Soul, mind and body

Soul

The immaterial/non-physical essence of a person

(often regarded as the spiritual component that connects with the divine + defines individuality)

Self

To refer to the subject of mental states + of spiritual experience

(same meaning as soul, but philosophers often favour ‘self’ as it doesn’t have the religious connotations)

Consciousness

Awareness/perception

The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings, thoughts, + experiences, often linked to self-awareness + the mind

Dualism

Belief that reality can be divided into 2 distinct parts, such as good + evil or physical + non-physical

Substance dualism

Belief that mind + body both exist as 2 distinct + separate entities

Materialism

Belief that everything that exists is physical or made of matter, and that all phenomena, including thoughts and consciousness, can ultimately be explained by physical processes

Reductive materialism/identity theory

Mental states are identical to physical brain states, meaning the mind can be explained in physical terms as chemical activity in the brain

Mental states can be classified into different types such as memory, pain, happiness, desire - correspond to activities in different parts of the brain

Materialist view on consciousness?

Caused by physical phenomena (chemical reactions), explained by neuroscience

Dawkins

• Survival machines

• vehicles of genes

• mixture of chemicals

→ Dawkins is saying:

• Our behaviours and mental processes have evolved because they aid survival and reproduction

• Consciousness can be understood as a product of evolutionary biology and brain activity rather than an immaterial soul

Category error

A problem of language that arises when things are talked about as if they belong to one category when in fact they belong to another

(this often leads to confusion or misunderstanding in discussions about the mind and body, as it fails to recognize the distinct nature of different kinds of entities)

The argument from recollection

*Eval

Plato argued that all knowledge was recollection of Realm of Forms (all learning = remembering) e.g. Meno’s slave geometry - shows that the boy must have been using knowledge he already had before birth, as his status in life meant that it couldn’t of been from education

This argument suggests that the soul is immortal and knows everything, as it has seen the Forms before being incarnated in the body. - We have innate knowledge

Lacks verifiable evidence but there are some instances that recognition through reason is successful

The argument from opposites (one of Plato’s arguments for the soul)

*Eval

Empirical world is full of opposites e.g. light + dark, big, small

As there is ‘living’ there is also ‘death’ but since ‘living’ is an actual state of being, so must ‘death’

Therefore, Plato believed in reincarnation.

Based on assumptions - we have never seen any forms

Plato’s beliefs on the soul

• Plato was a dualist and believed that the soul is deformed through its association with the body.

• The soul is separable from the body and as it is non-material, it is, in a sense, indestructible.

• He posited that the soul is eternal, existing before and after the physical body, and is the source of true knowledge and virtues.

Plato’s view on the body

The temporary, physical, material aspect of the person

Plato’s view on the soul

The essential (essence of the person), immaterial aspect, temproarily united with body

What was Aristotle’s view on the soul?

The soul is the form of the body that gives it life + function, inseparable from the physical form.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed the soul + body are intertwined, with the soul being the essence that actualizes the potential of the body.

Relationship of form + cause

• For Aristotle, the form of something is related to the cause, specifically the formal cause, which is the ‘blueprint’ or map of something

• The form of something is found in its function

• e.g. if you have a collection of human parts, you cannot say that there is a soul or form of human there unless they all function together

Does Aristotle think body + soul can be separated?

No

Believes they are inseparable; the soul is the essence that actualizes the body

e.g. when the body dies, you cannot meaningfully speak of a form or soul of the body because decomposition begins

What is Aristotle’s wax and stamp analogy?

Wax = body

Stamp = soul → purpose

It is impossible to separate the imprint of the seal from the wax. So the form of the body, the soul, is imprinted on it but is also inseparable from the working of the body itself.

The formal cause of the body = soul

Aristotle key quote about soul + body?

‘It indubitably follows that the soul is inseparable from the body’ - Aristotle, De anima

Why is Aristotle sometimes called both a dualist + monist?

Because his view of the soul is complex: he believed the soul is the "form" of the body and cannot exist without it (monist), but he also described the intellect as possibly separable or immortal (dualism). This mix of ideas makes his view hard to classify clearly.

What did Aristotle mean by ‘substance’ when talking about the soul?

