DOCSLIB.ORG

An Examination of Wittgenstein's Approach to the Mind- Body Problem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Examination of Wittgenstein's Approach to the Mind- Body Problem An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem AN EXAMINATION OF WITTGENSTEIN'S APPROACH TO THE MIND- BODY PROBLEM by Sandra Therese Baker Student number 790 3170 Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS in the subject of PSYCHOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA February 2015 An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Declaration I, Sandra Therese Baker, student number 7903170, hereby declare that: AN EXAMINATION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S APPROACH TO THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted from have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Acknowledgements A special thank you to my supervisor, Professor Kruger for his continued help and support, to my husband who introduced me to Wittgenstein’s work and to my children, who discussed Wittgenstein on the way to kindergarten. An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Table of Contents Page Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One .......................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION 1. Aim of the research ......................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Introduction to the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein ................................................ 2 1.2 Outline of dissertation ............................................................................................ 5 1.2.1 Chapter Two ................................................................................................. 5 1.2.2 Chapter Three ............................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Chapter Four ................................................................................................. 6 1.2.4 Chapter Five ................................................................................................. 6 Chapter Two ......................................................................................................................... 8 THE ORIGIN OF THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM 2. The origin of the notion of the mind ............................................................................... 8 2.1 Classical era (from the early scriptures to Augustine) ........................................... 8 2.1.1 Early Judaic/Hebraic scriptures .................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Greek philosophy in the classical era ......................................................... 10 2.1.3 Augustine ................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Descartes .................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Idealism ................................................................................................................ 21 An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Page 2.4 Kant ...................................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Romanticism ........................................................................................................ 27 2.5.1 Schopenhauer ............................................................................................. 30 2.6 A summary of the development of the notion of the mind-body problem .......... 32 Chapter Three .................................................................................................................... 34 THE PROBLEM OF DUALISM IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND 3. Chapter overview .......................................................................................................... 34 3.1 Dualism ................................................................................................................ 35 3.1.1. Property dualism and non-reductive monism ............................................. 37 3.2 Reductionism or eliminative materialism ............................................................ 39 3.3 Behaviourism ....................................................................................................... 43 3.4 Cognitivism or the information processing approach .......................................... 45 3.4.1 Connectionism or neural nets ..................................................................... 52 3.5 Summary remarks ................................................................................................ 54 Chapter Four ……………………………………………………………………………..55 WITTGENSTEIN’S CRITIQUE OF THE NOTION OF MIND 4. General overview ........................................................................................................... 55 4.1 The Tractatus: The search for a universal logic of truth ..................................... 56 4.2 Wittgenstein’s later philosophy: A kink in the development of thought ............. 60 4.2.1 Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy ................................................... 62 4.2.2 Philosophy as therapy ................................................................................. 64 4.2.2.1 Wittgenstein’s Therapeutic Method ............................................... 66 An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Page 4.3 Wittgenstein’s critique of traditional prejudices .................................................. 67 4.3.1 Propositions, words and concepts .............................................................. 68 4.3.2 Perspicuous representation of concepts ...................................................... 69 4.3.2.1 Language games .................................................................................... 70 4.3.2.2 Family resemblance ............................................................................... 75 4.4 Putting Wittgenstein’s method to work: Private language .................................. 76 The meaning of ‘to know’ .................................................................................... 80 The meaning of ‘to have’ ..................................................................................... 81 The meaning of ‘to mean’ (for signs and symbols).............................................. 