belief
that humans should share empathy through a device called the "empathy box," which congregates
the users' conscience into one place to connect with Mercer. When using the device, the user is
submerged into another reality, where everyone shares their feelings and emotions to one another.
After continuous usage of it however, the characters have a self–conflict of affirming their existence.
In this quote, Rick had just felt being merged with Mercer, only this time, without an empathy box.
""It 's strange," Rick said. "I had the absolute, utter, completely real illusion that I had become
Mercer and people were lobbing rocks at me. But not the way you experience it when you hold the
handles of an empathy box. When you use an empathy box you feel you 're with Mercer. The
difference is I wasn 't with anyone; I was alone." "They 're saying now that Mercer is a fake."
"Mercer isn 't a fake," he said. "Unless reality is a fake."" (Dick, 93) Rick "merges" with Mercer and
is surprised that this happened, as this is impossible without an empathy box. This shows that he
questions his existence because his experience matches with the principles of solipsism. To start
with, he firmly knows that he felt himself merge with Mercer. For the second criteria, however, there
was a physical and mental connection during the

How Solipsism Is The Belief That The Self Is All That Exists
Solipsism is the belief that the self is all that exists (Bailey, 338). Bertrand Russell set upon proving
whether or not to believe it was true. He concluded that it is incorrect to entertain the idea that
solipsism is true. Due to the principle of simplicity, Russell believes that the falsity of solipsism is
necessary. He says "Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties, but on the contrary tends to
simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting
it." (Russell, 124). Believing that solipsism is false makes it simpler to exist in reality and allows us
to focus on how to survive; arguing against a mind–independent reality without proper evidence to
accept a different belief is ineffective. Descartes disagreed. He believed that without God it is
impossible to know anything about the external world (what it is like or even if it exists) (Descartes,
39). Russell argues that a mind–independent reality exists even though it is impossible to know what
the materials which populate it are like (Russell, 128). He believes this in conjunction with the belief
that simplicity is sufficient to solve the problem of the external world. He embraces skepticism and
abandons the search for certainty (Russell, 125). Considering both arguments, mind–independent
reality will be defended further to prove it is the correct belief.
René Descartes thinks that the senses can deceive us about reality (Descartes, 25). This can be
observed by

Grendel Philosophies
Philosophies are the ideas formed in one's mind, often about the world and the questions we have
about it. As humans, we often pick one philosophy and stick with it. How would a monster like the
character Grendel in the novel by John Gardner react to these philosophies? Throughout the novel,
Grendel experiences and is conflicted with many different philosophies. Influenced by characters
such as the Shaper, the Dragon, and the people of Hrothgar, Grendel experiences many philosophies
such as Nihilism, Solipsism, and Machiavellianism.
One of the major philosophies in the novel Grendel is Nihilism. Nihilism is the rejection of moral
and religious principles, and the belief that life is small and meaningless. In the first few pages of
the novel, John Gardner states that "He cocks his head like an elderly, slow–witted king, considers
his angles, decides to ignore me. I stamp. I hammer the ground with my fists. I hurl a skull–size
stone at him. He will not budge." (Gardner, 5). Here is a snippet of Grendel's hatred towards life and
even nature. Throughout the novel, Grendel proves to the reader that he doesn't really care about
anybody except for himself. In this quote, Grendel sees a ram and tries to make it leave, only to fail.
The ram just stays where it is and ignores Grendel, even when Grendel yells and throws a large rock
at it. As John Gardner states, "I understood that the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of
casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes

Knowledge And Knowledge: The Concepts Of Innate Knowledge
In this world we live in, it revolves around knowledge and wisdom. As humans, we always crave for
something more–more about things we know, knowledge about things we don't know about.
Therefore, we dig deeper to know more about ourselves, don't we?
Knowledge, as defined, is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained
through experience or association. Every day that we face bears new experiences which we
encounter for us to learn. If so, we can, therefore, assume that all of the knowledge we bear as of
now are all obtained from all of our past daily experiences and this idea contrasts the idea of innate
knowledge.
It is said that innate knowledge is the knowledge we have ever since we were born. Thus, this
knowledge will ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In this example, the person has background knowledge about apples–how they look, what is their
color, what is its shape, how does its skin look like. This example, we can relate this to reality. The
idea of the apple is real based on how we see it.
We refer things as real if the things or ideas are perceivable through the senses. The stars we see at
night, although intangible for the mean time, are real for they are seen. When we hear the chirping
of birds during the day, we can say that it is real for we have heard it. The novel book you're reading
is real for you can hold it; however, its ideas and contents are unreal for they only exist in our
minds.
Therefore, we can say that material things are real. Real in a sense that we can prove that an object
is this for it has the attributes and characteristics of its own kind because, truly, an entity is classified
according to its traits that are found similar in a class.
Material things are perceivable through our senses. They can be seen, touched, heard, felt against
one's skin, and tasted. They also occupy

