Gottfried Leibniz-Consciousness and Unconsciousness - Research Paper Example

?Gottfried Leibniz---Consciousness and Unconsciousness Although of sleep and philosophy of unconsciousness has always been a matter of vital interest for the thinkers and philosophers since ever, yet the issue got particular attention of the discipline of philosophy during 17th and 18th centuries. Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Kant and Nietzsche paid due to heed in respect of explaining the same in the light of their observation, meditation, belief and intellectual abilities. Cartesian dualism declares consciousness and experiences man has during the state as more accurate and sublime ones, though it does not reject the significance of dreamless sleeps and unconsciousness altogether. Instead, they make difference between unconsciousness and dreamless sleeps, where the latter is aptly declared as the dark episodes of mind, which rarely leave any trace behind them (Hill, 1). The present paper looks for discussing the same with special reference to the contributions made by French philosopher Rene Descartes and eminent eighteenth century German thinker Gottfried Leibniz while elaborating the same. Leibniz is of the opinion that there are infinite minds existing in the form of folds, to which he frequently calls as pleats. He also views matter as the product of mind, and thus mind enjoys the status of substantial existence (Ariew, 209). Minds appear to be coming in degrees, according to Leibniz, where simple and superficial ones are finite in nature and begin with matter; similarly sublime minds are infinite one, which end with the deity. In other words, the minds which are sublime in nature are infinite ones, which trace out the realities of life and universe by approaching the Creator. On the other hand, finite minds have limited pleats and folds, which remain confined to limited thinking and mental abilities, and reality serves as the set of all finite minds (Hill, 5). Charlie Dunbar Broad (1975) has also evaluated and analyzed the philosophical contributions made by Leibniz, who had presented theory of mind contradictory to Descartes and his school of thought. Instead of submitting to Descartes’ notion of taking body and mind as two separate and interdependent entities, Leibniz views them two parts of one and the same entity (Broad, 89). French philosopher Rene Descartes, in his works, had declared mind and body two entirely different entities, which casually enter into one another for the performance of both the two (Ariew, 26). He states mind as res cogitans or a thinking object, the function of which is mere looking into the things and matters and analyzing the same. In addition, mind or soul, according to Descartes, is sublime in nature, which seeks no boundaries to move from one place to the other within the entire universe (31). On the contrary, body remains confined to some specific area, where it has to undergo different processes in order to fulfill the requirements related to its mobility from one place to the other. In addition, body is mortal, while soul is immortal; it is therefore soul is much loftier and sublime than body in the eyes of Descartes. He also asserts that man is alive till the time he is bestowed with the power of thinking. It is therefore he states that “I think; it is therefore, I exist” (Hill, 3). However, being a true believer of the Jewish traditions, Leibniz follows the philosophy his religious teachings present to humanity. Consequently, he does not agree with the Descartes’ doctrine in its full swing, and without incurring a contradictory argument. He is of the view that there is one entity in the form of two independent but interrelated organs i.e. mind and body, which though work independently without much collaboration with each other, yet they cannot be declared as indifferent to one another altogether. Leibniz holds, according to Broad, that there certainly exist the corporeal substances in the universe; however, each and every substance is actually a living organism, and contains a unique identity in it (87). Moreover, since every organism has its own substantial form, which is actually a substance of the nature of soul, so there could be differences in the functioning of mind and substantial body, but soul or mind cannot be stated as the organism without substantial existence. In addition, he also does not agree with Descartes’ philosophical idea that soul in unsubstantial one. On the contrary, like all other living organisms, mind also maintains a substantial existence. Hence, he refutes the concept of Cartesian dualism, and emphasizes upon the singularity of mind and body. Since soul is unsubstantial according to Cartesian school, mind stops thinking during sleep, and returns to existence on waking up, and starts performing its very functions i.e. thinking and pondering over various aspects of the realities of universe. Somehow, Leibniz does not agree with the cessation of the existence of mind, and advocates the functioning of mind even during man is in a state of unconsciousness. Leibniz’s doctrine is also different with that of Descartes in respect of elaborating consciousness and unconsciousness. Descartes introduces, Simmons notes, all