On what basis? Because the extremity of doubt-the malicious demon-failed to separate this attribute from his nature:. What am I now that I am supposing that there is some supremely powerful deceiver? Thinking - here I find it - this alone cannot be torn from me. Descartes' claim that 'thought' is inseparable from his nature is, like his discovery of the certainty of his own existence, inextricably bound up with a strictly cognitive process - the method of doubt: while it is easy to suppose there is no God, no heaven, no bodies.
On the other hand, if I had ceased to think I should have no reason to suppose that I had existed. From that I knew I was a substance whose whole nature or essence consists in thinking. The way in which ' cogito ergo sum ' and ' sum res cogitans ' are arrived at thus suggest a strictly intellectualistic interpretation of cogitare.
Indeed, though it is sometimes claimed that "any conscious process will do as a premise for the cogito ", this seems inconsistent with Descartes' method. The demon could presumably deceive me into thinking I wanted an ice cream though perhaps he could not deceive me about being aware of wanting one: I shall return to this point later. For the indubitability of "I think" consists precisely in the fact that doubting it entails its truth. So far, then, the "thinking being" of whose existence Descartes is apprised as his first step out of the morass of doubt is precisely that - a being that thinks, in the ordinary, strictly cognitive sense.
It is now time to look more closely at exactly what Descartes means by the frequent inclusion of sense-perception and sensation as "modes of thinking" modi cogitandi. Perhaps the clearest indication of what is going on comes in Book I of the Principles, where Descartes discusses why ' video ergo sum ' might not do equally as well as ' cogito ergo sum '.
Descartes in effect says that 'I see' is ambiguous. If understood ' de visione ' it is not a good premise for inferring one's existence since, for one thing, it could then imply the existence of a body, which is subject to doubt.
Alternatively, however, it may, says Descartes, be understood "concerning the actual sense or awareness of seeing" de ipso sensu sive conscientia videndi ; here it is quite certain "since it is in this case referred to the mind which alone feels or thinks it sees" quia tune refertur ad mentem quae sola sentit sive cogitat se videre. Once again, in connection with Descartes' employment of cogitare, we are presented with the crucial term conscientia self-awareness ; and this makes it clear just how misleading it is to say tout court that cogitatio "includes" sensations and feelings.
The only sense in which seeing is a true cogitatio is the sense in which it may involve reflective mental awareness - the self-conscious perception of the mind that it is aware of seeing. The more one looks at what Descartes says about perceptual operations like seeing and hearing, as well as sensations like feeling pain, the more one observes that he regards them as having a curious hybrid nature. Descartes often calls perception e.
The "special" nature or "confusedness" turns out to be tied up with this: that such operations qualify as cogitationes at all only in a partial and restricted sense.
In a famous passage in the Sixth Meditation Descartes points out that when the body is damaged we do not merely notice the damage puro intellectu , as a pilot observes damage to his ship; in addition we actually feel pain, because of the mysterious "intermingling" of the mind with corporeal substance. What is seldom if ever asked about this much discussed passage is why Descartes should have put the matter in this way.
Why should one ponder on the curious possibility of being aware of bodily damage in a purely cognitive way? Once one looks for a rationale behind Descartes' train of thought, the answer springs into focus: because that is exactly how one would expect it to be for a res cogitans.
In a letter to Regius, Descartes discusses how an angel a pure res cogitans might experience if he were in a human body: he would not feel sentire as we do, but would merely "perceive the motions caused by external objects". This is because sensations such as pain are not the pure thoughts purae cogitationes of a mind distinct from a body, but are rather the "confused perceptions which result from the real union with the body".
The attempt to understand cogito ergo sum commonly causes that problem: what is thinking? This is the key:. This means that the object exists if a subject can perceive it.
Berkeley's position is quite subjectivist, but in final terms, that's the final reason Descartes searched for a fundamental truth. Then, if existence is subjective, something exists for me if I can perceive it personally, I prefer to express it as something exists for me if I can interact with it due to interaction implies a more factual, physical, not only ideal assessment of existence.
With cogito ergo sum , Descartes was looking for a fundamental truth, given that imaginable every postulate would be subject of doubt. Then, he addressed the problem of existence. What is existence? Existence would imply sompething deeper, a perception! Then, what Descartes accepts as fundamental truth is that if I'm able to perceive myself, I do exist. As said, I would express it as if I'm able to interact with myself, I do exist.
