Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Descartes argument for dualism
Rene Descartes argument from doubt
Descartes argument for dualism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Descartes argument for dualism
200847856
Does Descartes give any good reason for saying that his mind could exist without his body?
Descartes gives reasons to say his mind could exist without his body, however these reasons are not good enough for us to agree with him. Descartes’ two strongest reasons for this are the doubt argument and the divisibility argument.
Following Descartes’ reasoning through the 2nd meditation, his doubt argument is: he can doubt that his body exists, but following the ‘cogito’ he cannot doubt that he exists as a thinking thing, therefore his mind is could exist without his body (Clarke, 1988). Descartes’ point of an evil demon causing you to be deceived in all things material is difficult to argue against and his ‘cogito’ shows it is difficult
…show more content…
He states the pineal gland is the psycho-physical link between the mind and body. From this Descartes concludes the pineal gland gives the mind a physical property link that allow physical action. This would solve the issue of the ‘mind-body problem’ and strengthen the doubt argument as a good reason to believe the mind can exist without the body. During the 17th century the knowledge of the brain was limited and the possibility of the mind having a seat in the brain was greater, this depicts Descartes would have had good reasoning at the time to believe the mind could exist without the body. Even then however, the idea was mostly unaccepted. Spinoza (1677) stated it was even ridiculed and rejected altogether after Descartes death (Lokhorst, 2005). We now know the pineal gland is an endocrine organ and thus Descartes counterargument to his replies is unsuccessful and the doubt reason today is thereby …show more content…
The premise the mind cannot be split we know to be false. For example in the 1960s Scientists Sperry and Gazzaniga split the brain in studies of epilepsy. The result was having two minds operating in two different specialised areas. The patients for example would see a picture of an object in their right vision but see themselves holding another object in their left vision. This resulted in confusion in the patients due to conflicting perception of what they are seeing in their split brain (nobelprize.org, 2016). This shows that Descartes’ premise was wrong because the mind can be split. Thereby we can see Descartes reason for believing that the mind can exist without the body is limited. The split brain procedure isn’t the only modern day article that limits Descartes reasoning from body-mind divisibility. There are mental disorders such as the dissociative identity disorder whereby the mind appears to be split into different identities. This results in there appearing to be more than one person living inside a single body. This example of mental disorder depicts that the mind is divisible and thereby Descartes reasoning is furthermore limited. In modern day understanding of the mind, there are disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder that signify that the mind can be ‘broken’. Studies in physical brain damage, for example car crashes causing loss of memory and suggest that the mind
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
...these considerations aside, Descartes’ argument from indivisibility is formally fallacious from the outset, however. The argument is intended as an independent proof of mind-body dualism and is only true if the mind is indeed indivisible. Yet, the premise that the mind is not divisible can only be valid if the mind is distinct from matter. The argument assumes what it is trying to prove, namely dualism, and so cannot be considered sound. The objection that premise (3) might not explicitly entail dualism, but only embodies an observation on Descartes’ part that he cannot conceive of a divided mind, is not really good enough to salvage the argument, because it raises the issue of the validity of mere conceivability as an arbiter of truth. The argument from indivisibility fails or at the very least withholds judgment pending a definite proof or disproof of premise (3).
Descartes assured his existence through the conviction of "Cogito, ergo sum" which translates into “I think therefore I am” (Popkin & Stroll 198). In order to question ones existence one must exist, non-existence cannot question itself. I know that my mind exists because I am here to question its existence. To concretize this idea, imagine a house and you are building a house on ground which you see. The house is built out of wood, metal, and earth on the ground. Does the house exist because of the materials used to build it or because your mind tells you that it exists? Well based on Descartes, there are no such things as wood or metal in reality because the only thing that is real is the mind itself and the built house is a figment of your mind to what you perceive as real better known as an illusion. Therefore all that we sense is an illusion and everything outside the mind is uncertain of existence. Furthermore this leads to the ...
