Conceivability Argument Flashcards
Substance dualism
Descartes clear and distinct ideas
Clear and distinct ideas-
- Getting to the truth/essence of the thing you are talking about, what you conceive of clear and distinctly- vividly, strong, separated off
- Can grasp the truth, the essence of it ‘in itself’
Substance dualism
Argument from Conceivability- Standard form
P1) If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of the mind and body separately then they must be distinct things
(In some possible world they could’ve been separate)
P2) I know that I exist
P3) I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a thinking and unextended thing
P4) I have a clear and distinct idea of the body as an extended thing that doesn’t think
C1)So it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it
C2) Therefore, substance dualism is correct
Can be shortened too
P1)It is conceivable mind can exist without the body
C1) Therefore, it is possible mind can exist without the body
C2) Therefore, mind and body are distinct substances
Substance dualism
Argument from Conceivability- Reasoning
- Descartes argues that if he has a ‘clear and distinct’ idea of two things then it must be possible to separate them
- In this case they would have to be distinct substances which could exist independently of one another
- Recognising the essential natures of two things to be c learnt distinct then they must actually be distinct things
- Now the essential nature of the mind is consciousness, the mind by nature a thing which thinks.
- The extension forms no part of the minds essential nature
- In contrast the body is by nature extended and consciousness forms no part of its nature
- Since I can clearly recognise the distinct natures of mind and body, Descartes concludes they must be distinct substances
Substance dualism
Issues of the conceivability argument- what is conceivable may not be metaphysically possible
Arnauld- Questions P1
Eg Pythagoras theorem; proof of theorem is that the area of a square drawn on the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle= to the area of the squares drawn on the other two sides
-But if you are unfamiliar with the proof, its possible for you to conceive of a right angled triangle that lacks the property
-Would be mistaken if you concluded this is possible in reality- ask it isn’t
-Exemplifying that what we can conceive is not a good guide to what is actually possible; so therefore Descartes’ ability to conceive of his mind without his body doesn’t show that it’s possible for the mind to exist without the body in reality
Substance dualism
Issues of the conceivability argument-Masked Man fallacy (continues on from Arnulad)
-Flaw that Arnauld finds in Descartes reasoning=‘Masked man fallacy’
Eg reasoning which parallels Descartes conceivability argument
P1)I recognise Batman is a masked crusader
P2)I recognise that Bruce Wayne is a playboy millionaire
C) Therefore, Batman is not Bruce Wayne
-Reasoning is fallacious: can supposed P1+ P2 to be true, C to be false
-Suggests if Descartes conceivability argument follows the same reasoning it too is fallacious; commits the masked man fallacy
-Arnauld argues it is possible to have an incomplete idea of something so that it can appear to be two when its in reality one.
-May only recognise an aspect of the person batman and if my idea doesn’t reveal his full nature= may wrongly conclude he is distinct from Bruce Wayne
-Similarly Descartes idea of the mind could be incomplete; introspection could reveal mind to be a realm of conscious experience, I am unaware of the body having any involvement in this
-Yet the fact I am unaware of my body being responsible for consciousness doesn’t show it is in reality
Substance dualism
Issues of the conceivability argument- Descartes response to masked man fallacy
- Descartes defend himself by pointing out the inclusion of his clear and distinct ideas in his argument; he clearly and distinctly recognises that nothing more is involved in his ideas of mind and body
- If he is right that he can be certain the essences of body and mind are distinct= they would have to be distinct substances- which makes the argument valid
- We can still question whether introspection can give us an infallible insight into the true nature of consciousness
Substance dualism
Issues of the conceivability argument-What is metaphysically possible tells us nothing about the actual world
- Descartes argues its is conceivable that mind and body exist as 2 distinct substances= metaphysical possibility- possible world in which substance dualism is true
- What Descartes hasn’t shown is that physicalism is metaphysically impossible; it is equally conceivable that minds are not distinct from bodies, nothing contradictory in supposing mental states are produced by the brain
- If dualism and physicalism are both metaphysically possible we are not any closer to knowing which is actual
- A priori investigation of the mind= fruitless, it seems we need an empirical investigation to determine which is true
Substance dualism
Criticisms of the conceivability argument- Mind without a body is not conceivable
-It can be argued that what may seem to be a clear and distinct understanding of the mind being distinct from the body may actually be incomplete or confused
-Inspired by the verificationist considerations; we can argue that a claim can only be meaningful if it is grounded some way in experience
Eg Ayer dismisses terms such as ‘God’ as metaphysical and ‘God loves us’ as not verifiable as it is not empirically observable and so not factually significant
-The substance dualist claims that the mind is a non physical substance; however as the mind doesn’t exist in the physical realm, its not detectable by any empirical means
-Therefore, for verificationists the claim of substance dualism= nonsense, the claim may appear conceivable, however it doesn’t express coherent thought, only confusion