Thinking is precisely such perception or interaction. A friend of mine uses a simpler traduction on his philosophy lessons at the university: if I can think of myself, I do exist. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. However, this does not mean that these substances do exist separately. Whether or not they actually exist apart is another issue entirely.
For Descartes the payoff is twofold. This section investigates both of these motivating factors. Descartes goes on to explain how, because of this, these people will not pursue moral virtue without the prospect of an afterlife with rewards for virtue and punishments for vice. But, since all the arguments in the Meditations —including the real distinction arguments— are for Descartes absolutely certain on a par with geometrical demonstrations, he believes that these people will be obliged to accept them.
Hence, irreligious people will be forced to believe in the prospect of an afterlife. He stops short of demonstrating that the soul is actually immortal. Yet, even though the real distinction argument does not go this far, it does, according to Descartes, provide a sufficient foundation for religion, since the hope for an afterlife now has a rational basis and is no longer a mere article of faith. Notwithstanding this convoluted array of positions, Descartes understood one thesis to stand at the heart of the entire tradition: the doctrine that everything ultimately behaved for the sake of some end or goal.
For this reason, a brief look at how final causes were supposed to work is in order. Descartes understood all scholastics to maintain that everything was thought to have a final cause that is the ultimate end or goal for the sake of which the rest of the organism was organized. For example, in the case of a bird, say, the swallow, the substantial form of swallowness was thought to organize matter for the sake of being a swallow species of substance.
Accordingly, any dispositions a swallow might have, such as the disposition for making nests, would then also be explained by means of this ultimate goal of being a swallow; that is, swallows are disposed for making nests for the sake of being a swallow species of substance.
This explanatory scheme was also thought to work for plants and inanimate natural objects. But what makes it especially clear that my idea of gravity was taken largely from the idea I had of the mind is the fact that I thought that gravity carried bodies toward the centre of the earth as if it had some knowledge of the centre within itself AT VII CSM II On this pre-Newtonian account, a characteristic goal of all bodies was to reach its proper place, namely, the center of the earth.
But, how can a stone know anything? Surely only minds can have knowledge. Yet, since stones are inanimate bodies without minds, it follows that they cannot know anything at all—let alone anything about the center of the earth. But later on I made the observations which led me to make a careful distinction between the idea of the mind and the ideas of body and corporeal motion; and I found that all those other ideas of.
Here, Descartes is claiming that the concept of a substantial form as part of the entirely physical world stems from a confusion of the ideas of mind and body. This confusion led people to mistakenly ascribe mental properties like knowledge to entirely non-mental things like stones, plants, and, yes, even non-human animals.
The real distinction of mind and body can then also be used to alleviate this confusion and its resultant mistakes by showing that bodies exist and move as they do without mentality, and as such principles of mental causation such as goals, purposes that is, final causes , and knowledge have no role to play in the explanation of physical phenomena. So the real distinction of mind and body also serves the more scientifically oriented end of eliminating any element of mentality from the idea of body.
In this way, a clear understanding of the geometrical nature of bodies can be achieved and better explanations obtained. Descartes formulates this argument in many different ways, which has led many scholars to believe there are several different real distinction arguments. However, it is more accurate to consider these formulations as different versions of one and the same argument.
The fundamental premise of each is identical: each has the fundamental premise that the natures of mind and body are completely different from one another. Notice that the argument is given from the first person perspective as are the entire Meditations. At first glance it may seem that, without justification, Descartes is bluntly asserting that he conceives of mind and body as two completely different things, and that from his conception, he is inferring that he or any mind can exist without the body.
But this is no blunt, unjustified assertion. Much more is at work here: most notably what is at work is his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas and their veridical guarantee. Here he likens a clear intellectual perception to a clear visual perception. So, just as someone might have a sharply focused visual perception of something, an idea is clear when it is in sharp intellectual focus.
Moreover, an idea is distinct when, in addition to being clear, all other ideas not belonging to it are completely excluded from it. Hence, Descartes is claiming in both premises that his idea of the mind and his idea of the body exclude all other ideas that do not belong to them, including each other, and all that remains is what can be clearly understood of each. As a result, he clearly and distinctly understands the mind all by itself, separately from the body, and the body all by itself, separately from the mind.
