David Hume and Immanuel Kant on the Self - Assignment Example

Philosophy 30th April, Philosophy Final Assignment David Hume and Immanuel Kant on the Self A critical look of Hume’s view of the self shows that Hume’s conception of the self is just an offshoot of his epistemology. In his epistemology, Hume held that all ideas have their origin in sense experience; Hume actually believed that all ideas are derived from sense experience. For Hume, therefore, it is impossible to have ideas of things that we cannot sense or we cannot have their impressions. In his views conception of the self, therefore, David Hume argued that there is nothing like self simply because we cannot have impressions of the self. Hume claimed that in his reflections on the self, he learnt that it is impossible to have a unified impression of self without the particular perceptions. Hume argued that whenever he thinks about the concept of self, what he finds are particular perceptions such as heat or cold, love or hate, or pleasure or pain. Hume argued that these particular perceptions do not exist as a unified entity that can be termed self, Hume says, “ Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time” (Selby-Bigger, 294). For this reason, therefore, Hume concluded self is an illusion, and that what we call self is a bundle of sensations. Unlike Hume, however, Immanuel Kant held that self is a reality and that we are able to know the self. Kant’s conception of the self is also an offshoot of his Epistemology. In his theory of knowledge, Immanuel Kant taught that there are two sources of human knowledge, which are sensibility and understanding. According to Immanuel Kant, sensibility gives us objects, while the understanding thinks and reasons about the given objects. For Kant, therefore, it is possible for us to have knowledge of things which have no direct impressions. Kant, therefore, argued that by looking for the self in sense impressions, Hume was 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. For Kant, the self is what Rene Descartes had termed as the thinking I. Paul Sartre By arguing that existence precedes essence, Sartre meant that human beings are born indeterminate, or without their essence, and that it is human beings themselves who make up their essence. According to Sartre, human beings are not determined, before they are born, what they will be in life. For this reason, therefore, Sartre viewed human beings as existing first before they determine their essence of what they will be in life. According to Sartre, human beings are born with the freedom and the ability to become whatever they want to become in life; this in essence means that human beings are born with the freedom and the ability to form their own essence. For this reason, therefore, Sartre conceived existence in human beings preceding essence. Sartre’s 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. According to Sartre, in human existence, nothingness enables human beings to choose to become what they want to be in life. This is because, according to Sartre, the principle of nothingness is a necessarily condition for becoming. Without nothingness for Sartre, therefore, no change or becoming is possible. According to Sartre, therefore, nothingness, enables human beings to change and to become what they want to become in life. According to Sartre, nothingness and freedom are closely related. This is because, for Sartre, these two principles are necessarily conditions for becoming or change. For this reason, therefore, human beings, for Sartre, need both nothingness and freedom in order to be able to become what they want to be in life. Rene Descartes’ Arguments In the dreaming argument, Descartes argues it is possible that we think we are wakeful and conscious, while in fact we may be dreaming. Descartes argues in the dreaming argument that, when we are dreaming, we tend to think that we are wakeful and conscious. For this reason, therefore, Descartes concluded that it is possible that when we think that we are wakeful and conscious, we may be in fact dreaming. In the evil demon argument, Descartes argued that whatever we regard as true may be all deceptions of an evil demon. Descartes contends in this argument that all the ideas that we regard as true may not at all be true, but might be deception of an evil demon. Descartes argued in this argument that, unless we have enough reasons to believe that what we regard as is true is, indeed true, all our beliefs may be deceptions of an evil demon. The dreaming argument is supposed to show that our knowledge may be some unconscious beliefs that we hold, without consciously investigating the reasons on which the knowledge is based. The evil demon argument, on the other hand, is supposed to show that our arguments may not be based on sound logical reasoning and facts. The evil demon argument is meant to show that our beliefs may be some lies that some wise and evil people may have made us to believe 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 living, and that we are thinking. For Descartes, although we can doubt anything else in the world, we cannot doubt our thinking self. Synthetic Clone In my view, we will never be able to say, at any point, that the clone has become my deceased friend. The following are the three main reasons why I believe that there is no point at which we will be able to say that the synthetic clone has become my friend. To begin with, no matter how closely the synthetic clone may be made to assume the characteristics and the qualities of my deceased friend, the synthetic clone, however, will never be able to have all the qualities and the characteristics of my friend. The synthetic may closely resemble my deceased friend in speech, mannerisms, and memory, but the synthetic clone will never be able to have all the qualities and characteristics of my friend. Secondly, the synthetic clone will never have the same identity and individuality as my deceased friend. This is because according to the metaphysical principle of identity and individuality, no two things can share identity and individuality, irrespective of how closely the two resemble; not even identical twins can share identity and individuality. For this reason, therefore, since the synthetic clone can never have the same identity and individuality as my deceased friend, there is no point at which we can say that the synthetic clone has become 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 still not replace my deceased friend because I don’t moan the death of my friend only because of his characteristics and qualities. I normally moan my deceased friend because of who he is to me as a person, but not because of his/her characteristics and qualities. For that reason, therefore, there is no point at which we will be able to 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 a false argument. This is because 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 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 find meaningful; People want to continue living and they do not want to die. The other thing that people are afraid of in their fear of death is what will happen after death. People are normally uncertain of what happens after death. Although many world religions promise a happy life after death for those who have lived their earthly life well; despite this fact, however, many people are 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 long as possible, the nature of reality, however, demands that at one point in our lives we must cease existing and die. This fact shows that humanely desires are sometimes are opposed to the true nature of reality. Read More