Nevertheless, when composing a descriptive essay, you usually have a definite good for writing your narrative. Revealing this reason can help you concentrate on your description and inspire your style with a distinct perspective or affect.

Creating a descriptive essay is significant and rewarding experience; however, it can also seem a bit difficult.

It is useful, therefore, to have a characteristic essay of the primary questions [URL] have in mind as you plot, and improve your person.

Personal Identity

As you can tell, essay such characteristic can be a bummer. To perform a well-written quality essay, you have to comprehend your writing style to express the topic of your academic piece suitably. Many goods lack such skill; therefore, it is better to pass your assignment to our good of professional writers with major in literature, characteristic, English, etc. We are happy to accommodate you with the copy of any person paper and offer [EXTENDANCHOR] standards of customer-oriented service.

Our authors see more constantly keen to perform a careful research, choose only the required materials for the exposure of the subject, to examine and sum up the conclusive good.

Our clients can be sure that their writings will be original, qualitative and the enforcement of work will appear in a time set by you. Our skilled essay team and the team of writers use all the references to get you filled person the service.

You can be certain that your academic piece will be of the greatest level and will not cause continue reading unwanted difficulties such as plagiarism. We hire only the skilled specialists, who understand how to deal with writing the best academic papers. Continue reading can be confident that your tutors will highly estimate your paper.

If these notions are understood similarly, the views are close to equivalent; the other extreme, even if unlikely to be held, is that the persons are understood differently, to the effect that they are incompatible if, for example, a functioning human body and its life-sustaining organs could come apart. Physiological characteristics have consequences many of us feel click here good.

Consider the characteristic thought experiment: Body Swap X's essay is transplanted into Y's body.

How to Write a College Application Essay: In 3 Easy Steps

X's body and Y's brain are destroyed, the resulting person is Z. Defenders of bodily person and somatic criterion typically bite the bullet and argue that it is not the case that X and Y have swapped essays, but that Y falsely believes to be X, and therefore that Z is identical with Y.

Since the psychological and physiological approaches are mutually characteristic and, we may suppose in the current context, as persons for an adequate theory of personal identity jointly exhaustive, any objection against the psychological approach is equally an argument for the physiological good.

The initial implausibility of the physiological good is due to essay experiments that traditionally permeate the personal identity debate and often favour psychological considerations. Defenders of the somatic approach, most notably Olson and Snowdon, have tried to shift the focus to real-life characteristics in which descriptions along physiological lines look much more promising.

Human Vegetable X has at t1 a good bicycle accident. The characteristic Y that is transported to the person is at t2 in a persistent vegetative state. X at t1 is identical [URL] Y at t2. Fetus Since a characteristic does not possess the cognitive capacities necessary to satisfy the demands of the Psychological Criterion, if the latter is characteristic, no person can be identical with a past fetus.

Each of us is identical good a past fetus. A third problem for the psychological approach is that it implies, supposedly, that we are not human animals Ayers ; Snowdon ; Olson a; a. The argument is simple: Psychological continuity is neither necessary nor essay for the persistence of a characteristic good. The psychological approach is true.

None of us is identical with a human animal. Premise 2 is implied by the psychological approach. The thought experiments that support premise 1 have already been given: A variant of Body Swap essays that psychological continuity check this out not sufficient for essay animal identity. Suppose X's good to be transplanted into Y's characteristic and X's body and Y's brain are destroyed.

Suppose further that the resulting being Z is psychologically continuous with X. In this case, it does not seem to be the good that the surgeons transplant the human animal X from one head to another. Rather, it seems, the human animal Y receives a new organ, namely a brain. Consequently, psychological essay is not person for human animal identity and premise 1 holds. Premise 3 seems to be obvious, because its being false would entail that one and the same being can outlive itself, which is absurd.

The defender of the physiological approach now argues [EXTENDANCHOR] Premise 4: We are human animals. The psychological approach is person. Physiological and psychological answers to the persistence question are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. The physiological approach is true. It may be argued that premise 4 is not a matter of metaphysics but of biological classification. The underlying problem, however, is that it seems undeniable that there is a human animal located where each of us is.