Superstition : Superstition And Superstition
Jenee Smith English 1102 March 1, 2016 Superstition Superstition refers to unreasonable fear and
belief of something that is unknown. The extent of this belief and the fear is common, not only
among the illiterate, tribal and senior citizens, but even amongst the educated ones, and the people
guided by rational thoughts. Superstitions contain various types, and diverse people of various
countries are influenced by these assertions. Some people consider it as a bad sign when someone
sneezes while going out. The cry of a lizard or call from behind is measured to be a sign of
somewhat not good Level the methodically fundamental Western people reflect thirteen the unlucky
number. Behind all these superstitions, people may have some experience or unreasonable belief
which has been in common practice from generation to generation. As a matter of fact, every
community is subject to superstition in some form or the other. There seems to be no person or
community being entirely free from the superstition nature of this world (Dupré, p.23). It should be
noted that in our opinion, the notion is natural to any human being. There is nothing to think about
it. Even Shakespeare said that there are more things in heaven, and earth thus are dreamt of in our
entire philosophy. As a matter of fact, sometimes such things happen, which cannot be justified for
any reason with limited human knowledge. But if it is found that superstition proves harmful, it
should be our duty to shake off through

Why Does Solipsism Exist
One of the biggest problems in this world is human's inability to truly believe in something without
proof of it. Solipsism is the theory that defines the idea that nothing is true outside of the mind. This
can be seen all over the world ranging from religion to astrology. Many people think something
exists, yet they cannot prove it and then have doubts about it. Politics is a game of thoughts and
doubts. No one can prove what the intentions of the politicians are, so people doubt them until they
are proven. Something does not exist to someone until it is proven to our minds and this is the purest
form of solipsism. Solipsism exists everywhere because nothing is true unless it is evident in
someone's mind and to themselves. Nothing is true to us until one has personally experienced it. The
difference between sympathy and empathy is that one has personally gone through it. There is a
difference between thinking something is true and knowing something is true, and up until the point
that one knows something to be true, one will always have doubts ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The ever expanding universe is a prime example of this. There are infinite planets and stars out
there, the human race just cannot see them yet. Every year more appear because the light from them
has had more time to travel. We had no influence on these new planets, yet they are still there. The
biggest problem with solipsism is that it cannot be truly confirmed nor denied. It also depends on
each individual person and the issue. Denial of the theory is the easier side to defend because almost
the entire world believes in something that may or may not exist; a higher being. But that in itself
proves it is true because people will always have doubts about it. Moving towards simplicity,
everything exists whether or not if we know it does, it has just yet to be discovered. Disproval of the
theory is easy because of this overwhelming

The Paradox In Robert Heinlein's 'All You Zombies'
"All You Zombies," by Robert Heinlein, is a famous science fiction story that entwined one of the
best paradoxes. The idea of one person being everyone, including her own mother, father and
daughter and has to continuously leap through time to be able to exist. Despite that paradox isn't
revealed until near the end of the story, it is symbolised through the bartenders ring of a snake eating
it's own tail. Heinlein also shows how the paradox might affect a person's view of the world through
the idea of solipsism. The main point, however, is how the paradox is literally everything in the
story. The "Unmarried Mother,' or Jane before the sex change, is the protagonist in the story, and all
the other characters of the story as well. Although in most cases this would be impossible, the story
is a paradox. A paradox, something that seems possible until further investigated and found that it is
logically unacceptable, is the very reason Jane exists. Jane was unknowingly born a hermaphrodite,
and lived unhappily in an orphanage. As the story progressed, she meets a man ... Show more
Near the end of the story, Jane travels to their personal quarters and thinks about presence. "I know
where I came from– but where did all you zombies come from?... You Aren't really there at all.
There isn't anybody but me–jane– here alone in the dark," knowing that their life is based off a
paradox, Jane starts to wonder how everything else is out there before stating that there is only Jane.
This way of thinking is Solipsism, the idea that the mind is the only thing that can be known to exist
and anything outside the mind is unwarranted. This is a motivation for Jane to continue to replay the
paradox over and over again, because Jane is everything. Jane is every person, Jane is the reason
behind everything and Jane is the

