Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yeah, i know other peope with edinburgh offers (albeit not for philosophy), and i did email them, but i got a stock response saying how they had lots of applicants to look at etc... At least it's not a rejection. Having said that, i got a warwick offer nearly two months before my friend got his and he had an equally, if not better, application. Guess i'll just have to wait. I have applied for deferred entry though, and (maybe it's just coincidence) we (deferred ppl) seem to have had to wait longest for our offers gnerally, out of my year.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Damn UCL. Damn exams. Damn coursework essays.

    *stabstabstab*

    alex - not stressed. No.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    aww... i feel your pain But don't stress tooo much, there's only a few weeks left - which is both a brilliant thing and terribly scary :confused:

    Know how you feel though - i still have 3 different bits of music coursework and a recital to do, aswell as maths coursework (and maths generally - taking twice as many modules this term as i did in the whole of last year... :rolleyes: ), and two essays to write. But i handed in a first draft of my vocal composition today so i was happy - well, until i didn't get home from school 'til ten after doing lights for a AS Drama thing... :musicus: hohum... don't worry/stress, it really won't help - you could meditate upon the oneness of the world and become in harmony with an ethereal plane :punk: :flowers: instead , that'd be interesting...--> you afterwards :marchmell:

    Alternatively you could drink lots and lots of coffee :coffee:

    Or run away and live with the sheep!!!! :sheep: (definately my choice...)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The sheep sound good.
    I'm currently stressed about my music too... I spent an hour and a half doing slow practice of two pages of a nine page piece I'm planning on doing for my recital... and seemed to get nowhere. sigh. damn UCL, damn coursework, damn Brahms. stabstab. :P

    alex
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, still no offer from UCL but they're now my last ones - finally got an offer from edinburgh today - but i don't care anymore, went to warwick today and i'm completely sold on it, it has such a cool buzz, and the staff seem very enthusiastic. It's nice

    Music - hmm... my recital's getting better. i deliberately picked pieces that weren't the hardest i could do, but were more that the lower limit, just to make my life easier and i practiced with my accompaniest the other day and all was good. So here's hoping... It's harmony excercises i have to do and a performance investigation i'm completely behind on now... hohum...

    Oh, and if you like stabbing things... try a feather pillow in the wind outside - they have an incredible amount of feather in them... It was this guys 18th at school the other day so he got wrapped in cling film, covered in treacle and then feathered! hehehe... that was funny - but there are now feathers over the entire school. They've infiltrated everywhere - you name it, it has a feather. So, um, yeah, you could try that - it's fun!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    This website might be even more helpful - the essays of a student from his first year onwards:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200310012.../words-essays/

    Saying that I'm scared would be an understatement. But at the same time, I'm excited at the prospect of being able to write like this.
    It certainly does have its functions but be careful not to use it as an alternative to thinking, Ben is just WRONG about a lot of things; for examples see his essays on Metaphysics. Ben believes

    1; The 'mental' can affect the physical.
    2; Dualism (by which I read:classic dualism) is a cogent theory.
    3; That time travel is possible because the past is somewhat fuzzy when it comes to truth values.

    I'm not sure what causes (3) but read his two essays on the philosophy of time ( one is from IB called 'time travel' ) if we ignore the rather odd conclusion from the first year essay ("Ultimately the fact that a statement is true or false the moment we make it shouldn't make a difference to our lives, except to remind us that when something bad happens over which we have no control we just have to grin and bear it.") it does really seem like Ben is giving a half-assed justification for some form of presentism but hasn't really thought all the details through.

    I'm seriously impressed you found his site though! I only found it through Cujess (was a website for Cambridge philosophers. now defaced by the same webbugas did Ben's site) initially and then remembered enough of the details to get it through archive.org.