sorts of thoughts into the human mind that appear to fall outside the reach of consciousness: innate ideas, intellectual memories, sensory processes, habitual judgments, hidden beliefs and passions, and more. Like Cartesian dualists, Leibniz also supports the very idea that human mind never takes rest, and thus appears to always busy in pondering upon one thing or the other. The same state is not confined to man’s awakening; on the other hand, it also keeps on thinking during unconsciousness as well. Just as there is always motion, Hill (4) observes, however imperceptible, in bodies, so there are confused and indistinct thoughts continually passing through the mind of the sleeper. Dreamless sleeps also ratify mind’s getting engaged in exploration of one issue or the other; it is therefore it mind looks busy in performing one thing or the other during sleep, which remain in human conscious and mind including all the experiences man witnesses during unconsciousness even. Thus, human mind always remains in motion, according to Leibniz (Broad, 95). Cartesian dualism strongly believes that the things man observes during unconsciousness have existence in real life too. It is because of one’s experiences of various objects and articles one has undergone in past, which are seen during sleep in the state of unconsciousness. Somehow, Cartesian doctrine declares the images one finds in unconsciousness as inferior and even false one. Nevertheless, Leibniz does not make the same arguments while describing the states of consciousness and unconsciousness as stated by the Cartesians. On the other hand, Leibniz vehemently makes distinction between both the states, where perception surely occurs during awakening and sleeping; while the self-conscious thought i.e. apperception does not take place during sleep (Simmons, 6). Descartes actually turns down the possibility of taking the images in dreams as real ones in nature. Contrarily, since these images are mere reflection of the real objects, they do not contain substantial existence like the real objects (Ariew, 97). However, Leibniz does not discard the images one comes across during unconsciousness as false objects, though they do not enjoy the status equivalent to the real ones man experiences during awaking or consciousness. Cartesian dualism believes man existing with all senses provided he is thinking and meditating. It is therefore it considers consciousness as a superior state to unconsciousness, which ceases the thinking till one wakes up from sleep. The notion can be examined in the light of famous Descartes’ doctrine that I think; it is therefore I exist (Ariew, 33). Descartes could take the view that in sleep the mind stops thinking and existing and on waking returns to existence and thought (Hill, 1-2). It is therefore the images of the objects seen during unconsciousness appear to be false ones in the eyes of Cartesian theorists. Somehow, Leibniz does not take unconsciousness in this manner, where it may challenge the very existence of the objects and their reflections. Hill is of the opinion that Descartes does not deny the existence of mind; contrarily, he seeks a substantial pause in the functioning of mind during unconsciousness, which is retrieved as soon as man awakes and returns to consciousness. Leibniz does not demonstrate any disagreement on the Cartesian notion that mind always remains busy in thinking one thing or the other; and this very state of affairs remains intact during dreamless sleeps. Leibniz also supports the very idea that all motions and movements are the product of mind’s continuous thinking only. He lays stress upon the nature and intensity of unconsciousness in order to estimate the performance of mind. Sometime it so happens that the sleeping person is not in deep sleep, and at a state of more consciousness than the awaking individuals; consequently, he is in a position to note the movements being made all around him. In such a state of apparent unconsciousness, mind has not stopped thinking and working, and its functioning is appropriate and apposite one. It is therefore, some individuals look unconscious, though they react immediately on the slightest movement or noise being made in their surroundings. This state of unconsciousness may be dreamless and even dreamful too, though man remains well alert of the state of consciousness, and sometimes acknowledges the very fact that he is seeing the objects in dream, which have least reality in their scope. Thus, the individuals having very sharp memory are conscious of the developments being made while sleeping and waking. Consequently, mind does not be stated to be non-existent even for the time being. Reversely, it is performing proper functioning without any pause argued by the Cartesian doctrine. Hence, Leibniz’s theory of consciousness and unconsciousness reflects his command over metaphysics and his in-depth observation of natural and physical phenomena existing all around humans at the universal scale. Leibniz’s philosophical contributions have not been made in the light of readings only; rather, his theoretical framework finds the involvement of empirical judgment of the realities of life and universe at large. On the concrete foundations of the same