Lock On Id And Tao Te Chang
Essay, Research Paper
LOCK ON ID
2) Because people are constantly changing, there must exist a difference in between a person. We are always making decisions in our life so in doing so, we become a different person each time. Whatever happens in your life, you are still the same person. As put, you are what you can remember. This is made clear when he mentions For it is by the consciousness it has of its present thoughts and actions, that it is self to itself new, and so will be the same self, as far as the same consciousness can extend to actions past or to come whatever substances contributed to their production . From this quote, you can tell that he is contradicting Aristotle in the belief that a person is different in substance.
3) Our conscious is certainly aware of our limbs. This has to be true, the fact that we control our limbs, they don t control themselves. It wouldn t make sense if a part of the body controls itself. For instance, every organ in our body relies on some other organ, muscle, or fluid for it to perform it s duty. Can you imagine your heart not needing any blood, that would be obsolete, or imagine your foot doing what it feels like whenever it feels like! Seems like it looses its purpose if our conscious is not the roll player in making sure our limbs are in tact.
4) He most certainly should have the right to sew the hand back on if in fact it was detached. As being a part of him, he is able to do whatever he feels like doing with it. Nobody should refuse his right on doing so. To us, a hand is like a thought; we are able to move it at in instant, without actually having to think about moving it. We are able to control its actions just as we can control a thought. It wouldn t make sense to think of a thought, a thought comes from a person thinking. So by this, we conclude that we have full rights to our limbs.
5) I don t think that this is possible even with the technological advancement we have today. It wouldn t make sense to be able to put a past action into a random person and have him think that he did in fact commit that action. There is more to a situation than just remembering it. At most, I think it is possible to imagine yourself doing it, but you can t actually remember it. Their two different things, it s like this, try to remember when you were stranded on an island for a whole month! I’m sure you never were in this situation, but you could imagine how it would be like.
1) I agree with William in a sense that his argument stands logically possible. He s trying to convince people that time travels so fast that you don t experience the present. His last sentence gone in the instant of becoming explains why the present could not have been measured or witnessed.
However, is their such thing as instant? There must exist some time duration for any change that occurs. Even chemical reactions that take no longer than a few nano seconds has some duration. But in this case, time could be the only thing that doesn t apply to itself.
2) His idea behind his example is true, for some things that seem to be in the present were actually taken place during the past. The example he uses All the changes of place of a meteor seem to the beholder to be contained in the present , proves to us that time is deceiving. Our understanding of time does not logically follow the way we live through time. Is it possible to see something occurring in the past? If so, wouldn t that be contradicting reality since the past does not exist?
3) To my understanding, Clays argument of time and experience do relate to one another. We are constantly experiencing different phases of time. It is not necessary to experience only the present, but the past as well. This does not mean that we go back to the past to witness something that occurred, because we are always living in the present. In the case of the meteor, we are only seeing something that existed in the past, we are not actually time traveling. In a way, this can be just as deceiving as seeing a mirage in the dessert. What we see is not there, it just looks like something exists.
As far as experiencing the present, this might very from person to person. But regardless of how you thing of it as, time will always go by. The two are related to each other just as oxygen is in air and water. They are the same molecules that can exist in two different forms. Whichever way you want to think of it as doesn t matter. The same is true for time and experience; you can either tell time or live to experience it.
4) The specious present has to be fiction because it s constantly changing. Once it s present, it changes without any amount of time elapse. To represent the present would be like giving an exact measurement of air contained within our solar system! It just can t be done, however it does exist.
Indeed it does exist, his logic behind the specious present is that both the past and the future do not exist, which makes sense. Nothing exists that happened in the past, and nothing could exist now if it will happen in the future, therefore there must be some kind of present in order for things to take place.
6) This paragraph makes perfect sense! but we seem to feel the interval of time as a whole . This is exactly how I look into time. It s kind of funny to think that we always rely on time to travel at the same rate. It also makes me think about how the future really doesn t exist. Every second that goes by was not planned, but rather coincidental that a moment just past by. Later he goes on to say looking back may easily decompose the experience, and distinguish its beginning from its end . After putting some thought into time, you actually relate it to time slots that lasted though out the day. You choose which slot you want to think about and put a starting and finishing point when in fact it never started nor ended.