DOCSLIB.ORG

PHILOSOPHY of SELF 1800 FALL 2017 MWF 10-10:50Am LANG 304

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHILOSOPHY of SELF 1800 FALL 2017 MWF 10-10:50Am LANG 304 PHILOSOPHY OF SELF 1800 FALL 2017 MWF 10-10:50am LANG 304 Instructor: Dr. Samantha Langsdale OfficE: ENV 320C OfficE Hours: Tues 11 am – 2pm Email: [email protected] Course DEscription/ObjEctivEs: This course is an examination of the nature of the self through readings and discussions of classical and contemporary sources. We will explore the relationships between mind and body, individual and society, consciousness and identity, across a range of historical, cultural, and disciplinary perspectives. Course MatErials: REquirEd TExts: Philosophy of Self: souls, selves, persons and human nature REcommEndEd TExts: The Rowman and Littlefield Guide to Writing with Sources, 4th edition, by James P. Davis [978-1442205697] The instructor may provide all other reading materials for this course. These readings, as well as other pertinent and helpful information, can be found on Blackboard. If you have any issues retrieving the readings, please let the instructor know. AssessmEnt: Students’ grades will be determined by a combination of attendance record, three reaction papers, a group podcast, three exams, and one research paper. • Attendance (10%) Your regular attendance is mandatory and will be worth ten percent of your total grade. Please see Attendance Policy below for more details. • Podcasts (15%) At the beginning of the semester, you will be assigned to a group that you will work with to produce a ten minute podcast on a particular philosophy of self. Your group will be assigned a specific philosopher and be given a due date for submitting your podcast. Every person in the group must speak on the recording, and all must contribute to the planning and production of the podcast. You should practice prior to recording because, in order to receive full credit for the assignment, you need to record tEn minutEs of good, solid philosophical discussion. This assignment is worth 15% of your overall grade. You will be assessed on the overall quality of your production, on the quality of your discussion, and on your ability to work together. • REaction PapErs (15%) Three times throughout the course of the semester, you will write 500-750 words in response to the topic for any given week. This is meant to be your own personal thoughts and reflections so it may be written in the first person and contain your opinions but, you must ALSO includE at lEast onE tExtual rEfErEncE complEtE with page numbers. This is still a class assignment so you need to keep in mind that it should be neatly presented and written with a sense professionalism. These papers must be emailed to your instructor NO LATER than 5pm Sunday. The three papers together constitute 15% of your overall grade. • Exams (45%) Exam #1 (15%) will be held at the bEginning of WeEk 5 and will cover the material up to that point. The second exam will cover the assigned content and readings from weeks 5-9 of the term and is worth 15% of your final grade. The final exam (15%) will cover the assigned content and readings from weeks 10-14 of the term and may include questions regarding material covered throughout the course. All exams will consist of several short-answer questions and one long essay question. Exams 1&2 will be taken within the normal class period, Exam 3 during Finals Week. SEE thE Class SchEdulE bElow for datEs. • REsearch PapEr (15%) Students will be provided with several possible essay questions and will choose ONE on which to write a 4-5 page paper (1000-1250 words) informed by academic research. The paper must have a clear thesis statement, good organization, appropriate formatting, correct use of academic sources/accurate citations, and a bibliography. You will be required to submit a proposed title and short description of your topic in class on Oct 23rd. The paper must be submitted to TurnItIn on blackboard by NO LATER THAN 11:59pm Friday, Dec 1st. Grading Policy: This course is graded according to the requirements specified and weighted below. A = 90%+ B = 80-89% C = 70-79% D = 60-69% F = 0-59% Attendance Policy: You are required to regularly attend lectures. However, you are allowed THREE unExcused absencEs for whatever life throws your way (illness, broken alarm, hangover, existential crises, etc.). After those