One of the odd yet interesting ideas that philosopher's demand be debated is that of the true nature of the human being. Even though probably each philosopher has his own unique perception of the true nature of the human being, philosophers tend to share some of the same basic attributes in their definition. After reading Plato's five dialogues and Descartes six meditations, I am lead to believe that both philosophers commonly share the idea that the human being is able to exist without the physical body; Plato through the soul and Descartes through the mind. Besides the common thought of the existence of the human being separate from the body, Plato and Descartes also strongly teach that human beings come with certain knowledge of higher powers that need to be merely recollected throughout life. Besides these two similarities in the thoughts of Plato and Descartes, Plato believes that humans need to spend their life pleasing the gods and preparing for death in hopes of obtaining a clean soul that will flourish in the afterlife.
"For there is not a single consideration that can aid in my perception of the wax or of any other body that fails to make even more manifest the nature of my mind" (Descartes 23). As Descartes examines the information that he receives from his senses, mainly that from the wax experiment, he observes his senses can be deceitful and full of doubt so he can not rely on it to determine whether things truly exist. Rather, his mind is behind his knowledge of the existence of things and therefore he is able to exist distinctly from the physical body.
Although Plato does not feel exactly the same way as Descartes, Plato does believe the human being exists distinctly from the physical body ...
... middle of paper ...
...t knowledge is merely a form of recollection or a gift from a Supreme Being. I tend to lean more towards believing in Plato's argument. Although I strongly disagree with knowledge is recollection because I am paying twenty thousand dollars to "learn" right now I do agree that the soul lives on after the body dies and eventually reincarnates into a new body after experiencing the after-world. Death is a given in today's society but I do not feel that our lives need to be spent preparing for it because God gives us the ability to do many more constructive, useful things rather than prepare for our death. In ending, Plato and Descartes teach us numerous ideas of the true nature of the human being. Some similarities exist as well as some differences, but I believe in the end, the true nature of the human being is left up to the ideas of every individual person.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
This is a change from ancient and medieval traditions, like Aristotle, because Descartes does not focus externally on a soul or on an external thing that is using the human body; rather Descartes believes that the body is used to give us perceptions but that we cannot always trust these perceptions while seeking the truth (Brown 156). Descartes explains that “... our senses sometimes deceive us, I wish to suppose that nothing is just as they cause us to imagine it to be… I resolved to assume that everything that ever entered into my mind was no more than the illusions of my dreams” (Brown 156). Descartes also mentions that he does not believe all things are false because of his existence, he thought “... remarking that this truth ‘I think, therefore I am’ was so certain… if I only ceased from thinking, even if all the rest of what I ever imagined had really existed, I should have no reason for thinking that I had existed. From that I knew I was a substance the whole essence or nature if which is to think” (Brown
Our mind and our body are undoubtedly separate from each other. A mind can survive without a body, and, likewise, a body is just house for the mind. In The Meditations, Descartes describes this concept in his dualist theory in the second of multiple Meditations. We can reach this conclusion by first understanding that the mind can survive any destruction of the body, and then realizing that you are identical to your mind and not your body. In other words, you are your thoughts and experiences – not your physical body. Finally, you cannot doubt your own existence, because the act of doubting is, itself, and act of thinking, and to think is to exist as a “thinking thing,” or Res Cogitans.
The purpose of the wax argument is designed to provide a clear and distinct knowledge of “I”, which is the mind, while corporeal things, “whose images are framed by thought, and which the senses themselves imagine are much more distinctly known than this mysterious ‘I’ which does not fall within the imagination” (66). Through the wax argument, Descartes’ demonstrates that corporeal things are perceived neither through our senses nor imagination, but through our intellect alone. In this argument, you will see that there is cause to doubt Descartes’ analysis of the wax and his method of philosophical reasoning.
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
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.
Evaluate the argument that Descartes makes based on clear and distinct perception for the distinction between mind and body
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.
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...
For Descartes, these are mind and body, and for Plato they are body and soul. Aristotle, in contrast, believes in a singular being where both body and soul are connected. For myself, a Christian who believes in the existence of a life after death, Aristotle 's theory creates an obvious negation. While I could agree with the levels of the soul argument, I cannot agree with the body and soul being one and the same for the simple reason that I do not believe that when the body dies, everything dies. I believe something is left over. What that something is, where it goes and what its purpose is, I may not know for certain, but to believe otherwise would not create a better life for me. Believing the soul lives on beyond the body creates an inner desire to seek morality and goodness, and it is in that endeavor that one creates a “better” life. Similarly, it is intuition that leads me to reject Descartes ' argument because my best judgment would tell me not to believe that everything I know, all that I sense, is a figment of my mind. I cannot know if such a thing is true or false, but far too many questions are raised by such an explanation. For myself, neither Aristotle nor Descartes provide an adequate understanding into the nature of the
But his habitual ideas and opinions are still present no matter how hard he tries not to present them, to solve this problem he decides that all of his opinions are false. Descartes finds himself certain about one thing that nothing is certain. Resorting back to the idea that his senses are the only way he is able to obtain the truth in life, he believes that his senses are apart of his mind and body. He uses a honeycomb to examine this topic that the body and mind are one. The wax changes shape therefore he uses imagination to understand it
Many ancient philosophers, including Plato, explored metaphysics in relation to reality before Descartes’s in-depth questioning of the subject. However, Descartes’s views on mind/body dualism differ greatly from Plato’s. As Marleen Rozemond (author of Descartes's Dualism) points out, Plato believes that the body is simply a vessel for the soul to use, while Descartes provides proof that the body and soul are interconnected (172). One does not simply use the other; though they are separate, the mind affects the body and the body affects the mind. Cartesian dualism tells us that "although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, I recognize that if a foot or arm or any other part of the body is cut off, nothing has thereby been taken away from the mind" (414). However, Descartes also states that "nature also teaches me by . . . [sensations] that I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in a ship, but that I am very closely joined and, as it were, intermingled with it, so that I and the body form a unit" (412). Descartes shows through his dualism that though the mind and body are separate entities, they are connected and reliant on one another. This is one key idea that separates Descartes from great thinkers like Plato. Add another Rozemond quote.
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.
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
He believes that the soul takes shelter within the body. The three parts are all located in three different areas: reason is in the mind, spirited is in the heart, and desire is in the stomach. Reason is what controls the whole soul (Plato p. 49). The mind tells the body what to do, how to feel, what to say. The mind controls our appetites and decides who to honor according to memories about those people or events. The spirit is in the heart, the heart is what shows us how we feel about others. The stomach is desire as we crave to have certain possessions such as food or other physical materials in life. If what Plato is saying is any truth, than the argument presented that our soul is our life and our body is nothing but what carries our soul, is therefore false and unsupported by this idea of the mind, heart and stomach. Then so, our thought that Plato’s idea that we can make ourselves alive, is fairly reasonable and true. This is because it is more understandable to say that the reason why our souls are what makes us alive is because our souls are physically made of three parts that control the way we live. Our body is now not only what carries life for us, but what allows us to keep it. Our soul is different from the body because it represents life, but it is our body that allows our lives to