Substance Dualism Flashcards
Substance dualism
Substance Dualism is the belief that the mind and body are two ontologically distinct substances. For example Descartes’ Substance Dualism claims that the mind is composed of a non-physical substance and that the body is composed of a physical substance.
This relies on Leibniz law; two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities
Introspection- how it supports substance dualism
Introspection means we have personal and private access our own minds, thoughts and feelings which can not be observed from the outside. By turning our gaze inwards and introspecting on our own minds, Descartes says this gives us proof we are conscious thinking beings (I think therefore I am).
This supports substance dualism by proving we can know about our minds but not our bodies, proving they are two different things
Indivisibility argument
The theory that the body can be divided up into multiple parts because it is physical however the mind cannot because it is not a tangible or physical substance, which means they are two different substances.
P1. The body is divisible
P2. The mind is indivisible
C1. Body and mind are two different substances
Leibniz law
two things are identical if they share the exact same properties. the mind and body seem to possess slightly different properties.
Criticisms of the indivisibility argument
1) The mind is divisible as the mind and the brain are the same thing. This brain is physical and can be divided- supported by brain scans, neurodependancy argument, brain damage accidents.
2) Even the none physical Brain can be split/divided for example multiple personality disorder
Response to criticisms
1) Descartes could respond by claiming that he knows the mind is not the brain because of his argument from introspection or The Cogito. He claims that he has a ‘clear and distinct idea’ that are ontologically distinct because he can doubt the existence of his body and not his mind
2) Could response to the second point by saying the way by which the mind is divisible is completely different to the way the body is divisible; The body is spatially divisible but the mind is functionally divisible. This means the argument that the mind and body have different properties are still valid
Conceivability argument
P1. I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn’t extended
P2. I have a clear and distinct of body as something that doesn’t think and is extended
P3. If I have a clear and distinct idea about something, God can create mind as something, God can create it in a way that corresponds to my thought
C1. Therefore, God can create both these conceptions
C2. Therefore, mind and body can exist independently of one another and are thus, 2 distinct substances.
CRITICISM- Masked man fallacy to criticise the conceivability argument
1) know who my father is
2) I don’t know who the masked man is
3) Therefore, the masked man cannot be my father
The first two premises could be true however the conclusion is false as there is no way to know the masked man is not his father until the masked man is revealed - It could be said that Descartes has committed the masked man fallacy by assuming the mind and body are not the same
CRITICISM- Mind without body is not conceivable
Verificationist consideration- considering the conditions under which a claim can be meaningful. A plausible answer is that it must be grounded with some form of experience.
It is not conceivable because if you try to think go the mind without the body you still associate it with your physical body parts e.g using your senses like seeing or hearing or feeling use your physical eyes ears and skin.
What is the problem of other minds
We have know our experiences directly and have personal access to our own minds- called introspection however we can only know about other minds by observing their outward behaviour. This leads skeptics to believe we can never know that others have conscious minds like ours
Possible response to the problem of other minds
We can observe a correlation between our own minds and certain behaviours e.g crying when upset. When observing similar behaviour in others we can assume the has similar experienced and emotions to ours which is sufficient reason to believe others also have minds.
Possible response to the problem of other minds
We can observe a correlation between our own minds and certain behaviours e.g crying when upset. When observing similar behaviour in others we can assume the has similar experienced and emotions to ours which is sufficient reason to believe others also have minds.
What is conceivable may not be metaphysically possible
