Good Example Of Thomas Nagel Research Paper

Many philosophers' books have been criticized, but the philosopher Thomas Nagel is right to doubt the sciences ability to explain everything in life. If every person believes in science that we are made of cells, organs, the cells are made of organic matter. Organic matter is made up of chemicals. According to Nagel, we are reading these words and making sense of them the same as the scientist. However, Nagel views it in a different way by saying man can reason abstractly, even grapple with various desires and values. Nagel asks what if the science fundamentally does not can explain our existence as the thinking things. Similarly, what if it gives the impossible to fit man correctly into the world of subatomic laws and particles of motions the way science tries to explain it. Then, philosopher Thomas Nagel's new book, he says science itself cannot explain the reality that includes the human beings. According to Nagel, science it needs a new way of looking and describing the fact. For instance, the one that makes values and mind as fundamental as storms even evolution that will enable one to understand the reality of things (Nagel and Thomas, 87-92)
Furthermore, philosopher Nagel argues about science's ability to explain things such as consciousness it has the long history. He says even if one knew everything about single physical fact about someone, he still does not have the idea that it takes to be like that person. In addition to that, one can know everything about perceptions, but he will not understand what it feels like to be a color-blind. According to Nagel, given that we all have conscious beings, it sounds like science is omitting out something that is fundamental. As a result, there are parts of reality science it leaves behind and can be the answer in different ways such as the use of philosophical thinking (Edwards, Paul, and Arthur Pap, 57-61).
Nevertheless, other philosophers such as Daniel Dennett have criticized the argument of Nagel in many Ways. Daniel on the other side argues that, Nagel's whole approach to science is flawed. Daniel further says that we are, of course, conscious; however, consciousness is the phenomenon that finally can be explained by science the same way color and the heart is defined using science. Philosopher Daniel says that the residual such as what-its-like-ness is the outdated term that has no real meaning, the obsolete scientific theories about the phlogiston.
Conversely, that kind of criticism from Daniel is had to be accepting in relation to that of Philosopher Nagel. To most of us, it made us feel as if there is something such as it-is-like to be conscious. For instance, take perception where the photon bounces of the objects and hit the eye. The rods and cones will convert this impact into a chemical reaction that will move to brain via the neurons and finally you receive the feedback to see something (Edwards, Paul, and Arthur Pap 57-59). This process until one sees something of the subject of scientific laws, however, in the course of the experience and neuron, scientific explanation it ends. Therefore, the argument of philosopher Nagel comes in made us believe that the fact the ability one to see an object, they are no way to look at your experience itself in scientific scrutiny.
Although philosophers sympathetic to science, they have several ways to make the subject matter to seem that they are no problem. However, Nagel says that the mind-body problem is complicated enough that all over us should be suspicious to attempt to solve with the concepts and strategies that are developed to account for very different types of things. At this point, Nagel's may start to appear absurd. It seems more reasonable to propose that for every truth, they should be explanations for it, and one may attempt to deny the accounts. Nevertheless, there can be some inexplicable facts. However, an individual is faced with justifying to why they are no proof is needed to the same truths (Nagel and Thomas 85-88)
In conclusion, it is without a doubt that various philosophers' books get criticized. Thomas Nagel as a philosopher is right to doubt the sciences ability to explain everything in life. If every person believes in science that we are made of cells, organs, the cells are made of organic matter. Therefore, the argument of philosopher Nagel comes in made us believe that the fact the ability one to see an object, they are no way to look at your experience itself in scientific scrutiny. Nagel does not argue that scientists or philosophers who would like to provide philosophical insight can see the relationship between the nature and mind in different ways. In addition, the philosopher should not assume that reality will be exhaustively explained by science. That way, other strategies of explanation to our worldviews would be given an opportunity to take center stage.

Work Cited

Edwards, Paul, and Arthur Pap. A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources. 3rd ed. New York: Free, 1972. Print.
Nagel, Thomas. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970. Print.