Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Descartes vs. Russon. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page comparison of the contentions of these two important philosophers. This paper focuses on the distinction between substances and essences, the mind and body, and autonomy and heteronomy. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPdescartesRusson.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the distinction between substances and essences, the mind and body, and autonomy and heteronomy. Not only are these men separated by many generations, Descartes representing the seventeenth century and
Russon the twenty-first, the views taken by these men on these subjects diverge considerably. Descartes approaches these subjects from the perspective of meditation and doubt while Russon approaches them
from a phenomenological perspective. Descartes provided specific steps though which he justifies his belief that while he (and humans in general)
is (are) a complete entity, a "thinking thing", that entity is composed of two separate parts, the body and the mind. Descartes discourse on this matter is immersed
in his characteristic skepticism which seeks to differentiate belief from truth, his "Method of Doubt". Descartes contends that the mere act of thinking (Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore
I am) validates that a human being does in fact exist. Russon, in contrast, distinguishes between the being that knows itself through its action (substance) and the being
that knows itself through consciousness (pure essence). Descartes, however, rejects the idea of corporeal substance as exemplified by matter and form.
Descartes, of course, is remembered as the "father of modern philosophy". A rationalist, Descartes was particularly concerned with the subject of aesthetic and theological interests. He viewed the
senses as being unreliable because sensory perceptions were involuntary in their nature and not willed by the individual. Consequently he believed that the only indubitable knowledge was his status
as a "thinking thing". He was dismissive in subjects involving the nature of reality and focused instead on understanding what exactly our knowledge of reality actually means.
...