(Also known as ousia)

Is what makes something what it is. For living things - soul = primary substance - essential principle that gives the body life + identity

What did Aristotle mean by ‘essence’ when talking about the soul?

A thing’s defining nature - what it truly is

The soul is the essence of a living body - what makes a body alive rather than just a collection of matter

What did Aristotle mean by ‘psyche’ when talking about the soul?

In Greek psyche = soul

Aristotle saw it as the ‘form’ of the body + the source of life that encompasses the essential qualities + functions of an organism

Who was Descarte and what theory did he develop?

A French philosopher (17the century)

Known for his substance dualism theory, which posits that mind + body are distinct entities that interact

How did he reach his theory?

Cartesian scepticism → led him to doubt everything except his own existence, encapsulated in the phrase "I think, therefore I am."

What was Descartes’ evil demon thought experiment?

An all-powerful demon deceives individuals into thinking that everything perceived is real, raising doubts about the reliability of senses + knowledge → the point of this experiment was that you cannot be entirely certain that this is not true

But even if you assume there is a deceiver, it follows from you being deceived that there is a ‘you’ - that much is certain

Conclusion of thought experiment?

• Whilst you can be deceived about the content of thoughts, you cannot be deceived that you are a thinking subject that seems to perceive things

• So, there needs to be a subject - you - who is the subject of such deception

What was Descartes’ foundational belief?

Following on from the thought experiment → Descarte frames his finding as cogito ergo sum or I think, therefore I am

So, we can have certainty that there is a mental substance or ‘thinking’ + we can be sure that that isn’t the same as matter

This foundational belief asserts that the act of thinking is proof of one’s existence + establishes a distinction between mind and body

How can we be sure that mental substance or thinking isn’t the same as matter?

By application of Leibniz’ law

If 2 things are the same thing, they must share all the same properties

Argument that arises using Leibniz’s law (that soul + body are separate)

I can be sure that my mind exists (thought experiment + cogito ergo sum)

I cannot be sure that my body exists since my perceptions could be deceptive

So, by application of Leibniz’ law, mind + body must be 2 separate substances (if they were the same thing, we would be able to be certain the body existed as well)

Body + soul are not the same

Descartes’ key difference between mind + body?

Descartes concludes that mind + body aren’t the same

Descarte says that the key difference is that matter (body) is extended in space + mind is unexpended + indivisible. This distinction highlights that the essence of mental substance is fundamentally different from physical substance

This echoes Plato’s earlier dualism in which the soul (mind) is non-material + indivisible

What is the problem of subjective experience (qualia) for materialism, and how does substance dualism address it?

SD does account for some features of consciousness that materialism finds difficult to explain

Qualia are the subjective, first-person experiences (e.g., the redness of red, the pain of a headache) that cannot be fully captured by physical descriptions of brain activity.

Materialism struggles to explain how physical processes produce these inner experiences. Substance dualism explains qualia by claiming that consciousness is a fundamentally non-physical substance, naturally capable of subjective experience.

Why doesn’t Descartes’ use of the pineal gland solve the interaction problem?

Because the pineal gland is physical but Descartes’ mind is non-physical

Naming a physical site doesn’t explain how different substances interact - it just moves the problem without solving it

A physical thing cannot bridge the gap between immaterial mind + material body

What is the problem of the unity of consciousness for materialism, and how does substance dualism address it?

Materialism struggles to explain how a unified, coherent experience emerges from billions of separate, parallel brain processes.

Consciousness feels like a single, seamless stream, not fragmented activity. SD explains this unity by positing that a non-physical mind integrates experiences as a whole, something the scattered activity of the brain alone cannot achieve.

What is the problem of the persistence of self over time for materialism, and how does substance dualism address it?

Materialism struggles to explain how a stable sense of self endures despite constant physical + psychological changes (e.g., brain cell turnover, memory loss).

SD explains persistence by proposing that the non-physical mind or soul remains the same over time, providing personal identity beyond physical changes.

What is the criticism of Descartes' use of Leibniz's Law in arguing for mind-body dualism?

Descartes claims the mind + body have different properties, so they must be different substances. However, critics argue that the differences may arise from how we experience consciousness "from within" and the body "from outside," not because they are actually different substances. Thus, Descartes’ use of Leibniz’s Law may be invalid, since it assumes real differences where there may be only apparent ones.

