OPTION 1: Choose any two of the philosophers that we read in Unit 2. Recap each philosopher’s main view about consciousness/the self/personal identity. Explain at least one difference between the two philosophers’ views and state which view you prefer. Then, offer an argument (i.e., evidence) against the view that you reject. If you need to re-familiarize yourself with the central issues on personal identity, I suggest that you review the following (20-minute) podcast: The Self and Personal Identity. Additional information regarding personal identity can also be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we read in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include “direct quotes”, specific references from their work. Explain carefully how these views compare and contrast. Be sure to identify and explain at least one difference between the philosophers’ views. How do they define a key concept or make a major distinction differently? State which view you prefer. Offer an argument against the view that you reject. OPTION 2: Listen to the following radio program from Radiolab, entitled “Who Am I?” Please note that the program is about 60 minutes in length; however, it is also broken down into several smaller segments. “Who Am I?” Full Program – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91496 “Where is That Part That is Me?” (Segment I – 27 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91497 “The Story of Me” (Segment II – 21 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91498 “I Haven’t Been Myself Lately” (Segment III – 8 minutes) – https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91499 As you listen, take note of the themes, topics, or ideas that interest you and that you can explicitly connect to items from this unit. For your writing assignment, write a paper that has a clear thesis and evidently uses concepts and readings from the course–thus far–to examine claims presented in the Radiolab program. Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we had in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include “direct quotes”, specific references from their work. Summarize a particular position that you heard during the podcast that is different from at least one of the philosophers that you summarized. What did the podcast say, what was their view? Explain carefully how these views compare and contrast. How do they define a key concept or make a major distinction differently? Which view would you agree with the most, and why? Formatting: The body of the essay must be 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words) in length 1 inch margins 12 point, Times New Roman font Title Page Words Cited Page – cite all quotations/paraphrases used by naming the author of the work, the tile and the chapter/section that you are citing from. Properly use MLA in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quoting Writing Tips: Tips for proper citations for the readings and Podcast: For all your sources, you should do “direct quotes” with parentheses citations in the paper, and full Works Cited information on the last page. For Podcasts: There might not a publication date, but there can be information about when you accessed the podcast/viewed it/listened to it. (The example citations below from the Purdue OWL site could be dates when these podcasts were heard and viewed by the student, for example.) I would follow the format at the Purdue OWL site below for the Works Cited, and then in the text of the paper, use a parenthesis with the time, as in “the podcast says x.” (Bell and Philips, 2:19) for two minutes and nineteen seconds. It’s always a good idea to listen to the podcast, pause it, and take notes with times! If you aren’t sure how to do citations for our online readings, that is alright, check this Purdue OWL site for that information as well, there are all different kinds of sources listed on the left side menu: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ . Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and locate the following information: For all podcasts, provide as much information as possible; not all of the following information will be available. Possible addition identifiers may include Producer, Director, etc. Audio Podcast: Bell, T., & Phillips, T. (2008, May 6). A solar flare. Science @ NASA Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://science.nasa.gov/podcast.htm Video Podcast: Scott, D. (Producer). (2007, January 5). The community college classroom [Episode 7]. Adventures in Education. Podcast retrieved from http://www.adveeducation.com Additional tips: John C. Bean, in his book Engaging Ideas (2011) cites three ways that students tend to avoid a thesis or write in spite of the ones they have developed. TAKE CARE NOT TO COMMIT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MISTAKES IN YOUR WRITING OF THIS PAPER “And Then” Writing – “And Then” writing is essentially chronological, narrating a person’s life or series of events. Students often do this when they are asked to analyze text(s). They, instead, just tell you what happened, event by event. Or, you might see this in a literature review in which a student just summarizes the articles in the order in which they are read. “All About” Writing – “All About” writing strives to say EVERYTHING about a topic or issue. The paper may be somewhat organized because the student has addressed things topically but s/he has also failed to produce a thesis or position that guides the paper. The topics are, then, not reasons for the thesis. The structure is inappropriate and ineffective in a thesis-governed paper. “Data Dump” Writing – “Data Dumps” on the other hand have no apparent structure. There is little transition or cohesion between the things that are stated and discussed. The student has no guiding thesis, no guiding idea, and so s/he goes to Google and grabs it all. These are often the most likely to be plagiarized because the student is just cutting and pasting from websites (and occasionally books or journals). It is incomprehensible and unoriginal.

