Soul, Mind and Body

Question 1

what is monism?

Answer 1

Monism or materialism is the view that humans are made up of only a single (material) substance.
Pre-Socractic philosophers are described as monistic.

Question 2

what are the two types of monism?

Answer 2

Idealistic monism argues that only the mind exists, the external and physical world is an illusion created by the mind.

Materialistic Monism argues that only single reality is matter. Emotion is a physical state and does not exist outside physical reactions.

Question 3

what did Paul Churchland argue?

Answer 3

Paul Churchland argued that there is no convincing evidence that proves humans are more than physical matter. What we call the mind or soul is just brain activity.

Question 4

Plato’s dualism?

Answer 4

His ideas surrounding dualism are found in his dialogue, the Phaedo which is set on the last days of Socrates’ life. Socrates taught that the soul is trapped in the body, like a prisoner. The soul can gain true knowledge. Socrates did not fear death as his soul was going to be freed from his body and then be able to gain full knowledge of the eternal forms.

Plato argues that everything comes into existence through its opposite; an educated person was previously uneducated, and an adult was previously a child.
In the same way, a person who is alive was previously dead meaning there is a constant chain of birth, death and rebirth. This cycle is called the immortal soul.

In another dialogue, Meno, Plato questions an uneducated slave on geometry that he couldn’t have known the answers to. Therefore the information or answers must have been recollected from the boy’s previous life, the soul was in the previous life and therefore is immortal.

A soul cannot change. Whereas everything in the world changes.
“Soul is most similar to what is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, unvarying and constant in relation to itself.”

Question 5

difficulties with Plato’s dualism?

Answer 5

1) Plato switches from comparative terms at the beginning of his argument (eg smaller and larger, slower and faster) to absolute opposites (eg dead or alive) in the second part of his argument. Critics would call this a fallacy of equivocation.

2)One of the characters in the Phaedo argued with Socrates about the soul and recollection. He said the theory of recollection proves that the soul exists before birth but not after death.

3) Plato thought there was a fixed amount of souls, at the time most of Europe was undiscovered. How would Plato account for the ‘extra’ souls?

Question 6

What was Aristotle’s dualism?

Answer 6

1. The soul is present in all living things, not just humans, and it is not immortal.
2. It is the essence or substance of each existing thing.
3. The soul distinguishes between life and death, acting as the life force of all beings.
4. There are three types of soul: the nutritive (found in plants, enabling growth and reproduction), the sensitive (in animals, allowing movement, perception, and reaction to stimuli), and the rational (in humans, with the capacities of the other two plus the ability to think and make moral judgments).
5. The soul is not a body, but it is associated with and present within a body.
6. It is not a material substance and cannot exist separately from the body.
7. The soul is the ‘form’ of the body, meaning it gives structure and organisation to it.

Question 7

difficulties with Aristotle’s dualism?

Answer 7

1) Too quick to dismiss Plato’s theory of forms due to a lack of empirical evidence.

2)Led a great deal of importance on causality, that everything has a cause and therefore has a final cause (purpose). Many would say the only purpose of the universe is to simply exist.

3)He says that everything in the universe has a cause to come into existence except the unmoved mover which has no cause for existence. This contradiction defeats his own argument.

Question 8

Aquinas on the soul?

Answer 8

‘The soul is the first principle of life in all living things.’
The body is material; the soul is immaterial.
The body is corruptible; the soul is incorruptible.
The soul can exist without the body but the disembodied soul cannot do what it is natural for it to do.
The human soul called intellect or mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.

Question 9

Descartes and substance dualism?

Answer 9

• Descartes believed people could be deceived by sense experience.
• He proposed three waves of doubt: the possibility of an evil demon deliberately misleading perceptions, the idea that everything could be an illusion or dream, and the uncertainty of any knowledge except for one’s own existence (“cogito ergo sum”).
• Descartes concluded that while he couldn’t doubt his own existence as a thinking being, he couldn’t be certain about having a physical body.
• He argued that the mind and body are separate and distinct substances, with the body being divisible and the mind not.
• Descartes was concerned with how the non-physical mind could affect the physical body, which contradicted scientific principles.
• He suggested that the pineal gland in the brain might be where the soul interacts most directly with the body, believing the soul is joined to the entire physical body.