83 The meaning of ‘I’ ............................................................................................... 84 4.4.1 The ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’ ......................................................................... 86 4.5 Wittgenstein’s Refutation of Metaphysics ........................................................... 90 4.6 Thinking and language ........................................................................................ 95 4.7 Reflective summary ........................................................................................... 103 Chapter Five ..................................................................................................................... 106 A REFLECTION ON WITTGENSTEIN’S PERSPECTIVES 5. Wittgenstein’s Notions of Philosophy of Psychology ................................................ 106 5.1 The problem of the meaning of words ............................................................... 107 5.2 Wittgenstein’s conception of psychology .......................................................... 110 5.3 Wittgenstein’s response to the conceptual confusion in psychology ................ 115 5.4 Wittgenstein's approach to the mind-body problem .......................................... 117 5.4.1 Evaluating Wittgenstein’s approach to the mind-body problem .............. 120 5.4.2 Are Wittgenstein’s arguments convincing? ............................................. 123 An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Page 5.5 Wittgenstein in current psychology and psychological theory .......................... 125 5.5.1 Social constructionists .............................................................................. 126 5.5.2 Embodied enactivism ............................................................................... 127 5.6 Wittgenstein and beyond ................................................................................... 130 References ....................................................................................................................... 132 An Examination of Wittgenstein’s Approach to the Mind-Body Problem Abstract This dissertation explores Wittgenstein’s views on the mind-body problem. It is possible to provide an examination of Wittgenstein’s approach by tracing the evolution of the theory of mind and the mind-body problem, by considering the current ways of dealing with the mind- body problem, and Wittgenstein’s critique of the notion of the mind. Wittgenstein’s views on the nature of philosophy and the relationship between philosophy and psychology make it possible to understand and as this dissertation argues – see beyond – the conceptual confusion that has since arisen out of philosophic tradition that perpetuates a ‘myth of the mind’. Schools of thought such as the Cartesians and cognitivists have attempted, through the construction of various elaborate theories, to solve the ‘riddle’ of the mind and to address the so-called ‘mind-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Physics to Physicalism
    FROM PHYSICS TO PHYSICALISM a version of this paper is published in Physicalism and its Discontents ed, Gillett and Loewer Cambridge University Press 2001 Introduction Hilary Putnam explains that: The appeal of materialism lies precisely in this, in its claim to be natural metaphysics within the bounds of science. That a doctrine which promises to gratify our ambition (to know the noumenal) and our caution (not to be unscientific) should have great appeal is hardly something to be wondered at. (Putnam (1983), p.210) Materialism says that all facts, in particular all mental facts, obtain in virtue of the spatio- temporal distribution, and properties, of matter. It was, as Putnam says, “metaphysics within the bounds of science”, but only so long as science was thought to say that the world is made out of matter.1 In this century physicists have learned that there is more in the world than matter and, in any case, matter isn’t quite what it seemed to be. For this reason many philosophers who think that metaphysics should be informed by science advocate physicalism in place of materialism. Physicalism claims that all facts obtain in virtue of the distribution of the fundamental entities and properties –whatever they turn out to be- of completed fundamental physics. Later I will discuss a more precise formulation. But not all contemporary philosophers embrace physicalism. Some- and though a minority not a small or un-influential one- think that physicalism is rather the metaphysics for an unjustified scientism; i.e. it is scientistic metaphysics. Those among them that think that physicalism can be clearly formulated think that it characterizes a cold, colorless, unfeeling and uninteresting world and not, they think, the world we live in.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryle's Behaviorist View of the Mind
    Ryle’s behaviorist view of the mind Jeff Speaks August 31, 2006 1 The dogma of the ghost in the machine . 1 1.1 The problem of mental causation . 1 1.2 The problem of other minds . 2 2 The Cartesian view as a category mistake . 2 3 Ryle’s positive view . 3 1 The dogma of the ghost in the machine Ryle calls the kind of dualist view that we found in Descartes ‘the official doctrine’, and summarizes it like this: “The official doctrine, which hails chiefly from Descartes, is something like this. With the doubtful exceptions of idiots and infants in arms every human being has both a body and a mind. His body and mind are ordinarily harnessed together, but after the death of his body his mind may continue to exist and function. Human bodies are in space and are subject to the mechanical laws which govern all other bodies in space . But minds are not in space, nor are their operations subject to mechanical laws. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories, one consisting of what happens in and to his body, the other consisting of what happens in and to his mind. The events in the first history are events in the physical world, those in the second are events in the mental world.” Now, it is clear that Ryle thinks that this view is not the right one; he says that he will refer to it, ‘with deliberate abusiveness’, as the dogma of the ghost in the machine. What we have to get clear on is why he thinks the Cartesian view is so clearly false.
