A Perspective on the Mind-Body Problem, with Particular Reference to the Philosophy of Spinoza
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From Locke to Berkeley
From Locke to Berkeley How Berkeley rejects Locke’s Metaphysical Realism in favor of what he calls “Idealism” Locke Summary Like Descartes, Locke believes that we perceive the “real” world only indirectly. • We do not directly perceive material objects, – Just as we do not directly perceive people we see on T.V.; • Rather, we directly perceive only ideas (sensations, things “in” our minds) that are caused by and represent material objects, – Just as, when watching T.V., we directly see only images on the screen. Locke’s Causal Theory of Perception: Indirectly Sensation aware of Matter Do our sensations resemble their objects? • Recall that Descartes’ big worry was whether or not there were any objects outside our minds. – (By the end of the 6th Meditation, he assures that there are.) • But he said we also make mistakes in thinking that our ideas always resembled the objects in the real world that caused us to have those sensations. Why should we believe that the ideas in our minds actually resemble the objects outside our minds that cause them? Mind’s Eye Idea Object Idea Object Mind In Locke’s Terms • Even if we accept that the ideas in our mind are caused by real objects that exist outside our minds – (Locke never really questions this) • Is it true that our ideas always resemble the qualities in the objects that caused us to have those ideas? Locke’s Answer • Only sometimes. Some of our ideas do resemble qualities in the objects, but some of them do not. • Our ideas of primary qualities resemble those qualities. -
Descartes (1596-1650) from I
René Descartes (1596-1650) from http://radicalacademy.com/phildescartes1.htm I. General Observations René Descartes is justly considered the father of modern philosophy and the founder of the rational method as applied to philosophical research. In fact, he is the first philosopher to begin with the impressions which are in our intellect (intellectual phenomenalism) and lay down the laws which reason must follow in order to arrive at reasonably certain philosophical data. This phenomenalism does not find its full development in Descartes. Indeed, Descartes reaches metaphysical conclusions which are no different from those of Scholastic philosophy. He maintains the transcendency of God, upholds human liberty and Christian morality. But pantheism is sown deep in every form of immanentism. The rationalism of Descartes was to be quickly and logically bent in this direction by Spinoza, while other Cartesians, such as Malebranche and Leibniz, tried -- with less logic -- middle-of-the-road solutions between pantheism and the transcendence of God. II. Life and Works Descartes was born in 1596 at La Haye in France of a noble family, and was educated in the celebrated Jesuit college of La Flèche, where he received a philosophical and scientific education according to the principles of the Scholasticism of his day. Not fully satisfied with this first education, and urged on by a desire to better himself, he went first to Paris, and then enlisted in the army during the Thirty Years' War. On the ninth of November, 1619, while still in the service in winter quarters, he gave himself up to meditating on how to apply the mathematical method of the sciences to philosophy. -
Descartes' Arguments for Distinguishing Mind and Body
© Michael Lacewing Descartes’ arguments for distinguishing mind and body THE KNOWLEDGE ARGUMENT In Meditation II, having argued that he knows he thinks, Descartes then asks what kind of thing he is. Discussions of identity seek to establish the essential properties of something, what makes it the thing that it is. The question ‘what am I?’ can be answered by considering the question of what it is for me to exist. Descartes is trying to identify his essence, those properties which, if he lost them, would mean he was no longer what he is. (An island, for instance, must be surrounded by water. If the water dried up, joining it to the mainland, it would cease to be an island.) He remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body. From this Descartes concludes that it is possible for him to exist without a body. He is essentially a mind, not a body. He would not necessarily cease to be himself if he ceased to have a body, but he would necessarily cease to be himself if he didn’t have a mind. APPEAL TO GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE Descartes’ argument so far is that minds can exist without bodies. However, on its own, it doesn’t establish dualism. -
Transparency of Mind: the Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject
Transparency of Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject Gary Hat! eld Philosophers often use classical positions as paradigms for de! ning their own views, usually in contrast. In the philosophy of mind, the notion of the Cartesian subject is one such paradigm. This notion is often used to represent tendencies in the conception of the subject that today’s philosophers wish to avoid. John McDowell and Hilary Putnam 1, among others, portray the Cartesian subject – and speci! cally the Cartesian mind – as a step backward from an earlier, preferable Aristotelianism, whose concept of mind might be made serviceable today if adjusted to ! t modern science. Such paradigms, whose use is unavoidable, are typically caricatures, whether slight or gross. The Cartesian mind as standardly portrayed by McDowell, Putnam, and oth- ers 2 is a gross caricature. This would be important enough for its potential to mislead us about the actual historical development of philosophy. But even more crucially for the philosophy of mind, the use of a caricatured picture as a counterparadigm against which one de! nes one’s own, comparatively better position, can lead to a pyrrhic vic- tory that avoids or misrepresents the real problems. If the opponent has been tailored to one’s desired virtues as conquering hero, one may give the impression that one’s own position solves great problems, deeply embedded in the tradition, when in fact one has simply rejected a fairly recent problematic position, which one has perhaps also misun- derstood and misidenti! ed. 3 The Cartesian mental paradigm is frequently de! ned in terms of four factors: con- sciousness as essence, intentionality as exclusively mental, the veil of perception, and the transparency of mind. -
The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards's End of Creation
JETS 59/2 (2016): 339–59 THE METAPHYSICS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS’S END OF CREATION WALTER SCHULTZ* Abstract: In his dissertation ConcernIng the End for which God Created the World, the American theologian and philosopher, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), argues precisely and validly for a particular view of God’s purpose and motive in creating and sustain- ing the world on the substantive assumptions that creation is ex nihilo and that only God is absolutely independent and self-sufficient. He asserts that his is the only conceptually possible counterexample to Baruch Spinoza’s contention that no specific position on God’s end and mo- tive in creation combined with a commitment to God’s aseity and creatio ex nihilo can escape incoherence. His argumentation entails a complex metaphysics, which—with careful qualifica- tion—may be referred to by the following terms: dispositionalism, emanationism, idealism, panentheism, anti-platonism, continuous creationism, and occasionalism. This paper briefly de- scribes Edwards’s argumentation for God’s end and motive in creation, summarizes each of these seven positions, and shows how they logically follow. Key Words: emanation, disposition, idealism, platonism, panentheism, continuous creation- ism, occasionalism. Jonathan Edwards’s argumentation in his 1765 dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World entaIlS a partIcular verSIon of emanatIonISm, dISpoSI- tionalism, Idealism, antiplatonism, panentheism, continuous creationism, and occa- sionalism.1 ThIS paper brIefly deScrIbeS Edwards’s argumentation for God’s end and motive in creation then Summarizes each of these seven positions and how they logically follow.2 My aImS are to preSent a précIS of EdwardS’S theory of God and creation only in so far as it is expressed in End of Creation. -
Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013). -
Plato's Phaedrus After Descartes' Passions
© Lo Sguardo - rivista di filosofia N. 27, 2018 (II) - Politica delle passioni? Contributi/2 Plato’s Phaedrus after Descartes’ Passions Reviving Reason’s Political Force Joshua Hall Articolo sottoposto a doppia blind review. Inviato il 2/09/2018. Accettato il 16/05/2019. For this special issue, dedicated to the historical break in what one might call ‘the politics of feeling’ between ancient ‘passions’ (in the ‘soul’) and modern ‘emotions’ (in the ‘mind’), I will suggest that the pivotal difference might be located instead between ancient and modern conceptions of the passions. Through new interpretations of two exemplars of these conceptions, Plato’s Phaedrus and Descartes’ Passions of the Soul, I will suggest that our politics today need to return to what I term Plato’s ‘psychological virtue’ (drawing on virtue’s dual senses as ‘goodness’ and ‘power’), defined as a dynamic tension among mindful desire (nous), carnal desire (epithumia) and societal desire (thumos) achieved through rational discourse (logos). The upshot of this concept of psychological virtue, is that mind, at least via discourse, is also a desiring force, and thus capable of helping create new actions for souls in the political world. *** Through its mythological analysis, Plato’s Phaedrus offers a metaphor of the soul as the dialogical relationship (more precisely ‘natural union’) of a winged chariot team among its charioteer, a light horse, and a dark horse. In other words, the soul is a triadic tug of war among carnal desire (for food, drink, sex, etc.), societal desire (for honor and glory), and mindful desire (for knowledge, beauty, justice, etc.) as managed by discourse (logos). -
Time Atomism and Ash'arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited
Time Atomism and Ash‘arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited Richard T. W. Arthur Department of Philosophy McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada Time Atomism and Ash’arite Origins for Occasionalism Revisited Introduction In gauging the contributions of Asian thinkers to the making of modern “Western” philosophy and science, one often encounters the difficulty of establishing a direct influence. Arun Bala and George Gheverghese Joseph (2007) have termed this “the transmission problem”. One can establish a precedence, as well as a strong probability that an influence occurred, without being able to find concrete evidence for it. In the face of this difficulty (which appears to occur quite generally in the history of thought) I suggest here that the influence of earlier thinkers does not always occur through one person reading others’ work and becoming persuaded by their arguments, but by people in given epistemic situations being constrained by certain historically and socially conditioned trends of thought—for which constraining and conditioned trends of thought I coin the term "epistemic vectors"—and opportunistically availing themselves of kindred views from other traditions. As a case in point, I will examine here the claim that the doctrine of Occasionalism arose in seventeenth century Europe as a result of an influence from Islamic theology. In particular, the Ash’arite school of kalâm presented occasionalism as a corollary of time atomism, and since to many scholars the seventeenth century occasionalism of Cartesian thinkers such as De la Forge and Cordemoy has appeared as a direct corollary of the atomism of time attributed to Descartes in his Meditations, Ash’arite time atomism is often cited as the likely source of Cartesian Occasionalism. -
Descartes and Spinoza
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 229 chapter nine Descartes and Spinoza Two Approaches to Embodiment Alison Peterman 1. Introduction Descartes1 (1596– 1650) and Spinoza (1632– 1677) each gave us interest- ing and infuential approaches to answering what I’ll call “embodiment question”: what is the relationship between a mind and its body— the one that it seems to inhabit, feel, control or otherwise be uniquely involved with?2 In Spinoza we fnd (at least) three diferent answers, the ingenuity of all of which is attested to by their long reception in the philosophical tradition. Descartes was an important infuence on Spinoza, but on many others, too, ushering in the era of the “mind- body 1 I am grateful to Colin Chamberlain, Michael Della Rocca, Keota Fields, Kristin Primus, and Alison Simmons for discussion, and also to the other contributors to this volume. 2 Tis question is broader than one than one about the constitutive or essential relationship between a mind and its body. 229 02_acprof-9780190490447_Ch7-11.indd 229 12/29/2016 2:13:15 AM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 230 230 Embodiment problem” in the form that many philosophers still grapple with. Here, I’ll by no means attempt a comprehensive treatment of their contribu- tions. Instead I will try to uncover an unnoticed similarity between the two, and apply it to understanding the coherence of Spinoza’s account of embodiment. I’ll argue that Descartes and Spinoza both approach the embodiment question in two diferent ways: one approach starts with some metaphysical commitments about the kinds of entities, properties, and interactions there are in the world, and the other starts by attending to the experience of an embodied subject. -
“Intentional Transfer” in Averroes and the Issue of Representationalism