Question 10

Gilbert Ryle and the “Ghost in the Machine”

Answer 10

He ridicules Descartes’s concept by calling it ‘the ghost in the machine’
He calls it a ‘Category Error’
Ryle’s point is that Descartes is guilty of category error because he assumes that mental events and physical events are the same type of thing.
Ryle believed that there is a mind but it is not separate from the human being, it is just me.

Question 11

Materialism?

Answer 11

Rejected any suggestion of the supernatural, of an immaterial soul or God or life after death.
Developed the theory of atomism; nothing can exist other than (physical) atoms- no soul, no mind, no immaterial substance.

Question 12

Richard Dawkins

Answer 12

He is a biological materialist, who believes that humans are made up of only physical attributes.
He looks at two definitions of the soul: ‘soul one’ being ‘non-physical vital principle, animated by some anima. Vitalised by a vital force. Energised by some mysterious energy. Spiritualised by some mysterious spirit.’ - he argues that this argument is circular and therefore useless.
‘Soul two’ being ‘intellectual/spiritual power. High development of mental faculties.’
He says soul two is an ‘awakening imagination’ of the human spirit, a spirit in who ch all humans have because they are human.
Soul two is like an idea of qualia
People criticise him because he uses a non-technical definition of the soul to base his argument and he begins from a closed viewpoint, he is biased as he is prejudiced against religious views and therefore dismissed it as being meaningless.

Question 13

Platos view on the soul (arguments)

Answer 13

Argument for the Soul as an Immortal and Immaterial Substance
1. The soul exists as a human’s essential, immaterial part (as evidenced by Plato’s concept of the soul temporarily united with the body). This is plausible because in his Phaedo, he argued that the soul engages with eternal truths and transcends the phsycial, providing its immaterial nature.
2. if so, it is distinct from the body and capable of surviving after death. This is plausible because the soul’s participation in eternal truths suggests it shares their eternal and unchanging nature, making it capable of surviving beyond the body’s death.
3. So, (2)

Argument from the forms
1. The soul accesses universal truths through reason, which exist independently of the physical world. This is plausible because the theory of Forms holds that universal truths exist in a non-physical, eternal realm, and the soul, being non-physical, is the only part of us capable of perceiving and understanding these truths.
2. if so, then the soul must be immaterial and eternal. This is plausible because only something immaterial and eternal, like the soul, could interact with and grasp eternal truths, just as the physical body interacts only with the material world.
3. so, (2)

Question 14

Aristotle’s view on the soul (arguments)

Answer 14

Argument from the form of the body
1. the soul is the form of the body, defining its behaviour and purpose.(e.g the way the body lives and behaves)
2. if so, then it is inseparable from the body and defines its behaviour and purpose.
3. So, (2)

argument from teleology
1. all living things have a telos (purpose) determined by their form, and the soul is the form of the body.
2. if so, then the soul must explain the telos of all beings.
3. so, (2)

Question 15

Descartes and substance dualism

Answer 15

argument from doubt
1. I can doubt the existence of my body but cannot doubt the existence of my mind. (cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am)
2. if so, then the mind and body are distinct substances.
3. so, (2)

argument from divisibility
1. the body is divisible, the mind is indivisible.
2. if so, then the mind and body are distinct substances.
3. So, (2)

Question 16

materialist views/arguments

Answer 16

argument from neuroscience
1. consciousness and mental states can be fully explained through physical processes in the brain. This is plausible because advances in neuroscience demonstrate that mental states, such as emotions, thoughts, and memories, correspond to specific brain activity, suggesting that consciousness arises from physical processes.
2. if so, then there is no need to posit the existence of an immaterial soul. This is plausible because if physical processes in the brain are sufficient to explain consciousness, the concept of an immaterial soul becomes redundant and lacks empirical support.
3. So; (2)

Argument from Ockham’s Razor
1. Materialism provides a simpler explanation for the observed phenomena of consciousness and the mind-body interaction. This is plausible because materialism relies on observable, testable physical processes, whereas dualism introduces the additional, unobservable concept of an immaterial soul, complicating the explanation unnecessarily.
2. if so, then dualism is unnecessary. This is plausible because, according to Ockham’s Razor, we should not multiply entities beyond necessity; if materialism adequately explains the phenomena, there’s no need to assume dualism
3. So (2)

