This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dualism is the view that a person is composed of two different kinds of things: a physical body, and a non-physical mind. Specifically, there are three different kinds of dualism: predicate dualism, property dualism, and substance dualism. Predicate dualism is the fact that describing things in mental terms cannot be adequately replaced by description with physical terms. Property dualism is the fact that there are mental properties that cannot be said to consist only of physical properties. If someone believes in property dualism, then they automatically assume predicate dualism, also. Substance dualism is the fact that there are mental things or substances, which are fundamentally different in kind from physical things. Descartes deals with all three of these kinds of dualism. (new paragraph) One argument for dualism says that I can conceive of my mind existing without my brain, so it¶s possible for my mind to exist without my brain, therefore, my mind is distinct from my brain. This argument does not work because no one can be for sure of what Descartes means by the word ³possible.´ If something is possible, it does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen or that it is true. This argument is like saying I can conceive of a pink elephant being in this room, so it¶s possible that a pink elephant is in this room, therefore a pink elephant is in this room. As you can see, just because one can conceive of something does not imply the truth of that statement. 2. The memory theory of personal identity says that a certain person (Person A) could resemble a different person (Person B) at a later time if and only if Person B remembers Person A¶s experiences. There are many different types of memory, but the memory involved with this theory is genuine experimental. Genuine memory means seeming to remember, and being right, while experimental memorymeans remembering first-person experiences. This means that Person B remembers Person A¶s experiences from the inside, as if they happened to B, and they really did happen to B. This means that Person B could not have genuine experimental memory of Person A¶s experiences unless B=A.(new paragraph)One objection to the memory theory is that the account is circular.
If Frankfurt is to describe free will by our desires and our wants. Frankfurt¶s account of free will shows us why free will is something we care about and want to have. He thought that ³God exists´ was true by definition. and because God is greatest being. has most of A¶s personality. Anselm says that God is the greatest being because of all of these things. for that matter. omnipotent. values. If someone has genuine experimental memory of an event. all-powerful. Every person has free will.´ all good. all knowing. a person is a creature with a certain kind of will and a being with second-order volitions. According to Frankfurt. hopes. and is satisfied at the achievement of A¶s goals. and desires. the memory theory uses the identity relation in an attempt to explain it. and they really did experience that event. but not everyone will desire the same things. The memory theory could be modified by saying that Person A is the same as Person B if and only if B apparently remembers most of A¶s experiences. A second-order volition is a desire that a certain desire be your will. then God exists (something that does . Basically A=B if an only if B seems to remember A¶s experiences and B=A. Thus.It is the conformity of the will to 2nd order volitions. Some people may not have any desires. Frankfurt does not have enough evidence to say that people¶s desires are structured in this manner. The ability to have 2nd order volitions makes free will possible. and ³omni-benevolent. 4. then they seem to remember experiencing that event. (new paragraph) Even though Frankfurt presents some very interesting points.Saying that B has genuine experimental memory of A¶s experiences already implies that B=A. regrets A¶s wrong-doings. Anselm¶s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God tries to prove that God exists just by reflecting on the definition of God. attachments. He says God is omniscient. he must clarifybecause some people may have conflicting 2nd order desires and wants. I do not think this is a plausible theory of free will. 3. To have free will means wanting what you want to want.
(new paragraph)I think that Aquinas¶ argument is valid and the conclusion follows from all of his premises. he states that mindless physical objects always act the same way towards what is best. This conclusion. Other than the first premise. 6. which directs nature: God. Some people could question the truth of this premise because Aquinas is making a big generalization by saying this. this argument would make a great argument for the existence of God. it follows that if God exists. I think that the rest of the argument is believable and makes sense. 5. Anselm¶s argument does not make much sense. anyone could prove the existence of anything. the child would not have suffered. Even if you change the first premise to read. but on purpose. they achieve their end. besides God. he concludes that there is some intelligence. First he states that mindless physical objects always act the same way towards what is best. From this. ³If God exists. No one was good and . God exists. but given the second premise. One example states that if a good person was able to save the child. obviously. The Argument from Evil for atheism uses different examples to try to prove that God does not.With this type of argument. In his first premise. Therefore by these two premises.(new paragraph) Overall. not by chance.´ the argument would still not be very clear. The first premise seems true by definition. When you combine this premise with the second premise. As long as all of his premises are true. and it is not a very strong argument. Aquinas¶ 5th Way in which he tries to prove the existence of God is particularly interesting. Therefore. then God is the greatest being. in fact. exist. Then Aquinas goes on to say something that lacks consciousness can tends toward an end only if directed by something with consciousness and intelligence. but the child did suffer. then God exists. that has intelligence that can direct nature. it cannot be true by definition unless you suppose the thing in question exists (God).not exist cannot be the greatest). it not going to convince many people in the existence of God. The conclusion makes sense because there is nothing.
Also. would create even more problems. they would realize that suffering is a natural cycle of life. there is plenty of good that can come out of suffering. all good being-God-does not exist. because of our free will. and all good being would be good and powerful enough to save a drowning child. First of all. People may become more understanding due to suffering. however. If it didn¶t. suffering is bound to happen. Suffering is not necessarily a bad thing. Anyone that says that God is non-existent because people suffer in this world needs to consider the bigger picture. whether it is a good or bad thing. There are plenty of good things that happen every single day. an omniscient. Some people chose to bring suffering upon themselves. People are able to choose what they want to do in life. we do not live in a perfect world and bad things are bound to happen. I think that these type of responses work for this argument because it is the truth. There is a God. Also. omnipotent. they just need to be balanced out by suffering. and that is the reason we are all on this Earth right now. and others suffer for various reasons. An omniscient. then we would have overpopulation. We would not appreciate the goodness of life if it weren¶t for suffering.(new paragraph) A theist would have a lot to say about this argument. omnipotent.powerful enough to save the child. Therefore. If someone were to take a step back and look at the world we live in. .