The Four Fields of Philosophy Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Four Fields of Philosophy - Term Paper Example These four branches are different from one another with regards to its concerns, but they nevertheless intersect at certain points. The reason for such is that all of philosophy, as mentioned above, aims towards one goal, i.e. truth. Therefore, regardless of what aspect of reality is focused on, philosophy remains wherever truth is sought after. The Philosophy of Mind: Identity of Minds â€Å"Of all the mysteries in the world, none is more puzzling than the mind† (Poundstone 222). This section aims to discuss a concept that has taken for granted, namely, the human mind. What is the identity of the human mind? What is the difference between our mental from non-mental phenomena? What is the difference between my mental states of believing it will rain from physical objects such as pencils and papers? Upon addressing the aforementioned problem, I shall focus on the behaviorist view of the mind, specifically, logical behaviorism. I shall argue that the claims of logical behavioris m are merely based on the assumption that the mental states cause certain corresponding bodily or behavioral states. However, if it is only based on an assumption, then its entire theory is unfounded, and thus invalid. Thus logical behaviorism will not suffice to provide an analysis of the identity of the mind. ... behavioral terms such as I will complete my assignments regularly, I am disposed to limp, and I will wear light clothes today when I leave the house. Herein, â€Å"the property of being in a certain mental state is identical with the property of being in a certain neurophysiological state† (Fodor 86). In other words, mental terms are characterized in terms of their corresponding manifested physical behaviors. Given that mental states are nothing but neurophysiological behavioral states, either the mental states that mental terms refer to do not exist or such mental states exist. For, in claiming that one’s mental states can be understood with reference to its corresponding behavioral state, then we no longer are talking about mental states per se, but behavioral states for that matter. For instance, I say â€Å"I think it’s going to rain† and before stepping out of the door, I bring with me an umbrella. Herein, the act or behavior of bringing an umbrella w ith me can be identified with my assertion that â€Å"I think it’s going to rain.† Thus, under this view, the simplest solution is sought. For, every non-objective mental state can be identified with an objective physical state, which in turn makes it verifiable. But will this tactic of reducing mental states to behavioral dispositions sufficient so as to account for the mind’s identity? I disagree. For, in order to claim that mental terms refer to behaviors is to assume that both mind and body are necessarily interconnected so as to produce a corresponding behavior for each mental term. Hence, logical behaviorism only makes sense, provided that both mind and body causally interact with each other. Moreover, it seems quite absurd to portray this view as a possible view of the mind for it leads to a kind of