Cartesian Dualism

[Clarksist]

Okay, for you who don't know what Cartesian Dualism is, its on Wikipedia, and seeing as it comes from the "great" Descartes himself, I'm sure there are trillobytes on the subject here on the internet. But just to wet your toes, Cartesian Dualism is the idea that the mind (or thought at least, not so much the brain) is immaterial, and is not at all the same as the physical body. The mind itself or something like a "soul" or "ghost" is the spark behind the body... but the body does not need soul. Therefore, the soul acts as the consciousness of a person. Making reference to Descartes's greatest impact on philosophy: cogito ergo sum ('I think therefore I am', more aptly 'I am thinking therefore I am'), the consciousness of a person is questionable.

I can only be sure that I myself have a soul, while I cannot be sure others around me do. If you have no soul, but are physically acting in the same unaltered way others are... you are a philosophical zombie.

Now, I ask you, the reader, do you believe in Cartesian Dualism? I, for one, think it is a strong case of the sign of the times. The lead up to Cartesian Dualism is originally, I believe, placed in the Meditations writings as a way to bring the reader to overlook many key reasons to not believe it, so that God (Descartes was afterall a religious man) was much more believable to the reader. The problem is that his Evil Demon idea was originally placed out of God's hands. Therefore, he himself would have to acknowledge that it would be God who is proverbially fucking with us.

He plainly picked a different subject then God, thus his bias can clearly be seen. I cannot help but feel it trickles into his Cartesian Dualism. But perhaps I am being hard on him, he was (as we all are) a product of his time. Now, we know that clearly thought is electronic impulses in our minds... but that does not rule out the ability to say that that is simply the physical body, and not our soul.

I think that instead of emphasising that it can't be, it is important to emphasize both options equally. The religious connatations behind a soul (at least the soul that I believe Descartes was hinting at) is the undying and enduring soul we find from the Bible or any number of religious texts. I find this insulting as a modern philosopher because I have the comfort of knowing that we can now pinpoint memory storage in our brains, and as the brain is a physical thing memory will dissapate postmortem.

So, I'm looking forward to a good discussion, as Cartesian Dualism is not easy to argue out of, or argue for. But it can be argued, and for a good amount of outcome.

[kurt]

that does not rule out the ability to say that that is simply the physical body, and not our soul.
Everyone has the ability to say whatever they please, but what we should be asking does it make sense; or, in the case of Cartesian Dualism, is it necessary?

Since you yourself concede that thought is simply electronic impulses within our brain, is it really necessary to tack on a "soul" to something that can already be explained? If you can explain something rationally with a materialist explanation, there is no need for superfluity.


I find this insulting as a modern philosopher because I have the comfort of knowing that we can now pinpoint memory storage in our brains, and as the brain is a physical thing memory will dissapate postmortem.
If I have taken your passage correctly(you sympathise with Descartes, and dualism), then you are indeed a "rare commodity". If you know where memory is stored, why the need for any extra explanation?

Another problem with Dualism is the mind-body problem. If the soul is immaterial, and thus does not correspond with any particular location within time and space, then how can it possibly "communicate" and "direct" the body, which occupies a set position in time and space.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Another problem with Dualism is the mind-body problem. If the soul is immaterial, and thus does not correspond with any particular location within time and space, then how can it possibly "communicate" and "direct" the body, which occupies a set position in time and space.

Also, how can the mind be affected, damaged or even 'destroyed' by an attack on the body if they are indeed two totally different substances?

[kurt]

Also, how can the mind be affected, damaged or even 'destroyed' by an attack on the body if they are indeed two totally different substances?

I do believe Descartes would answer that the mind/soul was not damaged or destroyed, because it would live on in the afterlife, even after the material body is ruined.

[Clarksist]

If I have taken your passage correctly(you sympathise with Descartes, and dualism), then you are indeed a "rare commodity"

No, I don't believe in dualism. In fact, I'm arguing against it.

What I explained was how Cartesian dualism is and I'm directly quoting myself "the sign of the times".

Cartesian dualism is simply not valid anymore due to scientific progressions.


Since you yourself concede that thought is simply electronic impulses within our brain, is it really necessary to tack on a "soul" to something that can already be explained? If you can explain something rationally with a materialist explanation, there is no need for superfluity.

Again, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my position. I don't believe in a soul, as I argue against Cartesian dualism.


I do believe Descartes would answer that the mind/soul was not damaged or destroyed, because it would live on in the afterlife, even after the material body is ruined.

Perhaps. I think that Descartes would have argued his position that the soul's functioning can only be as good as the body. Therefore, if the body isn't giving the soul top-notch information, the soul will be damaged in its outcome, but once it is relieved of the earthly body, is no longer impaired.

However, the idea of a soul in the nowaday world is bad philosophy.

[kurt]

Well, like I said, I may have misunderstood you, and obviously I did.

Anyways, I don't think Cartesian Dualism is a "sign of the times". It isn't widely accepted among very many serious philosophers. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that?


Perhaps. I think that Descartes would have argued his position that the soul's functioning can only be as good as the body. Therefore, if the body isn't giving the soul top-notch information, the soul will be damaged in its outcome, but once it is relieved of the earthly body, is no longer impaired.
Well yes, this much is clear. If the material body was damaged, it would not "receive" all the correct data. This is not to say the soul is in itself damaged, simply the medium through which it communicates to the material world is damaged.

[Clarksist]

Anyways, I don't think Cartesian Dualism is a "sign of the times". It isn't widely accepted among very many serious philosophers. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that?

Well, not many "serious" philosophers believe in it today, because we have scientific proof otherwise (further proving that rationalism is useless). That only proves my point further.

Because of what we know now, we can easily say that Cartesian dualism is bullshit. But, before science caught up with Descartes's philosophy many very serious philosophers ascribed to Cartesian dualism. It was the most plausible at the time.

That is, until we discovered the use of pineal gland.

I believe that Cartesian dualism is very very much so a product of the time it was produced.