According to a simple Google search, I found the definition of Philosophy to be “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline” or literally speaking, to be the “love of wisdom.” Now not in a second would I ever consider myself to be wise, but I’ve always had an interest in the discipline, specifically in the distinction (or lack thereof) between mind and body. Many philosophers such as Descartes, Ryle, Stent, Aristotle, and others have argued the separation of mind and body. When it came down to it I found my question to be “is Descartes’ Theory on mind and body valid?” After many RedBulls and articles, I discovered from my research the different theories and counter arguments and reached my own conclusion on the subject. Within this paper I will discuss Descartes’ theory on mind and body and its criticisms and then provide a valid counter example.
I would say my interest in philosophy began when I was a freshman in high school. My brother had just started our school’s Philosophy Club and due to biological relation to the president, I was required to attend. As I sat and listened to the seemingly wise seniors discuss heavy topics such as “does God exist?” and “is life predetermined or free-willed?” the hypothetical theories and thoughts overwhelmed me. Though I was very perplexed, it was a pleasant confusion in which I wanted to alleviate.
While here at TCU I was fortunate enough to take an introductory philosophy class where I could learn more. The class has been very interesting and inspiring. While covering many arguments and theories, one in particular that stood out was Descartes’ 6th Meditation on the separation of mind and body. Through this essay I was able to pursue this fascination further and the remainder of this paper will explain what I found.
Descartes was a Dualist, meaning he believed the mind and body were separate substances. He thought that they functioned separately without any interchange. His argument on why this was true was simple. The Conceivability Argument goes like this: 1) You CAN’T doubt that you have a mind (for when you doubt that you have a mind, you are using your mind to doubt that you have a mind). 2) You CAN doubt that you have a body (for we can’t absolutely prove that this world our body interacts with is real). 3) Then we use Leibniz’s Law, which states for any 2 things, if they have identical properties, they are the same thing. 4) THEREFORE since the mind and body have different properties stated in premises 1 & 2 (in which one can be doubted and the other can’t), they are separate substances (Descartes 205-213).
After examining Descartes’ argument, the simplicity and the sound logic of the argument impressed me. However I was still not sold that the mind and body were two distinct substances. There had to be a flaw somewhere within this theory. After additional investigation I discovered an argument that proved Descartes’ to be false.
The counter argument uses the Conceivability Argument formula to show that it is faulty. This is called reductio ad absurdum in which you prove a statement wrong through contradiction. Here’s the contradiction example: 1) I can’t doubt that water is water. 2) I can doubt that water is H2O (for all we know it could be H3O, even though it’s not, you still have the ABILITY to think that it’s not water). 3) Leibniz’s Law (if they have identical properties, they’re the same substance). 4) THEREFORE water & H2O are separate and different substances. Obviously this is completely false so this proves Descartes’ argument to be invalid (Balog 501).
I found this contradiction to be very surprising on how easily it proved Descartes wrong. To hit the point even further home I then stumbled onto Descartes’ Myth by Gilbert Ryle which also argues how Descartes’ reasoning is not so sound on a different level, a conceptual level. At first I struggled with this article, failing to grasp its true meaning, but finally I reached a conclusion.
Descartes’ Myth was a challenge to Descartes’ theory on the mind and body. Gilbert’s materialist response argues how ridiculous this theory is. Gilbert argues that Descartes makes a “categorical mistake” in his theory. The mistake Descartes makes is that he is trying to compare body and mind which are completely different conceptual entities and shouldn’t be associated. One example Ryle uses to illustrate his point is through a University. In this example a “foreigner” is being shown around a campus. On the campus the “foreigner” is shown the library, fields, museum, and such. Afterwards, the “foreigner” asks “But where is the University?” The error the “foreigner” makes is that the University is not another building you can be shown. The University encompasses it all and cannot be categorized with the other buildings. When you translate this example back to the original subject of mind and body, Ryle is saying that the two entities are of two different categories and can’t be compatible or comparable. For when you meet a person, you meet the mind and body together, not two different subjects (Ryle 290-291).
After researching Ryle’s argument, I found his criticism of the argument to be valid (and confusing). Yet I could not find a true opposition theory, only critiques to Descartes’ argument. After investigating further, I found a more modern article called The Mind and Body Problem Today by Gabriel Vacariu. Here I did not find a clear alternative, but I did find more evidence backing Ryle’s confusing accusation of Descartes’ Categorical Mistake.
Vacariu agrees with Ryle concerning the categorical mistake. He writes “The fatal consequence for Descartes was that he allocated the mind and body (two ontologically different substances) to the same entity, a human subject” (Vacariu 27). However Vacariu goes on to say the problem with the argument is not necessarily a categorical mistake but also that maybe the frame work of the theory is the problem. Varaciu states the new framework, “Under different conditions of observation, the human subject observes epistemologically different worlds” (Varaciu 27). By this Varaciu means that when a person looks at the separation of mind and body, he views from two different worlds. One world would be the mental world in which his mentally observes and introspects. He can also observe through the other world, a tangible one where he can observe physically, through feeling and taste (Vacariu 27).
