Hugo Münsterberg was a German psychologist who was well known for his work and implementation of applied psychology. He used his theories in industrial, legal, medical, clinical, educational and business situations. He is also well known for his theory that argued that no actual facts had ever been proven by philosophical psychologists until after psychology became scientific in the mid-1800s. This view is quite contrary to the long-standing view of both Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It is still debated today as to who is valid in their points and whether because the mind may be immaterial whether anything can factually be known about it.
In this paper I will lay out the argument by both Aristotle and Aquinas on the immateriality of the mind.
…show more content…
It actually has no specific nature at all; its nature is accessible to every bodily object or sensible thing. It is adept to knowing not just one specific set of sensible things, or even every sensible thing, but the entire nature of sensible things. Therefore, the mind must be completely deprived of all sensible natures, like the sense of taste is uninhibited from a specific set of sensible objects. (3)
Step 4:
Aristotle elaborates further that what we might name our power of knowing is not in reference to actual begins, until it truly comprehends. This view is different of the early philosophers, who said that the power of knowing must include all things if it can know all things. But if it knew everything, then it would be an eternal intellect, and not just a possible intellect. Along the same lines he said that of the senses, if they were fundamentally composed of the things they observe, their observations would not assume any external practical things.(4)
Step 5:
Aristotle then defends the point and says that if anyone should presume it to be true that the intellect has the efficacy of objects before it knows them, in which the soul comprehends and creates opinions. From this he does not include the mind of God, which, far from being only possibly and is most certainly knowing of all things, and is perfectly unmixed.
…show more content…
This point may be true however, they, being the eyes, on do so by receiving the forms analytically, as things deprived of matter not as matter. Also receiving objects in this way encompasses that they obtain only the forms of colors. They are still bodily structures; they are still subject to being influenced by other forms like cold or softness in a material way. By declaring the mind obtains all forms is saying that the mind is not at all influenced materially, and so is unadulterated, that is to say it is no way bodily but completely separate from everything. As long as the eye or any other bodily organ of sensation still can be said to experience analytical reception of form you are still lead to the deduction that the intellect has no material state given that it knows
This paper will be covering what knowledge essentially is, the opinions and theories of J.L. Austin, Descartes, and Stroud, and how each compare to one another. Figuring out what knowledge is and how to assess it has been a discussion philosophers have been scratching their heads about for as long as philosophy has been around. These three philosophers try and describe and persuade others to look at knowledge in a different light; that light might be how a statement claiming knowledge is phrased, whether we know anything at all for we may be dreaming, or maybe you’re just a brain in a vat and don’t know anything about what you perceive the external world to be.
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.
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.
All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight”. This is the foundation of human knowledge Aristotle presents us with in Book Alpha of the Metaphysics. The next question which we must naturally ask ourselves is, How? How is it that we can have any knowledge at all? We by our very nature desire to know and we
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.
For millennia, human beings have pondered the existence of supreme beings. The origin of this all-too-human yearning for such divine entities stems in part from our desire to grasp the truth of the cosmos we inhabit. One part of this universe physically surrounds us and, at the end of our lives, consumes us entirely, and so we return from whence we came. Yet there is another, arguably more eternal, part of the cosmos that, in some ways, is separable from the transient, material world we so easily perceive but that, in other ways, is inextricably linked to it by unexplored, divinable forces. The argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is not that this worldview is provable or disprovable; the mere fact we are able to reason about abstract objects without having to perceive them is evidence enough of this order. Rather, Aristotle attempts to tackle some of the most fundamental questions of human experience, and at the crux of this inquiry is his argument for the existence of an unmoved mover. For Aristotle, all things are caused to move by other things, but the unreasonableness of this going on ad infinitum means that there must eventually be an ultimate mover who is himself unmoved. Not only does he put forth this argument successfully, but he also implies why it must hold true for anyone who believes in the ability to find truth by philosophy.
. 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...
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
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.
