As this should be a response paper that addresses an issue we?ve discussed within the time constraints of class over the last few weeks, I find it to be my need to discuss further the role of perspective within a philosophical affiliation. This is in terms of physicalism, dualism and dual-aspectism, and as a sub category of common-sense realist, solipsism and nihilism.
             I, myself, choose to be a dual-aspect nihilist. This, by definition, would be that I believe that there is a physical aspect to my mind, but also an intangible and unknown aspect of the mind that I perceive to be essential to existence, but do not think science will ever be able to define. Secondary, I believe in nihilism, that we can never be sure that anything exists. As a human being, and capable of dreaming, hallucinating and being downright wrong in some cases, I find it hard to believe we can ever be sure of anything. Instead of searching to prove the existence of things that possibly can be disproved (if physical theorems and ideas in science are any indication), I choose to accept that I can never be absolutely positive that something exists but I can take on that perspective. This corresponds to a physicalist approach using Mathematical Induction you assume that one instance and a second instance is true (a proof where you prove an equation true when the variable is equal to one, and then when the variable is equal to a variable plus one) and you can prove that equation correct for any variable. (So, take that, physicalists with your devout belief to science and math).
             I use the argument of my glasses to prove dual aspectism. I begin by accepting that my mind has a physical component called the Brain and accepting that there is a part of my brain that I cannot explain. This part is what makes me function, with the work of the entire brain. The Brain without this part cannot work. For example: I see my glasses on the table. My brain wants me t...