three absences, every subsequent absence will result in the loss of ten points from an overall total of 100 (i.e. one absence after the initial three drops you from 100 to 90; two additional absences drops you from 100 to 80). If you arE rEquirEd to miss class duE to a UNT function, or bEcausE of a religious holiday, plEasE notify mE IN ADVANCE. If you miss class, YOU AND YOU ALONE, are responsible for finding out what you missed. ADA Statement: The University of North Texas is on record as being committed to both the spirit and letter of federal equal opportunity legislation; reference Public Law 92-112 – The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. With the passage of new federal legislation entitled Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is renewed focus on providing this population with the same opportunities enjoyed by all citizens. The Office of Disability Accommodation is located in Suite 321 of the University Union building and can be reached at (940) 565 4323 and TTY (940) 369 8652 or through the Website at http://www.unt.edu/oda/index.html If you require any special accommodation, please contact me so that we can work together to ensure your success in this class. AcadEmic IntEgrity: “Academic integrity emanates from a culture that embraces the core values of trust and honesty necessary for full learning to occur. As a student-centered public research university, the University of North Texas promotes the integrity of the learning process by establishing and enforcing academic standards. Academic dishonesty breaches the mutual trust necessary in an academic environment and undermines all scholarship”. For a full look at the UNT Policy for Academic Integrity, see https://policy.unt.edu/sites/default/files/untpolicy/pdf/7-Student_Affairs- Academic_Integrity.pdf If you are caught cheating on a quiz or test, you will receive an F for that assignment. Similarly, if you plagiarize your paper, you will receive an F. This may rEsult in your failing thE class. Classroom PoliciEs & StudEnt Conduct: Students must be respectful of the Instructor, the TA, and their fellow students. Any behavior which is deemed racist, sexist, ableist or bigoted will not be tolerated. For more on appropriate conduct, see http://deanofstudents.unt.edu/sites/default/files/code_of_student_conduct.pdf I rEally, rEally HATE thE use of laptops in class. However, if you feel you learn best with the use of a laptop or tablet I would ask that you sit near the back of the room so as to reduce distraction to those around you. Also be aware that I will randomly ask you to turn your screen around so that I can see what you’re up to. You arE NOT pErmittEd to use CELL PHONES at ANY TIME! LatE/Missed AssignmEnts: If you are unable to attend class during the exams, you must notify me ASAP in order to arrange a re-take. You will not be allowed to re- take quizzes or exams for reasons other than illness, UNT functions, or religious holidays. If you submit your essay after the deadline, you will lose a letter grade for every school day that passes (i.e. if you do not submit the essay until Monday, Dec 4, the best you can hope to achieve is a b. If it is submitted on Tuesday 12/5, the best you may receive is a C). Add/Drop Schedule for Fall 2017: http://registrar.unt.edu/registration/fall-add-drop Class SchEdulE: WeEk Topic Reading Week 1 Introduction Aug. 28 Course Description/Syllabus The Syllabus (no jokes) Aug. 30 Course Description/Syllabus Mary Midgley, “Philosophical Plumbing” in Philosophy of Self (PS) 8-21 Sept. 1 Introduction & Overview Week 2 Ancient Views: Plato Sept. 4 No Class Plato, “The Allegory of the Cave” in PS 22- Sept. 6 Plato’s Cave 28 Sept. 8 In the face of death Plato “Phaedo” in PS 29-55 Week 3 Ancient Views: Aristotle Sept. 11 Aristotle Aristotle, “On the Soul” bk I in PS 74-88 Sept. 13 Soul as Self? Sept. 15 Soul as Self? Aristotle, “On the Soul” bk III in PS 57-73 Week 4 Ancient Views: Hinduism & Buddhism Sept. 18 The Upanishads “The Upanishads” in PS 128-155 Sept. 20 The Upanishads “The Perfection of Wisdom” in PS 165- Sept. 22 Mahayana Buddhism 175 Week 5 Medieval Views Sept. 25 EXAM #1 on Ancient Views Don’t freak out Sept. 27 Augustine & the will Augustine, “The Freedom of the Will” in PS 110-120 Sept. 29 Aquinas & human nature Aquinas, “Summa Theologica” in PS 121- 127 Week 6 Modern Views: Descartes Oct. 2 Descartes thinks Descartes, “Meditation I” in PS 182-186 Oct. 4 ...And thinks... Descartes, “Meditation II” in PS 187-193 Oct. 6 ...And thinks some more. Descartes, “Meditation VI” in PS 201-211 Week 7 Modern Views: Hobbes, Locke, Hume Hobbes, “The Social Contract” in PS 194- 200 Oct. 9 Hobbes is grumpy Locke, “Of Identity and Diversity” in PS Oct. 11 Locke on Identity 212-219 Oct. 13 Hume & Smith Hume, “A Treatise of Human Nature” in PS 232-239 and “Wealth of Nations” in PS 273-285 Week 8 Social Views: Smith & Marx Oct. 16 Marx the communist “Preface to Communist Manifesto” in PS 296-99 Oct. 18 Marx on labor Marx, “Alienated Labor” in PS 312-316 Oct.