Substance Dualism Flashcards
What is substance dualism ?
The philosophical position that states that the mind and the body are ontologically independent but can interact
Outline the indivisibility argument
1 my mind is divisible
2 my physical body , like all physical substances , is divisible
3 Leibniz’s identity of indiscernibles - two substances with different properties cannot be the same substance
4 the mind and body have different properties
5 therefore the mind and the body must be two separate substances
6 therefore substance dualism is correct in saying the mind and body are separate
What is the criticism of the indivisibility argument about the mind being divisible ? (Crit 1)
Response ?
Evaluate this criticism ?
It could be argued that the mind is divisible which would undermine Descartes’ 1st premise and not demonstrate that the mind and body have different properties and are different substances
The mental is divisible in some sense
- Freud argues that the mind can be divided into conscious and unconscious thoughts as well as the ego and super ego. So the mind can be divided in that sense
- also with multiple personality syndrome, parts of a person’s mind cannot communicate with each other suggesting the mental is divisible as it shows there are different parts which can/ can’t communicate
Response -
Descartes’ argues that the mind is unified and all these examples show is that the mind has different parts, it does not follow from this that the mind is divisible
Also, it could be said that the body is spatially divisible but the mind is functionally divisible (I.e. Conscious and unconscious mind) so they do have different properties and are separate substances
Evaluation
Criticism is not damaging as examples only show that the mind can be functionally divided into parts
What is the criticism of the indivisibility argument about not everything thought of as physical is divisible
(Critcism 2)
Response ?
Evaluation?
If this criticism can provide an example of something physical which cannot be divided then the second premise of the argument is undermined
1- sub atomic particles known as quarks are the smallest known particles and are not known to be physically divisible
2 - physical properties such as “dryness”‘cannot be divided
Response
1- just because it is not proven that quarks cannot be divided , it is not logically impossible to think of them becoming physically divisible as science advances
This is therefore not a concrete example of something that cannot be divided. It does not undermine the argument
2- substance dualists argue that physical substances are divisible even when the properties are not. This undermines that point
Evaluation
Criticism is not damaging in the sense that saying quarks are indivisible is not certain, this is not a concrete example
However this criticism is more damaging than the first as it raises the issues of “divisibility” not being clearly defined which leads onto a wider very damaging criticism of the indivisibility argument
That follows -
As divisibility is not clearly defined, it cannot be used to define properties of the body and mind. It is not clear if divisibility means purely functional or physical.
Therefore Descartes’ divisibility argument fails as it rests on “divisibility” which is an unclearly defined term
What does to “conceive” mean ?
To have a clear and distinct idea of something
What does extension mean?
To exist in space - essential property of a physical object
Outline the conceivability argument
1 - I have a clear and distinct understanding of myself as a conscious but not extended thing (as illustrated in his argument from doubt)
2- I have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended but not conscious thing
3 - therefore I can clearly and distinctly understand my mind as a non extended conscious thing apart from my physical Body
4- if I have a clear and distinct of something it must be the case and God must have created it that way
5-god therefore created minds as distinct substances from bodies
6- therefore the mind can exist apart from my physical body
What is the criticism of the conceivability argument - what is conceivable may not be possible (criticism 1)
Response ?
Evaluation ?
This criticism follows that you can conceive of some things which are not possible therefore allegedly undermining the idea that just because the mind and body can be conceived as being separate , it does not follow that they actually are
You could use the example of a unicorn which you could allegedly conceive of or killing my great grandfather which is logically impossible.
Response -
Descartes would argue that the ideas of killing your grandfather or a unicorn are not clear and distinct ideas compared to his clear and distinct of the mind and body being separate
Therefore this criticism is not damaging as it misuses the term “conceivability” as for an idea to be conceivable it must be clear and distinct which the previous examples are not
What is the criticism of the conceivability argument about - what is possible tells us nothing about reality (criticism 2) ?
Response
Evaluation ?
This argument follows that Descartes tries to show that it is possible to separate the mind and the body but this does not show that they can , in reality , be separated
It could be argued that possibility tells us nothing of reality with the example that you could have bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery but you didn’t therefore possibility tells us nothing about reality
Evaluation - however possibility does tell us about reality. This criticism is not damaging as it fails to grasp the logic of the conceivability argument - that that ability to conceive of the mind and body being separate substances leads to the conclusion that they are separate substances. Possibility and conceivability are intertwined. This criticism fails to grasp this logic
What is the criticism of the conceivability argument about the mind without the body being inconceivable? (Criticism 3)
Response ?
Evaluation ?
This criticism follows firstly that
You can never verify that a non physical mind was separated from a physical body as there is no test for this. It is unverifiable and is therefore unconvincing
Secondly
1 Descartes argument is based on the idea that the mind is extended
2 you could argue that the mind is not extended and does take up space if you take the stance that the mind is the brain
3 therefore if the mind is the brain then the mind without the body is inconceivable
There are many different reasons to adapt this materialist stance for example - physical brain damage which affects your mind’s abilities could be used to argue that the mind is the brain
Response - Descartes is certain that the mind is separate to his body. Out of body experiences could be used to justify this.
Evaluation - Descartes has little reply to this. Out of body experiences are unverifiable. Therefore the criticism is highly damaging as it raises an alternative theory with arguably more evidence to back it up