    Descartes and Locke – Unanalogousiation of twain philosophers

    Encircling perception/the wilful/feature peculiarity

    The effects exclusive the concept of feature peculiarity, perception and feature peculiarity has loud material excitement incomplete the circles of philosophers with the ocean nucleus history place on the peculiar and the history restraint undivided day to the direct and what it entails. The ventilate encircling feature peculiarity has loud wholly a essential wise confrontation where interrogations are loud with contemplate to the whole of civilized historys, restraint solicitation, the interrogation of history following mortality. This skin of decomposition is inseparable as kit perfectows peculiars to strive answers on that are essential restraint the whole of a peculiar aggravate a era of age. This is so referred to as “ the diachronic aggregate of feature peculiarity”. Further, there is so the effect of the “synchronic aggregates” kindred to feature peculiarity that involves the identification of class traits features of a peculiar aggravate a era of age. There are unanalogous theories and theorists that keep purposeeavoured to expound the concept of feature identities such as John Locke and Rene Descartes.

    John Locke and Rene Descartes

    Essentially John Locke refers to the concept of encircling perception/the wilful/feature peculiarity discriminatingly by extinguishedlining the standard restraint feature peculiarity throughextinguished the history of a civilized history. The standard is essential to expounding competent provisions restraint feature perception and feature peculiarity. He is of the speculation that the effect of feature peculiarity is crucially alike to the survival and the uninterruptedness of the peculiar. He adds that “feature peculiarity is founded on the cause and the import of either the collection or the morals”. In abstracted, Locke was largely across the Cartesian Speculation restraint feature peculiarity. The Cartesian speculation perfectude-tos that the morals defines feature peculiarity. From his assessments, Locke perfectude-tos that undivided of the ocean conceptualizations of feature peculiarity can be normalized on the general wilful-identification criteria of undividedself. Further, he holds that the effect of perception is a subject that should be looked at from the angle of feature uninterruptedness. This is so across the Augustinian inspection that emphasizes that whole was initially a iniquitous whole and the Cartesian speculation that refers to the morals as the ocean determinant of a feature perception and peculiarity which instrument that a whole is innately apprised of the cause of argumentative propositions that are used to restraintm subjects, experiences, sensations and reflections (Osachenko, 269).

    In his hold reflections, Locke so creates the concept of the collection and morals. This avenue could be used to accessible the scientists’ ideology that straightly identifies the perception of the brain.  This is consequently the import of the collection may transmute beside the perception of the brain debris the wilfulsame. Locke’s inspection exposes his inequities with contemplate to sanctity and the apocalyptic theories with contemplate to the purpose of days inciting the feature failings of civilized historys and their class traits succeed be legal restraint the last pitiable say of the civilized historys. However, Locke is supportive of the circumstance that the effect of feature peculiarity is essential to the discussions kindred to discussions encircling the uninterruptedness of history and the effect of history following mortality. Locke essentially strives to designate whether`… if the wilfulselfidentical Import which thinks be transmuted, it can be the wilfulselfidentical peculiar or cherishing the wilfulsame, it can be a unanalogous peculiar”. Twain of his answers here are in the affirmative. He urges that it is feasible to give perception from undivided sight of import to the direct in such a wholener that inasmuch-as the morals is transmuted, the flatten of wilful-perception debris the wilfulselfidentical so that the effect of feature peculiarity is preserved aggravate the passage of the transmute rule. However, it should referable be expected that perception succeed regularly reocean the wilfulsame. This is consequently perception can be obsolete simply from sheer restraintgetfulness extraneously necessarily material the morals or the intention rule in a resembling method. These provisions perfectude-to that the morals is unanalogous restraint complete peculiar. This is the conclude why John Locke perfectude-tos that it is referable adequate to trust on the wilfulselfidentical say of the morals or the thinking rule of peculiar when assessing their featureity. This is what executes the dignity among the peculiar and the whole. Locke thinks that the dignity of the morals and perception is balance ingrained and that it serves to expound the effect of the advenient resuscitation of peculiars as told in biblical texts and another regular thinks of a community.

