Debate from the point of view of Descartes and Searle - Speech or Presentation Example

Only on StudentShare

Extract of sample
Debate from the point of view of Descartes and Searle

It is impossible to prove because mind is unreal.
Rene Descartes: John Searle, my argument is based upon my thoughts. I am thinking, so I exist. See, my thought or the process of thinking proves that I am real and I exist. Why you people consider mind and body as a single unit? How can you prove that mind and body are same? I can prove that mind and body are different entities. At the same time, mind and body influence each other.
Searle: We need not ponder upon the term ‘mind’ because it does not exist and it is unreal. Sir, you pointed out that mind and body influence each other. At the same time, why don’t you consider that mind is the part of body? I think the study of mind needs a satisfactory conclusion because we are arguing upon an imaginary thing without proof. When you say that the process of though proves the existence of mind, why can’t you say that the same process of thought proves that thought is an inseparable part of brain, which is real?
Descartes: For the sake of argument, please think that you do not exist in this world. You cannot prove your argument because you are real. From a different angle of view, your thought or argument is totally against your existence. To be specific, your argument that you are unreal (say, your imagination based upon your mind) proves that you are thinking. At the same time, you are totally aware of the fact that you are not unreal because your physical body is here. ...
Download paper

Summary

John Searle: Welcome, Sir Rene Descartes. I went through your work Meditations on First Philosophy, but I do not agree with your theory of dualism because you say that mind and body are different entities. It is impossible to prove because mind is unreal.
Author : rbergstrom

Related Essays

Differences between Ethics and Law "From Bioethical Point of View"
Although there is a boundary between laws and ethics, the boundary does not separate them sufficiently. This paper seeks to define law and ethics and in the process try to bring out the difference between the two. Ethics comes from the notion of rights and wrongs within a given society. These wrong and rights are based on actions we would expect others to do for us in return. We are thus forced or expected to do to other people, as we would wish them to do to us. With time, these expectations have been developed into principles that define ethics in a given society. On the other hand, laws are...
4 pages (1004 words) Essay
Descartes
What are the sources of epistemology? What are the limits and structure of epistemology? If it is considered as a study of justified belief (JB), epistemology deals to reply to such questions as: How are we able to comprehend the idea of justification? What are the factors which make these justified beliefs justify? Is this justification external or internal to one’s own mind? Broadly comprehend epistemology deals with issues of dissemination and creation of knowledge in specific areas of question. This paper talks about what epistemology is, how it relates to justified belief, what is...
5 pages (1255 words) Essay
Gambling From a Utilitarian and Deontology Point of View.
According to the study deontological and Utilitarian theories do not essentially forbid the involvement of gambling as a moral wrong but they show a moral basis which one should consider when deciding whether to dive into gambling or not. The moral status of actions relies on the character of God i.e. what is right and wrong in the eyes of God contrary to Utilitarianism that reflects the will and desires of man. Deontology may adjudicate gambling as honorably wrong. This is the case even in occurrences where nobody is hurt as a result of the act and actually successful results were achieved....
7 pages (1757 words) Essay
Locke's point on view about empiristics
Explain why Berkeley maintains that if empiricists take these ideas seriously, Locke's account actually leads to radical doubts about the existence of the material world. What solution to this problem does Berkeley think that empiricists should accept? Berkeley's solution, however, is widely seen to be highly problematic. Which of these two problems-the (alleged) problems facing Locke or Berkeley's solution to these problems-seems to be the most damaging or difficult problem facing empiricism? Why? Critically defend your position. The empiricist claim of Locke proposes that knowledge only...
2 pages (502 words) Assignment
descartes
There must be a proper procedure of metaphysical verification through which the mind can get certain of what it thinks and there must be strong emphasizing proofs for his. But later on refuting has own arguments to some extent, Rene argues that since he is certain about the fact that he is thinking about something, so he can conclude on this tautology that man is something which has the ability to think. Existence of God is one of the most important and centric circle of attention for the mediator. He builds the proofs for the existence of God by building an argument based in the human mind...
7 pages (1757 words) Essay
Descartes
Although he decided to doubt everything, at some point the Cartesian method hit a brick wall. This happens when he himself agrees to settle for an assumption in as far as the existence of God is concerned. He makes an inference by saying that God is infinite and that he cannot conceive a cause by which God is produced, this means that his perception of God is doubtable since he is unable to explain the origin of God (page 117). This explanation does not in any way prove the existence of God. It is probably the weakest argument in his work and which also shows either fear or reluctance on his...
7 pages (1757 words) Essay
Moral judgement from utilitarianism's point of view and my own
In this case, utilitarian reasoning will definitely through many people into confusion and they will find themselves in dilemmas when they are supposed to make decisions especially decisions concerning human life. Here is a case where a runway trolley is just about to kill five people. However, the runway trolley can be sidetracked using a switch and in this situation it will only kill one person and save the rest. As a person making the decision, what is the right thing to do? Because utilitarian theory suggests that, our decision must maximize the overall good, then the switch must be...
3 pages (753 words) Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you! Try us!