Consciousness Arguments Against Turing's Test
The consciousness argument is the strongest objection against the Turing's test. Machines act by
interpreting symbols based on given rules. If they follow rules and interprets symbols, then the
programmers influence their actions, not their own thoughts and feelings. Since their own thoughts
and feelings do not influence their actions, they are not truly aware of how these actions can affect
their emotions and the surroundings. If machines are not aware of their behaviors, they are not
conscious. Without consciousness, machines cannot have minds. Therefore, the Turing's test is not
sufficient to prove that machines can think. Turing doesn't respond directly to each premises of this
argument, instead he responds to its conclusion that machines are not conscious. To begin with,
Turing follows the consciousness objection's line of thought and states that the only possible method
to know if a machine can think or not is to literally become that machine. Similarly, the only
possible method to know if a person can think or not is to literally be that person. According to
Turing, these statements represent the perspective of solipsism, the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The machines can now give oral responses instead of written responses, also known as a "viva
voce". Humans conclude that they have conscious through their conversations about feelings. If
humans can conclude through that method, then it is possible for machines to do it too (?). If a
machine can have intelligent conversation with the judges about its work or creation, then that
machine is aware of its action. If a machine is aware of its action, then it is conscious which also
means it has a mind. Lastly, Turing believes that the concept of consciousness is not relevant to his
question about whether a machine can pass the imitation game. The result of the test is not affected
by consciousness

Soliloquy Of The Solipsist By Sylvia Plath Literary Devices
"My imagination makes me human and makes me a fool; it gives me all the world and exiles me
from it." Sylvia Plath was a poet in the mid–twentieth century who was best known for her dreary
and depressing work. This poem, the Soliloquy of the Solipsist was one of her earlier poems being
written in 1956. This piece takes the theory of solipsism, which was developed by Rene Descartes,
and creates a story of living the life of a solipsist. Sylvia Plath uses imagery, enjambment, and
metaphors in her poem Soliloquy of the Solipsist to express her feelings of isolation and to escape
her powerlessness in daily life as a result of her new, romantic relationship.
Solipsism is the theory that the self is the only thing that can be known to exist. This came from
Rene Descartes, a french philosopher in the early 1600s. He was searching for something that can be
known as a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
She went from being the star poet of her life to having to share that spotlight with someone else. In
1956 when they met, Hughes was already a developed and famous poet, so not only did Plath have
to struggle to make a name for herself in the first place, but she had to fight against the shadow of
her husband. Their relationship developed very quickly; after meeting at a party in February of
1956, they started a relationship and then got married in June of 1956. Then, that November Plath
wrote Soliloquy of the Solipsist. In a sense, this poem was a coping mechanism to adjust to her
marriage. From the last stanza, we can assume the lover, who is Hughes in this instance, was very
egotistical and created a world for Plath where she felt so helpless, she eventually killed herself.
Plath did attempt suicide before she even met Hughes, so it is obvious some sort of mental illness
was already present. However, Hughes's second wife killed both herself and one of her children, so
he is a factor in both of their

Is Solipsism True?
I agree that it's difficult to attempt to reason that Solipsism is absolutely true because every
individual, as you said, has their own subjective moods, emotions, and feelings, and the idea of
taking one's own personal experiences as the absolute truth that governs reality does seem somewhat
absurd to me. However, having reviewed the material in this module, I found that I couldn't
personally devise a strong argument against Solipsism either. Even though I do believe that
conceding that the only thing that truly exists is my own mind limits my ability to learn from others
own opinions and experiences, thinking what the minds of others might actually be from the view of
Solipsism still bewilders me. If others are not actually their own individuals

What Does It All Matter Thomas Nagel Chapter Summaries
Kaylee Padron "Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics. Unlike science it
doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought...It is done by asking questions,
arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible arguments" (Nagel 4.) In Thomas Nagel's book,
"What Does it All Mean?" he wrestles questions everyone has once thought to themselves. Each
chapter answers a new question and causes the reader to meditate on what past philosophers have
once thought. Faced with questions like, "How do we know anything?", "Are we living in a
dream?", and "What is the meaning of life?" Every reader is forced to become a philosopher of his
or her own in order to provide an answer for him or herself. Chapter 2 Am I real? Do I have a brain
if I have never seen it? Is this physical world I see made up? Does anything exist outside of my own
mind? These are questions brought up my Thomas Nagel as he begins to explain the theory of
solipsism. According to Nagel, solipsism is a view that argues "your mind is the only thing that
exists" (Nagel 11.) Although he is not a solipsist himself, he explains how "you, the subject of
experience, are the only thing that exist, and there is no physical world at all" (Nagel 11.) How is
one able to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Are things determined in advance? When I am faced with decisions that can either benefit or
damage me, how do I know what to always choose? In Nagel's book, What Does it All Mean? He
discusses a basic life decision of what to eat for dessert. Should one eat the peach that is healthier
and will benefit us or the piece of chocolate cake filled with calories and sugar? Every day we are
faced with decisions, both easy and challenging ones. We are faced with decisions we do not even
realize we are making, like brushing your teeth in the morning. In our lifetime we are also faced and
with life altering decisions like making a big move to a new transfer