    [Show full text]
  • Block.What.Psch.States.Not.1972.Pdf
    Philosophical Review What Psychological States are Not Author(s): N. J. Block and J. A. Fodor Source: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 159-181 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183991 Accessed: 08/09/2009 16:04 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Philosophical Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitivism in the Theory of Emotions John Deigh Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 4
    Cognitivism in the Theory of Emotions John Deigh Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 4. (Jul., 1994), pp. 824-854. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1704%28199407%29104%3A4%3C824%3ACITTOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z Ethics is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Fri May 11 15:42:51 2007 SURVEY ARTICLE Cognitivism in the Theory of Emotions* John Deigh Cognitivism now dominates the philosophical study of emotions. Its ascendancy in this area parallels the ascendancy of cognitivism in the philosophy of mind generally. Yet the two trends have independent sources. In the philosophy of mind, cognitivism arose from unhappi- ness with the various behaviorist programs that prevailed at midcen- tury in psychology and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Mental Representation Mental Representation
    Chapter 7 Mental Representation Mental Representation Mental representation is a systematic correspondence between some element of a target domain and some element of a modeling (or representation) domain. A representation, whether it be mental or any other, is a system of symbols. The system of symbols is isomorphic to another system (the represented system) so that conclusions drawn through the processing of the symbols in the representing system constitute valid inferences about the represented system. Isomorphic means `having the same form.' The following figure is a typical example of how we represent information mentally in our minds. Figure 8.12 A hierarchical network representation of concepts. Source: Collins and Quillian (1969) The cognitive psychologists have always agreed on the fact that human information processing depends on the mental representation of information; but there is a great disagreement with regard to the nature of this mental representation of information. Symbols are the representations that are amodal. They bear no necessary resemblance to the concept or percept they represent. The systematic correspondence between the two domains may be a matter of convention (only). For example, in algebra, we denote the different variables as x, y, z, and so on, but neither of these symbols have a direct resemblance to what they represent. Similarly, while solving a geometrical problem involving geometrical shapes, we might assign symbols such as A, B, or C to such geometrical shapes, even though these symbols do not have a direct resemblance to the shapes. Images are another way how the information can be represented in our minds. Images are basically representations that resemble what they represent in some non-arbitrary way.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryle's Behaviorist View of the Mind
    Ryle’s behaviorist view of the mind Jeff Speaks August 28, 2018 1 The dogma of the ghost in the machine . 1 1.1 The problem of mental causation . 1 1.2 The problem of other minds . 2 2 The Cartesian view as a category mistake . 2 3 Ryle’s view of mental states . 3 4 Full-blown behaviorism . 5 1 The dogma of the ghost in the machine Ryle calls the kind of dualist view that we found in Descartes ‘the official doctrine’, and summarizes it like this: “The official doctrine, which hails chiefly from Descartes, is something like this. With the doubtful exceptions of idiots and infants in arms every human being has both a body and a mind. His body and mind are ordinarily harnessed together, but after the death of his body his mind may continue to exist and function. Human bodies are in space and are subject to the mechanical laws which govern all other bodies in space . But minds are not in space, nor are their operations subject to mechanical laws. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories, one consisting of what happens in and to his body, the other consisting of what happens in and to his mind. The events in the first history are events in the physical world, those in the second are events in the mental world.” Now, it is clear that Ryle thinks that this view is not the right one; he says that he will refer to it, ‘with deliberate abusiveness’, as the dogma of the ghost in the machine.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Metaethics
