A female philosopher was rare in the seventeenth century. A female in the Royal Society was even rarer. Margaret Cavendish was both. Margaret Cavendish was born Margaret Lucas. The name change was a result of her marriage to William Cavendish, the Duke of Newcastle. It was difficult for a woman to have writings published in the seventeenth century. Cavendish was able to publish some works on her own but her husband’s influence gave her the opportunity to publish many more works. Her husband also put her in close proximity with very influential philosophers and scientists of the time such as Hobbes and Boyle. Thinkers such as Hobbes and Boyle were not willing correspond to Cavendish directly since she was a women, and at the time correspondence …show more content…
of that sort was not common. For this reason, Cavendish structures many of her writings as though she is responding to a third party. In this paper, Cavendish’s argument will be responding to Descartes’ dualism.
Most philosophers in the seventeenth century were offering a response to Descartes’ dualism. In Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, he presents an argument for a mind-body dualism. Mind-body dualism is a distinction in regard to substance. The mind is a substance completely different than the body. The mind is where thought takes place. Body is extensive substance. According to Descartes, the mind controls the body’s movements and it is also where perception takes place. Elizabeth of Bohemia, a correspondent of Descartes, points out a problem with this mind-body dualism. If it is the case that mind and body are substances of completely different kinds it does not seem possible for the mind to interact with the body. How is it that the mind, being a completely different kind of substance, could come into contact with the body in order to make the body move? This is one problem Cavendish will attempt to resolve in her argument. Cavendish will attempt to reject dualism and argue for a type of monism consisting of animate (thinking) and inanimate (not thinking) matter. Her system can resolve the interaction problem because there would only be one substance. If it is the case that there is only one kind of substance then there could not be an interaction problem because an interaction problem of this sort inherently requires more than one …show more content…
substance. In this paper, I will examine Cavendish’s argument against Descartes’ dualism and critique her argument. I will argue that Cavendish’s argument is not successful because she runs into an interaction problem similar to that of Descartes. However, if a solution of the sort for which Cavendish is attempting to argue is desired, Spinoza’s monism is a similar but more successful argument. In order to examine Cavendish’s argument for monism it is first necessary to look at her view on motion.
She objects to Descartes view of motion as a mode of a thing. To say that motion is a mode of a thing is to say that is in no way part of that thing but a manifestation or condition of that thing. Cavendish posits that motion is part of a thing rather than a mode of a thing. Motion cannot exist without matter. As a result Cavendish thinks that motion cannot be transferred from one object to another since it is not a substance but just a mode. For Cavendish, if it is the case that motion can be transferred from object to another than the object the first object would have to transfer matter to the second object since motion cannot exist without matter. That is to say if one billiards ball rolled into a second billiards ball then the second billiards ball would gain matter, and the first billiards ball would lose matter. However, for Cavendish, it could be the case that one thing occasions the motion in another thing. That is to say one thing could cause the motion that is contained with another thing to act. However, not all matter is capable of
motion. Cavendish writes, “…all matter is partly animate and partly inanimate...” (Letter 30, p25) She makes this claim prima facie. Cavendish claims that this is only on kind of matter, but only varying degrees (animate and inanimate). Animate matter is matter that thinks. This matter has knowledge (at least self-knowledge) and life. It is composed of sensitive and rational matter. Animate matter is also capable of self-motion. It seems as though self-motion is the only kind of motion since motion is not capable of being transferred by itself, and something can only be occasioned to move. Inanimate matter seems to be the opposite of animate. Inanimate matter is not capable of thought. It is not capable of self-motion. Thus, inanimate matter is not capable of motion. Animate and inanimate matter have a very important relationship in Cavendish’s system. She speaks of a commixture of animate and inanimate matter. Cavendish writes, “No particle in nature can be conceived or imagined, which is not composed of animate matter as well of inanimate” (Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy). This is to say that if one were to take a single unit of matter there would have to be animate and inanimate matter in that unit of matter. The two are described as being very different in nature, but they are so closely mixed that they cannot exist without the other. An important note on this quote of Cavendish. She not only thinks that it is not physically possible to have animate without inanimate and vice versa, but that it cannot even be conceived. That is to say that it would make no sense at all to even think of animate being without inanimate. The initial reading of Cavendish’s argument presents some problems. Cavendish claims to have a monistic system, yet the way she writes seems to lead to the conclusion that there are two distinct kinds of matter. Inanimate matter seems to have a very different nature than animate matter. Descartes was criticized for his mind-body dualism because it involved two substances of different natures interacting which does not seem to be possible. Cavendish’s system does not seem to be too different in this regard. Cavendish wants to hold the opinion that animate and inanimate have different natures, yet they can interact. We can see this because she describes animate as self-moving and thinking. She then describes inanimate as the opposite: not self-moving and not thinking. It seems as though she has an interaction problem as well. There is another problem at work here. Cavendish says all motion is self-motion. Animate matter is the only matter capable of self-motion. Inanimate matter is not capable of self-motion. Thus, it is not capable of motion. The smallest particle contains both animate and inanimate matter. How is it that the animate and the inanimate are able to move together if inanimate matter is not capable of motion? It seems as though all inanimate should never be able to move. Cavendish attempts to address this objection. “...inanimate works or moves with the animate because of their close union or commixture” (Letter 30, p26). It seems as though inanimate matter would not be able to “work” with animate because “work” implies some sort of thought on the part of inanimate. It seems as though it could not move with the animate unless the animate was giving some if its matter to the animate. However, Cavendish is opposed to this idea, rightly so. She points towards the union as part of the solution. As written, or even with a generous interpretation it seems as though Cavendish is unsuccessful here. Another potential objection to Cavendish’s thought on the severability of inanimate and animate matter. “No particle in nature can be conceived or imagined, which is not composed of animate matter as well of inanimate” (Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy). Here, Cavendish states no particle could exists without animate and inanimate. It does not seem to follow as she presents it that the smallest unit of substance is made up of two other units (animate and inanimate). Would it not be the case that these two units are the actual smallest unit of substance? Thus making it conceivable to have one without the other. It seems as though Cavendish wants to be a monist. She wants there to be one substance. However, the way she painted the picture makes it seem like there has to be two different kinds of substances. This leads one to believe this could simply be a form of dualism disguised as monism. It seems as though Cavendish has hit a dead end with her monism.