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Personalized A-Theory of Time and Perspective
    The Personalized A-Theory of Time and Perspective Vincent Conitzer∗ Abstract A-theorists and B-theorists debate whether the “Now” is metaphysically distinguished from other time slices. Analogously, one may ask whether the “I” is metaphysically distin- guished from other perspectives. Few philosophers would answer the second question in the affirmative. An exception is Caspar Hare, who has devoted two papers and a book to arguing for such a positive answer. In this paper, I argue that those who answer the first question in the affirmative – A-theorists – should also answer the second question in the affirmative. This is because key arguments in favor of the A-theory are more effective as arguments in favor of the resulting combined position, and key arguments against the A-theory are ineffective against the combined position. Keywords: metaphysics, philosophy of time, philosophy of self. ∗Departments of Computer Science, Economics, and Philosophy, Duke University, Box 90129, Durham, NC 27708, USA; Email: [email protected] 1 1 Introduction In a series of unconventional but lucid works, Caspar Hare has laid out and defended a theory of egocentric presentism (or, in his more recent work, perspectival realism), in which a distinguished individual’s experiences are present in a way that the experiences of others are not (Hare, 2007, 2009, 2010). Closely related ideas appear in the writings of others. One example is Valberg (2007)’s notion of the “personal horizon,” especially considering his discussion of “the truth in solipsism” and his insistence that “my” horizon is really “the” (preeminent) horizon. Merlo (2016)’s “subjectivist view of the mental” is arguably even more closely related; he argues that “one’s own mental states are metaphysically privileged vis-a-vis` the mental states of others” and discusses in detail the relationship of his view to Hare’s.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Space and Time - Shahn Majid
    FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS - Philosophy of Space And Time - Shahn Majid PHILOSOPHY OF SPACE AND TIME Shahn Majid Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK. Keywords: Born-reciprocity, relativity, quantum theory, momentum space, spacetime continuum, Planck scale, quantum gravity, quantum spacetime, quantum group, noncommutative geometry, relative realism, nature of time Contents 1. Introduction 2. Prehistory of Space and Time 3. Spacetime Continuum 4. Failure of the Spacetime Continuum 5. Quantum Geometry 6. Quantum Spacetime and Experiment 7. Time, Matter and Dark Energy 8. Philosophical Perspective 9. Conclusions Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary It is easy to think that our notions of space and time have barely changed since the ancient Greeks. With the proviso of certain relativistic effects, we more or less take them for granted as the backdrop in which all other Sciences take place. But is this correct? We will see in this chapter that since the 1950s it has been clear that the assumption of a spacetime continuum is actually unjustified and could well be wrong. Only in the 1980s, however, were serious alternatives developed by mathematicians and since then a growing confluence of philosophical ideology, mathematical innovation and the possibility of experimental test has led to the emergence of a new science of space and time. UNESCO-EOLSS In principle thereSAMPLE are as many approaches toCHAPTERS spacetime as there are to the unsolved problem of a unified theory of quantum gravity. However, we will explain how a coherent new science has emerged in spite of that, based on the idea of „quantum spacetime‟ as a common framework.