    Introduction to Metaethics Introduction to Metaethics Felix Pinkert 103 Ethics: Metaethics, University of Oxford, Hilary Term 2015 Introduction to Metaethics What is Metaethics? 1 What is Metaethics? 2 A spectrum from more to less “objective” theories 3 Specifying Non-Cognitivism 4 How not to argue for Non-Cognitivism 5 Outline of the lectures 6 Discussion seminar 7 Notes Introduction to Metaethics What is Metaethics? Normative Language A: “Should I have stayed in bed instead of coming here?” B: “No, if you want to succeed in your degree, then you ought to go to the lectures.” A: “I think I should have slept in. And I don’t think you should take things so seriously. But since you do, it only serves you right that you have a reputation for caring about nothing but your studies.” Introduction to Metaethics What is Metaethics? B: “It is regrettable that you think so. But I don’t think that you have a right to judge the lectures before giving them a try.” C: “Indeed, you really shouldn’t believe just anything that other students have told you about the usefulness of going to lectures.” B: “Yes, and I think that we have a moral duty to make the best of the opportunities we have.” A: “Don’t even start talking about moral duties. It’s bad enough to get up early in the morning and have to endure the likes of you.” Introduction to Metaethics What is Metaethics? Asking meta-questions What do “should” and “ought” mean? If A says that you should do something, and B says that it’s not the case that you should, must one of them be right, and one wrong? If yes, what kind of fact makes their claims true or false? And how could we know who is right? Introduction to Metaethics What is Metaethics? Normativity and Morality “Ought” and related terms can have non-moral meaning: “You should arrive early if you want to get a good seat.” “Students shouldn’t just believe everything that’s on the slides.” “You shouldn’t feel disappointed – you should have expected this outcome.” Morality is a subset of normativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Magic, Semantics, and Putnam's Vat Brains
    Published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (««) t: [email protected] ;–tE. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.03.007 Magic, semantics, and Putnam’s vat brains Mark Sprevak Christina McLeish University of Edinburgh University of Cambridge Ït March «« In this paper we oòer an exegesis of Hilary Putnam’s classic argument against the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis oòered in his Reason, Truth and History (ÏÊÏ). In it, Putnam argues that we cannot be brains in a vat because the semantics of the situation make it incoherent for anyone to wonder whether they are a brain a vat.Putnam’s argument is that in order for ‘I am a brain in a vat’ to be true, the person uttering it would have to be able to refer successfully to those things: the vat, and the envatted brain. Putnam thinks that reference can’t be secured without relevant kinds of causal relations, which, if envatted, the brain would lack, and so, it fails to be able to meaningfully utter ‘I am a brain in a vat’. We consider the implications of Putnam’s arguments for the traditional sceptic. In conclusion, we discuss the role of Putnam’s arguments against the brain in a vat hypothesis in his larger defense of his own internal realism against metaphysical realism. Ï Introduction Consider the possibility, familiar to us in many guises, that instead of being a living breathing human, you are a brain in a vat. Almost everything that you believe about the external world is false. Your body, your friends, your family, your home—none of these things exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Idealism As Physicalism? Reflections on the Structural Definition of Physicalism
    DIVINE IDEALISM AS PHYSICALISM? REFLECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURAL DEFINITION OF PHYSICALISM Jon W. Thompson Hempel’s Dilemma remains at the center of the problem of defining phys- icalism. In brief, the dilemma asks whether physicalism should be defined by appeal to current or future physics. If defined by current physics, phys- icalism is almost certainly false. If defined by an ideal future physics, then physicalism has little determinable content. Montero and Papineau have innovatively suggested that the dilemma may be avoided by defining phys- icalism structurally. While their definition is one among many definitions, it is significant in that—if successful—it would break the impasse for defining physicalism. I argue, however, that the structural definition fails because it counts metaphysical frameworks (crucially, versions of divine idealism) as “physicalist”—an unwelcome result for physicalists. This paper thus furthers the debate on the definition of physicalism and sheds light on the relationship between physicalism and idealism. 1. Hempel’s Dilemma Physicalism is often defined as the view that all that exists is what physics studies; but many voices have raised concerns over such a definition. In- deed, the problem of defining physicalism has been with us for some time now.1 “Hempel’s Dilemma” puts the problem in exacting focus: when the physicalist claims that all that exists is physical, is she claiming that [A] All that exists is what is studied by current physics or that [B] All that exists is what is studied by some ideal, perhaps future, physics?2 If the physi- calist intends [A], then physicalism is clearly false.
