Descartes Doubt Argument Analysis

200847856

Does Descartes give any good reason for saying that his mind could exist without his body?

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.

Following Descartes’ reasoning through the 2nd meditation, his doubt argument is: he can doubt that his body exists, but following the ‘cogito’ he cannot doubt that he exists as a thinking thing, therefore his mind is could exist without his body (Clarke, 1988). Descartes’ point of an evil demon causing you to be deceived in all things material is difficult to argue against and his ‘cogito’ shows it is difficult

to deny existence as a thinking thing. Thereby, we are given some reason to believe that the mind can exist without the body.
But both (p.95) – and Queen Elizabeth in replies (p.148) brings counter points against his reasons known as the ‘mind-body problem’ (Clarke). The questions raised limit Descartes’ doubt argument. They state that the mind without physical properties could not have a physical effect on the body. This depicts that without a psycho-physical link between mind and body, they cannot be different. The mind-body problem shows that the mind is unlikely exist without the body and therefore the doubt argument is a limited reason.
Descartes attempts to strengthen his reason in reply that the mind has a seat in the body.

He states the pineal gland is the psycho-physical link between the mind and body. From this Descartes concludes the pineal gland gives the mind a physical property link that allow physical action. This would solve the issue of the ‘mind-body problem’ and strengthen the doubt argument as a good reason to believe the mind can exist without the body. During the 17th century the knowledge of the brain was limited and the possibility of the mind having a seat in the brain was greater, this depicts Descartes would have had good reasoning at the time to believe the mind could exist without the body. Even then however, the idea was mostly unaccepted. Spinoza (1677) stated it was even ridiculed and rejected altogether after Descartes death (Lokhorst, 2005). We now know the pineal gland is an endocrine organ and thus Descartes counterargument to his replies is unsuccessful and the doubt reason today is thereby

limited.
The second strongest reason of Descartes that his mind could exist without his body is the divisibility argument. He argues that extended matter can be split up whereas the mind cannot, therefore the mind is not extended matter. This depicts that as they do not share the same properties (oneness), are different and therefore the mind can exist without the body as a ‘thinking thing’. The indivisibility argument is logically valid and appears to be a good reason because it seems obvious that the body can be split and the mind not. Furthermore, it is based Leibniz’s law of the principle of the indiscernibility of identical. Leibniz law is generally accepted and states for two things to be identical they must hold the same properties. Descartes uses the opposite of this law to say that the mind and body are different because they do not both hold the property of divisibility. By basing his argument upon Leibniz’s well accepted law, it strengthens his reasoning. Overall, Descartes use of Leibniz and the argument being valid makes it a good reason for believing that the mind can exist without the body during the 17th century.
Descartes argument of divisibility today is limited with our knowledge of the brain.

The premise the mind cannot be split we know to be false. For example in the 1960s Scientists Sperry and Gazzaniga split the brain in studies of epilepsy. The result was having two minds operating in two different specialised areas. The patients for example would see a picture of an object in their right vision but see themselves holding another object in their left vision. This resulted in confusion in the patients due to conflicting perception of what they are seeing in their split brain (nobelprize.org, 2016). This shows that Descartes’ premise was wrong because the mind can be split. Thereby we can see Descartes reason for believing that the mind can exist without the body is limited. The split brain procedure isn’t the only modern day article that limits Descartes reasoning from body-mind divisibility. There are mental disorders such as the dissociative identity disorder whereby the mind appears to be split into different identities. This results in there appearing to be more than one person living inside a single body. This example of mental disorder depicts that the mind is divisible and thereby Descartes reasoning is furthermore limited. In modern day understanding of the mind, there are disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder that signify that the mind can be ‘broken’. Studies in physical brain damage, for example car crashes causing loss of memory and suggest that the mind

can be split. Overall, the modern scientific studies on the brain suggest that Descartes was wrong in believing the mind cannot be split. Therefore his reasoning for believing the mind can survive without the body is incorrect.
In conclusion, Descartes initially appears to use good arguments to make reasons to support that the mind can exist without the brain. However, with his premises under scrutiny with our greater understanding of the brain and mind, his reasons become limited and less acceptable for us today.