    Don't get me wrong - Ben's essays are great to give you an idea of the scope and extent of the work you'll be expected to produce but some of his stuff is... weird. Then again, so is much of the stuff on the reading list. Examples that spring to mind:

    1) Harry Frankfurt mentions in passing that animals have no second order desires. His proof or argument for this? Nothing.
    2) Searle believes that if we utter a string of sounds we are obliged to do something to the extent that we are somehow objectively WRONG if we do not.
    3) Richard Swinburne believes if I string together a lot of improbabilities together I get something probable (namely get from crap arguments for belief in God to a good reason to believe in him).
    4) Plato believes that all learning is recollection of the true 'forms' of concepts from a stage before we were born when we existed as perfect spirits and had a kind of direct knowledge of the forms. Seriously.
    5) David Lewis believes that when we evaluate counterfactuals by talking about 'possible worlds' that we are in fact talking about ontological entities which do exist - every possible world is 'real'.
    6) Jerry Fodor believes the brain has its own language. Literally.
    7) Kripke wrote a book entitled 'Wittgenstein on Rules' in which he outlines a position which is neither Wittgenstein's nor his. He says it is convincing but he no longer believes it. No one is entirely sure who 'belongs' to this theory.
    8) Wittgenstein's Tractatus has a strong religious element to it, according to Wittgenstein.
    9) Bentham and Mill believe the argument 'everyone desires their own happiness therefore everyone desires the happiness of everyone' is sound.
    10) McTaggart apparently believes Time doesn't exist, though I don't think anyone can completely follow his argument (apparently Arif has admitted in confidence he doesn't understand McTaggarts criticism of the A-Series).
    11) Moore believes his hand is a valid refutation of scepticism and that because good is something objective we can never have epistemic access to until we somehow learn what it is by some flash of inspiration or divine revelation the best solution is just to obey the pervailing norms of our society.
    12) Peter VanInwagen believes that somehow non-deterministic quantum events could be described as our free will in action (as in, I have free will because my soul makes electrons spin at certain rates) and the reason he believes this is apparently caused by his theism.
    13) Van Frassen (IIRC) believes we cannot verify convincingly what we cannot see with the naked eye and so anything seen with a microscope or telescope is suspect. And there goes the whole of science.

    Hmmm... drunken pseudo-rant over.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've come across Swinburne's ideas (most definitely weird, but that's just what you get when theists mix philosophy with, um...theism). At least he's not as weird as Hick who argues that you can justify the meaningfulness of religious language using a hypothetical afterlife ! Which kind of takes you round and round in a circle. And also that resurrection involves replication of your body and that it is philosophically possible. Hm.

    Moore's intuitionism is bizarre to some extent but is kind of interesting . And as for Plato, I'm not a real fan of his either, but I can see how he's really helped developed philosophy in the Western tradition. At least the reading list is really varied and covers a wide period of time....philosophy at Cambridge strikes me as fascinating *because* of these weird arguments you can pick to pieces, but at the same time challenge you to think for yourself....

    edit - slight problem with that site:
    "This site is defaced!!!

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NeverEverNoSanity WebWorm generation 21." (Eeeek!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)
    I've come across Swinburne's ideas (most definitely weird, but that's just what you get when theists mix philosophy with, um...theism). At least he's not as weird as Hick who argues that you can justify the meaningfulness of religious language using a hypothetical afterlife ! Which kind of takes you round and round in a circle. And also that resurrection involves replication of your body and that it is philosophically possible. Hm.

    Moore's intuitionism is bizarre to some extent but is kind of interesting . And as for Plato, I'm not a real fan of his either, but I can see how he's really helped developed philosophy in the Western tradition. At least the reading list is really varied and covers a wide period of time....philosophy at Cambridge strikes me as fascinating *because* of these weird arguments you can pick to pieces, but at the same time challenge you to think for yourself....

    edit - slight problem with that site:
    "This site is defaced!!!

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NeverEverNoSanity WebWorm generation 21." (Eeeek!)
    Never come accross Hick. Very few philosophers make complete sense to me, I think the limit thus far is Hume, Mackie, Foot and Blackburn but then again I've not read much on quasi-realism so I may decide I think that's bats too... who knows.

    One of the best parts of Principia Ethicia I'd say is the preface to the second edition where Moore basically says "It's been pointed out to me that what I wrote is nonsense, and I don't believe it any more. But some of it is still interesting so I'm going to release a second edition anyway."

    Weird thing is Frege did the same with the Berg... uh... his book on the foundations of mathematics. Come to think of it, so did Russell with his Principia. It must have been a turn-of-the-century thing.

    I certainly AM a fan of Plato to an extent but I suspect that extent it pretty much where Socratic thought ends and Platonic thought begins. Forms, they ain't Socrates. Immortality of the soul, that ain't Socrates. Philosopher kings that... might be kind of Socrates I suppose. Effluences, that certainly ain't Socrates. The dialogues really are excellent though - I mean you can say Hume is great writing but his dialogues do get awfully twee in places.

