Spinoza believes that the only way to differentiate two or more things is through the recognition of the modes which are different between them. It is not possible to distinguish between two apples by examining how they are both red and round, these attributes are similar, and you are therefore required to find a difference between them in order to draw any sort of distinction. Proposition five is the first major argument he presents, and that is the argument that two substances cannot share an attribute. In the process of trying to find a distinction between two objects we examine their modes which are sensible qualities about the object. However, because these sensible qualities are products of attributes there is in fact no real difference …show more content…
The mind-body problem which results from Descartes philosophy is solved by Spinoza monism, however the resulting implications and criticisms result in a theory which is no more solid than the one it attempted to replace. The problem of the missing link between extended and thinking substance has been solved, for Spinoza does provide a logical account of the relation between mind and body through his monism. It must be noted that the solution he has provided in monism may solve the mind-body problem specifically; however it carries a number of implications and subsequent criticisms that deeply question the validity of monism itself, and defeat his argument. Dualism has the problem of connection between mind and body, versus monism which has the problem of connection between mind and body, but also every other attribute. Spinoza’s monism posits that God is the only substance and that extension and though are attributes of God, amongst his many other infinite attributes. Spinoza makes a connection between thought and extension in that they are parallel in their modes resulting in a crossing over between the two, which gives the mind the perception that it has a body, as well as perceiving the rest of the modes of extension. The problem with this is that God is a being with infinite attributes, extension and thought being only two of them. Spinoza focuses on these two attributes alone, yet they only represent two of an infinite series of attributes. The problem that this raises then is if God has infinite attributes, and thought can create the idea of a supposedly extended human body with thought, why is it that the thought does not perceive any other attribute? It stands to reason that if thought can impose itself in the attribute of extension, then it should therefore be able to encompass any other number of attributes. This carries two implications that are problematic for Spinoza: first, if
...Spinoza insists, it is nonetheless possible that two substances can be distinguished in virtue of them sharing an attribute and yet be distinct in nature by possessing an attribute not shared by the other. So, whereas substance A shares an attribute with substance B - namely, both share attribute C - the former differs in nature from the latter in terms of each one possessing an attribute not contained by the other. If the nature of Substance A is attribute C and attribute D, and if the nature of substance B is C and E, then it appears that the nature of each one, though each shares an attribute in common, is fundamentally distinct. So, it appears that Spinoza’s commitment to the thesis that no two substances share the same nature or attribute stands in error, and thus I conclude under the possibility two substances sharing an attribute while differing in nature.
This same line of reasoning is used to describe the body and mind’s essences and necessary properties. A thinking thing can exist with it’s sole essence being thought and other modifications(modes) of thought such as affirming and denying, willing and unwilling. According to Descartes the mind is conscious and non-extended, whereas the body is extended but not conscious. Descartes uses these essences as evidence that the mind and body are two completely different things that essentially have nothing in
For Spinoza, the freedom of the human will hinges on its ability to act independently of desire and appetite, to control the body with will. Spinoza questions this idea of control by examining the nature of the body, namely if it can be completely understood, and thereby controlled. Sleepwalking is a prime example of an ability held by the body that functions in the absence of the will of the mind, thus Spinoza concludes the nature of the body is yet to be determined. After finding that no one has rightly determined or explained all of the possible qualities of the body, he writes, “this shows well enough that the body itself, simply from the laws of its own nature, can do many things which it mind wonders at.” Continuing with this idea of
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
To try to explain Dualism through God, we must talk about corporeal bodies and our knowledge of them. Regarding the nature of corporeal bodies and what is known about them and given Descartes premises, the conclusions he draws in Meditation Six are generally the correct ones. He again invokes the causal to argue that the ideas...
Every since Plato introduced the idea of dualism thousands of years ago meta-physicians have been faced with the mind-body problem. Even so Plato idea of dualism did not become a major issue of debate in the philosophical world until the seventeenth century when French philosopher Rene Descartes publicized his ideas concerning the mental and physical world. During this paper, I will analyze the issue of individuation and identity in Descartes’ philosophical view of the mind-body dualism. I will first start by explaining the structure of Cartesian dualism. I will also analyze the challenges of individuation and identity as they interact with Descartes. With a bit of luck, subsequently breaking down Descartes’ reasoning and later on offering my response, I can present wit a high degree of confidence that the problems of individuation and identity offer a hindrance to the Cartesians’ principle of mind-body dualism. I give a critical analysis of these two problems, I will first explain the basis of Descartes’ philosophical views.
Two of the most fundamental parts within the Cartesian dualism argument are both the conceivability argument, and also the divisibility argument. Both arguments aim to show that the mind (thinking things) and body (extensions) are separate substances, both of which arguments can be found within Meditation VI. Within this essay, I shall introduce both arguments, and critically assess the credibility of both, discovering whether they can be seen as sound arguments, or flawed due to incorrect premises or logical fallacies.
Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes. Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance.
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
The mind has an incredible power. We see it as we go through our everyday activities, constantly displaying the wonders of logic, thought, memory and creativity. Yet, can the mind be more powerful than we know? Is it possible to reduce or even eliminate pain, illness and disease by using the natural powers it possesses? Can the mind heal?
Overview This paper will discuss the mind-body connection and its relevance to health care professionals and to the public. It will explore the history of the mind-body connection, as well as state research that has been done on the subject. The reader will gain an understanding of the various techniques used in mind-body therapy, as well as their effectiveness. What is the Mind-Body Connection?
In Meditation Six entitled “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and Real Distinction between the Mind and Body”, one important thing Descartes explores is the relationship between the mind and body. Descartes believes the mind and body are separated and they are two difference substances. He believes this to be clearly and distinctly true which is a Cartesian quality for true knowledge. I, on the other hand, disagree that the mind and body are separate and that the mind can exist without the body. First, I will present Descartes position on mind/body dualism and his proof for such ideas. Secondly, I will discuss why I think his argument is weak and offer my own ideas that dispute his reasoning while I keep in mind how he might dispute my argument.
Since Descartes many philosophers have discussed the problem of interaction between the mind and body. Philosophers have given rise to a variety of different answers to this question all with their own merits and flaws. These answers vary quite a lot. There is the idea of total separation between mind and body, championed by Descartes, which has come to be known as “Cartesian Dualism”. This, of course, gave rise to one of the many major responses to the mind-body problem which is the exact opposite of dualism; monism. Monism is the idea that mind and body one and the same thing and therefore have no need for interaction. Another major response to the problem is that given by Leibniz, more commonly known as pre-ordained harmony or monadology. Pre-ordained harmony simply states that everything that happens, happens because God ordained it to. Given the wide array of responses to the mind-body problem I will only cover those given by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I will also strive to show how each of these philosophers discuss what mind and body are and how each accounts for God’s influence on the interaction of mind and body, as this is an interesting distinction between them, as well as the important question of the role of substance. This is important, I believe, because it helps to understand the dialogue between the three philosophers.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.