A2 Philosophy: The Mind/Body Problem
Dawkins
Criticisms
- Alastair McGarth - Dawkins is as extreme as the religious believers whose faith he attacks, more so. It is only as a scientist that Dawkins has any authority, which is on the natural world, although the idea of a soul and life after death is the supernatural world.
- Soul 2 seems to be an example of reductionism due to his hard materialist stance
- How can science either have killed Soul 1 or be killing it? Make your mind up Dawkins? Is Soul 1 dead or not?
- Dawkins also could be miscategorising Soul 1 when he declares it as circular and non-productive, he has too limited an understanding of a prior knowledge and that which is not scientific.
- The Grand Unified Theory is just a theory, years ago we thought we would be further than we are now in terms of technological development, perhaps Dawkins overestimates the power of science.
- Dawkins only believes in a soul in a metaphorical sense: "There is no spirit-driven life force"
- He offers two definitions of the soul which he terms as Soul 1 and Soul 2:
- Soul 1 = anima, non-physical, vital principle, spiritualised (taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and is rejected by Dawkins)
- Soul 2 = intellectual/spiritual power (this is a meaningful use of the word soul to describe ourselves without categorising the soul as a separate entity)
- Dawkins believes that science either has killed or is in the process of killing Soul 1 as it is a circular and non-productive point of view. Certainly could be destroyed when the Grand Unified Theory becomes a reality (the idea that science will explain everything one day - supported by Peter Atkins, says that science will eventually reach a singularity and explain everything)
- As for Soul 2, this is about awakening the imagination of humanity. It is the type of soul supported by Ryle, as Soul 1 is a linguistic error.
Aristotle
Criticisms and Responses
- Aristotle takes a semi-dualist & semi-monist response which is unclear, materialists would say there is no 'anima' - it's merely the body's processes, we could compare it to Ryle's 'ghost in the machine'. Even though he suggests some sort of soul, Aristotle takes away the best bit of having a soul - the potential for disembodied existence, immortality, life after death. Aristotle's indecisive standpoint has all the negatives of dualist and materialist views yet none of the benefits.
- Anthony Kenny says that Aristotle's writings on this topic are almost contradictory, they are 'inconstant', hence why we have a viewpoint halfway between Monist and Dualist. His writings seem to make little sense.
- Although we do not seem to know exactly what Aristotle meant by the idea that intellectual thought might persist after death, we could suggest that he was referring to our academic and cultural achievements which can be recorded - certainly we can see that his intellectual thoughts have survived long after his death.
- Aristotle's idea of the soul is referred to as the 'anima', but it is not the centre of one's identity and it does not survive after death
- the anima is the form and shape of the body, it is not a substance like matter though or else it could be anything
- the soul cannot be separated from the body just as eyes and sight cannot be separated lest they don't work
- the anima is the principle of life and the activity of the body
- the anima has different faculties: nutrition, perception, desire, locomotion and intellect - the more complex an organism the more faculties an organism has. It is the faculty of intellect that distinguishes humans from other beings, although our ability to reason does not mean that all our actions are rational
- the soul/anima is the Efficient, Formal and Final cause of the body
- unity of soul and body suggests a 'Monist' view, which means the soul doesn't survive after death, although Aristotle suggests that intellectual thought may persist (although we are not entirely certain what he meant by this statement)
Descartes
Ryle's Criticism
- dualist approach again, body and soul are wholly different substances, the mind does not extend unlike the body
- "a body is by nature divisible, but the mind is not"
- body is made from matter, the soul is non-physical "cogito ergo sum" - the mind's essence is to think
- the mind contains all thoughts and feelings that cannot be located physically, although Descartes thought that the pineal gland in the brain was where the soul was located as at the time no one understood its function (whereas now we know it produces the hormone melanin which helps regulate the pattens of sleeping and waking).
- the mind is non-corporeal and has feelings known to the self only, body is observable
Ryle suggests that Descartes makes a 'category mistake', a mistake with language. Ryle says that Descartes is looking for something that isn't there, talk of a 'soul' leads people to believe that the mind and body are separate when they are not. The soul is the 'ghost in the machine', it just isn't there and people are making a mistake by looking for it. Ryle uses the Cambridge University analogy to explain, there are tourists who visit various Cambridge colleges but continually ask "where is the university?" as they do not understand that all the colleges make up the elusive university. We are wrong to say that mental processes are separate functions to those of the body - the mind is part of the body.
For and against Plato
Descartes' Argument:
- through reason we can find certitude
- this reflection shows us that our knowledge of the world is sense-dependent
- argument from illusions tells us that our senses sometimes deceive us, so we doubt them
- therefore we can doubt all reality except for our own doubting - we cannot doubt that we doubt
- doubt is a mode of thought so we cannot doubt that we think
- thinking means that we must exist even if only as thinking minds
- 'cogito ergo sum' - I think therefore I am
- identity comes from thinking so it seems possible that we could survive in a non-corporeal (disembodied) form
Plato
Against
For
- Peter Geach - how can the soul 'see' the forms, it's a physical process?
- Learning is about more than just remembering
- Are there really opposites to everything and even if they do, does that mean a soul has to exist?
- Relies on the Theory of Forms so it has the same weaknesses.
- Socrates' Cyclical Argument - life comes from death just as day comes from night, these opposites need to continue in a cycle or else if all that died remained in the form of death then all would die
- Theory of Recollection - we know some truths not by observing them but remembering them from the world of forms
- Affinity Argument - the soul resembles the divine and as the divine is immortal, then so is the soul
- Form of Life - the soul is the form of life, all that lives must have a soul
- dualist - the mind/soul is at the centre of one's identity, soul is the essence of being
- body and soul are 2 separate yet interacting substances
- the soul precedes the body as it belongs to the higher level of reality that is the world of forms
- it is substance, eternal, immutable and indivisible - it is simple and exists in a disembodied form before and after death as it goes to the world of forms where it acquires true knowledge
- when in the body, material things get in the way of acquiring true knowledge as the soul becomes imprisoned in the body. The body distracts the soul and 'takes away all power of thinking'
- the soul incarnate becomes a complex, tripartite soul: 1. reason (rules the soul and seeks true knowledge) 2. spirit (trainable emotions) 3. desire/mercenary
- these three parts of the soul need to work in harmony, harmony of the soul is a virtue and disharmony creates injustices and bad actions in turn damage the soul. This prevents the soul from seeking true knowledge
- Plato uses the chariot analogy - the soul (reason) acts as a chariot driving reigning a white horse (spirit) and a black horse (desire) which want to go in different directions.