    Replication of your body is technically physically possible, it's just I've an idea that if you really believe in David Lewis' stuff on possible worlds you're committed to a belief you are immortal as there is a possible world in which the matter in your body at the time of your death (down to your memories) is perfectly replicated ala Swamp Man and so it will always feel as if you haven't died. Then again, I really don't understand why Lewis believes what he believes... so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oooh, so it seems Faboba is also a Hume fan. I really enjoyed his dialogues, they got me through my interview

    I had a brief lapse in my philosophical interests, but I got back into it a few days ago and all this stuff that I'm going to be able to analyse is really exciting. We're studying Buddhist philosophy of the nature of reality at the moment and it's really, really fascinating and really quite difficult to fault as it actually starts to coincide quite remarkably with modern scientific theories.

    From the limited knowledge I have of the ancient greek philosophers, I prefer Aristotle's view on causality to those of Plato, but I haven't got round to Aristotlean ethics, does anybody know roughly what they entail? I've heard his work is terribly arduous reading. I believe a quote was that reading Aristotle is like 'chewing dried hay'. Hmmm...

    Anybody familiar with his works?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ah.... Kripkenstein
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm. Am I scared yet?
    Yes.

    Have I read any decent amount of philosophy since my interview?
    No.

    Hmm. Too much to read, far too little time. What should I start with in 20th century philosophy, since I've done bugger all? I'm really fancying a trip to the bookshop at the moment... it beats A levels hands down.

    alex
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coldfish)
    Hmm. Am I scared yet?
    Yes.

    Have I read any decent amount of philosophy since my interview?
    No.

    Hmm. Too much to read, far too little time. What should I start with in 20th century philosophy, since I've done bugger all? I'm really fancying a trip to the bookshop at the moment... it beats A levels hands down.

    alex
    the bookshop is scummy. they didn't have anything i wanted last week.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Away with you, evil Historian. I was talking about the Cardiff University bookshop, which is ok-ish.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coldfish)
    Away with you, evil Historian. I was talking about the Cardiff University bookshop, which is ok-ish.
    never been...shall try it...

    *scoots*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waldo)
    ah.... Kripkenstein
    Yes! How gloriously insane is the very idea of it?!

    (Original post by Rik_Rock)
    Oooh, so it seems Faboba is also a Hume fan. I really enjoyed his dialogues, they got me through my interview

    I had a brief lapse in my philosophical interests, but I got back into it a few days ago and all this stuff that I'm going to be able to analyse is really exciting. We're studying Buddhist philosophy of the nature of reality at the moment and it's really, really fascinating and really quite difficult to fault as it actually starts to coincide quite remarkably with modern scientific theories.

    From the limited knowledge I have of the ancient greek philosophers, I prefer Aristotle's view on causality to those of Plato, but I haven't got round to Aristotlean ethics, does anybody know roughly what they entail? I've heard his work is terribly arduous reading. I believe a quote was that reading Aristotle is like 'chewing dried hay'. Hmmm...

    Anybody familiar with his works?
    I think near enough all the philosophers here (the real ones; lecturers etc) are fans of Hume (with the odd exception - there is a Kantian or two I think) mainly because Hume is a very destructive philosopher in many ways. He makes valid and insightful criticisms of various claims without really advancing much in the way of suggestions of what to replace what he has torn down; we cannot justify induction, we cannot know causation is taking place, we cannot say anything much of anything about God). Most other philosophers do a bit of construction with their destruction and much of what they put up in its place is objectionable, hence people are hesitant to consider themselves 'fans'.

    Also Hume can write, which many philosophers can't which makes people like him better. Mill will ramble for six pages without saying anything! Wittgenstein will make pronouncements at such a rate you get really infuriated with him because you need to go and have a think about whether you agree and you'll really only be in a position to do so if you understand why he thinks this particular thing is true (which he rarely tells you) and where he's actually going with this line of thought which to find out you need first proceed with a kind of tacit acceptance of this particular point. Kant is fairly dull, Hegel is impossible and Neitzsche irritates me. Plato is entertaining but you can sometimes be swept along by the dialogue and fail to miss where he slips in random bits of fallacious argument or questionable assumptions.