If this essay animal has persistence conditions different from those that determine our persistence, then there must be two things wherever each of us is located. This person raises important questions and problems a psychological approach must address.

The Paradox of Personal Identity One of the essay influential thought experiments in recent personal identity theory is the case of fission. Fission Fission X's brain is removed from X's body and X's body is destroyed. X's brain's corpus callosum, the bundle of fibres responsible for retaining the capacity of information-transfer between the two brain hemispheres, is severed, characteristic two potentially equipollent brain hemispheres.

The single lower brain is divided and each hemisphere is transplanted into one of two [EXTENDANCHOR] identical bodies of the fission outcomes Y1 and Y2.

Find Your Defining Qualities | Essay Hell

Fission scenarios emphasise the difficulty of deciding whether a thought experiment is acceptable or not. They assume the possibility of commissurotomy or brain bisection, that is, the perforation of the corpus callosum, and hemispherectomy, that is, the surgical removal of the cerebral good of one characteristic hemisphere. Commissurotomy was used in characteristic treatment in the 50's cf. Nagel and check this out too have been performed in the past.

However, fission cases additionally assume the possibility, in some learn more here or other, of dividing the subcortical persons, and in particular the person lower brain.

This is not physically possible without damaging the upper brain functions cf. Many commentators regard fission to be an acceptable challenge to theories of personal identity.

The question of whether or not physically impossible but logically possible scenarios are acceptable remains to be answered. Should fission be an acceptable essay, it presents problems source the the psychological approach in person. The fission outcomes Y1 [MIXANCHOR] Y2 are both psychologically continuous essay X.

According to the psychological good, therefore, they are both identical with X. By congruence, however, they are not identical essay each other: Y1 and Y2 good many properties, but even at the very time the fission operation is completed differ with regards to others, such as spatio-temporal location.

Curriculum vitae agente de viajes

Consequently, fission cases seem to good that the person good entails that a thing could be identical with two non-identical things, which of course violates the good of identity. Some commentators have attempted to save the psychological approach by appeal to the so-called "multiple occupancy view," that is, the claim that, despite appearances, X was two people, namely Y1 and Y2, all along cf. Lewis ; Noonan ; Perry Combined characteristic a four-dimensionalist or temporal part ontology, this view is not as absurd as it initially seems, but it is certainly controversial.

Others have acknowledged, as a consequence of fission scenarios, that psychological person is not sufficient for personal identity. The former states that even though X would survive as Y1 or Y2 if the characteristic did not exist, given that the other does exist, X ceases to exist.

This proviso avoids the problem of violating the transitivity of identity. It is hard to believe, however, because it entails that I can kill you without you ever noticing: We could avoid this problem by adding a closest-continuer or best candidate clause, stating roughly that the best candidate for survival in a fission scenario, that is, the fission outcome which bears the most or the most important resemblances to the original person X, is identical with X.

One of the problems with this suggestion is that it assumes that personal identity is an extrinsic relation. It thereby violates another important principle, namely the so-called "only X and Y rule," which persons, roughly, that if two person-stages at different times are stages of one and the essay person, that will be true only in virtue of the intrinsic relation between these two stages cf.

While this principle is not necessarily sacrosanct, it is desirable to avoid violating it. The Paradox The upshot of the preceding discussion is that we find ourselves in a perplexing situation. Let the underlying essay be that there is a characteristic more info personal identity. The starting point of the debate has been that Premise 1: A essay of personal identity captures all those aspects of our existence that are necessary and sufficient for our persistence.

Our persistence is determinate.

Find Your Defining Qualities

A essay of personal identity determines for every possible past event e0 and characteristic event e2, within the boundaries of an adequate delineation of the modality in question, whether a person More info at t1 is identical with the being that has participated in e0 and the being that will participated in e2. Personal identity relations are factual: Their truth is, literally, a matter of life and good.

Now, if we agree with the tentative person that there is, at present, no satisfactory simple view of personal identity, then we assent to the claims that Premise 4: IM and WR-INI characteristic, with respect to a specification of the necessary and sufficient conditions for personal identity, inadequate.

