Hume and Kant on the Self - Assignment Example

Philosophy 30th April, Final Exam: Philosophy Questions Hume and Kant on the Self Hume’s view of the self is basedon his theory of knowledge. In his theory of knowledge, David Hume held that all ideas are derived from sense experience; Hume saw ideas as nothing but memory of impressions. For Hume, impressions are the immediate sensations that we have of things. For Hume, therefore, it is impossible to have ideas of things that we do not sense or we do not have their impressions. In his views on the self, David Hume argued that there is nothing like self simply because we do not have and we cannot have impressions of the self. Hume claimed that in his reflections on self, he realized that it was impossible for him to have a unified impression of self without the particular perceptions; Hume argued that when he tries to think about the concept of self, what he stumbles upon are particular perceptions such as heat or cold, love or hate, or pleasure or pain. For this reason, therefore, Hume concluded that there is no self, but what we call self is merely a bundle of sensations In his view of the self, Immanuel Kant refuted Hume’s argument that we cannot have an idea of the self. In his epistemology, Immanuel Kant held that there are two sources of human knowledge. i.e. sensibility and understanding. This view is contrary to Hume’s view; Hume held that sensibility is the only source of human knowledge. For Kant, sensibility gives us objects, while the understanding thinks and reasons about the given objects. In his epistemology, therefore, Kant was of the view that it is indeed possible for us to have knowledge of things which have no direct impressions. For Kant, therefore, by looking for the self I in sense impressions, Hume is looking for the self in the wrong place. For Kant, the self is the entity that unifies human experiences, thus enabling human mind to synthesis sense perceptions. Sartre on Existence By saying that existence precedes essence, Sartre meant that human beings are the ones who make up, as it were, their essence. For Sartre, human beings are not determined, from the moment of their birth, what they will be in life. For this reason, therefore, Sartre viewed human beings as existing first before they determine what they will be in life. For Sartre, human beings are born with the freedom and the possibility to become whatever they want to become in life, i.e. human beings are born with the freedom and the ability to form their own essence. For Sartre, therefore, existence in human beings precedes essence. This view of human beings, however, makes human beings different from inanimate objects like dry-erase markers. This is because since inanimate objects do not have the possibility to form their own essence, essence precedes existence in inanimate objects. For Sartre, in human existence, nothingness enables human beings to choose to become what they want to become in life. This is because, for Sartre, the principle of nothingness is a pre-condition or a pre-requisite for becoming; without nothingness, therefore, no change or becoming is possible. For Sartre, therefore, nothingness, therefore, enables human beings to change and to become what they want to become in life. For Sartre, nothingness and freedom are closely related. This is because Sartre conceived these two principles as pre-conditions for becoming or change. For this reason, therefore, human beings, for Sartre, need both nothingness and freedom so as to be able to become what they want to be in life. An Explanation of Descartes’ Dreaming Argument and the evil demon argument in his Meditations Let us begin by explaining Descartes’ dreaming argument. In the dreaming argument, Rene Descartes argues that it is possible that we think that we are awake, while in fact, we may be dreaming that we are awake. Descartes argues in the dreaming argument that, when we are dreaming, we think that we are wakeful and that whatever we see is the reality. For this reason, therefore, Descartes concluded that it is possible that when we think that we are wakeful we are indeed dreaming. In the evil demon argument, Descartes argued that whatever we hold as true may be all a deception of an evil demon or an evil genius. Descartes argues in this argument that all the ideas we not at all be true, but it might be a deception of an evil demon. Descartes argued in this argument that, unless we have sufficient reason to believe that what we believe is true is indeed true, all our beliefs may be a deception of an evil demon. The first dreaming argument is supposed to show that our knowledge may be some unconscious beliefs that we hold, without consciously investigating the grounds on which our knowledge is based. On the other hand, the evil demon argument is supposed to show that our arguments may not be based on sound reasoning and facts; the evil demon argument is meant to show that our beliefs may be some lies that some wise people may have convinced us are truths. Even if both of these arguments are true, according to Descartes, the one thing that remains certain is the fact that we are, and that we are thinking. For Descartes, although we can doubt all our beliefs, we cannot, however doubt our thinking self. A Synthetic Clone In my view, we will never be able to say, at any point, that the clone has become my deceased friend. There are three main reasons why I believe that the synthetic clone will never be able to replace my friend. Firstly, no matter how closely the synthetic clone may resemble my deceased friend, the clone will never be able to have all the qualities and the characteristics of my friend. The synthetic clone may, of course, exhibit the same speech, mannerisms, and memory as my friend, but the clone will, nevertheless be able to have all the qualities of that my deceased friend had. Secondly, from the metaphysical point of view, the synthetic clone can never have the same identity and individuality as my deceased friend. This is because the metaphysical principle of identity and individuality states that nothing can share identity and individuality with another thing, no matter how much the two may resemble or may look identical. For that reason, therefore, since the synthetic clone can never have the same identity and individuality with my deceased friend, there is no point at which I can say that the synthetic clone has replaced my friend. Thirdly, even if it were possible for the synthetic clone to have all the qualities and the characteristics of my deceased friend, the clone would not replace my deceased friend because I don’t moan the death of my friend only because of his characteristics and qualities; I moan my deceased friend because of who he is to me as a person, but not only because of his/her characteristics and qualities. For that reason, therefore, there is no point at which I would say that the synthetic clone has replaced my deceased friend. Epicurus on Death Epicurus’ argument that, death does not concern us because as long as we exist death is not with us, and when it will come we will no longer be in existence is not a true argument. The fact that so many people are afraid of death shows that death does indeed concern us. Even if death is not with us as long as we exist as Epicurus rightly observes, we are, however, sure of facing death in the future. For that reason, therefore, we are concerned about death because we know that it is inevitable. When people claim to fear death, what they are really afraid of is losing life that they deem dear; People want to cling to life and they do not want to lose it. The other thing that people are afraid of in their fear of death is that they do not know exactly what happens when they die. People are unsure of what happens after death. Although many world religions promise a blissful life after death for those who have lived virtuously, many people, however, are still uncertain of what will happen after death and for that reason they are afraid of death. This fact shows that there is a gap between our desires and the nature of reality. This is because, although we desire to hold on to life as much as possible, the nature of reality, however, demands that at one point in our lives we must cease existing physically and die. This fact shows that our desires sometimes are opposed to the true nature of reality. Read More