Who was Gilbert Ryle + what was his criticism of Descarte called?

Ryle was a materialist known for his critique of Cartesian dualism, which he called "the ghost in the machine." - ghost = mind, machine = body

As if we were physical machines being operated by some kind of invisible mind - makes fun of this idea

Argued that any talk of a 'self' or 'soul' existing beyond the physical body is a mistake in the way we use language - THE CATEGORY ERROR

Descarte thinks the mind is a ‘thing’ but it is not

What is the university analogy?

Imagine a visitor at a university. A lecturer is showing the person round: "This is the research area, this is the library, this is the lecture theatre." The visitor then asks "But where is the university?" as though the university was another building.

The university analogy illustrates a category error, suggesting that the concept of the university is not a separate entity like the buildings but rather the system of interactions + functions those buildings represent.

What did Ryle think about behaviour and the mind?

When we refer to someone as "intelligent" then we are, in fact, making judgements about that person's behaviour, that they acted intelligently on a particular occasion. Intelligence therefore does not refer to some hidden private entity called a mind which has intelligence. Intelligence is a way of behaving.    

• Eg. when someone is depressed or angry, we look at the pattern of behaviour they exhibit in each different case. We cannot see beyond this behaviour

Ryle’s definition of the mind

Referring to types of behaviour or dispositions to behave

Mind isn’t a separate entity made of a different substance

‘Having a mind’ refers not to a thing that a body has, but to certain ways of behaving

Limitations of Ryle’s philosophical behaviourism: wishing

Ryle's philosophical behaviourism struggles to account for internal states such as wishing. Wishing is a private mental event that may not have clear, observable behaviour (may not have outward signs).

Ryle’s CA: Appropriate behaviour is regarded as potential + can be anticipated given certain circumstances. e.g. a person wishing to go on holiday may spend a lot of time on travel websites

Limitation of Ryle's Philosophical Behaviourism: Pretending

Ward

Ward feels Ryle’s account is inadequate

Someone can pretend to be angry but still exhibit the exact same behaviour as an actual angry person

Limitation of Ryle's Philosophical Behaviourism: Describing pain

Pain is a deeply subjective experience that cannot be fully captured through external behaviour. People may behave differently when in pain (some hide it, some exaggerate it), making it difficult to tie the experience solely to observable actions, as Ryle’s view would require.

Limitation of Ryle's Philosophical Behaviourism: self-awareness

It is impossible to say how being aware of yourself as a thinking being is capable of being described in terms of behaviour or a ‘disposition to behave’ in a certain way.

Steven Pinker's View on Free Will and Reductive Materialism

CA to Descarte + SD

• No "soul" or "ghost in the machine" — only brain processes.

• Behaviour is physically determined but unpredictable due to brain complexity. (like weather: weather patterns follow physical laws, but because the system is so complicated, it’s hard to predict exactly where and when it will rain)

• Distinguishes reflexes (simple, automatic) from choices (complex, involving the frontal lobes and future prediction).

• "Free will" is complex brain activity, not a mystical force

Behaviour is physically determined by the complex brain; no mystical soul needed for "free will”

Richard Dawkins on Consciousness and Materialism

• Humans are "survival machines" for selfish genes (metaphorically selfish).

• Mental events = brain events (no non-physical mind).

• Consciousness evolved for planning and future prediction, giving survival advantages.

• Brains can override genetic drives (e.g., choosing not to reproduce).

Humans are survival machines; consciousness evolved as an advantage; mental life is purely physical.

Dawkins quote

‘Survival machines got bigger and more elaborate…Now they go by the name of genes and we are their survival machines.’  The Selfish Gene

We are our genes - genetics explains rather than theology

Dawkins: soul one and two

• Soul One: Traditional idea — a non-material essence separate from the body (rejected by Dawkins).

• Soul Two: Poetic/metaphorical — aesthetic sense of awe and wonder at the natural world.

• Soul Two does not challenge materialism; it's an emotional or artistic reaction, not a spiritual substance.

The concept of soul two is only the soul in a weak sense + is not a challenge or threat to a materialist worldview - soul in this sense is just an ability to react with awe/wonder in natural world