Substance Dualism - Term Paper Example

On Substance Dualism: Understanding its Essence and Basic Concepts Number – Section December 4, Substance Dualism Introduction This paper aims to provide an in-depth discussion on substance dualism as argued and explained intensively by Rene Descartes. To maintain consistency and clarity in my discussion, I intend to divide my paper into three parts. The first part shall provide a brief introduction on the conceptual implications of the term dualism in relation to the mind and body. Through this part, I shall shed light on the attributes of each substance, which reinforces the assumption that such substances deserve to be regarded as separate objects. The second part shall expose the different versions of dualism and provide concise analysis of each. Such versions are comprised of substance dualism; psycho-physical parallelism; occasionalism; idealism; double-aspect theory; and epiphenomenalism. I wish to stress on the fact that such examinations will be done to further establish the arguments that will be set on the logicality of duality. The last part shall focus on substance dualism or interactionism by highlighting the three main arguments that support it. Dualism: A Brief Overview Dualism, in its basic sense, emphasizes on the radical difference between mind and matter (Calef). In this reasoning, the mind is not the same as the brain or any other body part. Thus, there exist two independent substances in a person—one material (comprised mainly of bodily parts) and one non-material (human mind) (Philosophy of Mind). The term ‘substance’ is the most essential concept in this statement as it strongly posits the need to treat the mind as an independent object. Formally defined, a substance is a thing or an entity that does not depend on other thing or entity in order to exist (Lacewing). Moreover, a substance may or may not be composed of other substances, may or may not enter into relationships with other substances, but will always have specific attributes (Blutner). Through this definition, the ‘dualist perspective’ argues that there are two fundamentally different objects in a person—the mind and the body—and they do not necessarily need the presence of each one to exist. Thus, while the mind and the body may or may not be in a ‘relationship’ (as to be explored in greater detail in the second part of this paper), they will always possess specific attributes that will make them be as they are (Everitt). Because of this, the human body and the human mind can be discriminated according to attributes of spatial extension (for body) and of thought (for mind). Such attributes are further ‘specified’ by certain states or modes—modes of extension such as form, location texture and weight for the body, while modes of thought such as images, emotions, beliefs, and desires for the mind (Blutner). But while it is relatively easier to argue for the existence of a material body through the physical experience that is mediated by the senses (which merits a much deeper discussion later on for even the receipt of such sense-data may or may not be real when considered how one understands phenomena), how can it be possible for a non-material object such as the mind to exist in totally material world? This inquiry leads me to having a brief review of Plato’s discussion of dualism in his work called “Phaedo”. In this regard, I shall begin by stating Plato’s primary understanding of human essence, which focuses on the soul being imprisoned in the body. To Plato, while the mind is imprisoned, it is compelled to investigate the truth through the body in order to acquire the highest, eternal, and unchanging objects of knowledge called the Forms (Calef). This statement sets forth the tone of Plato’s understanding of what humanity is about, which is essentially directed towards the attainment of the “universal truth and goodness”. Since such Forms could not be found in the physical world for they are simple and irreducible objects that are not bound by space and time, it could be argued that the only way to attain such Forms is when the soul separates from the body, which transpired only before and after life. Through this reasoning, Plato was able to bolster two arguments: (1) that the soul exists; and (2) that the soul can exist even without the body. The thinking on the primacy of the soul as the real determinant of human essence guided Plato in formulating three important theses on the presence of the soul. Firstly, the “Argument of the Opposites” claimed that things that have opposites come to be from their opposites. Thus, since humanity come from a ‘state of sleep’ (mode of being non-existent) to a ‘state of being awake’ (existing with both body and soul), it is logical that death is a natural and important stage for the emancipation and re-awakening of the soul (as it separates from the body and exists on its own). Secondly, the “Argument from Recollection” presented the idea that the soul must have existed prior to birth since we can grasp universal concepts such as equality, freedom, and love without the need to adhere to specific circumstances. Lastly, the “Argument of Affinity” stated that since the soul cannot be destroyed by reducing it to smaller pieces, it follows that it is an entirely different object from the rest of the physical objects found in the realm of space and time. In short, the soul is non-material. In these three arguments, Plato was able to solidify two main contentions. Firstly, that the mind is a different substance from the body; and secondly, that the mind exists independently of the body. Such reasoning, moreover, strengthens the assertion that mind and body are not the same. This could be further argued by borrowing Leibniz’s Law of Identity, which states that two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities (Calef). Since there are apparent differences in the attributes of each substance, it is logical to conclude that the mind and body are not the same. It must be pointed out, however, that although there are apparent differences in the attributes of the mind and the body, such substances will always be in mutual influence with one another. The intimate relationship between the mind and the body, therefore, becomes the defining concept in substance dualism in a sense that: (1) the body causally affects the mind (the mind receives signal from the body through sense-experiences) and (2) the mind causally affects the body (the body responds to the mind’s intention or plan) (Blutner). Such relationship or interaction, furthermore, builds the seeming bifurcation of the mind and the body as it directly implies that mental experiences