As mentioned, my main objection to the argument and the premises is that simply being able to imagine the mind and body being separate does not prove that they are, or clarify how they interact. If we imagine, for example, a table made of wood; in its normal state, we would agree that the wood and the table are one entity. If, however, we break or dismantle the table, the wood still remains yet the table does not. When relating this to the mind and body, although we can imagine the two to be separate, if we take the body out of the equation there is no verifiable way of proving that the mind still continues to exist. Furthermore, there is also the question of interaction between the mind and body. It seems implausible to believe that an immaterial mind can interact with a material body, especially as we can see that when the brain is damaged, the body does not function properly. It could then be argued that there is no way to prove that the mind is not part of the brain, as when we use our minds to think about carrying out an action, our body then reacts in the particular way. If our brains are impaired, however, our minds cannot simply allow our bodies to function normally. Therefore, this idea is flawed because although you can clearly and distinctly perceive the mind and body as two separate entities, there has been no good reason given to believe that one could exist and function independently of the other.
Another well known objection to Descartes’ clear and distinct perception claim is the masked man fallacy, which goes as follows:
- “I know who my father is.
- I don't know who that masked man is.
-
Therefore my father and that masked man are different people. (Blackburn, 2001)”
Descartes is accused of being fallacious because it follows from this example that he believes that he knows what the mind is like, and does not know what the brain is like, therefore, the mind and the brain are different things. Baggini and Fosl perfectly state how this is a strong objection to the “clear and distinct perception” argument: “The fallacy shows that what we think, believe or perceive of something does not necessarily correspond to what the properties of that thing actually are.”(Baggini & Fosl, 2010). This is clearly questioning whether because we may not know the properties of the mind, or possibly have a misconception of these properties, does that mean that the mind does not necessarily possess the properties? A supporting argument came from Antoine Arnauld who used the example of the triangle: he asks us to imagine that somebody is certain that the angle in a semi-circle is a right angle, and so the triangle formed is right angled. However, he may doubt that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides. (Adam & Tannery, 1974-1989). Arnauld is arguing that the person not having knowledge of Pythagoras’ Theory is equivalent to Descartes not having knowledge of the mind which, ultimately, leads to a misunderstanding of how the mind and body are linked. Therefore, the clear and distinct perception argument does not give an explanation of the mind as a single, functioning entity, and does not demonstrate an understanding of the mind, thus giving no good reason for saying that the mind could exist without the body.
Descartes would respond to these objections, firstly, by arguing that although he believes the mind and body are separate, through the pineal gland they are able to make a person function. If we take sight, for example, we need the nerves from our body connecting to our brain, but we also need the mind to perceive what we are seeing (Descartes, 1998). The distinction is still evident, however, as shown with the example of sleep, where the body is dormant but the mind is still running in the form of dreams. Secondly, Descartes would object to Arnauld’s claim by arguing that while the person may not have an understanding of Pythagoras’ Theory or how the angles and sides of the triangles interact, this example does not correlate to the connection between the mind and the body. This is because, where the mind and body can be thought of as being separate from each other, Pythagoras’ Theory is a property of the triangle and so cannot be thought of as completely separate. However, I do not believe that these counter-arguments are strong enough to undermine the previous objections, primarily because there is still no proof or plausible idea as to how simply being able to imagine the mind and body being separate explains how they interact, and how one can function independently of the other.
To conclude, the aforementioned points outline the argument from clear and distinct perception, and how I believe that this is not a good reason using my own ideas, the masked man fallacy, and those from Arnould. I do not believe that being able to imagine two things being separate then allows those things to be separate in reality, especially when considering an apparent immaterial brain that has no verifiable proof of its existence or ability to exist outside of the body. Therefore, I believe that Descartes does not give a good reason for saying that his mind could exist without his body.
Bibliography.
Works Cited:
-
Descartes, R. 1998. Meditations and other Metaphysical Writings. London: Penguin Books.
-
Adam, C & Tannery, P. 1974-1989. Oeuvres de Descartes, 11 vols. Paris: Vrin.
- Baggini,
-
Blackburn, S. 2001. Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.
-
Baggini, J & Fosl, PS. 2010. The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
Word Count: 1097
by
hello3648 (student)
