Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances. Word Count: 1488 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. The first argument to be discussed is that of conceivability, which aims to disprove that the mind and …show more content…
body are connected due to the ability to conceive the idea of a mind being separate from a body [Descartes 1641: 32]. The argument can be shown in the following premise-conclusion form: Whatever I can distinctly perceive as separate is, in principle, able to be separated. I can perceive that my mind is not an extension, instead is consciousness I cannot think with my body, and my mind is essential to my existence I can conceive that my body is extended, and not conscious —————————————— Therefore, the two properties are distinct (material and immaterial). While I would state this argument is in the most basic of forms, there are suppressed premises which are important to highlight, for instance: ‘Whatever is conceivable is possible’.
An important idea is that since the mind can differentiate itself from the body, and the body is unable to think, which leads to the conclusion that the two substances cannot be the same, as they have different properties [Descartes 1641: 32]. This is a valid argument as each premise leads to the conclusion, regardless of whether the premises lead to a sound argument. While this is a valid argument, I would say that premise i. could be seen as a supposition, as there is no empirical proof of Descartes being able to visually or physically separate the substances. As I have presented Descartes argument and supplied additional, suppressed premises, I will now assess the soundness of this …show more content…
argument. With regards to this argument, I would put forward that there are a few things that I see flawed with Descartes’ argument.
One, is the lack of distinction between the meaning of ‘possibility’, and ‘conceivability’. Conceivability is the ability to imagine something within the mind [Oxford English Dictionary, 2001], while possibility is something that is doable [Oxford English Dictionary, 1999]. In the context of the argument, Descartes assumes that anything that is conceivable within the mind [Descartes: 1641: 32], and I would argue this point on the basis that, while it has been backed up by philosophers such as Richard Swinburne in Evolution of the Soul , I would argue the premise that anything is conceivable is possible. I would do this by stating, initially, that while something may be logically possible, it must also be physically possible in order to be entirely possible (Swinburne 1986: 147). In order to back this up, I would propose the following
example: I enter a time machine, and move backwards 5 years. I step out of the machine, to find my present self killed. Therefore, I have entered a time machine despite being dead 5 years ago. ⊥ With reference to this argument, I would state that the idea of time travel is definitely conceivable, however there are problematic logical reasons why this is not possible. If one travels back in time, and kills somebody, it means they have altered the past, but the past has already occurred, and cannot be altered. Similarly, I would reference ‘The Grandfather Paradox’, and specifically David Lewis’s objection to the possibility of time-travel. I would state this relevant to Descartes’ ideas of dualism within the conceivability argument as it disproves that anything conceivable is possible. I would put forward that reality must be a constraining factor in saying that anything is conceivable is possible. This is because the issue of Cartesian dualism occurs within reality, therefore there must be a distinction between a mental conceivability and a real possibility, due to the previous example I have given which shows this. Therefore, I would argue that something that is conceivable can only be seen as entirely possible if it can be done within reality, and at this time, the concept of time travel is not possible, meaning that not everything that is conceivably is always possible. Just because x can be imagined, it does not mean that x is something that is a real phenomenon. Within this part of the essay, I have assessed the conceivability argument, and in the following part of the essay, I shall repeat the process but for the divisibility argument. The second argument that Descartes proposes is the divisibility argument, on which he states that since the mind is not divisible (yet the body is), it is not possible for the mind and body to be of the same substance [Descartes 1641: 33]. The argument can be seen like this: The mind is partless, and therefore indivisible The extended body has parts, and is therefore divisible If i took apart all of the parts of my body, nothing would be taken away from my mind, therefore the substance is not extended————————————————————————————— Therefore, the mind and body are separate substances. This is a valid argument, as the premises lead to only one possible conclusion; that the mind and body are two separate substances. Evidently, premise i. could be seen as a supposition, as the idea of the mind being partless seems to rely on the conceivability argument, especially premise i. that if one can conceive that the mind is separate from the body, then it must be true. Therefore, it is possible that Descartes includes a suppressed premise in ‘If i can conceive that the mind is partless, then it must be, as anything that is conceivable is possible’. Essentially, I believe that this argument is not as strong as the conceivability argument, and I would argue this on the basis that the first premise lies entirely on the idea that we accept that the mind is able to know everything about itself. Obviously, if the first premise is able to be rejected, then the argument is not cogent, and therefore unsound. Similar to the expectation that the mind knows its own composition, I would argue that an eye may not know the colour of itself without a mirror, and in the same sense, this is an example that our mind might now know about the exact composition of itself. I will offer a second criticism to this, as I believe that it is an important point to make in order to argue this proposition of indivisibility of the mind. Descartes states that regardless of any part of his body being removed (he specifically references the foot and arm), it does not affect his mind in any way, and that his mind is still whole regardless of the amputation of the body [Descartes 1641: 33]. However, while there was no a posteriori evidence that Descartes could use, empirical research into the brain has shown proof that the mind is limited when the brain is affected. Antonio Damasio, a neurologist who published a piece called Descartes Error rejects Descartes’ ideas of dualism - with specific regard to premise iii. - by questioning how physical pain can affect mental states, and how cognitive malfunctions such as penetration of the brain can cause ones mind to be severely effected [Damasio 1994: 249]. I would draw inspiration from this example and question why; if the mind was detached from the brain or body, the body is able to have such an impact on the mind. Damasio uses a case study to prove this point in Phineas Gage; that after impalement of the brain, Gage was observed not to be the same person, and severely struggled in functioning in society. This is believed due to the idea that his deep emotional thought storage was impaled, which allowed him to reason rationally. [Damasio 1994: 3]. I have used this example to argue that while some parts of the body might not affect the mind, the brain does, therefore it is difficult to agree with Descartes in this argument, for if his mind was separate, he shouldn’t have been effected by the injury in a mental sense. Within this essay, I believe I have both introduced and criticised each arguments, with reference to external material and original ideas. My aim was to show difficulty in accepting either of Descartes’ arguments, through challenging whether the premises he offers could be accepted or refuted, and my final comment upon the arguments would be that both contain weak premises, which lead to it being difficult to accept them as sound arguments. Bibliography
One of Descartes’ most popular theory? is the distinction between mind and body. This is known as substance dualism. Substance dualism is a human being consists of two kinds of things that interact. Using this theory of substance dualism, we can explain why some people can experience excruciating pains and urges like the phantom limb syndrome.