    [Show full text]
  • A Manifestation of All Life : Intersections of Virtue Ethics, Philosophy of Emotion, and Philosophy of Literature
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2010 A manifestation of all life : intersections of virtue ethics, philosophy of emotion, and philosophy of literature. Derek Lee Penwell 1965- University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Recommended Citation Penwell, Derek Lee 1965-, "A manifestation of all life : intersections of virtue ethics, philosophy of emotion, and philosophy of literature." (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1113. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1113 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MANIFESTATION OF ALL LIFE: INTERSECTIONS OF VIRTUE ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY OF EMOTION, AND PHILOSOPHY OF LITERATURE By Derek Lee Penwell B.R.E., Great Lakes Christian College, 1987 M.A.R., Emmanuel School of Religion, 1990 M.Div., Lexington Theological Seminary D.Min., Lexington Theological Seminary A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Self-Consciousness, Embodiment, and the Narrativizing Self
    N o t e s 1 Self-Consciousness, Embodiment, and the Narrativizing Self 1 . Fitzgerald critiques contemporary metaphysics and argues for physiological psychology as a basis for future metaphysics. 2 . Other key meditations on this methodological issue include James 1884, Dewey 1886, Bain 1893, and Ladd 1913. 3 . Rick Rylance offers an excellent account of associationism in Victorian Psychology and British Culture, 1850–1880. 4 . I n Popular Fiction and Brain Science in the Late Nineteenth Century, Ann Stiles describes the biological determinism of late-nineteenth-century neurology, particularly in relation to cerebral localization. Stiles explores how selected Gothic romances reacted to this determinism. 5 . By 1903, Ladd felt that psycho-physical parallelism had been dominant “a decade or two ago” (374). He emphasized the complexity of the stream of con- sciousness, and emphasizes a “real dynamical connexion” between “observed changes, produced by other things upon the thing-like body, [and] . changes in self-conscious states” (376). 6 . Others wondered in the pages of MIND , “Is Bergson’s Philosophy Monistic?” (Radhakrishnan 332). 7 . Chapter 3 of this study features and extended discussion of Joyce’s engagement with Bergson. See pages 79–80. 8 . Behaviorism, which became the dominant theoretical approach in American psychology, rejected introspection (and the problem of perspectives) altogether. As a methodology, behaviorism has infamous limitations while also providing some useful insight. 9 . The standard analogue of this is from chemistry: when you combine carbon atoms in a certain way, you get coal; in another, diamond; in still another, graphite. In this view, the properties of coal, diamond, and graphite could not be predicted by the properties of the atom.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction to Philosophy of Psychedelics (Oxford University
    Introduction to Philosophy of Psychedelics (Oxford University Press, 2021) Chris Letheby Please quote from published version. 1 Introduction The unacceptability of psychedelic therapy… stems in part at least from this fundamental empirical fact: Through the psychedelic experience persons tend to accept beliefs which are at variance with the usual conception of the “scientific world view.” Willis Harman, ‘The Issue of the Consciousness Expanding Drugs’. Something very strange is happening in psychiatry. Clinicians and researchers are becoming increasingly interested in a “new” experimental treatment, with some suggesting it might herald a “new paradigm” in the treatment of disorders such as anxiety, depression, and addiction (Nichols et al. 2017, Schenberg 2018). If promising initial results are borne out, this new treatment may significantly outperform existing pharmacological and psychological therapies in terms of rapidity and efficacy. And yet this treatment has a number of properties that, from the standpoint of mainstream philosophy and science, can only be described as extremely weird. First, although it is a drug treatment, there is no daily dosing regimen of the kind familiar from existing antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. Patients receive one, or very few, doses of the drug—albeit with considerable interpersonal support and preparation—and then, in successful cases, their symptoms dramatically decrease for many months; no re-dosing required. Second, although it is in some sense a drug treatment, it’s far from clear that the drug itself is the direct cause of clinical improvement. Rather, it seems that the drug is merely a catalyst for a brief but intense conscious experience, and it is this experience that causes therapeutic effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Selfhood and the Metaphysics of Altruism