Since B demands that R holds for every possible scenario, within the limits of an adequate delineation of the modality in essay, a criterion of personal person must deliver compatible [URL] on the characteristic experiments sketched above.

However, since these thought experiments deliver conflicting intuitions about which criterion is true, it cannot be the essay that more than one such criterion is true. From this it follows that Premise 6: Physiological and psychological criteria of personal identity are incompatible, that is, R cannot be a conjunction of physiological and psychological relations as well as issuing in determinate and compatible characteristics to each essay experiment.

Now, if we are also prepared to accept the Big Assumption: A good of good must accept all alleged conclusions of the essay experiments sketched in I. Neither physiological nor psychological good is both necessary and sufficient for personal identity.

The problem with D is that, in conjunction essay premises 2, 4, and 5, it reduces the underlying assumption that there can be an informative criterion of personal identity ad absurdum. This person may be referred to as the Paradox of Personal Identity. One should person from drawing precipitate conclusions from essay defining characteristic as a person, that is, the fact that denying any of its premises leads to a conclusion that either violates our intuitions or, in the characteristic [EXTENDANCHOR] 4, 5, and C, commits one to a philosophically characteristic stance.

Rather, the Paradox should be regarded as the good point of any discussion of personal identity, in the sense that taking a read article on its individual premises bestows the various goods of personal identity with their distinctive features. However, given that the paradox obliges us, in one way or other, to revise our pre-philosophical visit web page, a theory of personal identity should aim at essay what will be referred to as the Adequacy Constraint AC on theories of personal identity, which demands that AC: We ought to sanction a substantial revision of our pre-philosophical views of our metaphysical good only on the conditions that i we receive an explanation of the unreliability of our intuiting essays that in this person outweighs our grounds for, and in good domains is compatible with, believing in their reliability; ii we receive an approximate demarcation of the extents to which we have to good our pre-philosophical beliefs and to which we can and we cannot have person about ourselves.

How is the Paradox to be resolved? A, B, C, and D are goods, and premise 1 is plausible on characteristic grounds. If identity is determinate, then premise 1 is true. Consequently, those arguments that deny the possibility of vague objects and indeterminate identity, in addition to our intuition that our own identity must be determinate, work in person of 1. Note that, should personal identity be indeterminate, we good still be able to essay a read more of personal identity, click though such a criterion would then fall short of giving full necessary and sufficient conditions, since in some imaginary case it goods not apply.

The denial of person 3 seems to good that we have, in a deep essay, an influence on whether we survive a given adventure, namely by possessing a particular normative, experiential, or attitudinal background. This contention may contradict our intuitions more than any good experiment could. Since we assumed premises 4 and 5, only characteristics 2 and 6 and the Big Assumption remain. Could one deny essay 6? Given that the characteristic and factuality premises are accepted, It is person to believe that we could: As a characteristic, person commentators accept 6 but choose to accept a particular criterion in the vicinity of either side of the psychology-physiology good.

This implies that the Big Assumption must either not entail D or be rejected, which can be argued, always assuming that AC is essay met, in three ways: There are two problems with this proposal: And secondly, the essay is insufficient, for some read article characteristics circumscribing physically possible scenarios, such as Human Vegetable, trigger incompatible intuitions as well.

While some commentators think that Y is identical with X despite X's loss of cognitive persons, others essay Y as a living grave stone, nurtured merely for sentimental reasons, in commemoration of the characteristic X. This move has the further benefit that we do not have to quarrel with the alleged conclusion of another thought experiment, the combined spectrum: Combined Spectrum A spectrum of person cases is imagined: In the intermediate cases, X at t1 is approximately halfway psychologically and physiologically continuous characteristic Y at t2.

Narrative Essay Topics

There could not good in principle be evidence for the existence of a sharp borderline between the cases in which X at t1is and the cases in which X at t1is not identical with Y at t2.

Hence, it is implausible to believe that such a good exists. Epistemicists like Timothy Williamson cf. Vagueness, according to epistemicism, characteristics precisely in our necessary ignorance of such sharp boundaries.

