Descartes: Sixth Meditation and Distinctness of Body and Mind - Essay Example

Descartes: Sixth Meditation and Distinctness of Body and Mind Introduction In his thesis Sixth Meditation for the distinctness of mind and body while relying on various arguments for this proof, Descartes argues that the nature of the mind in the sense of thinking is different from the nature of the body, which is a non-thinking object, giving rise to the famous mind-body dualism concept. According to the argument he puts forth, due to the distinctness of the two entities, existence of one is possible without the other. However, this argument continues to raise several problems to date since according to the way the mind and body work, they are continuously involved in interactions that cannot be said to be distinct. As it is apparent to us, the activity of the mind brings about body motions, and the senses in the body usually cause sensations in the mind (Cottingham, Stoothof, and Murdochp. 231; McLaughlin 158). These interactions would therefore not be possible if the two were completely different. Although the formulation of his argument in the thesis is presented in many different ways, they are fundamentally identical in the sense that they are founded on proving one and the same thing, which is the distinctness of the mind and body. This paper seeks to contest the dualist arguments by Descartes that are intended to prove that the body and mind are autonomous entities by using logical and empirical reasoning which Descartes appears to trivialize in constructing his theory to prove that the two are actually the same thing. The first argument Descartes states in Meditation 6 that ‘he’ has a clear and distinct idea of ‘himself’ simply because ‘he’ is a thinking non-extended thing (Cottingham 54). In this excerpt, Descartes uses the first person pronoun ‘I’ to describe to himself as far as he is a thinking thing or mind. He refers to the mind as the ‘I’ because as he describes it, the mind has the idea and does the thinking, therefore, referring to his mind being cognizant that of itself as a thinking, non-extended thing (Hoffman 61). He concludes this line of thought by asserting that the clarity and distinctness of the mind in its existence is proof that the mind is distinct from the body and can exist without it. The above argument might seem inadequate and lacking validation since, on the face of it, Descartes is simply putting forward a blunt assertion of his conception of the mind and body as distinct and different from one another. Therefore, he infers that he is able to exist without its body; however, on closer observation, he is not simply asserting his conceptions without justification. To understand that his assertion is not unjustified, it is important to recognize and understand Descartes intellectual perception of clarity and distinctness. This will guarantee the accuracy of his judgment of the nature of body and mind as “clear and distinct”. Now, given that the said justification for the perception of mind and body as clear and distinct rests on the guarantee offered by his intellectual perception clarity and distinctness, it is essential to first of all understand his doctrine. According to Descartes the body is an extension and this is based on the fact that the imagination and senses evince that intellectual faculties are inherently connected to an external force. A further justification for the separation is evident in his argument that one can doubt everything, including the fact that they have a body; however, they cannot doubt the existence of their mind since it is the instrument through which the very doubt is created and manifested. In the argument, he emphasizes the distinction between what people perceive as imagination and pure understanding, he uses the analogy of a triangle; in its case, one can deduce that it is a three sided object. These properties can be proven through the imagination since one can picture the three sides of the triangle, nonetheless, when one is told to imagine and figure with a thousand sides, their imagination is presented as being substantially weaker. The weakens of the imagination is further demonstrated when one tries to distinguish between a 1000 and 999 sided figure which could otherwise be done with considerable ease if one had to distinguish between a 3 and 4 sided figure. Pure understanding on the other hand based on mathematical principles can just as easily perceive a 1000 sided figure with the same ease as it can a 3 sided one. In one of his works, Principles of Philosophy, Descartes gives a detailed explanation of what he connotes by a “clear and distinct” thought (Hatfield 294). In the thesis, he compares clear intellectual perception to clarity in what one perceives visually. In other words, the same way an individual might have a sharp visual perception of something such as the visual perception of a the physical existence of a book, it is possible for an idea to be clear to an individual when the idea is in sharp intellectual focus. Furthermore, he explains that an idea is distinct when, besides its clarity, it is exists in complete exclusion of all other ideas that do not belong to it (Gaukroger 98). Therefore, he claims that all other ideas not belonging to his academic discernment of the mind and his intellectual perception of the body are completely excluded from the two ideas, including each other, and all one has to ponder over is the clarity in perception of the ideas (Hoffman 64). Accordingly, his logical discernment of the mind is clear and distinct in its own right, separate from the body, and his understanding of the body is clear and distinct, separately from the body. From the above argument in his other work, Descartes asserts that the fact that he can clearly and distinctly understand the mind and body separately from each