After being convinced so many times of how Descartes’ argument was somehow invalid, I began the quest to find a valid opposition to Dualism, Monism. Where I examined monism was within Gunther Stent’s Epistemic Dualism of Mind and Body. Stent is a Dualist but in his paper he states Aristotle’s and other monist’s anti-dualist counter arguments before going into the body of his paper.
Aristotle was a monist believing that the mind and body were one in the same. Stent puts it this way, “Plato’s student, Arisotle, advocated the anti-dualist doctrine of monism, according to which mental phenomena are nothing other than bodily functions.” He continues “Aristotle located mental functions in the heart, a belief that still survives in modern language and ritual” (Stent 578). Aristotle was one of the founders of monism believing that mental functions stemmed from the body and not some separate existential, conceptual space. Later the Greek surgeon Galen discovered the brain “[was] the seat of consciousness and sensations” and that mental states came from the brain which propelled the monist view. More recent discoveries in neuroscience have all but banished most modern dualist thought (Stent 579).
After reviewing Aristotle’s belief, it seemed the most convincing to me. I figured there must be more modern evidence of monism, so that’s what I researched next. I found an interesting article called the Mind Body Debate written by Saul Mcleod. Here Mcleod writes on the modern biologist’s view on the mind and body debate, providing me with a more scientific opinion.
New studies in biology have proved the mind is merely the interaction of different cells and neural connections. In the article Mind Body Debate by Saul Mcleod, he writes, “Biologists argue that the brain will ultimately be found to be the mind. The brain with its structures, cells and neural connections will with scientific research eventually identify the mind” (Mcleod 1). The brain and mind are the same thing, we haven’t necessarily found the exact process of how the “mind” functions within the brain.
After reviewing all of the wordy and intricate papers, I reached my conclusion. I found the monist view of that mind and body are the same to present the most logical and plausible argument. Descartes’ theory, though brilliant, has too many holes and errors to it. It was proved flawed through the reductio ad absurdum and having a categorical mistake. Aristotle and Galen were able to find links between the brain and consciousness and mental states proving that the mind and body were of the same substance and correlated.
While reflecting back on my high school days, I’m thankful my brother forced me to join the philosophy club. It spurred one of my favorite interests and through this paper I was able to discover if Descartes’ theory was valid or not. I thoroughly enjoyed delving through difficult texts to find answers. From that research, I was able to explore and find my own opinion that the mind and body are one in the same. They always have been, but with modern science we’ve been able to more clearly acknowledge that.
Author’s Notes
For my final draft, I tried to ground the paper more with a biologist’s opinion. I also narrowed my thesis down to more Descartes’ Theory and its critiques. I tried to eliminate all of the passive voice and make it more active and personal. The original draft started to proudly so incorporated the advice to specify my thesis. The first draft was also not grounded enough so I went and did some more research to add biologists’ opinions.
I would say my interest in philosophy began when I was a freshman in high school. My brother had just started our school’s Philosophy Club and due to biological relation to the president, I was required to attend. As I sat and listened to the seemingly wise seniors discuss heavy topics such as “does God exist?” and “is life predetermined or free-willed?” the hypothetical theories and thoughts overwhelmed me. Though I was very perplexed, it was a pleasant confusion in which I wanted to alleviate.
While here at TCU I was fortunate enough to take an introductory philosophy class where I could learn more. The class has been very interesting and inspiring. While covering many arguments and theories, one in particular that stood out was Descartes’ 6th Meditation on the separation of mind and body. Through this essay I was able to pursue this fascination further and the remainder of this paper will explain what I found.
Descartes was a Dualist, meaning he believed the mind and body were separate substances. He thought that they functioned separately without any interchange. His argument on why this was true was simple. The Conceivability Argument goes like this: 1) You CAN’T doubt that you have a mind (for when you doubt that you have a mind, you are using your mind to doubt that you have a mind). 2) You CAN doubt that you have a body (for we can’t absolutely prove that this world our body interacts with is real). 3) Then we use Leibniz’s Law, which states for any 2 things, if they have identical properties, they are the same thing. 4) THEREFORE since the mind and body have different properties stated in premises 1 & 2 (in which one can be doubted and the other can’t), they are separate substances (Descartes 205-213).
After examining Descartes’ argument, the simplicity and the sound logic of the argument impressed me. However I was still not sold that the mind and body were two distinct substances. There had to be a flaw somewhere within this theory. After additional investigation I discovered an argument that proved Descartes’ to be false.
The counter argument uses the Conceivability Argument formula to show that it is faulty. This is called reductio ad absurdum in which you prove a statement wrong through contradiction. Here’s the contradiction example: 1) I can’t doubt that water is water. 2) I can doubt that water is H2O (for all we know it could be H3O, even though it’s not, you still have the ABILITY to think that it’s not water). 3) Leibniz’s Law (if they have identical properties, they’re the same substance). 4) THEREFORE water & H2O are separate and different substances. Obviously this is completely false so this proves Descartes’ argument to be invalid (Balog 501).