    [Show full text]
  • Jessica Moss Moss - Penultimate Draft Draft - Final -Version Final Versionforthcoming Forthcoming in Plato and the in Divided Plato Self, R
    Pictures and Passions in Plato JessicaJessica Moss Moss - penultimate draft draft - final -version final versionforthcoming forthcoming in Plato and the in Divided Plato Self, R. Barney, C. Brittain, T. Brennan eds, CUP 2011 and the Divided Self, R. Barney, C. Brittain, T. Brennan eds, CUP It is generally held that Plato's Republic gave ethical theory its first and most influential 2011 It is generally held that Plato's Republic gave ethical theory its firstphilosophical and most formulation influential of thephilosophical division between formulation reason and the ofpassions. the division If we look betweenclosely at reason the Republic and, however, the passions. one half of If that we division look isclosely surprisingly at thehard Republic,to find. however,Elsewhere one half in theof dialoguesthat division Plato groups is surprisingly together, and opposeshard to to find.rational Elsewhere in the dialogues Plato groups together, and opposes to calculation, a set of states that any modern philosopher would recognize as paradigm rational calculation, a set of states that any modern philosopher passions: anger, fear, pleasure, pain, lust, eros, and the like.1 At some points he even would recognize as paradigm passions: anger, fear, pleasure, pain, lust,refers eros, to them and as thepathe like.1 or pathemata, At some the Greekpoints roots he of even our ‘passions'. refers2 toWhen them we turnas patheto the or Republic pathemata,, we see that the these Greek states rootsare the ofdefinitive our ‘passions'.2 traits of the non-rational When weparts turnof to the thesoul, Republic,explaining their we distinctive see that characters, these statestheir inferiority are the to the definitive rational part, traits and of the non-rational parts of the soul, explaining their distinctive the necessity of keeping them under rational control.
    [Show full text]
  • An Immaterial Thing: the Case for Dualism Today We Turn to Our Second Big Question: What Are You?
    What am I? An immaterial thing: the case for dualism Today we turn to our second big question: What are you? We can focus this question a little bit by introducing the idea of a physical or material thing. To a first approximation, a material thing is a thing entirely composed of the sorts of things described in physics: electrons, quarks, etc. Materialism, or physicalism, in general is the claim that every thing — every thing that exists — is a material thing. There are two views opposed to materialism. One is dualism. According to dualism (as the name suggests) there are two sorts of things: material things, and immaterial things. The second opposed view is idealism. According to idealism, there are no material things, and everything that exists is immaterial. According to materialism about human beings, you are material thing. You are something which, like tables, clouds, trees, and amoebae, is entirely composed of the basic particles studied in physics. According to materialism about human beings, you are material thing. You are something which, like tables, clouds, trees, and amoebae, is entirely composed of the basic particles studied in physics. Many of the ways we ordinarily think and talk about ourselves seem to suggest that we endorse materialism about ourselves. Consider, for example, the question of whether you are currently sitting in a chair. Could an immaterial thing occupy space, and sit in a chair? But other ways that we think and talk about ourselves suggest that we think of ourselves as immaterial things. For example, many people think that it is possible for human beings to enjoy life after death, and hence to exist even after one’s body has ceased to exist; and to many it has seemed easiest to understand how this could be possible if think of ourselves, not as immaterial bodies, but as immaterial souls or minds.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryle and the Para-Mechanical
    BRYAN BENHAM Ryle and the Para-mechanical WINNER OF mE 1999 LARRY TAYLOR MEMORIAL AWARD The thesis of this paper is the unconventional claim that Gilbert Ryle is not a logical behaviorist. The popular account ofRyle clearly places his work in The Concept ofMind (1949) in the camp oflogical behaviorist.! The object of this paper, however, will be to illustrate how the conventional interpretation of Ryle is misleading. My argument is not an exhaustive account of Ryle, but serves as a starting point for understanding Ryle outside of the behaviorist label that is usually attached to his work. The argument is straightforward. First, it is apparent on any reasonable construal that logical behaviorism is a reductionist project about the mind. The basic claim of logical behaviorism is that statements containing mental vocabulary can be analyzed into statements containing only the vocabulary of physical behavior. Second, any reasonable account ofRyle will show that he is not a reductionist about the mental, in fact he was adamantly anti-reductionist about the mind. Once these two claims are established it follows quite readily that Ryle was not a logical behaviorist. The first premise is uncontroversial. Anyone familiar with logical behaviorism understands that its aim is to show that mental terminology doesn't refer to unobserved phenomena, supposedly in the head of the person described, but rather to the observed physical behaviors or dispositions to behave (Hempel 1999). In fact, in its strict formulation, logical behaviorism claims that mental terminology signifies only these observed behaviors or dispositions to behave. Thus, I will take it as a reasonably established claim that logical behaviorism is reductionist about the mind.
    [Show full text]