The Distinction Between Mind and Body

Evaluate the argument that Descartes makes based on clear and distinct perception for the distinction between mind and body

In arguing for the distinction between mind and body, Descartes seeks to show that the two are independent substances and can exist separately. It will be useful to outline Descartes’ argument based on clear and distinct perception by listing his premises and conclusion. The essay will then analyse each premise in turn, arguing that the argument fails because his premises are faulty. The argument, found in the Sixth Meditation, runs as follows

P1 – All I clearly and distinctly understand can be created by God as I understand it.

P2 / C1 – If I clearly and distinctly understand two things apart, it is certain that they are distinct, as they are capable of being separated, at least by God (from P1).

P3 – I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, as simply a non-extended, thinking thing, and of (my) body, as simply an extended, non-thinking thing

Therefore, C2 – It is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it.

A preliminary point to make on P1 is that it relies on God’s existence. Descartes thinks he has shown God to exist earlier, particularly in the Third Meditation, but few would now accept his argument. However, the effect of the phrase “could be created by God” could be retained if we frame the premise in terms of logical possibility

P1a – Of anything I clearly and distinctly understand, we can say that it is logically possible that it should exist as I understand it.

This seems to have the same effect as P1. Neither version guarantees actual existence, and we do not need to argue about whether God is constrained by logical possibility (as Arnauld s...

... middle of paper ...

...requires the matter (or body) that makes up the jug. That which is part of my essence as Descartes initially seems to use the term, i.e. that which is important for who I am, is not the same as my essence in the sense of that which is sufficient for me to exist. It seems Descartes moves from the former to the latter without justification.

In Scholastic terminology , shape (e.g. of a jug) is a mode of an extended body (e.g. clay). Perhaps, we might suggest, the mind is a mode of the body, something which arises from the fashion in which the body is extended. Descartes’ argument based on clear and distinct perception fails to preclude this possibility. P2, the crucial premise, is plainly false, while P3 is highly questionable. The conclusion (C2) does seem to follow from the premises, but the problematic nature of the premises means that the argument does not work.