Descartes Dualism Fails - Research Paper Example

Descartes Dualism Fails One of the major questions still under debate in philosophical circles is the mind/body problem. This problem is also often referred to as dualism because of the way that it tends to divide human experience between what is experienced in the mind and what is experienced in the body. This question has only become more complicated in recent years as the new concept of ‘virtual reality’ became a visible possibility and as new science has continued to throw doubt on the possibility that such a division can occur. Essentially, the mind/body problem revolves around trying to determine what constitutes real experience. The mind can fool the body into thinking it is experiencing something, such as in the case of lost limbs or psychosomatic illness, but the body can also fool the mind into thinking it is experiencing something, such as in the case of false scents, misperceptions or vertigo. Researching dualism necessarily involves a discussion of the theories of Descartes as it was he who first proposed the division and began to define the proper realms of the mind versus that of the body. However, upon researching these ideas, it becomes clear to the modern thinker that Descartes argument for dualism fails. Dualism is Descartes attempt to bring the discipline of mathematics with its basis on ‘real’ knowledge, information that just cannot be wrong, together with the concepts of thought. This method is referred to as hyperbolic doubt. Regarding the method of hyperbolic doubt, “he refused to accept the authority of previous philosophers – but he also refused to accept the obviousness of his own senses. In the search for a foundation for philosophy, whatever could be doubted must be rejected. He resolves to trust only that which is clearly and distinctly seen to be beyond any doubt. In this manner, Descartes peels away the layers of beliefs and opinions that clouded his view of the truth” (Burnham & Fieser 2006). Mathematical concepts had not been applied to the school of philosophy previously because the formalist paradigm of the Socratic-Platonics denied the possibility of empirical knowledge. “On this view, sensory experience can inform us only about appearances, about how things seem. Authentic knowledge (episteme), however, must be of reality. The idea of empirical knowledge, that is, experiential knowledge, is thus intrinsically incoherent. The provenance of knowledge proper, that is, knowledge of the eternal and independent Forms, is reason alone. With regard to the world available to us through the senses, the world of appearances, we can aspire only to opinion (doxa)” (Rosenberg 1998). To accomplish this type of evidence, Descartes applied four basic rules of logic to the process of discovery. The first rule was that he could only accept truths that were clearly and distinctly known to be true. The second rule was to reduce problems down to their most common elements and solving them at the micro level as a means of solving the macro. The third rule was to proceed in order from the easiest solution to the most difficult. The fourth and final rule was to be sure to take a broad view of each individual micro-problem in order to be sure nothing has been missed at the macro level. “He calls into question everything that he thinks he has learned through his senses but rests his whole system on the one truth that he cannot doubt, namely, the reality of his own mind and the radical difference between the mental and the physical aspects of the world” (Brians 1998). Through the application of this thought process to the process of thinking itself, Descartes developed his theory that mind and matter are not one and the same thing – dualism. Reading through these steps, the linkage of thought to mathematical methods of analysis can be clearly traced. Although his most famous statement, I think therefore I am, presented in his second meditation, rests to a large degree upon the sense that he is still thinking, the very fact that this sense still exists is proof for Descartes that there must be something in existence to realize the sense and therefore he, as a thinking entity, must exist. His simple summative statement is actually the result of a long discourse in which Descartes applies his principles of thought to carefully and analytically reject all knowledge he’s gained as a result of his sense or that he hasn’t direct knowledge of himself. “It is some time ago since I perceived that, from my earliest years, I had accepted many false opinions as being true, and that what I had since based on such insecure principles could only be most doubtful and uncertain; so that I had to undertake seriously once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted up to then, and to begin afresh from the foundations” (Descartes 42). Through this questioning process, he concludes that the only way to truly know something is through thought rather than observation. Through the application of the logical questioning process, Descartes demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge. “When I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams” (Descartes, 2001). His idea of discovering