Question 17

Against Plato’s Dualism
(objections)

Answer 17

From the Problem of Interaction
1. The immaterial soul and the material body cannot interact (as no mechanism is provided). This is plausible because interaction between something immaterial and something physical seems impossible without a clear mechanism or explanation, raising doubts about how they could influence each other.
2. if so, Plato’s dualism fails to explain human behaviour. This is plausible because, without a mechanism for interaction, dualism cannot account for how the soul and body communicate or how the soul influences physical actions, which leaves the theory incomplete.
3. So, (2)

Reply to the Problem of Interaction (Plato and Descartes)
-Descartes suggests that the pineal gland could be the point of interaction between the mind and body, though this is speculative.
-Some dualists argue that interaction may occur in ways that are not yet scientifically understood.

from the lack of empirical evidence
1. there is no empirical evidence for the existence of an immaterial soul. This is plausible because, despite extensive scientific research on the brain and consciousness, no direct evidence has been found for the existence of a non-physical, immaterial soul.

2. if so, then belief in the soul is unwarranted. This is plausible because, without empirical evidence to support the existence of the soul, it would be rational to question or reject belief in it, following the principle that beliefs should be based on observable evidence.
3. So, (2)

Question 18

Against Descartes’ Substance Dualism
(objections)

Answer 18

From Materialist Neuroscience
1. all mental states correspond to brain states (as shown by neuroscience). This is plausible because numerous studies have shown that changes in the brain, such as brain damage or stimulation, lead to observable changes in mental states, suggesting a direct link between the brain and the mind.
2. if so, then the mind is an immaterial substance. This is not plausible in the materialist view, because if all mental states correspond to brain states, it would imply that the mind is a product of physical brain processes, not a separate immaterial substance. So, this argument would contradict the first premise, leading to confusion or contradiction in reasoning.
3. So, (2)

Reply to Neuroscience and Materialism (Non-reductive Physicalists)
Non-reductive physicalists argue that mental states emerge from brain states but are not reducible to them, preserving the uniqueness of consciousness.

from the problem of interaction (Elizabeth of Bohemia)
1. the immaterial mind cannot interact with the material body. This is plausible because there is no clear mechanism explaining how an immaterial mind could affect or influence a physical body, especially given the laws of physics governing material interactions.
2. if so, then Descartes’ dualism is incoherent. This is plausible because if the mind cannot interact with the body, Descartes’ theory of dualism falls apart, as it relies on the mind and body being able to influence each other (e.g., through voluntary action or sensation).
3. So, (2)

Question 19

against materialism (objections)

Answer 19

from Qualia (Mary’s thought experiment)
1. Not all aspects of consciousness (e.g., qualia) can be explained by physical processes. This is plausible because qualia, like the subjective experience of seeing red or feeling pain, seem to go beyond what can be captured by brain processes alone. The “what it’s like” aspect of consciousness appears to resist explanation purely through physical science.
2. if so, then materialism is false. This is plausible because if some aspects of consciousness cannot be explained by physical processes, then materialism— which posits that everything, including consciousness, is physical— would fail to account for these non-physical experiences, suggesting materialism is incomplete or false.
3. so, (2)

Reply to Mary’s Room Thought Experiment (Materialists)
Materialists argue that Mary gains a new way of processing information (phenomenal knowledge), but this does not prove the existence of non-physical substances.

Reply to Qualia (Functionalists)
Functionalists argue that qualia can be understood as functional states, which are compatible with a materialist framework.

from intentionality
1. Mental states have intentionality, but physical states do not. This is plausible because mental states, like beliefs and desires, are directed toward things (e.g., “I believe the sky is blue”), whereas physical states do not have this kind of directedness or “aboutness.”
2. if so, then mental states cannot be fully reduced to physical states. This is plausible because if physical states lack intentionality, and mental states inherently involve it, then mental states cannot be fully explained or reduced to physical processes alone—they must involve something more than just physical interactions.
3. So, (2)