    The Buddhists piss me off because the appear to me have missed the boat on what 'reincarnation' is really about. The true (or what seems to me to be the true) and original meaning of the doctrine in eastern philosophy is more to do with the idea that "I am you as you are me as they are me and we are all together" to steal from the Beatles. When I die I don't really die because my 'soul' is the same as your soul and so I just live on as you in a manner of speaking. The Buddhist (and later Hindu) view misses this rather fascinating take on spirituality by talking about people having different next lives depending on how they live in this one which while it has the same kind of religious-spankery as western religions (you do good, you get rewarded in the next life, if you do bad you get punished) it completely fails to maintain the valuable and (for me) exciting view of what a 'soul' is.

    Hmmmm. Aristotle. Aristotle's no fun, Plato can be. It's figured what we have of Aristotle is basically his lecture notes.

    Aristotle is probably the first critical thinker in the tradition called 'vritue ethics' these days. 'Ethics' for Aristotle is the science of how to lead a good life and integral to it is understanding how the various 'good things' like pleasure, virtue (in the 'courage', 'justice' 'integrity' sense), friendship wealth and so on can contribute to eudaimonia.

    Eudaimonia is normally translated as 'happiness' which is unfortunate because one meaning of happiness in English is just 'pleasure'. Eudaimonia on the other hand means more 'self-satisfaction', 'contentment', 'farm fuzzy feelings' that kind of thing. Eudaimonia is the feeling associated with living the good life, essentially.

    Aristotle on ethics is weird in so far as it reads kind of like Aristotle on politics. In Politics he takes various political constitutions and say 'these people do things this way and this has such-and-such a consequence and this consequence is good/bad'. In Ethics he essentially says 'people can act in such-and-such a way and this has so-and-so effect on their eudaimonia'. Aristotle is essentially an ethical empiricist (to a point).

    The point of ethics is to divine what arete (virtue) is required for leading the good life. As far as actual normative ethics goes Aristotle thinks we should act in a way which will promote the good of others and always act in accordance with justicie. He doesn't really have much new to say as far as what right action is, just in how we should approach the study of ethics. He rejects Plato's (slightly odd) wisdom-worshipping view of goodness in favour of a more, I dunno, practical one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I certainly AM a fan of Plato to an extent but I suspect that extent it pretty much where Socratic thought ends and Platonic thought begins.
    I see what you mean about the Plato/Socrates distinction. The other day I read Meno and Protagoras (combined edition) after reading The Republic, and was stunned to notice how different they were from each other. Republic was full-scale Plato, I think, (and the number of logical errors made were stunning, and widely discredited). I enjoyed it, not because I thought it actually proposed anything of particular value, though it probably does, but just because it got me to think about the nature of society, the real value of democracy etc (I think in the western world, we’ve put democracy almost on a pedestal without realising that yes, there are faults with it, and yes, various freedoms do contradict, but perhaps it’s the only system that minimises social damage?)… God I’ve gone off on a tangent, now where was I? Oh yes, whilst with Meno, I felt that it did offer *some* genuine insight into the whole nature of knowledge with the slave-boy analogy (however flawed that could have been), though again, a few issues that could easily be debatable. I find that the shorter Plato works (Meno and Protagoras) are far more entertaining, whilst the Republic tends to go off and expound more sophisticated philosophical views, sometimes using the guise of dialogue to take the readers’ minds off the more glaring errors! Kept having to go back to reanalyse whatever illogical assumption Plato made, when he made it.

    I haven’t read any of Hume’s work, strangely enough, simply because we don’t have any Hume in the school library. Can you believe it!? I’m going this easter to my public library, though knowing my luck that will probably be lacking and I’ll have to fork out some much needed money for my own copy. Which is the most general/best work to read by Hume?

    Re: replication of your body being physically possible, I don’t have a problem with that, although I don’t know how possible it is. What I do have a problem with is Hick saying that you could “replicate” your body in a different world, and you’d still be the “same person” body/soul-wise. Imagine you were replicated in two different worlds – and the original self was destroyed, and lived a life in those two worlds differently and responded to those worlds differently, shaping who the “two yous” were differently. 20 years down the line, it seems highly unlikely the two yous would be “the same person”? It seems like a terribly rash conclusion to jump to, just from the idea of replication – and that’s what he implies when he says that resurrection involves replication.