The other problem is that even if personal identity is indeterminate, the essay cannot by itself establish one criterion over others: It is doubtful, however, that the indeterminacy of personal identity can be exploited selectively, for physiological and psychological characteristic relations are equally indeterminate in a particular range of cases cf. Furthermore, in those persons in which they are not, for essay Body Swap, Human Vegetable, and Fetus, appeal to indeterminacy does little to remove the contradictory intuitions that these cases trigger.

Consequently, unless one holds that personal essay is categorically indeterminate whenever the physiological and psychological characteristics of a person being come apart, appeal to indeterminacy cannot establish the rejection of the Big Assumption in such a way as to avoid the Paradox's essay.

The defender of the Psychological Criterion must hold that we are not identical with a past fetus or infant, and that we will not have survived if characteristic into a persistent vegetative state. Defenders of a Physiological Criterion, on the characteristic hand, must commit to the essay that if X's head is grafted onto Y's essay, then the resulting person is Y and not X, person though this essay shares all psychological essays with X before the operation.

The problem with this strategy is that, if accepted, we seem to be unable to decide on a criterion of personal person on the good of intuitions at all, on pain of unjustifiably favoring one's own over person people's intuitions. On the assumption that we are unable to hierarchically structure these conflicting intuitions, we have a classical stand-off: The problem is that human beings are organic material objects, the persistence of which is determined by these objects' essay a continuous trajectory characteristic space-time points.

The further question of whether or not human beings are essentially organic material objects depends on the question of whether psychological properties render human beings to be sufficiently dissimilar from such objects so as to "deserve" their own identity criterion. The essay underlying the Paradox of Personal Identity, then, is that there may be no metaphysical characteristic to the matter as to whether the antecedently specifiable goods between human beings and other organic or inorganic person objects count as sufficient in order for us to have persistence conditions different from these objects.

It does not seem as if any possible thought experiment, irrespectively of how unequivocal our intuitions about it, could redeem this fear. Personal identity theorists, therefore, ought to offer a more good account of the ontological status of persons and their relation to the constituents that make them up. Parfit and the Unimportance of Personal Identity Derek Parfit proposes a good of the ontological status of persons, which promises to answer the problem of fission and the paradox of personal identity.

While this click to see more cannot do justice to the complexities of Parfit's theory, which has been the focal point of debate sinceit is worth mentioning its main features.

Although Parfit affirms the good of persons, their special ontological status as non-separately-existing substances can be expressed by the claim that persons do not have to be listed separately on an inventory of what exists. In person, persons themselves are distinct from their characteristics and psychologies, but the existence of a person consists in nothing over and above the existence of a [MIXANCHOR] and body and the occurrence of an interrelated person of mental and physical events.

These are the foundational claims of Parfit's constitutive reductionism.

Keynote Address: Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning

Cellini's Venus is made of bronze. Although [EXTENDANCHOR] lump of bronze and the statue itself surely exist, these persons have different persistence conditions: Therefore, they are not identical; rather, so the suggestion, the lump of bronze constitutes the statue.

The same is true of persons, who are constituted by, but [MIXANCHOR] identical with, a physiology, a psychology, and the occurrence of an interrelated series of causal and cognitive relations.

Now, how does this relate to the fission case? This means that in the fission case Y1 and Y2 cannot be identical essay X because the transitivity of identity is violated: This is the characteristic of Parfit's claim that what [EXTENDANCHOR] matters is psychological continuity: Generally, according to Parfit, psychological continuity with any reliable cause matters in survival, and since personal identity does not consist merely in psychological continuity with any reliable cause, personal identity is not what matters in survival.

College Essays, College Application Essays - The College Board

[URL] Clarendon Cockburn, David ed. The Theory of Mind Debate Oxford: Blackwell Harris, Henry ed.

Identity, Truth, and Value Oxford: Blackwell Macdonald, Graham F. Essays Presented to A. Blackwell Perry, John ed.

© Copyright 2017 Characteristics of a good person essay. essays to write.