The philosophical theory of dualism holds that mind and body are two separate entities. While dualism presupposes that the two ‘substances’ may interact, it contrasts physicalism by refusing to denote correlation between body and mind as proof of identity. Comparing the two theories, dualism’s invulnerable proof of the existence of qualia manages to evade arguments from physicalism. While a common argument against qualia—non-physical properties defined in Jackson’s Knowledge Argument—targets the unsound nature of epiphenomenalism, this claim is not fatal to the theory of dualism as it contains claims of causation and fails to stand resolute to the conceivability of philosophical zombies. This essay argues that epiphenomenalism, while often designated as a weakness when present in an argument, can remain in valid arguments from qualia.
Rene Descartes uses the Skeptical method to re-examine everything he knows and form concrete beliefs in the process. In some of his meditations he touches on the body verses mind dichotomy. First, the “body” and “mind/soul” need to be differentiated. Rene Descartes and Simon Blackburn lace definitions of these two entities through their writings. In his second meditation Descartes briefly discusses the difference between the mind and body. Descartes notes that he pulled this thought from his old, misguided days, but it is still useful for defining these two terms, as it gets the essence of difference between them. He writes, “I had a face, hands, arms, and the whole structure of bodily parts that corpses have – I call it the body. The next belief was that I ate and drank, that I moved about, and that I engaged in sense perception and thinking; these things, I thought, were done by the soul” (4). Basically, the main activity of the body is movement and sustenance, while the mind is used for sensing and thinking. Blackburn calls him a substance dualist. He further explains this distinction in discussion Descartes dualism, “thoughts and experiences ate modifications in one kind of stuff; movement and position belongs to the other” (51). The body’s basic function is movement and the mind’s basic function is sensing – one is tangible, while the other is
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...
Descartes continues the distinction in the Sixth Meditation, where he observes the body is by its nature divisible where the mind is completely indivisible. Descartes knows his body and mind are unified although, when something is cut off from the body such as an arm, nothing is lost from the mind. The body is a physical substance that can be described by quantitative qualities like size, shape and extension. Allowing for it to be divided into parts, for example a cake like the body has a certain size, shape and dimensions that can be divided into multiple smaller sizes. The mind is a qualitative substance that cannot be divided, such as smell; there cannot be half or a quarter of a smell. The mind is not an a corporeal or extended substance like the body therefore it is not capable of being divisible. Since the body and the mind do not share the same property of being divisible or indivisible the mind and body are distinctly different. Descartes claim for mind body dualism can be seen as false, I will argue that the m...
... Theory is instrumental in explaining how the mind can be considered an entity that is separate from the body. We can come to this conclusion by first understanding that we are real, and we cannot logically doubt our own presence, because the act of doubting is thinking, which makes you a thinker. Next, we realize that the mind, and all of its experiences and thoughts, will remain the same no matter what changes or destruction that’s endured by the body. Then we can grasp that we are our minds and not our physical bodies. We can use a number of examples to illustrate that these concepts, including the movie The Matrix. Finally, we can disapprove John Locke’s objections to the Dualist Theory by identifying that the mind is capable of conscious and unconscious thought; therefore, it cannot be divisible like the body. Hence the mind is a separate entity from the body.
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
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
This paper will discuss the dualism’s Divisibility Argument. This argument relies on Leibniz’s Law and uses a different property to prove the distinctness of brain states of mental states. Mary, who is a materialist, presents several objections to that argument. Her main objection corresponds to the first/third-person approach. She believes that Dave presents that argument only from the first-person approach, which is introspection, and totally disregards the third-person approach, which is observation of another mind. Mary’s objections will follow by the Dave’s response on them from the dualist’s point of view.
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...
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.
. Its most famous defender is Descartes, who argues that as a subject of conscious thought and experience, he cannot consist simply of spatially extended matter. His essential nature must be non-m...
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.
Ryle, in his seminal work, The Concept of Mind, begins by stating the official doctrine of Cartesian dualism, “which hails chiefly from Descartes, is something like this. With the doubtful exception of idiots and infants in arms every human being has a body and mind. Some would prefer to say that every human being is both a body and a mind. His body and his mind are ordinarily harnessed together,...
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.