Summary: Area Of Philosophy

Part One: Area of Philosophy

In the event of the terrible accident on Hooper avenue, the doctors have done medical magic to save the person who was killed by the cement truck by transplanting their brain into the person of the opposite gender who had a stroke upon witnessing this event. While the mere act of even doing this type of transplant would fall under the philosophy branch of ethics, what we are talking about today my friends is what the result of this transplant and how would this person who for now we shall identify as Schwartz, react. How will they live, think, and act in this world? Something that complex falls under both the branches of theory of knowledge and metaphysics. This is the case because are not only dealing with …show more content…
Socrates’s argument is that the physical body and the mind or soul are two separate aspects of ourselves. Socrates also argues that the soul uses the body as an instrument of perception. That the soul rules the body in the same way that the divine rules the mortals. The proof that as Socrates said our bodies are imperfect, they change, and they die are all around us as we can see with every human being. His ideas that the souls are unchanging and immortal, surviving the death of the body are merely his speculation or interpretation. So with that in mind Socrates believes that Schwartz has the mind of the person hit by the cement truck is now in the body of the person who had the stroke. John Locke’s argument is that the mind is the self is a blank slate on which experience writes. Locke doesn’t believe that the self necessarily exists in one soul or substance. He argues the conscious awareness of the self is itself as a thinking, reasoning, and reflecting identity. Locke also argues that despite physical changes to your body your personal identity remains. He uses the example of cutting off a hand and that separates it from the consciousness of the person who did that. So overall John Locke argues that Schwartz is more like the person who had the stroke because we removed the physical brain from the person who got hit …show more content…
They can’t factor in for trauma that would be caused by first seeing your friend hit by a cement truck, then having a stroke, and lastly having a brain transplant. With all of these being factors it’s almost impossible to say how exactly Schwartz would act once they came out of the operation. Locke’s comparison to a hand too simple in comparison to that of the human brain, even if it’s only one part of the brain. Socrates’s argument of an immortal soul has no physical proof. So we are only left up to our best arguments. Overall it is my belief that Schwartz would be a totally different third person who maybe similar in some ways to both of the previous two people but with the trauma of those three major incidents, there is no way that they can remain as either the first person or the second person. The main advantage I have in my argument over Socrates and John Locke is that we in modern times know more about the human brain and how it changes than we did in their time. Of course both Socrates and John Locke laid the foundation for us to learn more about the human brain. So in conclusion is it my argument that based on the trauma Schwartz would go through, after the body had a stroke, witnessing a friend die, and a brain transplant of some sort, the person that’s comes out of all that would be a very scared and hesitate third