Mind and Body Dualism - Essay Example

al Affiliation Course Date Mind/Body Dualism Empiricism refers to perspectives that ensure the validity and the esthetics of the experience and knowledge (George 2010). In particular empiricism objects the idea of innate knowledge while rationalism advocates for the natural knowledge. On the other hand, rationalism refers to the general direction of accepting or agreeing as the only essence of the logical thinking experience and reality-driven (Kardas 2014). As a school of thought, rationalism gives human reasoning the fundamental role in knowing. In this section, the essay will compare and contrast Cartesian rationalism and logical empiricism. Logical empiricism emphasizes strongly on the experience as the foundation for knowledge. Both rationalism and logical empiricism agree that knowledge is derived from particular areas of science, for instance, mathematics. From the Enlightenment periods, rationalism is always associated with the various mathematical methods in studying philosophy (George 2010). Particular versions of rationality have it that one can deductively derive all the possible knowledge about the whole idea. This can be made possible when one is subjected to the essential underlying principles or perspectives including geometry axioms in mathematics. While studying the mind/body dualism, logical empiricism also adopts certain insights derived from the mathematical logic developed by early proponents of empiricism including Ludwig Wittgenstein and Gottlob Frege. Rationalism is always contrasted with logical empiricism. Indeed, the views are not exclusively mutual since, for instance, the science philosophy is empirical and rational. Logical Empiricism maintains that all ideas originate from experience. The experience can either be through the internal sensations including pleasure and pain or the external senses. Therefore, most importantly the knowledge is based on experience. While arguing about the basic principles from where knowledge is derived, the proponents of Cartesian rationalism developed the so-called “themeliokratikis” rationality approach. Both Leibniz and Spinoza argue that in principle, at least all the knowledge without the exception of the scientific knowledge can be obtained using reasonableness alone (George 2010). In either case, the two admit that practically the knowledge gained from one aspect of the whole idea do not imply a general or complete knowledge of the subject. A key rationalism proponent, Descartes views Cartesian rationalism as a school of thought that gives the fundamental role in knowing to the human reasoning. In contrast, logical empiricism values experience. A strong proponent of empiricism, Locke brought into limelight the idea of the mind being “tabula rasa”. The “tabula rasa” was a whitepaper/blank slate on which human beings write and add ideas based on reflections and experiences upon the particular experience (Rockmore 2011). Logical empiricism suggests that without the five external senses, though with intellect human beings cannot acquire knowledge. This is because, to empiricists, one can only have the knowledge through the senses and gathering the experiences to acquire skills and knowledge. For them, the nature influences the knowledge. In the acquisition of the new knowledge, rationalism advocates for knowledge acquisition only through the intellect and not the senses. Rationalists believe that knowledge is innate. Thus from mental reasoning human beings can deduce truths. In fact, one can acquire any knowledge through the intellect. Human beings only need to apply adequate intellectual study and reflection to the subject so as to deduce the truth. For instance, Plato argues that ideas are eternal, found in the soul and are perfect (Kardas 2014). Plato adds that knowledge only needs to be brought forth since it is innate. Mind/Body Problem Idealism has it that human beings only experience the appearances and not the things in these experiences. Kant maintains that time and space are only human intuitive, subjective forms that would not survive on their own especially in a case where one was to abstract or isolate from the individual human intuition conditions. On the other hand, phenomenology is based on phenomena intuitive experience that reality consists of events and objects consciously perceived by the human beings. Phenomenology involves a move away or diverts from representation list epistemology into constructive one, also known as constructivism (Rockmore 2011). Idealism holds that the human beings’ intuition is nothing but rather a representation of appearance. The time and space associated with the objects disappears and they only exist in the human beings and not in themselves. Likewise to phenomenology, idealism advocates for the human perceptions where human beings only intuit objects that only exist in themselves. In phenomenology, human beings view objects from their ways of perceptions. We see objects from our finite position and not from the perspective of God’s eye. In regards to the theocentric theory, the object itself is the same object seen from two aspects: the theocentric one-the thing or object that is not possible for human beings to attain. The other aspect is the one we have. Kant’s transcendental idealism endorses a representation list view that contradicts the constructivism in phenomenology. According to Kant, what human beings lay into the object can only be perceived through the human intuitions (Rockmore 2011). In addition, human beings only pure reasons while categorizing such objects. Kant further argues that human beings have passive as well as an active mind. The passive aspect of the mind is responsible for sensitive receptive while the active character is what promotes the spontaneous understanding. A famous proponent of phenomenology, Rockmore, argues that the human perception of the objects must conform to the human cognition.Contrary to Rockmore’s contribution, Kant applies the term construction with respect to physics and not metaphysics. To Kant, the mathematical model of thinking. Earlier on, Kant talks of “light” that can be seen through the perceptions of the mind. However, in mathematical constructive objects, for instance, the equilateral triangle, one must apply the prior knowledge and thought that is demonstrated via construction. Kant asserts that this procedure or method is slowly adopted in physics and is even more challenging in metaphysics. Since metaphysics involves the prior experiences and knowledge, the real grip is not evident through the experiences. Therefore, “constructivism” in metaphysics entails philosophical introspection that, knowledge objects rely on the human cognition and experience of the objects (Kardas 2014). Rockmore does not explain in detail the meaning of construction in phenomenology. Instead, he keeps on claiming that Kantian critical assertion on idealism is constructivist. The reason for the complaint is that the phenomena involved are constructed. Thus, the cognitive subject can reliably get to know the events. Kant has four central applications in idealism. First, one experiences only appearances in some sense and not the things in themselves. This explains further why human beings are abstracted from all the receptivity of their sensibility. The second claim is that, time and space is not the things in themselves or the determinants of their components. Space and time being human sensible intuition subjective forms is the third claim. This explains why the human perceptions do not contain the components of the perceived objects. Lastly, Kant argues that time and space is empirically real. In regards to human perception of objects, Kant suggests that any external object before human beings is always present in both time and space and that the human own intuitions are in time. Evaluate and Respond In choosing between empiricism and rationalism, I would go for rationalism. Rationalism advocates for the existence of innate knowledge in human beings (Rockmore 2011). I agree with the rationalism’s assertion since I have much trust in my mind compared to my body. There are many reasons for trusting the mind more than the body. First, I always believe that human senses are tricked every time and one can see things that are false. For instance, I can feel a movie as a real thing whenever I watch. It is the senses that get human beings into another world they do not belong and it is their minds that recognize that it is only a movie and that it is not real. Besides, there are shortcomings in the senses, for instance, despite having the information about atoms’ existence, I am not able to recognize one. Since I am not able to feel the molecules, my mind can question what I think, for instance, I am sure a house exists if I can see the house. In the case of a theory, I can be sure whether the approach is wrong or right since I can prove the theory. A good illustration of how weak the senses are best shown in the case of magic (Rockmore 2011). Magicians can make us believe that something extraordinary can take place while in our minds we know that the witch is telling lies. In mind/body problem, phenomenology is well explained and has more evidence compared to idealism. There are no such standards used to explain Kant’s claims and scholars disagree on the claims’ interpretation. There is no much evidence in Kant’s vast literature on idealism. On the contrary, phenomenology discusses the problems of the human mind offering broad ideas on how constructivism occurs as opposed to the representation list position in idealism. Since idealism does not provide convincing assertion on the mind/body problem, phenomenology stands out to be the best. References Rockmore, T. (2011). Kant and phenomenology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kardas, E. P. (2014). History of psychology: The making of science. George. J. H. (2010). Rationalism. South Carolina; BiblioBazaar. Read More