truths about the world was defined by whether he had a clear and distinct perception of them and determined that this distinction was sufficient for knowledge. However, the idea that knowledge can be defined by a “clear and distinct perception” is foiled by its own dependence on the senses. Assuming that what he is able to perceive as distinct must be true, he strives to erase his mind of all information that has been gained through his five senses to arrive at what he knows deep within himself. In doing so, he also establishes the ‘proper’ realm of the mind as opposed to the realm of the body. The realm of the mind is truth or knowledge while the realm of the body is sensation and perception. After rejecting all of the information he seems to know about the world because it has all come to him through one or the other of the senses, about the only thing Descartes is still sure of is that there is something within him that can be informed, rightly or wrongly, by these senses. He reasons that in order to fool a mind, a mind must first exist. “But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something” (Descartes, 1989). This conclusion led to the now-famous line “I think, therefore I am” that is at the heart of the dualism question. It also seems to suggest that the mind is something that can transcend the physical functions of the body through the central nervous system. From discussions within philosophical circles following Descartes publications came the branches of thought regarding what made up the human spirit and just how was this connected with the human body. “Descartes’ influence in philosophy cannot be underestimated. The epistemic foundation, presuppositionless systems, the mind/body problem, and the subject/object relationship are issues that haunt philosophy to the present day. In one fell swoop, Descartes split apart you and the external world. Much of later philosophy is spent trying to get these two together somehow” (Davis 1997). In the years that followed, the Empiricists worked to deny any kind of nonmaterial realm “and they denied Descartes’ assertion that there is a distinct substance existing independently from the senses or from the physical world. The Materialists argued that the universe is nothing more than matter in motion moving through space. They maintained that the mind is nothing more than a process of physical phenomena just as breathing and defecating are natural processes, and that there is no warrant for asserting the ‘soul itself’ as existing independently in some realm” (Woolston 2004). Even in Descartes own writings there is evidence that the mind and body cannot be divided without both suffering a fundamental loss of the individual as Descartes must rely on sense, a process of the body, before being able to determine that the mind must exist. Within this philosophy, Descartes instead seems to prove the impossibility of dualism. In order to become aware, the mind must receive information in the form of senses from the body, but in order to make sense, these senses must have a mind to interpret and organize them into meaningful blocks of information. Common sense and recent science demonstrate that Descartes’ conclusions that the mind may be able to transcend the functions of the body must be false. The mind is unaware of anything until the sensations of the body provide it with the information necessary to formulate thought. This is perhaps best illustrated through the function of dreams. Whether dreams have meaning or not is irrelevant to this discussion, but what is relevant is that the language of dreams is always tied to the physical experiences of the individual. A person who has never experienced the image of an elephant will have a very difficult time dreaming of one. They may be able to dream of a large grey animal, but this animal will tend to take on characteristics and features of other animals that they have seen either in real life, in picture books or had described to them in some degree of detail. At the same time, it is the body’s perception of what is large, the eyes perception of what is grey and the mind’s understanding of what is an animal that come together to create the image. The mind and body function together as an integrated team in which neither can be separated from the other. The mind depends on the body to give it information while the body depends on the mind to give it direction. Works Cited Brians, P. (December 18, 1998). “Rene Descartes: Discourse on Method.” Department of English, University of Washington, (December 19, 1998). Burnham, D. & Fieser, J. “Rene Descartes: 1590-1650.” The Internet Encyclpedia of Philosophy. The University of Tennessee – Martin, 2006. March 2, 2010 Davis, W. The Rene Descartes Project. Covenant College, 1997. March 2, 2010 Descartes, R. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books, 1989. Descartes, R. Discourse on Method. Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, (2001). March 2, 2010 Rosenberg, J.F. “Descartes’ Skeptical Argument.” Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy. Vol. 1, (1998), pp. 209-32. Woolston, C.S. “Rene Descartes: Mind vs. Body.” Dynamic Deism, (November 21, 2004). Read More