Thinking Activity on The Scarlet Letter

 

Ever since Descartes, Western philosophy has been bedeviled by two related philosophical problems that are both forms of skepticism. The first is labeled 'skepticism about the external world' and is based on the belief that we have immediate access only to the contents of our own minds or consciousness. The problem with this view is that we ordinarily believe in the existence of objects external to our minds, like the computer on which I am typing this sentence. The point is, if we have immediate access only to the contents of our own minds, as this view requires, how can we justify our belief in the existence of these 'external things'? Is there no real justification for thinking that there is a world of things 'our there', that is, external to our own minds? According to this skeptical point of view, even our own bodies have a problematic status because they are not immediately recognizable a part of who or what we are. These views pose serious problems that philosophers working within the Cartesian tradition have to attempt to solve.

 

They claim that they meet other human beings only through our interactions with everyday objects such as tables and chairs, because we feel that it is a part of our experience of the world that it is inhabited by other human beings, other dasins. Why is that? The consciousness of the presence of ‘it’ is a building standard or norms that are within the society and the potential for self-confidence is the unit or norm that is the members of the community. On Hindgar’s point of view, when he lives in other circumstances or he exists in a single state, which is part of that community, which is the standard of individual rank, which is a certain part, but how it can be run. Becoming a Dusin is a major year-long incentive for DS to explore community organizations.

On its publication, critic Evert Augustus Duyckinck, a friend of Hawthorne's, said he preferred the author's Washington Irving-like tales. Another friend, critic Edwin Percy Whipple, objected to the novel's "morbid intensity" with dense psychological details, writing that the book "is, therefore, apt to become, like Hawthorne, too painfully anatomical in his exhibition of them"?