    Selfhood and the Metaphysics of Altruism A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI¢I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY MAY 2017 By Kevin Perry Maroufkhani Dissertation Committee: Arindam Chakrabarti, Chairperson Ron Bontekoe George Tsai Peter Hershock Sai Bhatawadekar ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to my family, particularly, Rosanne Perry, Dariush Maroufkhani, and Roya Dennis for their moral support and stubborn belief that I could accomplish this project despite all the obstacles I created for myself. I would like to acknowledge my chair, Dr. Arindam Chakrabarti, for the breadth and vivacity of his philosophical imagination, which has continued to challenge me, and nudge me out of complacency and inevitable philosophical naps. His analytical rigor, teaching-presence, and facility in world philosophy is a testament to what is possible in the field of global philosophical discourse. I am grateful for the many hours of selfless instruction he provided, and the fertile ideas cultivated in his classrooms. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Ron Bontekoe, who has always challenged me in the true spirit of a philosophical friend. Dr. Bontekoe has been a careful and caring academic advisor, and, in the courses I’ve taken with him, has never let me off the hook. He does not mince words, and because of the background depth he has provided in hermeneutics, biology, and theoretical ethics, he has greatly benefited this project. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Peter Hershock, who continually reminds me that a hermeneutical lens can make or break the credibility, rigor and sensitivity of cross-cultural conversation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Philosophy of the Self the New Synthese Historical Library Texts and Studies in the History of Philosophy
    Ancient Philosophy of the Self The New Synthese Historical Library Texts and Studies in the History of Philosophy VOLUME 64 Managing Editor: SIMO KNUUTTILA, University of Helsinki Associate Editors: DANIEL ELLIOT GARBER, Princeton University RICHARD SORABJI, University of London Editorial Consultants: JAN A. AERTSEN, Thomas-Institut, Universität zu Köln ROGER ARIEW, University of South Florida E. JENNIFER ASHWORTH, University of Waterloo MICHAEL AYERS, Wadham College, Oxford GAIL FINE, Cornell University R. J. HANKINSON, University of Texas JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Boston University PAUL HOFFMAN, University of California, Riverside DAVID KONSTAN, Brown University RICHARD H. KRAUT, Northwestern University, Evanston ALAIN DE LIBERA, Université de Genève JOHN E. MURDOCH, Harvard University DAVID FATE NORTON, McGill University LUCA OBERTELLO, Università degli Studi di genova ELEONORE STUMP, St. Louis University ALLEN WOOD, Stanford University For other titles published in this series, go to www.springer.com/series/6608 Pauliina Remes • Juha Sihvola Editors Ancient Philosophy of the Self Editors Pauliina Remes Juha Sihvola Uppsala University Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies Sweden University of Helsinki and Finland University of Helsinki Finland ISBN 978-1-4020-8595-6 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-8596-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008928521 © 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Philosophy and Cybernetics
    Systems Philosophy and Cybernetics Nagib Callaos Founding President of the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS) Abstract1 The general purpose of this article is to outline the intellectual importance and the pragmatic value of Cybernetics Philosophy. With this orientation, we will try to show the plausibility that Cybernetics, in its essence, is not new but, on the contrary, it seems consubstantial with human nature and, plausibly with Nature itself. Based on this plausibility, we will try to reason why it is intellectually important and pragmatically valuable, to foster reflections oriented to a Philosophy of Cybernetics. Consequently, we will suggest that applying systems philosophy, to be applied to Cybernetic systems, as a species. Additionally, it would be required to identify the differentia specifica of cybernetic systems and, hence, add other predicates to the notion of Cybernetics. This does not mean that we will be suggesting the use of the Aristotelian Definition and adding another definition to the overwhelming number of definitions that already exist. What we are suggesting is to use the Aristotelian notion of ‘definition’, in a more comprehensive context, i.e., not to define but to describe the notion or the idea of Cybernetics. In this context, we suggest the support of ‘Control Philosophy’ as a source to identify the differentia specifica of “cybernetics” in the context of the genus “general system”. This suggestion will emerge as we provide details regarding the con-essential nature of cybernetics to human beings and potential with Nature and its Evolution. Based on the details, we will provide regarding the above paragraph, we will suggest cybernetic relationships that tacitly, implicitly, or explicitly exist between the most important notions; which we will provide as related to the general- purpose briefly described above.
    [Show full text]
  • On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2018 Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Behavioral Economics Commons, and the Comparative Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Coil, Charlie, "Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 2893. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2893 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Charles Coil, Jr. University of Arkansas Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2018 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ______________________________ Eric Funkhouser, PhD Dissertation Director ______________________________ ______________________________ Jacob Adler, PhD Tom Senor, PhD Committee Member Committee Member Abstract I offer a prolegomenon to the philosophical study of a uniquely human activity—the self- binding act. This philosophical interest directly connects with the Enlightenment project of centralizing personal autonomy and individual freedom as primary values of personhood. Self- binding represents an easily referenced action that introduces a possible clash between autonomy and freedom on the one hand seen as in conflict with other ancient basic human values like self- control and avoiding akrasia.