differ dramatically from physical experiences. To illustrate this point, it could be said that by touching a hot iron, one is able to feel pain, such pain that leads him to decide to move his hand away from the object. Both touching and moving of the hand are physical experiences, while feeling the pain (as a complete, irreducible phenomenon) and deciding to move the hand are mental experiences. Versions of Dualism Now that I have established the nature of dualism as arguing the separateness of the mind and body due to their inherent differences, I will now discuss some important versions of dualism in order to further appreciate its conceptual implications. I like to emphasize, however, that I will devote a big part of my study on substance dualism in this chapter and the next (although I have somewhat given a brief introduction already given my discussion on the nature of interaction between the mind and body). Substance dualism, as popularized by Rene Descartes, came from the core idea of disembodied minds. To start, Descartes first raised a question on what kind of thing he is. This question could be answered by considering what it is for the self to exist, and in his search for the answer he was able to roughly identify his essence (Lacewing). While he could be mistaken that he has a body (for his perceptions may be nothing but part of a dream), one thing is for sure, he could never doubt that he exists since the process of doubting proves that he is, in fact, existing (Robinson). This led him to conclude that it is possible for him to exist even without a body, but he would definitely not exist without the mind. It is crucial to note, however, that the idea of disembodied minds did not hinder Descartes from thinking that it is possible for the mind to interact with the body. In fact, Descartes believed that a causal interaction happens between the mind and the body in pineal gland. “Animal spirits”, according to him, are fluids that create motion, motion that cause conscious states of mind. Through his illustration, Descartes was able to prove that it is in fact possible for a non-material mind to interact with a physical brain (Blutner). Parallelism is another version of dualism that was conceptualized and defended by Leibniz. In his view, the mind and the body are in a pre-established harmony that was set by God (Philosophy Online Company). In a sense, this is similar to Occasionalism, a version put forward by Malebranche as it argued that both mind and body are causally ineffective since God is the one and only true cause of mental and physical phenomena. Moreover, Spinoza believed in a double-aspect theory that is based on the notion that mental and physical experiences are simply different aspects of one and same substance, which is God. Aside from these three versions that reinforce the need for God to create mental and physical occurrences, Berkeley’s Idealism posited that the mind-body interaction is merely an illusion since the material world is an illusion in itself. Thus, our world is consisted exclusively of minds and contents, and what we experience are merely sensations. Lastly, Epiphenomenalism as popularized y Huxley, argued that it is the brain that causes mental events as they are neurological by-products and are behaviorally impertinent (Blutner). In all of these versions, it could be said that while there are numerous ways through which the reality of mind and body could be viewed and understood, substance dualism provided the most convincing reason why there must exist both a material and a non-material substance in man. With this, I shall move on to the last part of my paper which shall concretize the reasons for substance dualism. Arguments for Substance Duality There are six main arguments that substance dualists commonly use in support of their mind-body interaction theory. I shall briefly discuss each one. The first argument is called intentionality of consciousness which states that since mental events are always about something (an awareness that has an object), there is an intentional existence of ceaseless attentiveness to the world (Bernier). In order words, our mind is naturally directed towards something that will allow for it to think. Such processing, however, is not merely about building awareness but more about understanding the object. This, as formally termed, is called abstraction. And since it is only the meaning (or essence) that is processed through abstraction, then there must exist a mind that will be able to handle such concept. The second argument is called self-reflective consciousness which claims that the presence of human mind is possible since we are the only beings that have self-reflective consciousness. This gives us the capacity to transcend and evaluate ourselves while still being conscious of being evaluated. The third argument is called the irreducibility of consciousness which means that while the experience of a mental event may be correlated to individual, physical experiences, the experience of something, in itself, cannot be reduced to mere parts. For example, the feeling of pain cannot be further broken down into ‘levels of pain’. This is because that experience is caused by the mind that is non-material. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be said that substance dualism, although highly open to negations and rebuttals, was able to prove what human existence is all about. It is, for what it has argued, not about looking at happenings as individual ‘whats’, but more about understanding such ‘whats’ to determine their real meaning from a holistic point of view. In a way, substance dualism allowed us to appreciate life not only from the physical aspect, but more importantly from the immaterial one. Bibliography Bernier, Richard. The Plausibility of Substance Dualism as an Approach to the Mind-Body Problem. Concordia University Montreal, 2003. Web. 1 December 2012. . Blutner, Philip. Mind Body Dualism. n.d. Web. 1 December 2012 Calef, Scott. Dualism and Mind. Ohio Wesleyan University, 2005. Web. 1 December 2012. Everitt, Nicholas. Substance Dualism and Disembodied Existence. Faith and Philosophy, 2000. Web. 1 December 2012. Lacewing, Michael. Substance Dualism. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, n.d. Web. 1 December 2012. Philosophy of the Mind. Substance Dualism. 2005. Web. 1 December 2012 . Philosophy Online Company. Descartes and Substance Dualism, n.d. Web. 1 December 2012. < http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsite/pom/pom_substance_dualism.htm> Robinson, Howard. Arguments for Dualism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. Web. 1 December 2012. Read More