Soul mind and body Flashcards
Intro
- No written definition due to ambiguous nature
- Philosophical terms it is understood to be the part of an individual that experiences mental/religious events and through a religious lens, the part of us that connects to God and experiences the afterlife
LOA1:
According to substance dualism the soul must be distinct from the body
What was Plato’s understanding of the soul
Plato was deeply influenced by Pythagorean thought, which emphasised the distinction between the spiritual soul (psyche) and the material body.
The body and soul are opposites - the soul the permanent spiritual essence of a person, able to access true knowledge through reason via the World of the Forms, whilst the material body distracts and imprisons the superior soul with appetites and pleasures highlighted in analogy of chariot
“The body is the source of endless trouble to us… takes away from us all power of thinking at all” (‘Phaedo’)
Leibniz law - supports Plato
Object A and B are the same if they have identical properties; material and physical are very different, therefore two things not one The Argument from Opposites: Since death is the opposite of life, and opposites are mutually exclusive, therefore when the body dies, life must go on.
Thus substance dualism is most convincing as it distinguishes between the different between spiritual and physical, with one being inferior to the other
Criticism of Plato
Not only does Plato’s concept of the soul rest upon the World of the Forms (a largely rejected metaphysical concept), Plato’s view seems to dismiss the value of the body, which seems to play a vital part in how one identifies themselves and moreover, how one survives - Bernard Williams: identity also comes from the body. Mind must be linked to the body as physical events i.e. taking drugs, impact upon the mind Plato and Descartes dismiss the importance of the body
Descartes
: Father of Modern Philosophy - Cartesian doubt used to prove body and soul are two separate substances ‘Meditations’. COGITO ERGO SUM: Meditation 1: possible to doubt all things (unreliable senses, dreams, evil demon deceiving us). Meditation 2: Cogito ergo sum “I think therefore I am”, impossible to doubt you are thinking.
• Difference between mind/ body (one can be proved, other cannot) suggests mind is logically independent of the body. Soul is the thinking thing, body is the physical part; Leibniz law, difference properties, different entities
Soul/ mind is the essence of a person, their identity. A person can exist with a body but not a soul.
Gilbert Ryle’s’ criticism of Descartes
Gilbert Ryle ‘The Concept of the Mind’ incorrect use of language that results in speaking of the soul as though it were identifiably extra, “The Dogma of the Ghost in the Machine” Like watching a cricket match and asking where the team spirit was to talk of the soul is merely to speak of how someone interacts with the world, does not require spiritual essence, mind is just the brain = part of the body.
Why is Gilbert Ryle’s points strong
- Strong as said traditional views have seen body and soul as two things human beings that are somehow ‘harnessed together’ does not fit with knowledge of psychology or neuroscience.
- Ryle didn’t necessarily reject mind/personality/consciousness (Aristotelian soul), but rejected the idea of it being a separate part of a human being.
- The soul is a way of describing a persons functions.
LOA2:
MATERIALISM (NO CATEGORY ERROR, AS THERE IS NO SPIRITUAL PART)
A2:
Soul is merely consciousness, explainable via science and psychology
Dawkins
‘Is Science Killing the Soul?’ “Soul” is a mythological concept invented by ancient philosophers to explain the mystery of consciousness “Not an explanation” of consciousness “but an evasion” humans are merely ‘Survival Machines’
• Consciousness is no more than electro-chemical events in the brain: no person is capable of surviving brain death. Only survive death through passing on DNA to ancestors.
Cottinghams criticism of Dawkins
- If we are made up of just mind and body, an area of human experience including passions, emotions and sensations cannot be straightforwardly reduced to either category
B.F. Skinner and Ockham’s razor in counter to Cottingham
Mental processes/ consciousness can be reduced to a series of learnt behaviours - Pavlov’s dogs, mental acts are caused acts reducible to a physical level renders idea of non-physical aspect/ soul obsolete
• OCKHAM’S RAZOR: “you should not multiply entities beyond necessity”; explanation through material/ physical processes is the simplest explanation. One substance empirically examined
Dennetts reply to Skinner
Daniel C. Dennett “Skinner skinned” - humans can’t be reduced to learnt behaviours, Skinners reasons would only be correct if my explanation of something stopped at having a desire, but our thinking goes much further. Over simplifies human consciousness, would show no difference between a human and a pigeon
• Consciousness if a first person, private phenomenon and will never be able to be fully explained in third person scientific methods physical may be the cause, or consciousness may be explained through material terms, but it does not mean that consciousness/ the mind is physical itself!
• People like Dawkins are so desperate for full explanations of everything that they reduce the evidently non-physical to the physical. Just because we cannot explain consciousness doesn’t mean it has to be simplified.
LOA3:
Property dualism
