More handpicked essays just for you.
the distinction between body and mind
the distinction between body and mind
the distinction between body and mind
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the distinction between body and mind
For centuries, the discussion about the possibility of mind-body interaction had been the center of philosophy, with reaching its peak in the seventeenth century. However, the result of making the distinction between mind and body as different substances causes the problem with explaining how these two can influence each other. Many have tried to solve this, with most prominently Descartes with the pineal gland as the bridge between the soul and the body, Malebranche and his Vision in God, and Leibniz with monads that are directed by God. But all encounter the same problems caused by the distinction of mind and body as different substances and manage to solve this in different ways. But another possibility is to avoid this problem of interaction all completely, and this is what Spinoza does. Spinoza went into a different direction than most of his contemporaries; he went for a theory, which we now call substance monism. Meaning there is only one substance where human beings consist of. Only Spinoza …show more content…
But why is it not possible that two substances share the same attribute? They only things that can make a difference in substances are modes and attributes. When these substances do not share the same attributes, they are not two substances with the same nature or attribute. But we need to consider the nature of the substance, rather than the modifications. And when two substances star the attribute, they also must have the same nature. However, if mind and body would have the same attribute then they would indistinguishable since we can only distinguish them with attributes. Therefore, no two or more substances can exist with the same
For Spinoza, the freedom of the human will hinges on its ability to act independently of desire and appetite, to control the body with will. Spinoza questions this idea of control by examining the nature of the body, namely if it can be completely understood, and thereby controlled. Sleepwalking is a prime example of an ability held by the body that functions in the absence of the will of the mind, thus Spinoza concludes the nature of the body is yet to be determined. After finding that no one has rightly determined or explained all of the possible qualities of the body, he writes, “this shows well enough that the body itself, simply from the laws of its own nature, can do many things which it mind wonders at.” Continuing with this idea of
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 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 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.
In order to understand the criticisms of Baruch Spinoza’s beliefs, we look at his work “Ethics; Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect; and Selected Letters” translated by Samuel Shirley and edited by Seymour Feldman. This work by Spinoza is broken down in five parts. The first part talks about god. The first part has eight definitions of which the ‘geometric’ proof for Spinoza’s system is based on. Spinoza keeps on going and expostulates that all events are determined and based on fixed laws. Anything that is of Nature (god), must obey these laws.
Firstly, he establishes the uniqueness of a substance. Spinoza uses Definition 3 to prove Proposition 1, 2 and 4, by explaining that that an effect always follows a cause and if there is no cause, it is impossible for an effect to follow. If things do not have anything in common, we cannot use them to understand other things, making them separate. Spinoza further distinguishes the uniqueness of substances in Proposition 1 by using Definition 5 as proof to show that if conception of one thing does not involve the conception of the other thing, substances can be by nature prior to its affections. By proving these Prepositions, he concludes that two substances, which have different attributes and share no cause and effect, have nothing in
Although philosophy rarely alters its direction and mood with sudden swings, there are times when its new concerns and emphases clearly separate it from its immediate past. Such was the case with seventeenth-century Continental rationalism, whose founder was Rene Descartes and whose new program initiated what is called modern philosophy. In a sense, much of what the Continental rationalists set out to do had already been attempted by the medieval philosophers and by Bacon and Hobbes. But Descartes and Leibniz fashioned a new ideal for philosophy. Influenced by the progress and success of science and mathematics, their new program was an attempt to provide philosophy with the exactness of mathematics. They set out to formulate clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Their emphasis was upon the rational ability of the human mind, which they now considered the source of truth both about man and about the world. Even though they did not reject the claims of religion, they did consider philosophical reasoning something different than supernatural revelation. They saw little value in feeling and enthusiasm as means for discovering truth, but they did believe that the mind of an individual is structured in such a way that simply by operating according to the appropriate method it can discover the nature of the universe. The rationalists assumed that what they could think clearly with their minds did in fact exist in the world outside their minds. Descartes and Leibniz even argued that certain ideas are innate in the human mind, that, given the proper occasion, experience would cause...
...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.
Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance. However, both scholars have some comparable perceptions of the same in some aspects. They both refer to God as the primary substance. One thing that both Spinoza and Descartes seem to agree in general is the definition of substance. According to Spinoza, a substance is nothing but a thing that subsists in a manner that it does not depend on any other thing for its survival. In the introduction of his work, Ethics, Spinoza illustrates substance as 'what it is conceived through itself and in itself'. He elaborated this to mean that a substance does not require a sense of anything else to exist, which also seem to coincide with Aristotle's interpretations of how a substance exists, that it is independent of all other things. (1).
In the beginning of the course of unraveling 17th and 18th century profound philosophers we became acquainted with Descartes dualism, by analyzing that extension according to Descartes are two of God’s distinct features in which we ought to perceive. Not only did Spinoza toss the conception that God actively alters the earth through Descartes proclaimed “natural laws”, but unlike Descartes he believed God to be the only definite substance. For Spinoza God and God’s creation weren’t two diverse, distinctive substances instead only god or as he phrased nature is the sole true substance. This paper will entail why he takes a monist stance and rejects traditional religious views through the building blocks of
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...
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.
In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes defines his existence, being the only concept he can perceive as true. Existence of self is a necessity that arises simply from introspective thinking; one exists “since [one can persuade himself or herself] of something” (Descartes). This definition gives rise to a separation of the human entity, as what defines a person is not the physical but rather the nonphysical (Descartes). Descartes’ view of two separate essences of a person constitutes a theory known as substance dualism, which states that humans are composed of two elements: a material component (which is purely physical and makes up the “body”) and a mental component (all cognitive thinking which makes up the “soul”) (Kleinman
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.
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.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.
John Locke believed that the mind was a blank slate, shaped by experience, and the two sources of all our ideas were sensations and reflections. Within his theory of identity, Locke separated the idea of a substance, an organism, and a person; each determined by different criteria. The identity of a substance consists in its matter. For example: a mass of atoms is the same throughout time so long as it retains the same atoms, regardless of arrangement. He does not tie t...