The mind-body problem
The relationship between the body and the mind has elicited debates based to the problems that individuals encounter in trying to understand these problems. It is referred to as the mind-body problem from the difficulties that are encountered in understanding the working of the body and that of the mind.
Philosophers have found themselves in dilemma over what controls the other. As they ask, is it the body that controls the mind or it is the mind that controls the body? The two facets of this argument become confusing when some approach it from the mind-body perspective as others approach it from body-mind perspective. My assertion is that the two facets are not related in any way and therefore each point of view should be taken on different occasions to avoid confusing the two.
The usage of these two concepts inter-changeably is what contributes to the problems and mystery in understanding them. The mind body facet explains how the activities of the mind dictate the action of the body. For example, how the mind sends the sense of danger to the body when a hand is placed on fire causing the person to immediately withdraw the hand from the fire.
This can be explained biologically. On the other hand, the body-mind problem explains how the actions of the body influence the brain. This can not be supported from the biological perspective but psychologists have made attempts to explain how it can happen.
Free will-and-determinism
Most scholars have developed various strictures that indicate the non-existence of determinism and freedom. The most basic arguments are based on the vague and ambiguous definitions of these terms. Determinism states that future occurrences are products of the present conditions and the laws of nature. The failure of determinism lays in the inclusion of the natural law in its definitions. This is because the natural laws are applied in the same ways across the globe.
However, the occurrence of a situation at a specific point may not necessary predict future occurrences across the globe. That is, just because Brazilians are good soccer players does not mean that Canadians will be good at it in the future. Similarly, the definitions of the free will are by no means conclusive. Free will advocates for individual choices that is not in anyway affected by the surrounding.
However, it is clear that the decisions made are largely determined by the prevailing surrounding. For instance, one may chose to support a specific football club o the basis of free will and the reason for this decision may be because all friends support the same team. From this example, it’s clear that the decision is influenced by the surrounding. Thus, there is no such thing as free will and determinism.
The existence of God
Many arguments have cropped on whether or not God do really exist. In fact, the arguments on God’s existence ensue from various forms. For instance, most individuals draw God’s existence on science, others on history, philosophy while some on personal or private experiences.
Taking philosophical arguments as the primary focus, it becomes apparent that if any of the moral arguments, ontological arguments, first cause argument and argument from the design becomes successful, then such an argument must vividly support a definitive conception about God. From my own perspective, I believe that God really exist and to say that He does not subsist is ideally impossible.
This is based on the fact that the world and everything in it exists because of God’s existence. Actually, the world came into being at a given point in time, and the distant past shows that nothing could have come into life devoid of the existence of a supernatural being. Unless there was something that could bring the universe into being, then nothing in the universe should have existed. Therefore, the fact that the universe exists, there is a clear indication that God exists and His existence transcends epoch which has no beginning or end.
Life after death
Beings cannot virtually cease to subsist after physical death. Incase there was no life after death then human beings could have been mortal without souls. Thus, from the philosophical perspective, if life after death did not exist, then beings could not have come into life from the onset.
In my own judgment, thinking about the precedence in unfathomable thought whilst unaccompanied with someone who has no possible hope of life after death is the most upsetting and equally tantalizing contemplation there is. Yearning to be acquainted with and the extent to which an individual wishes to know whether there is afterlife all hinge on an individual. However, life after-death is neither attestable nor invalidated.
This is derived from the fact that an individual has to endure physical death so as to attest or refute the existence of life after death. From the very nature of life after death, refuting it seems absolutely impossible.
This is because it could not have been the worldwide consciousness or God’s intention to reveal that there is afterlife to the contentment of each one of those who persevere. Since mankind has the capability of comprehending nature, making a discovery of afterlife makes this possible and it cannot be refuted. Hence, life after death seems to be the greater part in God’s plan.
The basic principles of morality
The basic principles of morality help the human race to make out all that which is immoral or moral. The question is how would different people know that they are wrong if they seem to be at odds while each one supposes that he or she is right when actually the reverse is anticipated of their true positions?
Given the principles of morality namely the negative golden rule, the golden rule and the non-aggression axiom, I support the application of non-aggression axiom principle when solving moral and immoral issues because it cannot be streamlined to support a coercive behavior. In fact, this principle of morality goes direct into the focal point of the subject matter and delivers judgment based on the prevailing circumstances and not derived from aggression.
The principle of non-aggression axiom clearly shows whose right is infringed, the victims, and the kind invasions made. This principle stipulates that which is regarded an infringement of an individual’s rights and that which does not amount to infringement. For example, every person has the freedom to speak, amass or engage in victimless crimes but acts such as civilians’ slaughter are illegitimate and should be disowned in the society.