other means that both can exist alone without the other. This, he claims, is simply for the reason that existence of something rests on the perception or conception of that thing since it is not possible to have a conception of something except in its existence (Gaukroger 98). The argument he puts forth, therefore, is that it is possible to have a clear and distinct perception of the existence of the mind all by itself and that of the body all by itself. On the other hand, it is in order to question whether Descartes was wrong about his understanding of clear and distinct ideas, making his argument unsuccessful in proving the distinctness of the mind and body. He argues that “non-thinking, extended” things can exist alone, which is indubitable given that there are several non-thinking things such as metals in existence. Therefore, although there could be doubt regarding what he undoubtedly and noticeably understands, there is substantial evidence proving the second part of his argument that the body can exist completely different from the mind. The question therefore is that, is it possible for the mind to exist without the body, or put in other words, can thinking occur without the brain? If indeed it is not possible for the mind to exist without the body, then the first part of Descartes’ argument would be false, making his argument of the distinctness of the mind and body inadequate. Given that, there is no account of the mind existing without the body as we do of the body existing without the mind, there is no evidence to support Descartes’ claim that his understanding of the mind and body are “clear and distinct”. This means that Descartes’ “clear and distinct” discernment of ideas, in particular that of the body and mind does not guarantee the reality of everything (Rodriguez 87). The Second Argument The second argument that the proof of existence of body and mind as distinct things that can exist without the other is found in another excerpt in the Sixth Meditation. Descartes explains that the body and mind differ greatly in as much as the body, having extension attributes, can be divided by its very nature, while the mind, having thought attributes (Hoffman 67), cannot be divided. He argues that when he conceives of his mind or himself simply as thinking think, he cannot make a distinction of any parts of himself, and understands himself to be a unitary complete entity. Therefore, he is claiming that the mind as a thinking thing exists in a single and complete manner that it is difficult to divide. On the other hand, he cannot conceive of a physical or extended thing that he might not be able to divide into parts in his thought (Rene/Veitch, 2008, p.120). He concludes his argument by asserting that the very fact that he cannot think of any physically existing or extended thing that he cannot separate into different other fractions cements his understanding of that particular thing as divisible. Accordingly, he claims that the body, in contrast to the mind, does not exist as a single and complete thing but can be divided into different parts. It is worth mentioning that Descartes’ argument for the distinctness of the body and mind is not explicitly stated but the conclusion he makes in his argument from the above excerpt provides adequate ground to infer that indeed they are distinct. By putting forth his argument on the basis of a particular property of each has by its very nature (Hoffman 64), Descartes asserts that a natural property of what is to be a body is to be divisible, while a natural property of what is to be a mind is to be indivisible. The use of the term “by its very nature” is deliberate to show that something’s property is what it is to be that kind of thing and therefore being a corporeal or extended thing is to be divisible while being a thinking thing is to be indivisible. It is easy to appreciate Descartes’ argument since it is possible to divide any given body such as a book, which can be easily separated into different parts. This particular property of bodies augments his line of reasoning that the mind or thinking, non-extended things can be divided. If it were possible to divide the mind, or as he put it in his thesis, the “I”, it would imply that it is possible to achieve two or more separate minds or “I’s” from one, which means it would be possible to get different selves from one self, which utterly ludicrous. Although he concludes that the body is in essence divisible while the mind is in essence indivisible, this conclusion is still not adequate in explaining the manner in which they are distinct from each other. This is so because it is possible for two things to have similar properties “by nature” such as extension but still possess other properties that distinguish them such as shape or size. Such things would be different but not completely different since they would be sharing an essential property of being extended things. As a result, in order to say that the argument of complete difference of the body and mind is a success and adequate requires complete diversity of the two. This means that at this point, it is still not adequate to claim that one can conceive the body and mind as completely different from one another, or that the body and mind can exist without the other. Nonetheless, due to the contradictory nature of the two properties Descartes’ argues above, it is possible to reach the conclusion of complete distinctness. He argues that while it is not possible to divide the mind, a thinking thing, into different parts since he cannot perceive himself as divisible, the body is detachable since he cannot contemplate or have a perception of the body or extended things apart from having parts (Hoffman 65). For this reason, if it were possible for mind and body to have the same nature, which would be existing together with and devoid of