Question

Hume argues that there is no self because no impression can be found to support the idea, and Buddhism seems to be in agreement with, though perhaps for different reasons. On the other hand, Descartes seems more certain of the existence of the self than anything else. consider these different views and evaluate the reasons given to support them. What in the end, should be concluded about self?

Answer 1

Hume argues that the self is a changing bundle of perceptions, while Buddhism challenges the idea of a persistent self. Descartes posits the existence of a separate soul, but modern science indicates that thought is dependent on the brain. The complexity and interpretation of the self require critical evaluation and consideration of scientific evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

In evaluating the views of Hume, Buddhism, and Descartes on the existence of self, we find that Hume argues that the self is a changing bundle of perceptions. He believes that no impression can be found to support the idea of a static and enduring self. Similarly, Buddhism challenges the notion of a persistent self, proposing the concept of anatman or No Self, where the self is seen as ephemeral. On the other hand, Descartes posits the existence of a separate and immortal soul that exists independently of the body. However, modern science has provided evidence that thought is dependent on the brain.

Based on the arguments presented, we can conclude that the idea of a self is complex and subject to different interpretations. While Hume and Buddhism undermine the existence of a static and enduring self, Descartes maintains certainty in the existence of a separate and immortal soul. However, scientific advancements suggest that the functions attributed to the self can be explained solely in terms of the brain. Therefore, it is important to critically evaluate these philosophical perspectives and consider scientific evidence when forming conclusions about the nature of self.