    P.S I agree Faboba, Nietzsche is damn irritating. I used to love him before, because he has been influential ;“death of God” on the literary world, & on my poetry, but philosophically he drives me round the bend. Furthermore, I open up Zarathusthra and what I find is, effectively (to me) incoherent ramblings rather than an effective, concise argument I can understand. I get the impression he is quite an elitist? Any takers on that suggestion ?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)
    P.S I agree Faboba, Nietzsche is damn irritating. I used to love him before, because he has been influential ;“death of God” on the literary world, & on my poetry, but philosophically he drives me round the bend. Furthermore, I open up Zarathusthra and what I find is, effectively (to me) incoherent ramblings rather than an effective, concise argument I can understand. I get the impression he is quite an elitist? Any takers on that suggestion ?
    :dito:!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)

    P.S I agree Faboba, Nietzsche is damn irritating. I used to love him before, because he has been influential ;“death of God” on the literary world, & on my poetry, but philosophically he drives me round the bend. Furthermore, I open up Zarathusthra and what I find is, effectively (to me) incoherent ramblings rather than an effective, concise argument I can understand. I get the impression he is quite an elitist? Any takers on that suggestion ?

    Couldn't disagree more, although Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher so I'm not exactly objective. Zarathustra is a fairly useless book to start with; especially if you're too much used to the cripplingly dull British empirical school of thought, and expect neat, numbered, ordered little paragraphs of crystal clarity. I think 'The Gay Science', in the Kaufmann translation, is the best place to start; a microcosm of Nietzsche's thought as it were. Nietzsche is probably the most subtle, elliptic, nuanced, and Dionysian of writers; even the apparent simplicity of the aphorisms belies their profundity. In Zarathustra there is actually a logical progression, but the whole thing has a quasi-prophetic style, and the substance of the work is occluded in parable, trope, analogy, &c. Come to think of it, a good place to start is Walter Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reema)
    I find that the shorter Plato works (Meno and Protagoras) are far more entertaining, whilst the Republic tends to go off and expound more sophisticated philosophical views, sometimes using the guise of dialogue to take the readers’ minds off the more glaring errors! Kept having to go back to reanalyse whatever illogical assumption Plato made, when he made it.
    There's some reason to think Plato gave up on some of his weirder ideas later in life. If you ever get a hold of a copy of the collected works there's a collection of letters from Plato included in the canon some of which are quite interesting. I don't remember the general scholarly opinion on which are more likely to be genuine but as I understand it nearly everyone agrees that the seventh letter is bona fide and it paints a fairly interesting picture because it's 'Plato on Plato' to an extent. He's writing a *****y letter to Dio of Syracuse because (IIRC) Dio is asking him to come back to Syracuse and be his councillor. Plato complains about how Dio didn't listen to what he told him to do and there's good reason to think that his experience of practical politics made him rethink a lot of the ideas in the republic which is why we get the more conservative and frightfully dull The Laws later in his life. Also there's an interesting later dialogue The Parmenides which one of my supervisiors directed to which has Plato ripping it out of his own metaphysics (in particular the forms) by casting Socrates as a young man going to visit Parmenides and Zeno. Slightly more diappointing is Timeas which given its written more as a dialogue than a monologue is probably late (I think I read that it was thought to have been influenced by Plato's experiences with Pythagorean thinkers who were quite numberous in Syracuse) and has Plato's vision of physics which is all the presocratic nonsense about effluences rehashed again - so much for getting less speculative as you get older.

    Which is the most general/best work to read by Hume?
    Ar. Where I show the limits of my knowledge unfortunately. The major (philosophical) works of Hume are

    Treatise of Human Nature
    Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
    Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
    The Natural History of Religion
    Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

    The treatise I haven't read and I've only read sections of the Enquiry but I understand broadly the difference between them to be that the Treatise is perhaps more polemic and certainly more radical whereas in the Enquiry Hume is a little more cautious. Both cover more or less the same ground which is Hume's views on knowledge and its limitations and the central Hume problems, namely; we cannot ever know there IS a causal link between two events we just assume there is because we have always observed it to be the case that one follows the other (the problem of causation), that this assumption is unjustified as just because something has always been the case in the past doesn't mean it should be so in the future (the problem of induction) and general things which follow from this such as - perhaps best known - Hume's argument that we cannot ever have good testimony of miraculous happenings because for the miracle to be sufficiently improbable to infer the existence of a divine being from it is also so incredible that we should consider it more probable that the individual giving the testimony is mistaken or lying.

