Blog #26: Identifying Philosophers/Philosophical Schools of thought I Will Use for Argument/Counter/Counter-Counter

ARGUMENTS:

Argument #1: It’s impossible to prove that people are in love based on the chemicals in their brain.  

Philosopher: Hume (constant conjunction/association)

Argument #2: It’s impossible to know if people, especially other people are being truly sincere when they say or think they’re in love. 

Philosophers: Frankfurt, Descartes (bullshit, sincerity, doubt, cogito)

Argument #3: The figurative language used to make arguments is deceiving and ultimately bullshit because it disregards the truth.

Philosophers: Wittgenstein and Frankfurt (bullshit, dangers of metaphors/figurative language, and vagueness)

COUNTERARGUMENT:

According to Immanuel Kant, we can know that the laws of nature exist because our minds structure them. Kant argued that there are necessary concepts, innate concepts, that come from the human mind that give meaning to everything. He theorized that our ability to take what we sense (Hume) and process and comprehend it in our minds using rationalism (Descartes) was possible because of our innate (a priori) 12 categories. Using this reasoning, Kant claimed that “mind is the law giver to nature” and that the world is always to some degree the creation of the subject. Using Kant’s logic, it is possible that all humans contain a similar feeling of being in love, which can be backed up by the scientific processes that adhere to the widely accepted laws of nature. Moreover, according to Kant it is plausible that are commonalities between how being in love is displayed and felt. In addition, Kant’s theories were the basis for consciousness and cognition as discussed in psychology and its subcategory psychophysics, further establishing Kant’s credibility. Kant’s theory allows us to draw a connection between the science behind the chemical reactions and being in love. Elite Daily uses this same theory to describe how the MRIs are able to show that being in love is caused by the chemical reactions shown in the brain (as backed up by scientific studies) and that there are noticeable and actionable patterns/verbalized feelings common among people who claim to be in love.

Philosopher: Kant

COUNTER TO THE COUNTER: 

If the mind is the lawgiver to nature and the world is always to some degree the creation of the subject like Kant asserts, this means that it is extremely unlikely that two people will feel or experience love the same way. According to Elite Daily, two people must essentially be on the same page in order for true love to exist among them (there must be a mutual understanding of both partner’s feelings). However, if everyone’s minds are making sense of and creating the world differently, then no two people can ever be in love by Elite Daily’s standards. According to Descartes, we must accept nothing as true except for the fact that we exist individually if we are consciously asserting it (Cogito). But even if we acknowledged the existence of other people, disregarding the Cogito, according to Kant, we are still likely interpreting things and making sense of the world and creating it uniquely. Having said so, it is fair to assume that no two people will ever be sure that they feel the same way about each other meaning that people can never know if they are in love. Under these assumptions, being in love is impossible. 

Philosophers: Kant and Descartes

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

  1. This is a really thorough argument (counter and counter-counter included). I like how direct you are about your points, but is your argument that being in love is impossible or that no one can know if they are in love? If these can be interchangeable, make sure you show that they are just in case the reader gets lost

  2. All of your arguments are logical and make sense to me. There are a lot of details and information for your counter argument and counter to the counter-argument. Good job!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bitnami