The mind is a collection of various classes of processes that can be studied empirically. To limit the field of mental processes we must follow the criteria of folk psychology. There are three kinds of mind: human, animal and mechanical. But the human mind is the paradigm or model of mind. The existence of mechanical minds is a serious challenge to the materialism or the mind-brain identity theory. Based on this existence we can put forward the antimaterialist argument of machines. Intelligence is a class of mental processes such that the mind is the genus and the intelligence is a species of this genus. The capacity to solve problems is a clear and definite criterion of intelligence. Again, like in the mind, the human intelligence is the paradigm of the intelligence. There are also three kinds of intelligence: human, animal and mechanical. Searle’s Chinese room argument is misleading because Searle believes that it is possible to maintain a sharp distinction between syntax and semantics. The reasonable dualism in the brain-mind problem defends the existence of brain-mental processes, physical-mental processes, and non-physical-mental (spiritual) processes. Constitution of the personal project of life, self-consciousness and free volitions are examples of spiritual processes. Usually the intelligence has been considered the most important quality of human beings, but freedom, or the world of free volitions, is a more specific quality of human beings.
In his proof of the existence of God, Augustine begins by first examining the distinction between bodily senses, the inner sense and reason. These three considerations form the foundation of his argument. Reason is the vital factor that divides humans from animals. From this premise Augustine moves on to claim that there is a hierarchy among beings; existence, life and understanding. Existence, a rock for example, is inferior to an animal due to the fact that a rock merely exists but an animal exists and has life. By this logic, animals are inferior to humans who have all three attributes. After establishing these premises, Augustine claims that anything superior to human reason must therefore be God and only if that there is nothing greater than that. Augustine believes that the truth of numbers is superior to human reason and states that only human minds can grasp the concept of numbers. The most intriguing aspect of numbers is the concept of infinity. Augustine proves that it is superior to reason by noting that after one comes two and then three and four. These are unchanging numerical truths that will always hold. He then concludes that he has found something greater than the human mind and wisdom.
Two arguments are made with the sixth meditation, which are for the existence of material things, one based on faculty of the imagination, and the other based on the senses. When thinking and imaging shapes such as triangles it is easy to imagine a three sided triangle, but try to imagine a shape with one thousand sides, the image becomes near impossible to process, and it becomes even more difficult trying to distinguish a shape with 999 sides from a shape with a thousand sides. This shows a weakness in man’s imagination, but in dealing with mathematical properties, it is easy to perceive an object with a thousand sides as it is a triangle. The imagination and the body coincide with one another, because the imagination uses what the bodies’ senses such as feeling the shape, hardness, heat of an object, by seeing the color, by the smell, and by the taste the imagination can distinguish an object from the physical world and incorporate it into the
Aristotle, a name well known even now like the gods of ancient Greece such as Zeus and Poseidon, his name is well known because of the questions he asked and the way he viewed the world that would make those of a simple mind scratch their heads. People whom do not question anything think he is insane and by right he may have been a little mad, but we as humans are all a little off kilt. As this you can look at the views of Aristotle and if you are not one of a simple mind and can look at it in a critical thinking way, you can analyze his views to see if you agree or disagree that in fact he thinks that all things in this world are physical, and that everything has a purpose. Aristotle is correct in the case that all things are physical, because are matter, he also does not bring religion into his statement, yet does not discredit an artisan; he also states that all things do in fact have a purpose, and are something believable.
While the great philosophical distinction between mind and body in western thought can be traced to the Greeks, it is to the influential work of René Descartes, French mathematician, philosopher, and physiologist, that we owe the first systematic account of the mind/body relationship. As the 19th century progressed, the problem of the relationship of mind to brain became ever more pressing.
This paper will address the Mind/Body Dualism by comparing and contrasting Cartesian rationalism and empiricism and the responses to the Mind/Body Problem by comparing contrasting Kantian Idealism and Phenomenology. It will explain how each attempt to respond/resolve the mind/body problem confronted by both empiricists and rationalists and my own philosophical response to this epistemological problem by sharing my own views are similar to the theories.