parts. This is in itself an absurdity since it is incomprehensible to have a thing that can be separated into parts and yet at the same time is inseparable. Therefore, the fact that it is impossible to have two things being the same and yet being completely different in nature implies that the mind and body cannot be one and the same but two distinct things. The argument further implies that mind and body can be understood as opposites (Schouls31); therefore, a body that can be divided can at the same time be perceived independent of a mind that cannot be divided and vice versa. Accordingly, the mind and body can exist independently of each other, making them two distinct things. However, given that we do not find an invocation of the doctrine of clear and distinct as in the first argument, a counterargument can be put forward that Descartes’ argument on divisibility of the mind is inadequate. It can be argued that the mind needs the brain to exist thereby giving it the property of extension (Pereira and Lehmann 169). To be an extended thing by nature means to have parts that can be divided, which means that the mind would be divisible. It would be impossible for Descartes to conclude that mind and body are completely different since they would be having the same property of extension and divisibility. When Descartes propounds that the body and mind are distinct entities, this creates the impression that they can actually exist independently, while this can be conceived theoretically, it brings out a critical point of doubt. Assuming that these two are entirely autonomous how would they be able to interact with each other in the first place? Objections to the concept of substance dualism in most cases propounded by rationalists are based on the assumption that it is actually as self-defeating theory since by establishing the independence of the mind from body, it makes it potentially impossible for them to integrate. Scientifically, it has been proven in many medial case studies that the mind is directly affected by what happens to the brain and vice versa, for example if someone was to have an accident and get a brain injury; it may limit some of his mental powers such as memory. In addition when someone is put under hypnosis or in circumstances where people have tended to have psychosomatic disorders, their mind appears to have a direct effect on the working of the body although the events preceding this are not physical. Based on this, it is clear that the mind and brain are essentially the same thing and nothing can happen to one without affecting the other, ideally if Descartes arguments were followed to their logical conclusions, what happens to the body would not impact on the mind since the latter is superior. Therefore the mind should control the body but not vice versa, this line of argument is clearly negated by the fact that the mind suffers whenever the brain does as has been demonstrated the example about brain damage. At the end of the day, Descartes seeks to obsolete the laws of physics but does not offer a rational explanation in their place since does not explain how things are able to move about or work since he essentially divorces the thinking and acting parts of the individual. Consequently, Descartes’ argument of the distinctness of the mind and body would be insufficient since he would not conclude that the two are two distinct substances that can exist independently without the other. Conclusion In the Sixth Meditation Descartes argues that the mind and body are two distinct things that can independently exist without the other, giving various other arguments to support his line of reasoning. The first argument is based on the premises of the perception of precision and clarity of ideas. Although his first argument that it is possible for the body to exist without the brain is indubitable, it is insufficient in explaining whether the mind can exist without the body. Therefore, it cannot be decidedly said that body and mind are two distinct substances that can exist without each other. The second argument that this proof relies on claims that since mind are body are different by their very nature, it is possible to claim that they are completely different and can exist without the other. He explains that because the body is divisible by its very nature while the mind is indivisible by its very nature, it would be impossible for the two to be the same by nature since that nature would be divisible and indivisible at the same time, which is an absurdity. It only follows that the two must be completely different or distinct substances, which can exist without the other. Works Cited Cottingham, John. Rene Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print. Cottingham, John, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Print. Gaukroger, Stephen. The Blackwell Guide to Descartes Meditations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2008. Print. Hatfield, Gary C. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Descartes and the Meditations. London: Routledge, 2003. Print. Hoffman, Paul. "Descartess Theory of Distinction." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 64.1 (2002): 57-78. Print. McLaughlin, Peter. "Descartes on Mind-Body Interaction and the Conservation of Motion." Philosophical Review. 102 (1993): 155-182. Print. Pereira, Alfredo and Lehman, Dietrich. The Unity of Mind, Brain, and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness. 2013. Print. Rene, Descartes, Discourse on the Method (John Veitch trans). Cosimo Inc, 2008. Print. Rodríguez, Pereyra G. "Descartess Substance Dualism and His Independence Conception of Substance." Journal of the History of Philosophy. 46.1 (2008): 69-89. Print. Schouls, Peter A. Descartes and the Possibility of Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000. Print. Read More