110 likes | 440 Views
Dualism. Introduction. Descartes. Substance Dualism. Something is a substance iff it is possible for that thing to exist all by itself. The Body.
E N D
Dualism Introduction
Substance Dualism • Something is a substanceiff it is possible for that thing to exist all by itself.
The Body As regarded the body, I did not even doubt of its nature, but thought I distinctly knew it, and if I had wished to describe it according to the notions I then entertained, I should have explained myself in this manner: By body I understand all that can be terminated by a certain figure; that can be comprised in a certain place, and so fill a certain space as therefore to exclude every other body. Descartes, Mediation II
The Body Something is a (material) bodyiff it is something that occupies space.
The Mind Let us pass, then, to the attributes of the soul… Perception is another attribute of the soul; but perception too is impossible without the body… Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. Descartes, Meditation II
The Mind Something is a mindiff it is something that thinks.
Cartesian Dualism Schema: Mental states are. Necessarily, someone is in pain iff. Substance Dualism: Mental states are non-physical states of an immaterial mind. Someone is in pain iff he has an immaterial mind that is in pain. Interactionism: The brain and the mind of a typical person enter into two-way causal interaction (i.e., bodily events cause mental events and vice versa).
The Conceivability Argument I can conceive of myself existing without my body. If (1), it’s possible for me to exist without my body. If it’s possible for me to exist without my body, I could exist without my body. [So] I could exist without my body. My body could not exist without my body. If (4) and (5), I am not identical to my body. [So] I am not identical to my body.
The Conceivability Argument The Walt Disney Principle: If we can conceive of a state-of-affairs, then that state-of-affairs is possible.
The Parody Argument I can conceive of Superman (SM) existing without Clark Kent (CK). If (1), it’s possible for SM to exist without CK. If it’s possible for SM to exist without CK, SM could exist without my CK. [So] SM could exist without CK. CK could not exist without CK. If (4) and (5), SM is not identical to CK. [So] SM is not identical to CK.