PHILOSOPHY FINAL EXAM PAPER Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

PHILOSOPHY FINAL EXAM PAPER - Essay ExampleOne hand writes red. The different writes blue. The left brain is able to enunciate I see red. The verbal component is important, because Parfits definition of identity is that identity exists because we talk about it, we name it. So the split-brain, Parfit says, represents two streams of consciousness. Both hemispheres argon conscious as ache as they are intact. Parfit then says this dual consciousness equals two throng in the same body. Then he says that in the sense that identity is a named collection of objects (memories, thoughts, emotions) there are no identities here, because the original person has been split in two. I believe that consciousness equals identity, precisely more on that later. steps posits the swelled head Theory, where the existence of the ego explains the existence of the person. Parfits shallow definition of personal identity as a named collection of parts is put to the test. Stairs wants Parfit to look at th e complexity of the collection we do make a distinctionbetween mere assemblages and things that have a coherence or unityFrom the mere fact that a thing is compound, it simply does not add up that its existence as a thing is merely nominal (Stairs). ... Parfit says that a person is a long series of experiences, thoughts and feelings. Memory is a causal relation that ties together the items in the series (Stairs). In clomp Theory, this group or series of feelings has certain facts that can notice them, as well as describe the causal relationships between them (Stairs). Parfit does an either or or false dilemma argument between Ego Theory and software program Theory, stating Either P or Q Not--P Therefore, Q Either the Ego Theory or the Bundle Theory is correct The Ego Theory is not correct Therefore, the Bundle Theory is correct. (Stairs). Is the premise certain? No. It is a false dilemma Either A or B. No alternate explanations are provided, even though they may exist. The form of the argument is correct, but the initial premise is false. The argument is invalid. Stairs disagrees with Parfit in the example of identity as warehousing The process that led from your experience to my memory of you telling me about your experience is not the right sort to bring two events into the series that composes a life (Stairs). My memory of your story of your experience is not the same as your experience, or your memory of your experience. I cant get past the idea that the identity does not survive, yet something survives. Here are some arguments. On page 5 In hoping for both to survive, I would be preferring death (for one half(a)--my addition) to survival. Definition of equipment casualty survival=one half survives. I=ego presupposing my existence=me. If survival is possible for me if one half survives and If survival is impossible for me if both halves survive Then I would hope for one half to survive. privation for both to survive implies a death wish until sur vival