• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically examine Cartesian dualism as an answer to the mind/body problem. When you answer this question be sure to include a discussion of Gilbert Ryle's criticisms of Cartesian dualism.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Critically examine Cartesian dualism as an answer to the mind/body problem. When you answer this question be sure to include a discussion of Gilbert Ryle's criticisms of Cartesian dualism. The mind-body problem is a problem which can only be answered, and even then somewhat sketchily, by looking at the most basic components, namely the mind and the body. We know that the body is made up of matter, it takes up space, and it deals with our physical processes. The mind is much more complex, and is more easily described in negatives. It is non-spatial and non-extended, therefore having no location and taking up no space. It is not subjected to the physical laws which govern the body. It is immaterial, and to make matters worse, invisible. It is however, to do with thought and consciousness. It allows us to have emotions, sensations, experiences and imaginings - all of which have a special elusive quality, and are utterly private to the individual mind. The body is thus the shell we present to the outer world and a means of communicating to people around us. This makes it very much public. We assume that mind and body must interact. Much of what we do with our bodies, how we move, where we move to, is a result of thought and therefore resulting from mental processing. ...read more.

Middle

It would however seem to follow that if this person decided to delve deeply into the working of his mind, he could, through introspection, discover his true desires, however repressed - assuming that the mind is not an uncontrollable phenomenon. Ryle argues that there is a basic contradiction in the concept of dualism, for if a mind is only viewable by itself, therefore accepting that we can know nothing about each any other mind than our own, we cannot even presume that other minds exist, let alone define them in any way. Yet we do this on a daily basis. We judge others' minds, laden them with traits and liken or disliken them to our own. This is simply because, through words and the exposition of our thoughts via our body many of us reveal how we feel and think. This would then explain why we are able to assume that we know people 'inside out'. Admittedly this may be a slight exaggeration, as much of the mind may remain entirely private, but still without the benefit of seeing into each others minds we can understand and relate to other people. Whether or not we are right in these judgements can never be certain. But with advances in psychology and seemingly precisely accurate observations into the minds of others, perhaps the brief glances we obtain into other minds become less dubious. ...read more.

Conclusion

He argues that Descartes and other dualists simply created a 'mental' process in order that it could differ from the physical process so it would not be subjected to mechanical laws. Mind has then gained an unnecessary stature. By allowing these 'mental' processes it would mean that the mind could be free and unsubjected to the mechanics which would adhere it to having no free will and thereby no "responsibility, choice, merit and demerit." He appears to think that Descartes was too sentimental and irrational to accept that the mind, like the physical world as according to Galileo, could be determined. If Ryle's theory were true, then the mind-body problem would be to all intents and purposes solved, for there would no longer be a problem. Statements about the mental process would be the same as statements about physical processes, which would then display themselves in our behaviour, subsequently somewhat a combination of both processes. But the problem still remains as previously stated that the mind can actually cause a physical response. Also, in theory (and often practice) there is nothing to stop people from cheating their natural behavioural response by simply reacting differently physically to something which their mind feels totally opposed to. Accordingly, if behaviour cannot represent the true process of the mind, we are reduced to a situation in which we can be certain of very little or nothing about what causes our actions beyond a purely physical level. 2 1 Rosalyn Kennedy, 100H ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Philosophy and Theology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Philosophy and Theology essays

  1. What is the relationship between mind and body?

    it is simply one part of the 'body mechanism', then it would be expected that the soul would die with the body also.

  2. Is it an advantage of Descartes substance dualism that it allows the possibility of ...

    no other causes are observed capable of destroying it... it is immortal", so we are led to believe here that the lack of evidence proves that there is a life after death. If we took this approach it seems as though it does quite the opposite. The non-believer may argue that since there is no proof of a soul

  1. Discuss the merits and demerits of cartesian dualism. Should it have any appeal today, ...

    Descartes goes on to provide more detail about how we know of the existence of external objects, and how the mind and body interact. He first distinguishes between imagination and understanding, saying that imagination involves a mental picture of the object concerned, whereas understanding is merely concerned with grasping the essence of the substance.

  2. Rene Descartes' Mind and Body.

    himself but for the group that he is in based on the information he has? This is certainly the area where humans are significantly distinct from machines. Although Machines have electrical brains called RAM and ROM that can store information, machines do not have conscience like humans.

  1. Strengths and weakness of Dualism

    therefore takes up no space, whereas the properties of bodily or material substances are length, breath or depth and therefore whose essence is to take up space. The mind is supposed to be thought of as intangible and non physical in contrast to the body which is extended and can

  2. Zionism has never seriously posed this question: Why, during these two thousand years, have ...

    It is noteworthy that Schneersohn also rejected out of hand the prevalent religious-Zionist view that the ingathering of exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem were to be a part of a gradual process, to be initiated little by little by human beings but completed by God.

  1. What is the mind body problem? Provide details of some responses to it from ...

    He further suggested the first part of the soul was immortal, but the two remaining parts died with the body (Platonic Dualism) (Carrier, 1995). In contrast to Plato?s ideas, Aristotle?s? responses to the mind body problem can be described as broadly monist.

  2. A Discussion on the Defence of Compatibilism

    Not so, said Immanuel Kant, calling compatibilism a ?wretched subterfuge? (as cited in Flynn, 2012, p 112), arguing that we humans are indeed subject to ?moral praise and blame?, because we do possess free will and are at liberty to exercise it.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work