...n each other and the divisibility of the mind can be explained with examples of memory loss. Descartes claims the mind and body are distinct due to the existence of the body can be doubted and the existence of the mind cannot be doubted as it is a thinking thing. Since the mind is a thinking thing it exists unlike the body therefore the mind can exist without a body. In the Sixth Meditation Descartes further claims they are distinct because the body is a quantitative thing that can be divisible and the mind is a qualitative thing that is indivisible. Although there is some fallacy in Descartes claims as the mind and the body are depend on each other to perform; the mind on the body to act out thought and the body on the mind to function. Memory lost in result of physical injury provides an example of how the mind is divisible and thus the mind and body are linked.
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.
Do you think that Descartes qualifies to your satisfaction that the mind and body are separate from each other? Only halfway; too many things are left up in the air, and the language is not quite clear. The mind and body can each exist separately and independently of one another. But they also need one another to work properly. This relationship is why the mind and body argument was shown with the sailor and ship scenario. By claiming that the mind and body were similarly related to each other as the sailor and the ship, Descartes was giving the average but intuitive reader something to ponder about while trying to make up his or her own mind about the relation between mind and body. From my point of view, however, Descartes needs further argument to prove that the mind and the body are distinct.
It is in Meditation II that Descartes relates his certainty regarding his existence. He claims that he exists because he is able to think; “I think, therefore I am.” Even though he believes that all of his senses are subject to analysis, he knows for certain that he is thinking. This leads into the concept of separation between mind and body. Meditation II is Descartes assertion that both mind and body are separate from one another. Further on in Meditation VI, Descartes evaluates the existence of material objects, away from the existence of self and the existence of God. He acknowledges that he believes that material objects can exist since they are “objects of pure mathematics.” He acknowledges that God is capable of creating everything for which he is capable of perceiving. Additionally, Descartes acknowledges that the imagination produces evidence to support the perceived existence of external
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
By this I mean, that Descartes’ method of doubt is meant as a total destruction of all previously gleaned knowledge that can be put into doubt. However, there is a question as to whether or not this foundational destruction is intrinsically possible. Whether or not I doubt that I have a body, I still act as though I do, and I am raised in an environment with other people of the same species who are similarly embodied. Can I doubt that I have a body while simultaneously working to maintain its integrity? I claim that my actions belie my beliefs, that I do not truly doubt the belief in my body in the same way that I could doubt, for example, the existence of the Abominable
In Descartes sixth meditation, he brings up his argument that the body has separate parts, but the mind does not. He supports his argument by saying he," a thinking thing", "cannot detect any separate parts within himself", that he "understands himself to something single and complete , and "any corporeal thing can easily be divided into parts in my thought; and this shows me that it is really divisible". He then went on to use the example that if a body part is" cut off nothing is thereby taken away from the mind." All of the points Descartes uses here raise all sorts of questions.
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...
...tions rose by his objectors, for me, from a rather impregnable undermining of Descartes’ philosophy. As their must simply be interaction between two extended objects for any sort of reaction to take place. Therefore the movement that results from such a reaction must occur between two extended objects. This is my main and principal concern with Descartes philosophy and is the reason I, at least believe, Descartes does not make a convincing argument over the nature of mind-body separation. As from looking solely at Descartes research, he is not right to say there is a divide between the body and the mind.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
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]
Descartes argues that the mind and body can be thought of as separate substances. Descartes writes “I have a body that is very closely joined to me, nevertheless, because … I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, insofar as I am merely a thinking thing and not an extended thing and because … I have a distinct idea of a body, insofar as it is merely an extended thing and not a thinking thing, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it” ( Descartes 50). With this quote, Descartes is saying that the mind and body are separate because he has two distinct ideas of the body and the mind and the body is not a thinking thing as he is but an extended substance. Another point to Descartes argument is that the mind and body are different due to one being indivisible and the other being divisible. Descartes writes “a body, by its very nature, is always divisible. On the other hand, the mind is utterly indivisible” (53). Here is saying that there are ...