According to Descartes, his ability to clearly and distinctly understand them separately from one another implies that each can exist alone without the other. Descartes, then, clearly and distinctly perceives the mind as possibly existing all by itself, and the body as possibly existing all by itself. Given the existence of so many non-thinking bodies like stones, there is no question that bodies can exist without minds.
So, even if he could be mistaken about what he clearly and distinctly understands, there is other evidence in support of premise 2. But can minds exist without bodies? Can thinking occur without a brain?
However, in the Fourth Meditation , Descartes goes to great lengths to guarantee the truth of whatever is clearly and distinctly understood. This veridical guarantee is based on the theses that God exists and that he cannot be a deceiver. These arguments, though very interesting, are numerous and complex, and so they will not be discussed here. Moreover, Descartes claims that he cannot help but believe clear and distinct ideas to be true.
However, if God put a clear and distinct idea in him that was false, then he could not help but believe a falsehood to be true and, to make matters worse, he would never be able to discover the mistake. Since God would be the author of this false clear and distinct idea, he would be the source of the error and would, therefore, be a deceiver, which must be false. However, if it turns out that God does not exist or that he can be a deceiver, then all bets are off. There would then no longer be any veridical guarantee of what is clearly and distinctly understood and, as a result, the first premise could be false.
Consequently, premise 1 would not bar the possibility of minds requiring brains to exist and, therefore, this premise would not be absolutely certain as Descartes supposed. Notice that mind and body are defined as complete opposites. This means that the ideas of mind and body represent two natures that have absolutely nothing in common. And, it is this complete diversity that establishes the possibility of their independent existence.
But, how can Descartes make a legitimate inference from his independent understanding of mind and body as completely different things to their independent existence? To answer this question, recall that every idea of limited or finite things contains the idea of possible or contingent existence, and so Descartes is conceiving mind and body as possibly existing all by themselves without any other creature.
Since there is no doubt about this possibility for Descartes and given the fact that God is all powerful, it follows that God could bring into existence a mind without a body and vice versa just as Descartes clearly and distinctly understands them.
The argument just examined is formulated in a different way later in the Sixth Meditation :. For when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete…. By contrast, there is no corporeal or extended thing that I can think of which in my thought I cannot easily divide into parts; and this very fact makes me understand that it is divisible.
This one argument would be enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body…. Notice the conclusion that mind and body are really distinct is not explicitly stated but can be inferred from 3. What is interesting about this formulation is how Descartes reaches his conclusion.
He does not assert a clear and distinct understanding of these two natures as completely different but instead makes his point based on a particular property of each. So, here Descartes is arguing that a property of what it is to be a body, or extended thing, is to be divisible, while a property of what it is to be a mind or thinking thing is to be indivisible. First, it is easy to see that bodies are divisible.
Just take any body, say a pencil or a piece of paper, and break it or cut it in half. Now you have two bodies instead of one. For if this were not the case, I should not feel pain when my body is hurt, seeing I am merely a thinking thing, but should perceive the wound by the understanding alone, just as a pilot perceives by sight when any part of his vessel is damaged; and when my body has need of food or drink, I should have a clear knowledge of this, and not be made aware of it by the confused sensations of hunger and thirst: for, in truth, all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc.
Besides this, nature teaches me that my own body is surrounded by many other bodies So then, the person is essentially an immaterial mind soul which happens for a time to be wedded to, but is nevertheless ontologically distinct from, a body. If and when the body is destroyed, this union is dissolved and the mind will continue to exist disembodied. Descartes acknowledges that our mental activities and the movements of our bodies are coordinated and must be accounted for.
Interactionism - mental changes cause bodily changes and vice versa. It makes sense of the thesis that the soul might survive the body after death religious belief in afterlife affirmed. It separates autonomous realms of religion and science. Remember Galileo was his contemporary and the future relationship between science and the Church appeared to be rocky.
It even provides an argument for the necessity of God's existence. Descartes points out in Meditation III that his various fleeting thoughts could not be unified into a coherent, enduring self without the intervention of a higher power. Provides a basis for underdetermined free will and thus personal responsibility. It affirms the unique and privileged status of humans. Provides a basis for resolving puzzles about personal identity and again, personal responsibility.
