Foundation
In Descartes Meditation VI Of the existence of material things, and of the real distinction between the real soul and body of man, he explains he reasoning for believing that the mind is better known than any body.
Descartes states his reasoning through various assumptions that he has made in his search for knowledge. Descartes is a philosopher, who through thinking comes to these conclusions.
In the reading of Descartes he interprets his understanding of how and why the mind is better known than the body. He states that, “Myself in my entirety in as much as I am formed of body and soul (mind) taught by nature, sun, stars, and sky. Descartes realized that he could learn things from his body. Things like pain if he touches a flame or pleasure if he drinks a cup of wine. With senses Descartes could see textures and beautiful landscapes. This made Descartes realize that from this generalization that he has made, what he learns from his body does not exceed what he already knows in his mind. I think Descartes point is well made in his quote above. I come to understand this though, through the fact that the minds common sense is what tells me I should not touch a flame, because of the pain it will bring me.
Through Descartes studies of himself, he also came to the conclusion that, “…Mind alone, not mind and body in conjunction, is a requisite to a knowledge of the truth in regard to such things.”(376) He explains this premise with the analogy, “…Although stars make no larger an impression on my eye than the flame of a little candle there is yet in me no real or positive propensity impelling me to believe that it is not greater than the flame; but I have judged it to be from my earliest years, without any rational foundation.” This analogy interprets that, just because there is no direct effect upon his the body or physical senses it does not mean that nothing exists. The mind is more important to think and realize the possibilities even though his body cannot sense them. So even though the flame looks the same size as the star his mind know it in fact is not. I can only understand so much of this statement by Descartes. I understand that that his mind can differentiate the star from the star, but this is not preconceived knowledge given to him at birth.
Descartes gives reasons to say his mind could exist without his body, however these reasons are not good enough for us to agree with him. Descartes’ two strongest reasons for this are the doubt argument and the divisibility argument.
Our minds are very complex. They allow us to imagine and believe things greater than we can sense. They allow us to be innovative and cutting edge. We are only limited to what can be understood by the mind. The possibilities are endless. This is what Descartes came to realize by saying “I now know that even bodies are not, properly speaking perceived by the senses or by the faculty of imagination, but by the intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seen but through their being understood.” His argument is sound and structured in a foundationalist way so that the understanding of his overall point that the mind and body are not always experiencing the same things, therefore the mind is not limited to the
First, Descartes talks about the mind and the body being very different creatures. The mind is good and the body has earthly desires. Descartes
This idea begins the philosopher’s ongoing discussion on the body and the mind. The first thing he must do is prove he exists beyond a doubt. Descartes declares, “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed” (4). This idea rests on the ability of his mind, if he did not actually exist, he would not be have any sort of mental activity. From this early point in the text, Descartes foregrounds the superiority of the mind. As Blackburn puts it, “he is forced to recognize that his knowledge of his self is not based on knowledge of his embodied existence” (20). For Descartes, the ability the think defines the self (the mind/soul)– he cites thought as the one thing that cannot be separated from him. He believes if he stopped thinking he would stop existing. His ability to think sustains him, at this point in his meditations he is only a mind, his mental existence is the only thing he has
In conjunction with this theory, any matter is known through the mind. This reasoning was used as a basis toward the dualism of the mind and body. The mind is a thinking entity. It has the ability to imagine, dream, and ultimately encompass the aspects that are not fundamentally matter. The body exists outside the mind. It is the connection to the external world based on the scientific properties of mass, size, shape, and motion. Descartes argues that the mind is distinct from the body. The mind thinks and does not have scientific properties. One’s body is a non-thinking thing. This distinction leads Descartes to conclude that the mind is not the same as the body. There is no characteristic that is categorized as both mind and body; the body can be changed, the mind cannot. In continuation, the mind can exist without the body and the body can exist without the mind since each thing is distinct. Descartes later explains how the brain is not the same as the mind. The brain is the connection between the mind and body in a human being. Descartes argues that matter cannot be the same as anything mental. The mind is affected by the brain, providing one with insight into the external world. Also, the mind can influence the brain, hence one’s body being controlled by the mind. However, it is possible for the brain to cease functionally and the mind to still operate. Essentially, one can conclude that the
Descartes’s approach to understanding the difference between mind and matter initially began by him doubting all truths which he had grown up believing to be true. He believed that if anything he held to be true was ever deceiving, he would reject its reliability all together. This extreme doubt resulted in Descartes
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.
According to Descartes, the mind and body are completely distinct. The Sixth Meditation encompasses two arguments in defence of Cartesian dualism: First, since the mind and the body can each be perceived clearly and distinctly apart from each other, it follows that God could cause either to exist independently of the other. This satisfies the conventional criteria for a metaphysical real distinction (Med. 6). Second, the quintessence of body as a geometrically outlined region of space involves the prospect of its infinite divisibility. The mind, however, despite the variety of its many faculties and operations, must be conceived as a single, unitary, indivisible being. Since incompatible properties cannot inhere in any one substance, the mind and body are perfectly distinct (Med. 6).
In the Sixth Meditation, Descartes makes a point that there is a distinction between mind and body. It is in Meditation Two when Descartes believes he has shown the mind to be better known than the body. In Meditation Six, however, he goes on to claim that, as he knows his mind and knows clearly and distinctly that its essence consists purely of thought. Also, that bodies' essences consist purely of extension, and that he can conceive of his mind and body as existing separately. By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
“We owe the notion of “the mind” as a separate entity in which “processes” occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes” (Rorty, 2008, p. 234). Plato was the first philosopher to argue that there was something beyond our body. Descartes agree with Plato on this theory and explored this idea more in-depth. Stating that these innate ideas exist, but they remain idle in our minds until a significant event awakens them. He arrived at this idea by doubting everything that he was taught was the truth, and he even doubted his own sense saying that they were deceptive, and after using philosophy of doubt he came to the realization of his existence through the logical reasoning. After he established that his senses were not real, he began to doubt his brain, he stated that our dreams are an interpretation of reality, even though they seem so real. He says that it was only thr...
In the second meditation he has found one true fact, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes then attempts to discover what this "I" is and how it perceives reality. The "I" is a body, a soul, and a thinking thing. It gains perception and recognition through the senses, the imagination, and the mind. He runs into two major problems in these meditations. The first was the existence of reality. The second is the connection between body and mind as he defines them.
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.