Rene Descartes is recognized as among the most influential philosophers. He offered his thoughts on some complex questions that humans continue to grapple with on the mind-body coordination, can they exist as separate entities or does the body need the mind, or how can the physical actions be attributed to the body, not the mind? While his views were not flawless, they have allowed humankind to inch closer to an understanding of how the universe functions, the composition of man and the meaning of human life. One of the key issues that Descartes addressed is substance dualism which he gives an elaboration that a substance can exist without the help of the other entity, so does the body and mind. Through this concept, he tries to outline the composition of man. Descartes’ perspective on what constitutes humankind has withstood criticism and remains relevant and insightful to examine certain behaviors in human interactions more specifically with self as both mind and body exist in human.
Descartes developed the concept of substance dualism in response to the question of the constitution of man. Essentially, substance dualism is that man is composed of mind and body in which logically forms a cause of interactionism. As Ariew and Watkins (2009) report in their text substance dualism is concerned with, “the mental and corporeal realms being two of the attributes of infinite substance” (p. 112). The proposal in Descartes argument of the existence of the mind and the body as distinct and independent entities and at the same time rely on each other to perform their respective functions form an existential crisis which makes it harder to comprehend the entire notion of dualism in a substance. Descartes also went further to describe the constitution of the mind and the body. He believed that the body was composed of a material extended substance, that is it posses physical dimension and occupy space. On the other hand, the mind contains immaterial non-extended dimension. Despite this, the mind remains a basic and integral component of human beings as he relates it to thinking thing or a spiritual substance lacking physical or material facet.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Descartes understood that his notion of substance dualism was deviant from what was believed at his time. He provided arguments to support his belief that humans were made up of a body and a mind as before his time the ancient scholars, for instance, Aristotle and Plato claimed that the mind or soul did have a relationship with the physical body . Descartes epitomizes an extremist in his suggestion that these entities had no common properties at all when he established his concept of dualism. One of the arguments involved the notion of conceivability (“Substance Dualism,” n.d). Descartes argued that humans could perceive their physical bodies as being extended but lacking the capacity for thought. Quite the reverse, they regard their minds as lacking extension but having the ability to think (“Substance Dualism,” n.d). To connect the two ideas, since both arguments may be valid, we cannot give absolute autonomy to the mind and body, so to conceive the two as distinct substances are quite extraneous. Secondly, the argument that Descartes presented concerned divisibility. He observed that the mind and the body are defined by different characteristics (“Substance Dualism,” n.d). The mind is defined by its capacity for thought. The body is defined by extension; it is a finite substance. Since different features characterize them, the mind and body are different substances. If they were the same substance, the mind and body would possess the same features. This is not the case that the mind and the body function as a unit is another argument that Descartes presented. This argument addresses the problem of how the mind and the body interact for instance while lifting an arm the body will do so and also the when one place he or she finger on a hot object they experience pain. These two phenomena reveal the dilemma in the Descartes concept of dualism depicting the mind and body as a separate entity.
The arguments discussed above allowed Descartes to defend his beliefs regarding the distinction of the mind and the body. In addition to these arguments, Descartes also supplied another argument involving doubt. This argument is founded on three premises. One, Descartes observed that he had doubts that his body exists (“Descartes’ Arguments for Dualism,” n.d). Two, Descartes asserted that he could not raise doubt about his existence as a being with the capacity for thought. Three, he argued that he is a thinking being who is distinct and separate from his physical body (“Descartes’ Arguments for Dualism,” n.d). These three premises offer convincing support for the argument that the mind and the body are distinct substances. The different arguments that Descartes supplied to offer a solid basis for his conviction regarding substance dualism and in another controversy, he related himself as a ‘thinking thing’ that he might be eccentrically mistaken about his exact being.
Being as deviant as it was, Descartes’ notion of substance dualism would attract criticism. Elisabeth Stuart, the Princess of Bohemia, is among those who criticized Descartes’ arguments (Ariew & Watkins). The way in which the mind and the body interact is one of the objections that Elisabeth raised. She wondered how given that they were two distinct substances, the mind and the body were able to interact to create certain outcomes (Tollefsen, 1999). Elisabeth is not alone in critiquing Descartes’ failure to account for how the mind and the body interact. Other philosophers have criticized him for failing to provide a convincing argument. Elisabeth challenged Descartes to explain how human actions that are driven by the mind occur given that the mind and the body are supposed to be two distinct realms.
Descartes responded to Elisabeth’s criticism. However, Elisabeth did not find the response to be convincing. In his response, Descartes attempted to explain how the mind and the body interact. He introduced the idea of heaviness to account for why things fall. In Descartes view, mechanistic materialism requires that all efficient causal relations have to be by direct physical contact action. Think of billiard balls. Even so, rocks seem to fall without any direct contact between the Earth and the rock. Likewise, our minds might be able to move our bodies without direct contact between the mind and the body. Note that by the late 17 th century we could describe the motion of falling bodies pretty well, but we did not have much of a theory of how gravity works. Gravity was regarded as a physical phenomenon though, so presumably things exhibiting gravity must have physical properties, mass being a particularly important property in the explanation for gravity. After all these deliberations Elisabeth regretted that she found this idea unconvincing and inadequate. Instead of explaining the interactions of the mind and the body, Descartes’ response simply introduced complications that hindered the understanding of his original argument. Elisabeth wondered if the concept of heaviness introduced a third dimension to the composition of humans (Shapiro, 2013). In her argument regarding the mind and the body as a functional unit yet they were supposed to be independent, She was convinced that Descartes committed a contradiction. If they are indeed two independent entities, the mind and the body should not be able to work together as well as they do.