And in the dedication of the Meditations , he writes,. Problems with Cartesian Dualism:. How can two things as substantially different as Cartesian Mind and Cartesian Body interact. But in order to understand all these things more perfectly, we must know that the soul is really joined to the whole body, and that we cannot, properly speaking, say that it exists in any one of its parts to the exclusion of the others, because it is one and in some manner indivisible, owing to the disposition of its organs, which are so related to one another that when any one of them is removed, that renders the whole body defective;.
It is likewise necessary to know that although the soul is joined to the whole body, there is yet in that a certain part in which it exercises its functions more particularly than in all the others; and it is usually believed that this part is the brain, or possibly the heart: the brain, because it is with it that the organs of sense are connected, and the heart because it is apparently in it that we experience the passions.
But, in examining the matter with care, it seems as though I had clearly ascertained that the part of the body in which the soul exercises its functions immediately is in nowise the heart, nor the whole of the brain, but merely the most inward of all its parts, to wit, a certain very small gland which is situated in the middle of its substance and so suspended above the duct whereby the animal spirits in its anterior cavities have communication with those in the posterior, that the slightest movements which take place in it may alter very greatly the course of these spirits; and reciprocally that the smallest changes which occur in the course of the spirits may do much to change the movements of this gland.
Let us then conceive here that the soul has its principal seat in the little gland that exists in the middle of the brain, from whence it radiates forth through all the remainder of the body by means of the animal spirits, nerves, and even the blood, which, participating in the impressions of the spirits, can carry them by the arteries into all the members.
Reciprocally, likewise, the machine of the body is so formed that from the simple fact that this gland is diversely moved by the soul, or by such other cause, whatever it is, it thrusts the spirits which surround it towards the pores of the brain, which conduct them by the nerves into the muscles, by which means it causes them to move the limbs.
Mind is defined as " unextended ". Bodies are defined as extended in space. Minds, by definition , are essentially unlike bodies. Cannot be said to be "large" or located in such and such a place.
Interaction would seem to be ruled out by definition. Note: despite this definition, notice how much of our talk about consciousness consists of metaphors of spatial form: "stream of consciousness. Question then:. How can minds whatever they are affect bodies whatever they are? But then, at some point, there seems to be something else, the feeling, the pain. How does this happen? How does a feeling emerge from that complex and still unknown network of neurological reactions going on in your body?
Even if you don't want to talk of substances at all, there is still the problem of explaining how your mind affects your body and how your body affects your mind. While it has been demonstrated that energy and mass are inter-convertible, any such " interconvertibility " of mind and matter is still at the highly speculative stage. If we talk about "mental energy," it is far from clear what we mean. Cartesian Dualism suggests that consciousness is essentially elusive and mysterious. It will always be beyond the ability of science to explain or account for.
Note : We describe a pain, etc. There is, in both cases a reliance on the subjective experience in the hearer in order to communicate the content. In fact, the inaccessibility to the subjective experience of others suggests the:. Problem of Other Minds : While arguably I can know that I have conscious experience a mind , how can I be sure anyone else does? How can I be sure that they are not zombies? I can't know or describe your mind at all. I have difficulty describing my mind.
This difficulty to know or describe Mind with any real objective precision has lead some psychologists and philosophers to reject the term completely. They suggest that the our talk of "mind" is inherently confused and in truth refers to no one thing. They prefer to talk about only what is mutually observable and "extended" in physical space for example, neurology and overt behavior. Descartes would claim then that these individuals are missing out on half of reality.
In one's own case, the fact that a person is self-conscious it would seem is the last thing one could ever deny- literally Problem with Cartesian:. Dualism 3 Lurking Homunculi.
How is consciousness connected to your body? One might imagine a little man or woman in your head or perhaps more than one , operating your body the way you might operate the controls of a robot. But this model is fatally flawed. Philosophers refer to the weakness of this view by claiming such a model relies on an Homunculus ; one is positing another mind a little person to explain how your mind works. If there were a little person inside you, that person would face the same problem.
Consciousness seems to depend on if not be identical to independently functioning modules distributed across the brain. Problem with Cartesian Dualism:.
0コメント