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.
Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
According to René Descartes, substance dualism is a dual particular kind of matter that has two kinds of properties. In this case, the two kinds of properties are mental properties and physical properties of human beings. The mental properties are the thoughts of an individual and the physical properties are the extension in space. Descartes explains that a person is not identical to a body; a person can exist without a body because it is not a body. Henceforth, Descartes claims that substance dualism is true. From this point of view, Descartes makes his claim that substance dualism is true in order to make clear what the new science really is about, to explain the new physics of the contemporary period, and to figure out the vitality of the
Elizabeth writes a letter to Descartes asking him to explain to her the relationship “there is between the soul, which is immaterial, and the body, which is material” (Margaret A.: p16). She seeks this clarification particularly on the aspect that regardless of how the soul influences the body movements. This question comes following a claim that Descartes had made “regarding the body and the soul” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). He had intimated that the body and the soul exist as single entities and that each has autonomous function. This is found in the philosophy of the dualism. “The function of the brain is to think. The function of the body, on the other hand, is to show movements” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). It is for this reason that Elizabeth wonders then that if the body and the soul are independent, how comes that the soul can cause body movements? She trusted that the great philosopher of the time, Descartes, would have an explanation considering the matter. The body-soul relation was a concept that Elizabeth found impossible to comprehend. “According to what she had already known from the metaphysics back ground is that movement of a physical body could only be effected by the action of another physical body” (Margaret A.: p17). How the soul managed to cause the body movement despite it being immaterial was the mystery that Elizabeth thought that Descartes would solve.
In this essay, I plan to defend Descartes ' theory of Substance Dualism against the objection made by Princess Elizabeth. Substance Dualism is theory which states that there are two fundamental substances, mind and body. Princess Elizabeth 's objection against Substance Dualism is based off of her idea of how the mind and body interact in order for mental causation to occur. I defend Descartes 's theory by offering my own objection against Princess Elizabeth 's idea of what causation is.
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...
This radical separation of mind and body makes it difficult to account for the apparent interaction of the two in my own case. In ordinary experience, it surely seems that the volitions of my mind can cause physical movements in my body and that the physical states of my body can produce effects on my mental operations. But on Descartes's view, there can be no substantial connection between the two, nor did he believe it appropriate to think of the mind as residing in the body as a pilot resides within a ship. Although he offered several tenatative suggestions in his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth, Descartes largely left for future generations the task of developing some reasonable account of volition and sensation, either by securing the possibility of mind-body interaction or by proposing some alternative explanation of the appearances.
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
Descartes is talking about something called interactionist substance dualism. He is stating that the mind and body causally interact with one another. This can be summed up to say that as easily as the mind can cause changes in the body, the body can also cause changes in the mind. Therefore the mind and body must be intimately united. An example of this is having the intuition to raise your hand.
During the sixteen hundreds, the French philosopher René Descartes laid the foundations for the beginnings of Cartesian Dualism. In contrast, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued against dualism in favor of materialism. Recently, Cartesian Dualism, and dualism in general has fallen out of favor as materialism arose as a more plausible and explanatory theory regarding the interrelationships between body and mind. The translation Descartes’ writing in the Meditations is far more cryptic than Hobbes’ writing in the Leviathan. Making it far easier to see Hobbes’ claims. Hobbes provides a reasonable explanation against dualism in his objections to Descartes, and in his Leviathan, provides background upon his reasoning in those objections. Dualism may be less popular than materialism in current philosophy, but it may simply be because dualism has more or less reached some sort of block in regards to its further development, and not anything to do with the writings of Descartes or Hobbes. Descartes and Hobbes may have influenced many of the earlier bickering between philosophers of mind upon the subject of mind-body interaction, as Hobbes was likely the first objector to Descartes’ dualism.
Descartes is a very well-known philosopher and has influenced much of modern philosophy. He is also commonly held as the father of the mind-body problem, thus any paper covering the major answers of the problem would not be complete without covering his argument. It is in Descartes’ most famous work, Meditations, that he gives his view for dualism. Descartes holds that mind and body are com...
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
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.