    The Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals is sitting approximately 2 metres behind me as I type. I plan to read it when I've finished with Oliver Sacks - likely over the term break. To the best of my knowledge Hume is something of a moral sceptic and subscribes to the theory that when I say 'X is good' is simply means 'I approve of X' (emotivism - ethical statements have no objective content because morality is not objective. Rather ethical statements simply express my sentiments).

    The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are a set text in first year here and represent an on-going project of Hume's that he finally completed on his death bed to 1)defeat the claims of natural theologians that they could rationally prove God's existence and 2)to present this in such a subtle and palatable manner that it would actually be read. In 1 he certainly succeeded but arguably he failed with 2 as the set text on natural theology was William Paley - the man on whom he'd based a good deal of Cleanthes arguments and whose thinking he had, by my view at least, utterly demolished. Hume on Religion was characterised by Edward Craig as being kind of like Hume trying to demolish the edifice of Religion by sawing through the pillars one by one and as he goes reassuring those watching that the other pillars will hold it up. In the dialogues he defeats the arguments for the existence of God from reason but implies at the end he thinks Revelation (miracles) to be the only justified reason for belief. In his essay on Miracles he attempts to show that no miracle should be believed by anyone rational and finally in his Natural History of Religion he attacks the idea that the institution of relgion can be justified by its edifying and sociologically beneficial nature as can a good deal of history of England (apparently - there's eight volumes of it and unsurprisingly I haven't read it) has a similarly negative view of the influence of the church and clergy on society. Hume had to be very careful when it came to religion (he'd already been turned down for a rectorship because of his views) and this might explain why he decided to split his arguments up a bit.

    The Dialogues are a little twee but very enjoyable and remarkably short, the Enquiry is considerably longer but certainly parts are well worth it but you could probably get away with just reading those sections 4-8 & 10 where he has particularly interesting things to say (apologies to anyone which that sounds like blasphemy to). The Principles of Morals I can't speak for yet and the NHR is so short there's no reason not to read it (it's about 70 pages and contained in the Oxford Classics edition of the dialogues - along with the essay on miracles and some of the more interesting short pieces on Hume on religion (his autobiography, some letters, (I think)Boswell's deathbed interview) and is a couple of hours well spent.) when you come to do the Dialogues. The... treatise I'm not sure about but it's been suggested to me in many ways it is the improved version of Enquiry.

    Re: replication of your body
    Perhaps but what if I duplicated you in such a way you could not be sure which was the original. Suppose neither was actually the original. I ask one of you 'are you the original' and you say 'yes! Of course!'. I ask the other and she says the same. Which is the 'real' you, and which is the fake? Who has your lockean 'natural property rights'?

    Suppose half of the clones has half of the original matter of your body? Are neither 'the original' still? Does it make it easier to determine which is which? If not then how do you account for the fact that you continually shed cells and change the matter which makes up your body. If it needs to be the same matter then how do you explain the fact that you seem comfortable with the apparently inconsistent claim that you are the same person as you were two minutes ago when you had a slightly different material composition.

    'Souls' certainly do make identity more easily traceable but it seems like something of a con trick to infer something you cannot shew me just to claim consistency in your other views about the nature of identity. If 'soul' is a meaningful concept you will need to account for the nature of soul, give some reason to believe 'souls' exist rather than not and account for the fact that - as far as I can see - because your clones will share the same memory they will both claim that they are the original possessor of your soul because there won't be any 'gap' in their memory between being you and not being you suggesting that why 'souls' could resolve the matter ontologically they are rather bankrupt when looking at the problem from an epistemological point of view.

    I get the impression he is quite an elitist? Any takers on that suggestion?
    Well sure but not in the traditional mode of his day. Nietzsche's aristocracy are not demarkated by blood or breeding but rather character and will. Nietzsche's elitism is really rather meritocratic. Rather like Plato's elitism but with the intellectualism replaced by an admiration for expressions of passion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yes, will any of you that didn't apply this year (as in, you are applying to uni next year) be coming along to the faculty's open day on the 21st?
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.