1.2 Human Nature & the Human Condition

Question 1

Religious view on the nature of human beings

Answer 1

Aristotle believed we have a telos (purpose) and by understanding what humans beings are for (our body parts) we can find what we are meant to do. Aquinas develops this to say we have 5 precepts to follow POWER and following these precepts leads us a good life.

Question 2

Reply to Aquinas

Answer 2

Aquinas’ argument presupposes that we have good ethical nature. Due to original Sin our nature has been corrupted and to follow our nature is to follow the way of sin and corruption. Instead to live a good life we must resist and fight against our nature

Question 3

Non-religious view on Nature of human beings

Answer 3

Jean-Paul Satre believed there is no such thing as human nature because existence precedes essence. What we do determines who we are and we decide the nature of ourselves

Question 4

Non-religious view on the Soul

Answer 4

Dualist say that we are two parts, the soul (non-physical) and the body (physical). 1) Bodies can be chopped into pieces 2) Thoughts cannot 3) Therefore thoughts are not the same as our bodies

Question 5

Reply to dualist

Answer 5

Argument is flawed because while it’s true bodies can be divided, bodily processes (digestion) can’t be, and thoughts are like this. They are neurological processes therefore because thoughts can’t be divided, doesn’t mean they are not bodily

Question 6

Christian belief on The Soul

Answer 6

Christians believe that God breathed the soul into Adam’s nostrils. Since God is eternal and our soul was made from his breath, our soul is eternal.

Question 7

Physicalist view on The Soul

Answer 7

Lucretius believed everything is simply made out of matter so when our bodies perish, so do we. “The mind displays the marks of mortality” Feavered minds have fevered bodies, tired minds have tired bodies.

Question 8

Logical Positivism view on the Soul

Answer 8

The believe that if something cannot be empirically verified then it is meaningless to question and talk about it. We cannot empirically verify this debate so it is meaningless to talk about it, it’s a “pseudo-concept”

Question 9

Reply to logical positavist

Answer 9

The problem is that it fails its own test. The principle that says if something can’t be empirically … can’t be verified itself and is therefore by its own logic, meaningless. Any theory that destroys itself should not be taken seriously.