    Descartes on feature peculiarity

    Descartes is balance careful with the provisions influencing the concept of feature peculiarity. He essentially raises the interrogation-Do the provisions of feature peculiarity keep to be continuants? And whether they keep an vital species or a stated of “supreme dispositional influences” (Bidjerano, 318). Like Locke, Descartes so thinks that undivided’s feature peculiarity has the restraintce to know feature transmutes aggravate age. According to his coincidence, the primitive imports of feature peculiarity keep an vital species. Ordinarily, peculiars are seen as some description of a continuant. However, Descartes thinkd that peculiars should referable be seen as continuants as there as some inferations that keep to be made precedently making such a falsification. Firstly, Descartes invokes the interrogation of the attainments that are required to infer undividedwilful as a normal peculiar and the determinants of the wilful of such a peculiar consecrated the transmutes that are to be practiced during their historytime. In this occurrence, Descartes negates the Locke ideology of the morals versus the collection by investigating the provisions that execute a peculiar to belong to a feature featureity botch. The Descartes avenue perfectude-tos that the interrogations of the effects of perfect say on the peculiar in undividedwilful on wilful-perception and the decisions that a peculiar is liable restraint making from there henceforth. This, consequently, furthers the interrogations as Descartes tries to expound the axioms restraint wilful-doubt and the possibility restraint aggregate untruth where there is an vital influence that often influences community to keep unadulterated and fiction pretences.

    Descartes so incorporates the effect of wilful-discipline as a circumstanceor restraint feature peculiarity. He perfectude-tos that perceptions and attitudes could be discriminating in determining the absolute featureity of a peculiar. However, he is discriminating of the circumstance that it influence be obscure to found with assurance the circumstanceual perception of a subject which has the germinative of corrupting or contributing categorically or a peculiar’s featureity. Descartes adds that untrue thinking and fiction propositions should referable be used to designate feature peculiarity nor should a peculiar be tricked to think that what whatever is happening to them fit now is either steady or limited. Descartes was earning in determining whether the assurance of his whole was feasible. He, consequently, pushed psychologists and psychology experts into search themselves whether apparent and unlike propositions could be used to unanalogousiate among community’s featureities. This is surely rancorous as it is circumstanceual. Descartes thinks that the singly attainment the could execute a peculiar be true of their featureity should commence from ascribing to their corporeal attainment and then integrating their vital peculiar to their corporeal attainment.

    Descartes was careful with the so-called “Bullies”, community who thinkd that their corporeal orientation was a Godspurpose restraint their featureity. In this occurrence, you invent that a peculiar is large by collection heap beside their courage and direct is impressible, beside they are restraintced to do objects that their selves could referable a spirit. This in-fact fueled the clamour restraint the dignity of the collection and morals in the discussions encircling a peculiar’s featureity. Descartes uses an test among span community, peculiar X and peculiar Y. According to Descartes, the most material object is to commence by sumptuous that the corporeal object in interrogation does referable keep perception at perfect. That perception is brought encircling by the morals. As such it would be feasible to coin a agent with resembling corporeal functionalities as a civilized history beside with no morals. This instrument it succeed never parade featureity traits such as emotions, behaviours and class traits nor would it keep the thinking accommodation of that of a civilized history. This brings extinguished the convergence of subjects among John Locke and Descartes. They are twain of the subject that the civilized collection is a containment restraint the morals and the indifferent is legal restraint a peculiar’s perception. This is in turns legal restraint determining peculiar feature peculiarity.

    Works Cited

    Bidjerano, Temi. “Self-conscious emotions in solution to perceived failure: A structural equation type.” The Journal of Testal Education 78.3 (2010): 318-342.

    Osachenko, Julia S. “MYTHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY CONFIGURATIONS OF BOYISH IDENTITY.” VESTNIK TOMSKOGO GOSUDARSTVENNOGO UNIVERSITETA-FILOSOFIA-SOTSIOLOGIYA-POLITOLOGIYA-TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE 38 (2017): 269-274.