The definition of Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline (Mifflin). It is a group of ideas, worked out by a philosopher. The most common topics or questions asked are, what is a mind? a body? What is reality? What is knowledge? How can we know everything? Philosophers believe that asking philosophical questions is useful because it brings wisdom. Coming from the Greek word Sophy, and love from Philo, (Wordnik). It helps people learn about the world and each other. In this paper I will be covering topics on Cartesian dualism, and Logical behaviorism to display Gilbert Ryle’s theories. “To see one thing; to picture or visualize is another. A …show more content…
Gilbert Ryle argues against Decartes’ doctrine called "mind-body dualism." Which explains that he believes the nature of the mind is completely different from the body and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other. Ryle goes against this because he believes that they are most definitely attached together and without one, the other does not exist, nor does it make you human. The doctrine, (also called as, Cartesian Dualism) Ryle mentions it contains, that (1) every person has both a body and a mind, (2) that they are ordinarily harnessed together and that (3) after the death of the body the mind may continue to exist and function (Ryle 23). He believes that the real mistake of Decartes’ philosophy and why they are not linked is based on a category mistake. A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of something is presented as belonging to another category. (Slick) The example that Ryle gives us is, one day a girl …show more content…
Behaviorism is all the claims about minds or mental events that can be expressed in terms of behaviors (Ontology). Ryle states that mental or intentional acts are ways of behaving. It is only okay to use behaviorism if we recognize that when we talk about bodies, to describe it as certain behaviors that are observable and we can identify as things. Not separate it as characteristics that make us behave but as behaviors. There is a logical distinction between the mental and the physical. One is external and the other is internal. All the physical things including human bodies belong to the external world while the states and processes of one’s own mind are internal (Nath 2003). Without the mind, we would not be able to distinguish between intentional and accidental behaviors since the mind is the only way of describing how actions happen. Ryle disapproves of what goes on “inside” mental, because he believes that the ‘mental’ must be observable somehow. Therefore, when Descartes’ doctrine states that “mental happenings occur in insulated fields” (Ryle 33), Ryle calls it incorrect. He does not deny the presence of the mind rather he criticized the way Descartes explains it. After rejecting Descartes mind body dualism Ryle says that when we talk about a person’s mind we actually talk about person’s abilities, liabilities and inclinations to do. Mind is composed of sensations,
In the field of philosophy there can be numerous answers to a general question, depending on a particular philosopher's views on the subject. Often times an answer is left undetermined. In the broad sense of the word and also stated in the dictionary philosophy can be described as the pursuit of human knowledge and human values. There are many different people with many different theories of knowledge. Two of these people, also philosophers, in which this paper will go into depth about are Descartes and Plato. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Plato's The Republic are the topics that are going to be discussed in this paper.
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...
Logical behaviorists believe that there are no inner mental states but we know mental states because of behavior we see through others. The problem with this is that we cannot analyze beliefs and desires through inner states because that would be too easy. Mental states to behaviorists are not inner states, this is because if they were then we would not be able to identify within others. The argument is that because we can see the mental states through others they are real but because we cannot see inner mental states they are not real. Dualists would disagree with this method of thought. They would think that just because others cannot physically see your inner mental states does not mean they aren’t there. Inner mental states are what makes us who we are. Seeing behaviors through others, to dualists, is just another way of their inner states
In my mind, dualism is a more attractive view to take when considering the mind-brain issue. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is independent of the physical body is the central point of dualism. One reason it appeals to me is because of my religion, my Catholic upbringing. Introspection is another good reason why dualism is a little more logical to me than materialism.. It logically explains why the mind and brain are separate. Also, the divisibility argument raises good points to allow dualism to appear to be the more attractive idea in my eyes.
The desire to avoid dualism has been the driving motive behind much contemporary work on the mind-body problem. Gilbert Ryle made fun of it as the theory of 'the ghost in the machine', and various forms of behaviorism and materialism are designed to show that a place can be found for thoughts, sensations, feelings, and other mental phenomena in a purely physical world. But these theories have trouble accounting for consciousness and its subjective qualia. As the science develops and we discover facts, dualism does not seems likely to be true.
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.
Are minds physical things, or are they nonmaterial? If your beliefs and desires are caused by physical events outside of yourself, how can it be true that you act the way you do of your own free will? Are people genuinely moved by the welfare of others, or is all behavior, in reality, selfish? (Sober 203). These are questions relevant to philosophy of the mind and discussed through a variety of arguments. Two of the most important arguments with this discussion are Cartesian dualism and logical behaviorism, both of which argue the philosophy of the mind in two completely different ways. Robert Lane, a professor at the University of West Georgia, define the two as follows: Cartesian dualism is the theory that the mind and body are two totally different things, capable of existing separately, and logical behaviorism is the theory that our talk about beliefs, desires, and pains is not talk about ghostly or physical inner episodes, but instead about actual and potential patterns of behavior. Understanding of the two arguments is essential to interpret the decision making process; although dualism and behaviorism are prominent arguments for the philosophy of the mind, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
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.
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
There are three types of behaviorism. The first, methodological is a normative theory about the scientific conduct of psychology. It claims that psychology should concern itself with the behavior of organisms and not with mental states or events or with constructing internal information processing accounts of behavior. ("Behaviorism," 2000) The second is psychological behaviorism. It explains human and animal behavior in terms of external physical stimuli, responses, learning histories and reinforcements. The last type is analytical or logical behaviorism. This theory has a philosophy about the meaning of mental terms and concepts. The idea of the mental state is the idea of behavioral tendencies that shows how a person behaves in one situation compared to another.
Using Strawson’s analysis of Descartes as a guide, I have attempted to demonstrate how two issues—individuation and identity—threaten to dismantle Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism. I have stood behind the anti-Cartesian argument that in order to associate one mind with one body—which Strawson claims is a vital principle to both Cartesians and anti-Cartesians—we must think of mind as something dependent on a person and not as something separate altogether, as Descartes would argue.
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,...
Philosophy is a well-known term that has different meanings to those who use the word. Frequently, those who are not associated with the study of philosophy use their opinions and beliefs as a basis for an argument and believe that this is a sufficient philosophical discussion. For those who have made a study of philosophy, this meaning is not correct and misses the point of a true philosophical argument. Their approach is one of discipline and logical progression rather than relying on feelings or making arguments based on opinions (“Philosophy Begins with Critical Thinking). Therefore, philosophy can be said to have the dual meaning of a person’s attitude, or thoughts about a particular subject and the opposing view of logical thinking
...ocesses which are distinct from observable behavioral responses. Acts such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, and willing are defined by behavioral actions and by dispositions to perform behavioral actions. However, Ryle criticises Behaviorist theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic, just as he criticizes Cartesian theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic. While Cartesian theory asserts that hidden mental processes cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual, Behaviorism asserts that stimulus-response mechanisms cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual. Ryle argues that both the Cartesian theory and the Behaviorist theory are too simplistic and mechanistic to enable us to fully understand the Concept of Mind.