realities he appears to be drawing conclusion that some sleeping persons are more aware of the developments arranged in their surroundings; as a result, they can make sudden decisions provided they comes any inappropriate situation in their surroundings. For instance, some individuals estimate the setting of fire through senses even during sleep, and get up at once in order to save their skin from any harm or grave consequences. Similarly, sometimes, dream warn and alert them of the future happenings to be taking place within few moments to come, which proves the Leibniz’s doctrine that mind’s movement and functioning never stops during the state of unconsciousness. Leibniz affiliates sound sleep with wandering of thoughts, as the free and peaceful thinking paves the way towards peaceful and tranquil sleep. Thus, sleep does not mean the end of thinking or the pause of substantial existence of mind at all. Rather, sound sleep brings positive thinking in mind through one’s going to unconsciousness in the form of both dreamful and dreamless sleeps. Man also experiences unconsciousness during man is waking, according to Leibniz. He cites the example of the ticking of clock, which is not generally noticed. Somehow, it is the stopping of the clock, which creates silence in the atmosphere, and one notices the ticking of clock. Thus, sometimes man does not observe and acknowledge the developments being made in his surroundings, though he is awaking and appears to be busy in performing one task or the other. Thus, man is either focusing upon one particular thing, or is undergoing unconsciousness, though he is seen conscious and waking. Somehow, during a dreamful sleep, man is more concentrated and focused in respect of observing all the developments being made in the environment; consequently, man experiences the state of more alertness and consideration during sleep, though he apparently looks unconscious and still, where the substantial existence of his mind has ceased to exist for the time being in the eyes of the Cartesian doctrine. Hence, Leibniz, in a highly argumentative and logical manner, has elaborated the powers of the soul, which are far more superior to those attributed to body. Since soul travels wide during sleep, it observes everything on its way. As a result, it obtains information from the universe, and stores the same in subconscious, which turns out to be beneficial in respect of making decisions while man is waking and is at the state of consciousness. Weber (2008) endorses the very claim that Leibniz does not support the concept related to dualism of extended or unconscious substance as well as in-extended or conscious substance. In his theory of monads or in-extended and more or less conscious substances, he appears to be deriving the notion that both physical and mental realms contain a series of phenomena which do not depend exclusively either on thought or on extension. The soul contains, according to Leibniz, various states, which are divergent to one another in nature; it is therefore soul cannot be associated with the conscious thought. The soul carries an unconscious element, which forms a connecting link between the soul and the physical world (Weber, 4). Descartes and Spinoza do not find any addition of new thoughts in the memory in the result of the experiences one makes during unconsciousness; however, Leibniz explores the addition in memory because of the interaction between soul and the universal phenomena during sleep. To conclude, it becomes evident that Descartes, Locke and Leibniz have articulated different theories of consciousness, which though differ from one another, yet all the three maintain some validity in them. Descartes and Malebranche have supported the retirement view of consciousness, where both these philosophers are of the opinion that the soul just thinks but quite consciously during the dreamless sleep; somehow, such sleep preserve no new memories due to the very reason that sleep challenges the state of pure intellection’ (Hill, 5). John Locke has presented the theory, which is quite divergent to the Descartes’ doctrine. Locke submits to state that human mind ceases to think during the dreamless sleep; consequently, it undergoes the state of absolute unconsciousness, and remains away from the activity of thinking and perceiving. Leibniz’s doctrine contradict both Descartes’ and Locke’s ideas about consciousness, and argues that the mind does never stop thinking during sleep, and continues its normal functioning; however, since its perception level appears to be too confused and fragmented, its performance could not be declared as conscious one in nature in the same level as it performs while the state of waking. Thus, Leibniz has wonderfully articulated his doctrine of mind in a profound manner, which reflects his command over metaphysics, parapsychology, logic, mathematics and psychological developments the mind observes while sleeping and awaking. Additionally, he has also provided new dimensions of consciousness by determining and defining the levels of consciousness and states of unconsciousness as well, which has wide opened new horizons of thoughtfulness in the disciplines including psychology, metaphysics and logic as well. Read More