Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of Mind

When thinking about philosophy, it is a general conception that philosophy resides in the mind. In other words, thought is the main residence of philosophy. This has been recognized by philosophers throughout the ages. Even today, modern philosophers recognize that the mind and thought are the ruling domains of philosophy. When considering specific philosophical concepts like the external world and the individual's relationship to it, as well as memory, learning, and new friendships, it is clear that the mind plays a significant role in how philosophy is used to make sense of living and being.

Thomas Nagel, for example, created the work What does it all mean? To bring philosophy ot a more general audience. One of the areas of philosophy that this author considers is those things that are outside the mind. Nagel provides evidence that some consider the world outside the mind as non-existent. This philosophy is referred to as solipsism. In this philosophy, Nagel suggests that some believe that there is nothing outside of the individual mind. Since no sense impressions can be said to exist outside the individual mind, those who subscribe to solipsism believe that there is no external world, and that all experiences exist only in the mind.

Nagel, however, does not appear to support this conclusion. One of the reasons for this is the fact that solipsism is a relatively extreme philosophy, not to mention that it is also a lonely one. Believing that there is no world outside that created by the individual mind makes all things, including friendship and other people, a mere illusion created by the mind ot make the individual experience more entertaining and interesting.

Instead, the author seems to support the view that there is no conclusive answer to the question whether there exists anything outside the mind or not. Indeed, Nagel directly states that solipsism is not his conclusion at all. He does not provide a very specific conclusion that does support his specific view. Nevertheless, while Nagel seems to support the view that there is little outside of the mind that can be supported by conclusive evidence, he is more prone to supporting the idea that there really is little beyond the individual sense experience that can be verified conclusively without doubting the evidence. One thing that the author does assert is that existing evidence does not warrant the existence of one single soul in the reality experienced by the individual.

For this reason, Nagel seems more prone to the skepticist view, that there simply is no way to know whether there is indeed a world beyond the one experienced by the individual. The author goes even further by suggesting that there is no certainty to suggest that there are indeed the past existence and experience that reside in our memory. Nobody can be certain that he or she existed before the experience of the now.

Nagel's conclusion seems somewhat inconclusive in terms of a persona conclusion relating to what he believes about existence and memory. However, it appears that he leans more towards the skepticist view than the solicipsist one.

Ultimately, however, the author suggests that human beings need some drive in order to keep a sense of meaning in their lives. Solipsism does not provide this. Skepticism as a greater sense of drive but still remains somewhat depressing in terms of the meaning of human life. Specifically, the author mentions that a human being needs a sense of importance to keep up the drive and ambition that make life meaningful. It appears to be part of the human condition that individual life should not only be meaningful, but also important. Being important means influence over more lives than a lack of such importance.

When applying these ideas to the ancient writings of Plato and Socrates, some interesting ideas can result. Socrates, as quoted by Plato in Phaedo, appears to focus on a sense of absolutes. There is an absolute beauty and truth to life, according to the philosopher. Neither solipcism nor skepticism appears to support this view. However, when looking more closely at the specific philosophy suggested by Socrates, a more specific view appears to suggest itself. Socrates appears to favor the view that true knowledge is only possible once the soul separates itself from the body.

For Socrates, the sense, i.e. touch, hearing, sight, taste, and smell only distract what he refers to as the "soul" from truly experiencing the nature of the external world. According to this philosophy, in other words, an external world does exist, but the individual can only truly access it at the end of life, when there are no longer senses to distort the impression of the external world.

According to this philosophy, therefore, there does exist an external world that can be perceived. This perception, however, is only possible once the human "filters" provided by the senses are allowed to die. The senses only die at death, which means that any human being can only access the ultimate truth once he or she dies. This creates a situation in which the body separates from the soul, and the soul in turn is freed to perceive the universe truly as it is. This is also why Socrates is not concerned or afraid at the prospect of dying. It is an opportunity for him to finally experience the ultimate truth, without having to submit to the filters necessitated by the human senses.

What this means is that human beings experience reality in a certain way. Each human being has his or her own percpetion of what reality is and what is important. However, this sense of importance is attached to a certain sense of importance that relates to the individual senses. When the senses die, the ultimate truth becomes available to the individual. What Socrates ultimately states is that each human being, during his or her life, has a specific sense of what life is and should be. At the moment of death, however, the human senses die and the ultimate truth of life is accessible.

This view does not seem to be either solipsistic or skeptical, since both views seem to focus on the current experience of life, as a person experiences it while still alive. One might also view this from the perspective of a living person. Not being able to access the true nature of life and philosophy from a generally unconnected view while still alive could refer to the skepticist view of life. The best way to approach this, according to the philosopher, appears to be from a sense of not being able to truly know what life or death is. Indeed, the best approach appears to be that there is truly no way for an individual to know whether an experience is philosophically viable or not.