Therefore, the mind can be distinctly perceived as a whole autonomous entity that does not pertain an extension, correspondingly, the body can also be though as an extension that pertains no element of thought meaning that God could enable the two to exist distinctly from each other, ergo the mind and body are actually distinct from each other. Concisely, Descartes is really trying to make the point that the mind and body are two entirely different entities each set for its own purpose; the mind is a thinking thing that exists in the abstract devoid of physical attributes such as size shape or color while the body is a non-thinking thing that is bound and limited by the laws of physics. Free will on the other hand can be defined as the inherent capacity to make autonomous choices without being constrained or manipulated by any external limitations, these factors range from physical constrains such as imprisonment to metaphysical and logical factors social psychological ones. The relationship between dualism and free will is mutually inclusive since without substance dualism, free will could not be logically expected to exist; this is because in the absence of dualism, it would mean that humans are entirely physical beings. Essentially, every action one takes in the physical realm is subject to the rules of physics which do not however apply to the mental faculties. The subordination of the physical bodies implies that while human beings may perceive themselves to be free, their freedom does not extend past the point at which they are bound by these laws. Take for example the modes of human movements, human being can walk and they one can even argue that they choose to walk, however the very action is subjected to the law of motion and gravity and should one be put in a situation where these laws do not function they would be forced to adjust their means of propulsion. Free will does not just imply that one is free to do what they do but also to do otherwise should they so choose, however human beings cannot decide not to walk but instead to fly since even if they may will it, and their bodies are not free to carry it out. Under this premises, free will cannot exist unless the body was to somewhat be viewed as a separate construct from the mind which is essentially what the theory of substance dualism does. Unlike the body, the mind is not subject to the rules of nature and it can construe anything by gravity can simulate the feeling of flight and one may even argue that one can fly, in their imagination without a physical ceiling or limit, for example when one dreams of flight, they may even expense the exhilaration and fear of being airborne just the way they would have if they were actually flying. This is despite the fact that humans cannot actually fly, nevertheless the mind not being bound physical law do whatsoever it wishes, this is the very concept that philosophers and theologians employ to justify the notion of life after death or reincarnation. The assumption is that after the body has died the soul will live on since it is not an organic construct and therefore not subject to the degeneration which the body inevitable has to undergo after death. Several arguments have been
Name Instructor Course Date Substance Dualism is Necessary for Beings to Have Free Will According to Renee Descartes, the subject of substance dualism implicitly rests on the presupposition that the essence of the mind is in thought while body’s is extension, this implies a duality of essences correspondent to a duality of substances…
Dualism has over the years been associated with several philosophers, thinkers and religious leaders. Prominent among these are Socrates, Plato, St. Augustine, the Hindu religion and Prophet Zoroaster. Each of these personalities and groups take dualism from a different perspective but they all seem to arrive at one major understanding that two all concepts of human existence, there are two forms.
This concept was coined in the era of metaphysics. By definition, moral dualism is a strong proven conviction in complement off everything from religion to conflict i.e. malevolent and compassionate are two opposite concepts concurring simultaneously in a subject of matter.
Dubbed the ‘mind-body problem,’ the topic has seen different refutations and defences and continues to be a subject of interest because it speaks to our common experiences. The concept of a mind that could exist outside of the body has been the most common interpretation of his words from ‘Meditations.’ Thus the statement that “Descartes has unfairly been caricatured by many philosophers as a villain who sent us down the dead-end road of mind-body dualism” (Hoffman 4).
The duality argument rests solidly on the premises that the essence of the mind is thought while the essence of the body is extension; in this respect, the duality of essences implies the corresponding substances can exist separately and independently from each other.
The concept of dualism is not only fundamental in philosophy, but also affects our thoughts on science, religion and psychology: for example, if a convincing rejection of dualism can be formulated, the materialist approach of modern science will be vindicated.
Essentially, this means that the concept of dualism accepts and reinforces the existence of a creator, or the cause, that would have created other worldly objects. Hence, the concepts of yin and yan according to the Chinese philosophy
The former being is in itself conscious of its being while the latter is the external, not having any kind of mental properties.
As a substance dualist myself, I would like to argue that I am a thinking thing or a purely mental being. What is it
According to him, the physical and spiritual aspects are two incompatible substances that have found a way of ‘coexisting’ in the human body (“Cartesian Dualism: Interaction of the Mind and Body”).
Dualism can be looked at from two stances, as a
hard determinism, Libertarianism, and Compatibilism, I find the Compatibilism position most plausible. This paper gives a critical discussion of why Compatibilism position is the most plausible solution to the problem of evil as compared to the other two
He observes that various philosophers however have different ideas on what would make a thing a substance as per this definition. He says that while Leibniz, for instance, would only consider fundamental particles such as electrons as
4 pages (1000 words)Essay
Hire a pro to write a paper under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Apply my DISCOUNT
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you an essay for FREE
Contact us via Live Chat, call us at +16312120006or send an email to email@example.com