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 radical separation of mind and body makes it difficult to account for the apparent interaction of the two in my own case. In ordinary experience, it surely seems that the volitions of my mind can cause physical movements in my body and that the physical states of my body can produce effects on my mental operations. But on Descartes's view, there can be no substantial connection between the two, nor did he believe it appropriate to think of the mind as residing in the body as a pilot resides within a ship. Although he offered several tenatative suggestions in his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth, Descartes largely left for future generations the task of developing some reasonable account of volition and sensation, either by securing the possibility of mind-body interaction or by proposing some alternative explanation of the appearances.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
. 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.
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.
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.
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
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
Psychology started, and had a long history, as a topic within the fields of philosophy and physiology. It then became an independent field of its own through the work of the German Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of experimental psychology and structuralism. Wundt stressed the use of scientific methods in psychology, particularly through the use of introspection. In 1875, a room was set-aside for Wundt for demonstrations in what we now call sensation and perception. This is the same year that William James set up a similar lab at Harvard. Wilhelm Wundt and William James are usually thought of as the fathers of psychology, as well as the founders of psychology?s first two great ?schools? Structuralism and Functionalism. Psychologist Edward B Titchner said; ?to study the brain and the unconscious we should break it into its structural elements, after that we can construct it into a whole and understand what it does.? (psicafe.com)
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.
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.
Human intelligence went only as far as what God chose to reveal regarding his and human existence (Britannica, 2015). Cartesian assumed two ontological dualisms that included the mind and matter. Self-conscious thinking was considered the essences of the mind. We acquire knowledge by meditating on innate ideas of God, mind, and matter. The theory of dualism of mind and matter presents a problem regarding knowledge and interaction. Since mind and matter are very different, the body triggers the mind to have sensible ideas (Britannica, 2015). According to the Cartesians the mind and body connect to one another. It was believed that we experience interactions only under God's provisions, even if we do not know why. Rohault spoke on behalf of the Cartesians in asserting that God makes ideas exemplify material bodies without any resemblance connecting them or any explanation. By the above examples the Cartesians are viewed as a relinquishing philosophy for theology and mysticism (Philosophy Pages, 2015). Cartesians believed that the mind or soul is an element existing only in itself. It was seen as being an independent matter, giving them the capability of explaining immortality without relying on the uncertain theories that the soul is a
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.