BIOGRAPHY: French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist.
His philosophy is called Cartesianism (from Cartesius, the Latin form of his name). Born
in La Haye, France, and trained at the Jesuit College at La Flèche, Descartes remained a
Catholic throughout his life, but soon became dissatisfied with scholasticism. While
serving in the Bavarian army in 1619, he conceived it to be his task to refound human
knowledge on a basis secure from skepticism. He expounded the major features of his
project in his most famous work, the Meditationes de primaphilosophia (1641, Meditations
of First Philosophy). He began his enquiry by claiming that one can doubt all one's sense
experiences, even the deliverances of reason, but that one cannot doubt one's own
existence as a thinking being: cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am").
From this basis he argued that God must exist and cannot be a deceiver; therefore, his
beliefs based on ordinary sense experience are correct. He also argued that mind and body
are distinct substances, believing that this dualism made possible human freedom and
immortality. His Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la
vérité dans les sciences (1637 Discouse on the Method for Rightly Conducting One's
Reason and Searching for Truth in the Sciences) contained appendices in which he virtually
founded co-ordinate or analytic geometry, and made major contributions to optics. In 1649
he moved to Stockholm to teach Queen Christina of Sweden.
Perhaps the most popular view
about the relationship between mind and body is DUALISM -- the belief that mind and body
are two separate entities, and that the mind is essentially non-physical (and hence is
beyond the reach of the physical sciences). Descartes is most associated (in modern times)
with this view. Dualism comes in a variety of forms, which are distinguished by how they
describe the relationship between the mind and body. Here are but some of the
possibilities:
INTERACTIONISM: An
interactionist believes just what the name implies -- that mind and body interact. Mental
activities (believing, desiring, intending, hoping, etc.) can therefore cause changes in
the body (i.e. my belief that I am in danger can cause me to
sweat profusely, to run away from the perceived cause of that danger, etc.), and physical
changes can likewise cause mental events to occur (stubbing my toe causes pain,etc.) The
challenge for this view is to explain how a non-physical thing (the mind) can bring about
a change in a physical thing (the body), and vice versa.
EPIPHENOMENALISM: Here
mind and body are separate, but the mind is created or caused by the brain.
("Epi-" is a prefix from the Greek that means "above" -- hence to
characterize mental activity as epiphenomena is to claim that such activity is above or
outside of physical phenomena.) This is an odd sounding view, but it has two appealing
traits -- first, it allows us to hold onto our belief that we have mental states which are
more than simply physical properties of the brain; and second, it seems less
"spooky" than interactionism because it makes the physical (the brain) the cause
of the mental (as opposed to being a wholly separate entity). There are two types of
epiphenomenalists -- those who are interactionists (who believe that mental properties,
though caused by the brain, can affect the brain, and vice versa), and those who are not
(who claim that the brain can affect the mind, but the mind cannot affect the brain). The
problem for the interactionist epiphenomenalist is the same as for the plain-old
interactionist -- explaining how mind and brain interact. The non-interaction version of
epiphenomalism inherits this problem as well, and a different one. It seems clear that our
mental life does bring about physical changes (as our earlier example of perceived danger
suggests). The non-interaction epiphenomenalist denies this...and that's a problem.
PARALLELISM: The
difficulties of explaining the interaction between mental and physical led some to posit
parallelism, the view that mind and body do not interact at all, but simply run in
parallel. Imagine two clocks side by side, each displaying the exact same time. Though in
perfect synchronicity, neither affects the other. Thanks to God, our mental life and
physical life mirror one another perfectly, but only because they were designed this way,
and not because they interact. Hence on this view, when I stub my toe, I get the mental
sensation of pain NOT because the physical act of stubbing my toe CAUSED the pain, but
because my mental life was designed to have an experience of pain at that very moment. All
works in pre-established harmony. The advantage of this view is that it allows one to hold
onto the notion that mind and body are different, without needing to explain how they
interact. The challenge for this view is that it requires not only a belief in God, but a
belief in predestination (that one's mental and physical life are already fully
determined) which raises other problems with the notion of freedom of the will, etc.
Descartes offers 2 arguments that the mind and body are separate.
PRINT OUT THIS PAGE AND BRING IT TO CLASS. I will expect you (1) to explain arguments (A)
and (B), (2) to suggest possible criticisms for these arguments, and finally, to come with
a WRITTEN response to part (C).
(A) The argument from
divisibility (first paragraph, p. 77)
1. My body is divisible into parts.
2. My mind is not divisible into parts.
3. (IMPLIED PREMISE: Two objects (A and B)
are identical only if the properties of A are properties of B.
-------------------------
4. Therefore, my mind and body are not
identical.
(B) Animal and human nature
(first full paragraph, p. 79)
1. Animals (especially higher mammals)
possess almost all the same organs and physical structure that humans do.
2. Animals cannot think; humans can.
-------------------------
3. Therefore, humans must possess some
faculty animals do not possess.
4. But given (1), that faculty cannot be
physical (or based in physiology).
-------------
5. Therefore, humans possess a non-physical
mind.
(C). Explain the two tests
(p. 190) which Descartes believes we can use to distinguish real persons from machines (or
automatons) that only resemble persons.