Within A Dream Argument
Edgar Allen Poe, a poet whose sanity was often debated, wrote the following poem, which
questioned the very nature of reality itself: "A Dream within a Dream". Each of the two stanzas
illustrates a one–sided conversation with two subtly differentiated audiences. The first seems to be
an argumentative statement of which the speaker is presenting to someone lacking his worldview,
who likely regards the speaker as less than sane. Although, despite his assertions, the speaker
himself does not seem to comprehend the magnitude of their content until the second stanza, where
he is depicted to be symbolically losing his grasp on material reality. Knowing this, "A Dream
within a Dream" can be appreciated as an expression of Poe's philosophical solipsism, ... Show more
This shift, although somewhat prominent in the transition of stanzas, is clearly disclosed with the
repetition of the phrase at the end of each. With the simple addition of one word, the nearly identical
couplet is transformed from an argumentative statement to an existential question, weighted with
solipsistic despair. Although he was previously aware of his own worldview, it was not until he
argued for its sake that he realized the emotional magnitude of such philosophy. The second stanza
serves as an avenue of self–revelation for the speaker, suddenly frantic for material fulfillment in his
existence devoid of

How Do I Know That I Am? Essay
How do I know that I am going to die? Solipsism says that I have no clue. Solipsism is the
philosophical idea that the only thing that can be known to exist is one's own mind and everything
outside of one's mind cannot be proven real. I believe that solipsism false. If solipsism was true I
would be living a much more luxurious life. I would live in a large house and travel. Solipsism
cannot be proven false but I dare someone prove it true because it cannot be proven true. Why
believe something that I cannot prove true? In this paper I will prove to you with logic and
reasoning why solipsism is false.
If solipsism was true and that only I exist then why is it that I have no control over the different
occurrences in my life? Why am I going to school? Why can't I just skip school and get a job. Then
why do I need a job when I can just become rich? My life would consist of traveling and activities
that I would enjoy. The idea that the only thing that exists is your mind is ludacris. All that I know
and understand is the external world. This is my life. Why try to even entertain an idea that is similar
to the movie The Matrix? If everything existed only in my mind there would be no war, no
starvation, and pollution would never exist. I would be living, in my mind, in an utopian society
where everyone flourished. Instead I am taking time out to write a paper in order to learn about
solipsism and a different way of thinking.
"You've never seen your brain –– you just assume that

Human Consciousness
Human Consciousness
A Portrait of the Brain
Through Theories and Discussion A hemispherectomy is a surgical process in which the brain of a
patient is halved and one of these parts is then removed. The procedure is only ever carried out on
individuals who are very young, as their brains are still flexible, pliable enough that the remaining
portion will then take on the functions of the half that had been removed. Though this process is
rather rare, only carried out when the child in question is experiences dramatic seizures that can only
be halted in this way, it brings a crucial element to the table, far beyond the medical benefit for one.
Hemispherectomies prove that patients can survive with only half of the brain, and thus, if the ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The question is the thought behind the idea of Solipsism.
Solipsism is the philosophical belief that the consciousness of one is sure to exist, but the world as
one experiences it, as well as the mind of others, do no exist, as they cannot be known. Stephen P.
Thornton (2014) comments that there is no sound way to prove that our individual reality is true, as
all we have is what is merely perceived as our reality, or in more specific terms, what the brain
perceives. The solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could possibly be other
thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In layman's terms, in this definition it is
understood that the word 'pain' refers and means to simply 'my pain' and cannot then accordingly
conceive how this world is applied to any sense other than this "exclusively egocentric" one.
The theory of Solipsism is directly related to the Problem of Other Minds, as Thornton (2014)
explains – which is the inability to justify that near universal belief that the minds of others are very
much like the minds of our own. This delves not only into the thought of psychology, but also into
the regions of philosophy, making it nearly impossibly to study from a purely psychological
perspective. What is known is the experiencing of one's own conscious, but this is found lacking
when one cannot know if another is experiencing the same. In basis, it is the asking if it is possible
for a being to exist as a philosophical

The Individual Versus His Environment In The Stranger And...

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Diana Oliva

More from Diana Oliva (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Individual Versus His Environment In The Stranger And...