I found this contradiction to be very surprising on how easily it proved Descartes wrong. To hit the point even further home I then stumbled onto Descartes’ Myth by Gilbert Ryle which also argues how Descartes’ reasoning is not so sound on a different level, a conceptual level. At first I struggled with this article, failing to grasp its true meaning, but finally I reached a conclusion.
Descartes’ Myth was a challenge to Descartes’ theory on the mind and body. Gilbert’s materialist response argues how ridiculous this theory is. Gilbert argues that Descartes makes a “categorical mistake” in his theory. The mistake Descartes makes is that he is trying to compare body and mind which are completely different conceptual entities and shouldn’t be associated. One example Ryle uses to illustrate his point is through a University. In this example a “foreigner” is being shown around a campus. On the campus the “foreigner” is shown the library, fields, museum, and such. Afterwards, the “foreigner” asks “But where is the University?” The error the “foreigner” makes is that the University is not another building you can be shown. The University encompasses it all and cannot be categorized with the other buildings. When you translate this example back to the original subject of mind and body, Ryle is saying that the two entities are of two different categories and can’t be compatible or comparable. For when you meet a person, you meet the mind and body together, not two different subjects (Ryle 290-291).
After researching Ryle’s argument, I found his criticism of the argument to be valid (and confusing). Yet I could not find a true opposition theory, only critiques to Descartes’ argument. After investigating further, I found a more modern article called The Mind and Body Problem Today by Gabriel Vacariu. Here I did not find a clear alternative, but I did find more evidence backing Ryle’s confusing accusation of Descartes’ Categorical Mistake.
Vacariu agrees with Ryle concerning the categorical mistake. He writes “The fatal consequence for Descartes was that he allocated the mind and body (two ontologically different substances) to the same entity, a human subject” (Vacariu 27). However Vacariu goes on to say the problem with the argument is not necessarily a categorical mistake but also that maybe the frame work of the theory is the problem. Varaciu states the new framework, “Under different conditions of observation, the human subject observes epistemologically different worlds” (Varaciu 27). By this Varaciu means that when a person looks at the separation of mind and body, he views from two different worlds. One world would be the mental world in which his mentally observes and introspects. He can also observe through the other world, a tangible one where he can observe physically, through feeling and taste (Vacariu 27).
After being convinced so many times of how Descartes’ argument was somehow invalid, I began the quest to find a valid opposition to Dualism, Monism. Where I examined monism was within Gunther Stent’s Epistemic Dualism of Mind and Body. Stent is a Dualist but in his paper he states Aristotle’s and other monist’s anti-dualist counter arguments before going into the body of his paper.
Aristotle was a monist believing that the mind and body were one in the same. Stent puts it this way, “Plato’s student, Arisotle, advocated the anti-dualist doctrine of monism, according to which mental phenomena are nothing other than bodily functions.” He continues “Aristotle located mental functions in the heart, a belief that still survives in modern language and ritual” (Stent 578). Aristotle was one of the founders of monism believing that mental functions stemmed from the body and not some separate existential, conceptual space. Later the Greek surgeon Galen discovered the brain “[was] the seat of consciousness and sensations” and that mental states came from the brain which propelled the monist view. More recent discoveries in neuroscience have all but banished most modern dualist thought (Stent 579).
After reviewing Aristotle’s belief, it seemed the most convincing to me. I figured there must be more modern evidence of monism, so that’s what I researched next. I found an interesting article called the Mind Body Debate written by Saul Mcleod. Here Mcleod writes on the modern biologist’s view on the mind and body debate, providing me with a more scientific opinion.
New studies in biology have proved the mind is merely the interaction of different cells and neural connections. In the article Mind Body Debate by Saul Mcleod, he writes, “Biologists argue that the brain will ultimately be found to be the mind. The brain with its structures, cells and neural connections will with scientific research eventually identify the mind” (Mcleod 1). The brain and mind are the same thing, we haven’t necessarily found the exact process of how the “mind” functions within the brain.
After reviewing all of the wordy and intricate papers, I reached my conclusion. I found the monist view of that mind and body are the same to present the most logical and plausible argument. Descartes’ theory, though brilliant, has too many holes and errors to it. It was proved flawed through the reductio ad absurdum and having a categorical mistake. Aristotle and Galen were able to find links between the brain and consciousness and mental states proving that the mind and body were of the same substance and correlated.
While reflecting back on my high school days, I’m thankful my brother forced me to join the philosophy club. It spurred one of my favorite interests and through this paper I was able to discover if Descartes’ theory was valid or not. I thoroughly enjoyed delving through difficult texts to find answers. From that research, I was able to explore and find my own opinion that the mind and body are one in the same. They always have been, but with modern science we’ve been able to more clearly acknowledge that.
Author’s Notes
For my final draft, I tried to ground the paper more with a biologist’s opinion. I also narrowed my thesis down to more Descartes’ Theory and its critiques. I tried to eliminate all of the passive voice and make it more active and personal. The original draft started to proudly so incorporated the advice to specify my thesis. The first draft was also not grounded enough so I went and did some more research to add biologists’ opinions.