How to handle the collision between ancient religion and modern science. Most ancient religions have at their core doctrines about creation, the soul, and providence Gods concern for us. NietzscheHow to handle the collision between ancient religion and modern scienceMy basic argumentMost ancient religions have at their core doctrines about creation, the soul, and providence Gods concern for us. Scientific naturalism does not allow for any of these things.
From the philosophical archive for the constructive study of ontological dualism: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society hardbackabstract Although they are often grouped together in comparison with non-dualist theories, Plato's soul—body dualism, and Descartes' mind—body dualism, are fundamentally different.
The doctrines examined are those of the Phaedo and the Meditations.
When philosophy Descartes vs nietzsche present the '-ism's' pertinent to mind-body relations, and are still at the broad-brush stage, quite often one finds them pairing Plato and Descartes as the two most eminent dualists of our Western tradition.
As Plato to the through-and-through materialist Democritus, so Descartes to Gassendi, it is often suggested—reasonably, perhaps. As the modern non-reductive materialist to his Cartesian bete noir, so Aristotle to Plato on soul-body relations, we are sometimes told—a misleading analogy, some think.
For the purpose of contrast with various non-dualist views it may seem useful to group Plato's dualism and that of Descartes together, and in many contexts their differences may not matter. But if one simply compares the theories with each other, not with any third system, the differences are fascinating and seem important.
Of course there are similarities to sustain the initial pairing. Both philosophers argue that we consist of something incorporeal, whether one calls it 'mind' or 'soul', which for the time being is somehow united with a body that is part of the physical world.
Both hold that my mind or soul will survive the demise of the body by which I am now present to this audience— which in turn is present to me through its members' bodies.
Both may be understood as holding that the mind or soul can exist altogether independently of body, though Plato may have changed position on this point. Here I shall focus on separability of mind or soul from body in Plato's Phaedo and Descartes' Meditations. But first a word about terms. Several times already I have said 'mind or soul' as if the words meant the same, which of course they do not.
Plato consistently speaks of the soul psuchebut not so Descartes. In his preface addressed to the theologians at the Sorbonne Descartes claims that he will prove the immortality of the soul. He is using the church's label for the doctrine, but it is doubtful that what he thought he could prove is what the church means by the phrase.
Roughly, I suppose, the church's meaning spotlights the human individual minus a biological body. It is this that can sin and be forgiven, is summoned to the Last Judgement, has prayers said for its salvation.
But what Descartes believed he could show is the immortality of the mind or intellect, and although the mind, as he was for ever stressing, is prone to error and should be expected to conduct itself according to an intellectual code of conduct, its errors are not sins or offences against morality.
In more philosophical contexts Descartes explicitly distinguishes mind from soul, reserving 'soul' for that which animates the body.
In this sense of 'soul' he either denies that any such principle exists or reduces it to a physical configuration. The biological difference between a living body and a corpse is the purely physical difference between a machine in working order and one that is broken or worn out.
So what Descartes is left with, in addition to his machine-body—if his or any other body even exists, which at the beginning of the Meditations he calls into doubt—is a mind whose business is to think and imagine, but not to animate any corporeal system.Feb 23, · Descartes versus Aristotle — Battle Royale!
February 23, at pm (Critical Writing, Philosophy, Prose) I feel much less secure in this argument, and would like to note this is just an initial draft of these ideas.
This unusual book is not a typical monograph on Pascal. It is a collection of five related essays. The first, "Irony, Philosophy and the Christian Faith," sketches the argument the author intends to develop.
The second and third, on Montaigne and Descartes respectively, provide sketches of the late. Well, he wasn't too fond of Descartes's philosophy.
Descartes believed we can know something entirely through our understanding--and he used reasoning to prove that something was or wasn't the case.
But according to Kant, the only thing he proved was that he was full of shit. Moving on to Nietzsche (). Cogito, ergo sum is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am".
The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.
. - The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume.
There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. May 05, · Free Essays on Nietzsche Descartes. Search.
How Nietzsche Outwits Descartes. Friedrich Nietzsche is not only one of the most influential philosophers the world has seen, but he is also one of the most controversial.
He has influenced twentieth century thought more than .