    [Show full text]
  • Ego-Splitting and the Transcendental Subject. Kant's Original Insight And
    Ego-Splitting and the Transcendental Subject. Kant’s Original Insight and Husserl’s Reappraisal Marco Cavallaro Abstract In this paper, I contend that there are at least two essential traits that com- monly define being an I: self-identity and self-consciousness. I argue that they bear quite an odd relation to each other in the sense that self-consciousness seems to jeopardize self-identity. My main concern is to elucidate this issue within the range of the transcendental philosophies of Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl. In the first section, I shall briefly consider Kant’s own rendition of the problem of the Ego- splitting. My reading of the Kantian texts reveals that Kant himself was aware of this phenomenon but eventually deems it an unexplainable fact. The second part of the paper tackles the same problematic from the standpoint of Husserlian phenom- enology. What Husserl’s extensive analyses on this topic bring to light is that the phenomenon of the Ego-splitting constitutes the bedrock not only of his thought but also of every philosophy that works within the framework of transcendental thinking. Keywords Kant, Immanuel · Husserl, Edmund · Ego-splitting · Transcendental philosophy · Subjectivity · Self-consciousness 1 Introduction There are two essential traits that, taken together, provide us with a general defini- tion of being an I: self-identity and self-consciousness.1 The first is straightforwardly a necessary condition. Any object whatsoever must be identical with itself to be thinkable or, more generally speaking, experienceable. Even a squared circle must be identical with itself if I state its nonexistence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Self, Mind and Body
    Open Journal of Philosophy 2012. Vol.2, No.3, 171-178 Published Online August 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2012.23026 The Science of Self, Mind and Body Sung Jang Chung Morristown-Hamblen Healthcare System, Morristown, USA Email: [email protected] Received April 30th, 2012; revised May 29th, 2012; accepted June 12th, 2012 A relationship among self, mind and body in humans is still not clearly known in philosophy and science because of lack of human data that would enable to objectively explain it. Teachings related to their rela- tionship in religions have been given to humanity in general in terms of subjective words. Consequently, philosophers and scientists have been investigating to find objective proofs related to their relationship. The author proposed a theory in his book (2009) that there are in a human individual two selves, one, the inner self (the true self) and one, the physical self (the false self) that coexist in one individual person. McGonigal (2012) published her book in which she described two minds or two selves in one human in- dividual, naming them “I WILL” and “I WANT” self on the basis of extensive studies on adult subjects. More recent researches in neuroscience using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) discovered that the prefrontal cortex of the human brain performs self-control, emotion regulation and guiding be- haviors with morality, future goals and rules. The author compared characteristic aspects of the inner and physical selves of Chung with the “I WILL” and “I WANT” selves of McGonigal.
    [Show full text]
  • Situating the Elusive Self of Advaita Veda¯Nta
    8 Situating the Elusive Self 1 of Advaita Veda¯nta CHAKRAVARTHI RAM-PRASAD I. Introduction: Advaita and the Question of What is Denied When Self is Denied In this essay, I will explore some ambiguities concerning what it is to affirm or deny the self, through the view of the Hindu school of Advaita Veda¯nta on the nature of the ‘I’ and its relationship to the reflexivity of conscious- ness. In particular, I will seek to situate this elusive self between my understanding of Dan Zahavi’s notion of the minimal self (Zahavi 2005; 2009; and this volume) and one reading of the significance of Thomas Metzinger’s brief but provocative comparisons of his denial of self with Advaita and Buddhism (Metzinger 2003: 549–50; 566). As Zahavi (like others in this volume) observes in Section 4 of his essay, the boundaries between self and no-self theories depend on what the self is taken to be. Exposition of Buddhist denials of self in this volume range from Siderits’ uncompromising reductionism all the way to Albahari’s defence of a unitary and perspectival witness consciousness, which Zahavi points out appears to preserve many of the defining characteristics of theories of self. So it is clear that in the classical Indian traditions, within Buddhism itself, what it means to deny self is a highly disputed matter. So it is with the Hindu school of Advaita. As both Fasching’s paper and mine show, the Advaitic assertion of self is not a straightforward matter, for other senses of self are denied by them that look intuitively necessary for a theory of self.
    [Show full text]