Renee Descartes and his Substance Dualism - Essay Example

Substance Dualism is Necessary for Beings to Have Free Will According to Renee Descartes, the of substance dualism implicitly rests on the presupposition that the essence of the mind is in thought while body’s is extension, this implies a duality of essences correspondent to a duality of substances. Descarte’s argument is presented in seven steps; he claims that by virtue of his ability to perceive something, then it must mean that the thing has been made by God and its existence corresponds with his vision (Rodriguez-Pereyra 70). Secondly, the fact that two objects can be perceived as distinct from each other means that God can make them mutually exclusive, if the two things are capable of existing apart from each other, whether or not the actually do, then they must be distinct. Therefore, the mind can be distinctly perceived as a whole autonomous entity that does not pertain an extension, correspondingly, the body can also be though as an extension that pertains no element of thought meaning that God could enable the two to exist distinctly from each other, ergo the mind and body are actually distinct from each other. Concisely, Descartes is really trying to make the point that the mind and body are two entirely different entities each set for its own purpose; the mind is a thinking thing that exists in the abstract devoid of physical attributes such as size shape or color while the body is a non-thinking thing that is bound and limited by the laws of physics. Free will on the other hand can be defined as the inherent capacity to make autonomous choices without being constrained or manipulated by any external limitations, these factors range from physical constrains such as imprisonment to metaphysical and logical factors social psychological ones. The relationship between dualism and free will is mutually inclusive since without substance dualism, free will could not be logically expected to exist; this is because in the absence of dualism, it would mean that humans are entirely physical beings. Essentially, every action one takes in the physical realm is subject to the rules of physics which do not however apply to the mental faculties. The subordination of the physical bodies implies that while human beings may perceive themselves to be free, their freedom does not extend past the point at which they are bound by these laws. Take for example the modes of human movements, human being can walk and they one can even argue that they choose to walk, however the very action is subjected to the law of motion and gravity and should one be put in a situation where these laws do not function they would be forced to adjust their means of propulsion. Free will does not just imply that one is free to do what they do but also to do otherwise should they so choose, however human beings cannot decide not to walk but instead to fly since even if they may will it, and their bodies are not free to carry it out. Under this premises, free will cannot exist unless the body was to somewhat be viewed as a separate construct from the mind which is essentially what the theory of substance dualism does. Unlike the body, the mind is not subject to the rules of nature and it can construe anything by gravity can simulate the feeling of flight and one may even argue that one can fly, in their imagination without a physical ceiling or limit, for example when one dreams of flight, they may even expense the exhilaration and fear of being airborne just the way they would have if they were actually flying. This is despite the fact that humans cannot actually fly, nevertheless the mind not being bound physical law do whatsoever it wishes, this is the very concept that philosophers and theologians employ to justify the notion of life after death or reincarnation. The assumption is that after the body has died the soul will live on since it is not an organic construct and therefore not subject to the degeneration which the body inevitable has to undergo after death. Several arguments have been posited in opposition of substance dualism and the assumption that the body and mind are separate entities; however the strongest and most influential of these is the interactionist one. They seek to disprove of desecrates dualism based on the fact that since the mind and body according to him are essentially different and independent entities, they cannot be scientifically be expected to interact. The Cartesian model of the mind which is part of dualism implies that the mind is immaterial and unextended; it cannot be physically categorized or classified and can have no shape size or any other dimension in the physical realm. In the same way the body must be subordinate to the rules of physics from which the mind is exempt, however presuming Descartes was right up to that point it begs the question, what mechanism could make it possible to convey information between two ontologically autonomous dimensions? Substance dualism from this perspective is both illogical and self-defeating; in fact one can argue that based on Descartes separation of the two concepts then the mind is like an imaginary horse or locomotive. Therefore, presuming there can be a connection between such distinctly different entities is analogous to presuming that an imaginary locomotive or horse is capable of pulling a box car or cart respectively. Opponent further contend that if minds are capable of interacting with bodies even though both of them exist autonomously, there is no reason why someone’s mind cannot move to another person (Calef). Furthermore, Descartes’s argument, if followed to its logical conclusion would imply that every voluntary action a person makes