Another question that Elisabeth raised concerned is the efficient causation w hich revealed Elisabeth’s’ commitment to a mechanist of causation account. She disregards Descartes’ appeal to the Scholastic heaviness theory as a model that gives an explanation on the interaction of the mind and body, on the basis that, initially Descartes himself claimed that it is pointless and conflicting with the mechanist idea of nature. Explicitly, she went straight ahead to denounce the reserved causal explanatory model triggering the Pedagogic of real quality theory, to this point she decline to regard that model as suitable in certain perspectives. Nonetheless, she remains flexible regarding which efficient causation account should be taken on board. Thus, she discounted Descartes’ response as it did not go far enough to explain the mind and body interaction. It is worth noting that Elisabeth acknowledged that Descartes’ substance dualism theory was an interesting framework that shed light on how humans are constituted. However, the questions and concerns that she raised indicate that she believed that Descartes’ theory was simply too flawed to be reliable. Among the objections that she raised was regarding “the issue of the role of the condition of the body in our capacity for thought” (Shapiro, 2013). She used the example of vapors to show that the mind and the body are not as Descartes’ conceptualized them. Descartes is further pushed to the edge to articulate on substance internationalism, pinning down not only the mind-body interaction problem but likewise to scenarios where the poor body conditions, for instance, the vapors-affects the thought capacity. These cases, she intimates, would be more clearly justified by taking into account that mind to be physical as well as extended
This example led Elisabeth to find that for certain beings and situations, the mind had to be both materials and extended (Shapiro, 2013). This goes against Descartes’ claim that the mind is immaterial and lacks extension. Elisabeth’s objections are strong enough to create doubt and cause people to dismiss Descartes’ theory. Therefore, her objections make her argument more convincing.
Descartes must have understood the repercussion of his arguments, so he left some part unaddressed, the objections that Elisabeth raised would sway his standpoint and the persuasiveness of his argument. He offered a response through which he attempted to settle Elisabeth’s concerns. In his response, Descartes noted that a mind and body union allowed for the interactions of the two substances (Simmonds, n.d). The extension property of the body combines with the thought property of the mind to facilitate human actions. Descartes recognized that the idea of the mind and body union raised questions about the independence and distinction of the two substances. He challenged Elisabeth to regard the union as an interaction instead of regarding the mind and the body as individual entities (Simmonds, n.d). Descartes’ response was unconvincing and somewhat inadequate. It fails to answer Elisabeth’s concerns and questions directly. What makes the response unconvincing is the fact that it does not answer Elisabeth’s questions and introduces further complications.
This then begs the question of what is right? There is no doubt that the concept of Descartes makes it perplexing to unify the concept of interactionism of the mind and the body. Undeniably, his attempt to explain the mind and the body as the basic components of humans is less convincing as it blurs the understanding of mind-body coordination. However, by raising valid questions, Elisabeth went into deeper lengths to expose the flaws in Descartes’ perspective as the rationality of the mind and body being distinct entities is extraterrestrial as it only happens with God. Notably, not all reasoning can align to Descartes logic of dualism; the rationality that tries to align with this concept is theology. First, Descartes’ affirms Gods existence, and he attributes some factors of dualism to God. In the other dualism varieties, the occasionalism develops some parallelism forms that do not necessitate direct causative interactions. It also maintains a clear relationship between mental as well as bodily events which is resultant to continuous God causal action. As noted above, she emphasized serious slip-up which highlighted the absurdity nature of existence of the mind and body as dissected in Descartes’ arguments. It is difficult to determine the philosopher whose account of the mind and the body is accurate. Contrarily, while his explanation was flawed and incomplete, Descartes offered an inspired and original explanation. In spite of this, Elisabeth posed serious questions that Descartes did not respond to adequately. Overall, Descartes’ perspective is correct. The questions Elisabeth raised in her queries is worth to be considered as it gives a whole new outlook into the mind-body interactionism. Thanks to these questions we can understand the complexity of human form. Descartes took on the daunting task of using theory to shed light on a complicated question.
In conclusion, Descartes remains an influential philosopher whose works continue to define human thought on a wide range of subjects. His views on the mind and the body have allowed humankind to understand how these entities work together to drive action. In the face of Descartes conviction of the mind and the body, the two begin to differentiate substances which possess distinct features; which is a contradiction of the reality. Whereas the mind is responsible for thought, the body helps to facilitate extension. In general, Descartes’ theory allows one to understand the functions of the mind and the body and how they come together in collaborative interaction. Elisabeth raised serious questions that Descartes attempted to answer. While his response left Elisabeth unconvinced, it shows that he gave the criticism the seriousness that it deserved.
References
Ariew, R., & Watkins, E. (2009). Modern philosophy. An anthology of primary sources. 2 nd Edition. Indianapolis, IN Hackett Publishing.
Descartes’ Arguments for Dualism. (n.d). Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/110WK13.html
Simmonds, G. P. (n.d). Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia’s criticisms of Descartes’ substance dualism. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://www.academia.edu/8743665/Princess_Elisabeth_of_Bohemias_Criticisms_of_Descartes_Substance_Dualism?Auto=download
Shapiro, L. (2013). Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/elisabeth-bohemia/#minbodintnatmin
Substance Dualism. (n.d). Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
Http://s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/dualism/Substance%20dualism.pdf
Tollefsen, D. (1999). Princess Elisabeth and the problem of mind-body interaction. Hypatia, 14 (3), 59-77.