Intentional Transfer in Averroes, Indifference of Nature in Avicenna, and the Issue of the Representationalism of Aquinas Comments on Max Herrera and Richard Taylor Is Aquinas a representationalist or a direct realist? Max Herrera’s (and, for that matter, Claude Panaccio’s) qualified answers to each alternative show that the real significance of the question is not that if we answer it, then we can finally learn under which classification Aquinas should fall, but rather that upon considering it we can learn something about the intricacies of the question itself. In these comments I will first argue that the Averroistic notion of “intentional transfer”, combined with the Avicennean idea of the indifference of nature, yielding the Thomistic doctrine of the formal unity of the knower and the known renders the question moot with regard to Aquinas, indeed, with regard to the pre-modern epistemological tradition in general. These considerations will then lead to a number of further, both historical and philosophical questions, which I will offer in the end for further discussion. So, why is it interesting at all whether this or that philosopher is a representationalist or a direct realist? And why is this question interesting in particular in connection with pre- modern philosophers, who certainly did not think of themselves in these terms? To answer the first question, we must recall that the distinction emerged in the context of the modern (post-Cartesian) theory of ideas. As Thomas Reid saw it, the problem with that theory was that it constituted a mistaken theory of perception and mental representation in general, which in turn led to skepticism concerning an external, mind- independent, physical reality. -
The Functional Logic of Cartesian Passions
Amélie Rorty The Functional Logic of Cartesian Passions Abstract: Cartesian passion-ideas are able to promote “the good of this life” because they bear law-like dynamic relations to one another. Descartes is a foundationalist: all passions “originate” from six basic passions: wonder, desire, love and hate, joy and sadness. As passion-ideas, compound passions are in part individuated by their generic intentional contents. As passion-ideas, compound passions prompt bodily changes that benefit or harm psycho-physi- cal individuals. Although Descartes resists teleological explanations, he is an internal functionalist: the body is organized as a self-preserving mechanical system, capable of integrating motions prompted by the activity of the mind. Similarly, the mind forms a coherent system, capable of integrating ideas prompted by the body. Finally, Descartes is also an intellectualist. Besides passions, there are also émotions intérieures, dispositional ideas that, like self- esteem and generosité, are caused in the mind by the mind. Prompted by proper self-esteem, the will can choose the course that will serve the intellectu- ally-weighted psycho-physical individual, the scientist rather than the hypo- chondriac. “It is on these,” Descartes says of the passions, “that the good and ill of this life depend.” (AT XI, 488; PA 212).1 Indeed the reassurances of divine benevolence introduced in the Sixth Meditation assert that all the passions are, in their own nature, good, and are as such agreeable to us. (“Elles sont toutes bonnes de leur nature” (PA 211)). Whatever harm their excess or deficiencies might bring can in principle be controlled or deflected by wisdom and the power of the will. -
Q. 24: Goodness and Badness in the Passions of the Soul
QUESTION 24 Goodness and Badness in the Passions of the Soul Next we have to consider goodness and badness in the passions of the soul. And on this topic there are four questions: (1) Can moral goodness and moral badness be found in the passions of the soul? (2) Is every passion of the soul morally bad? (3) Does every passion add to or diminish an act’s goodness or badness? (4) Is any passion good or bad by its species? Article 1 Is any passion morally good or morally bad? It seems that no passion is either morally good or morally bad: Objection 1: Moral goodness and badness are proper to man, since, as Ambrose says in Super Lucam, “Morals are properly called ‘human’.” But the passions are not proper to men; instead, they are shared in common with other animals as well. Therefore, no passion of the soul is either morally good or morally bad. Objection 2: As Dionysius says in De Divinis Nominibus, chap. 4, “Man’s goodness or badness has to do with being in accord with reason or being against reason (secundum rationem vel praeter rationem).” But as was explained above (q. 22, a. 3), the passions of the soul exist in the sentient appetite and not in reason. Therefore, they are not relevant to a man’s goodness or badness, i.e., to the moral good. Objection 3: In Ethics 2 the Philosopher says, “We are neither praised nor blamed for passions.” But it is because of what is morally good and morally bad that we are praised or blamed.