is equivocal to paranormal or telekinetic activity based on the concept of mind over matter which further begs the question of how mind, which is insubstantial can control or even realistically be expected to interact with the body (Robinson). In a nutshell, an interactionist argument opposes the existence of substance dualism based on the inexplicably of the connection between two things that are as sufficiently alike as the mind and the body. From this point of view, the concept of free will as the product of substance dualism is invariably negated since the interactions argue that substance dualism is impossible as it raises too many question as demonstrated above and ode not logically provide any answers. Interactions do not hold that the body and mind are independent entities, according to them the mind and body are organically connected in a casual effect relationship. According to them free will is a product of the interaction between the mind and body and it is not an exclusively mental concept as the substance dualism proponents would claim. The body is influenced by the environmental factors such as warmth and cold and this is communicated to the mind and therefore the mind uses this input to make control the body , ergo the physical actions of the individual (Calef). However, free will is expressed in the fact that the mind can act independently despite the feedback from the body, as such, in as a much as one will quickly withdraw their hand if they touch a hot or sharp object, they can still compel themselves not to do so. This way, the materialists attempt to prove that free will is not dependent on the minds exclusion from having to obey the laws of physics. This argument appears quite sound from an non-critical point of view but if one delves in to the underlying reasoning supporting it, they are will realize that the opposition is to a large extent purely academic and without any empirically or logically sound justification. At the end of the day, materialist can only deign to poke holes through the dualist argument not by providing a viable alternative but by posing questions which neither them nor the dualist can answer. Nonetheless, this is not sufficient justification to refute an argument and to claim to do so is qualifies as committing the fallacy of fallacy of ad ignorantiam, which means to justify and action or arguments based on the absence of logical or empirical proof. In essence, enquiring into the dualist argument and asking how is this or that possible does not amount to evidence against the theory, it simply raises a topic for discussion and proves that dualist do not know everything about metaphysics. This is no different from proving that there is something that economist, mathematicians or doctors do not know about their respective field which is not ground for refuting an argument since knowledge is a continuous and dynamic as opposed to absolute. Therefore, when materialists disclaim substance dualism based on the fact that the dualist cannot explain how the physical and mental can interact, they do not actually discredit the argument but only prove the obvious fact that dualism is not a perfectly understood discipline (Rodriguez-Pereyra 77). If the detractors were to, say prove that mind and body interactions violate the laws of physics then this could be viewed plausible criticism that is if they were to explicitly indicate what laws had been violated. However as matters stand, they only share the puzzlement that the rest of the philosophical world does in respect to how the mind and body could possible connect if they are indeed autonomous entities but this does not qualify as a disqualification for substance dualism. Conclusion The expression of free will connotes the idea of a free mind as opposed to body and Descartes simply describes it from a metaphysical point of view. The contention of this essay was to defend the assumption that dualism necessary for free will to exist, by drawing a connection between the two concepts and presenting, then refuting the most reasonable argument against the validity of dualism there can be no equivocation about the thesis. By proving that a separation of the mind and body is necessary for free will to exist, I am personally able to consider myself as an independent moral being with the autonomy to make decisions and take actions from logical thought and not simply in reaction to the environment. The main difference between animals and humans is that the latter are incapable or reason as they do not have souls and therefore they are entirely organic, they can therefore not be expected to contemplate issues nor think logically. However, owing to the underlying disconnect between the mind and body, humans are capable of taking action and acting independently of the external environmental factors which would otherwise manipulate their will. When one understands the relationship between substance dualisms and free will, they become more aware of their moral responsibility and which can only conceptualized if one has free will. Finally, for those who follow religions whose doctrines support life after death, understanding the relationship between free will, substance dualism enables them to conceptualize the concept of the soul living on after the body a concept which in impossible under materialism. Works Cited Calef, Scott. “Dualism and Mind” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2013 Robinson, Howard, "Dualism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2013 Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo. "Descartes's Substance Dualism and His Independence Conception of Substance." Journal of the History of Philosophy 46.1 (2008): 69-89.  Read More