Studied by 0 people
the philosophical language of soul, mind & body in the thinking of Plato & Aristotle (Plato's view of the soul as the essential & immaterial part of the human, temporarily united with the body; Aristotle's view of the soul as the form of the body, the way the body behaves & lives, cannot be separated from the body) metaphysics of consciousness - substance dualism, (mind & body are distinct substances, Descartes's proposal of material & spiritual substances as a solution to the mind/soul & body problem) - materialism (idea that mind & consciousness can be fully explained by physical/material interactions, rejection of soul as a spiritual substance) discuss: - materialist critiques of dualism - dualist responses to materialism - whether the concept of 'soul is best understood metaphorically or as a reality - idea that any discussion about the mind-body distinction is a category error
Plato: the soul as immaterial & immortal (4)
the soul is the best aspect of ourselves — allows us to know the Forms (capacity for reason — by not using this we are not living a human life)
immaterial, and exists in world of the Forms when disembodied
forgets knowledge of the forms when embodied because of focus on bodily desires
provides our lives with purpose & meaning beyond our desires — means by which we can become truly human & embark on an education that will allow us to learn (remember) the Forms
Plato: the Tripartite Soul
black horse = appetitive/emotional part of soul — basic desires of hunger, warmth, sex, etc.
white horse = spirited part of soul — more honourable desires e.g. courage, honour
charioteer = rational aspect of soul — desires truth
linked with hierarchy of the Forms:
most troublesome aspect of the soul is appetites which most closely resemble physical things of world of appearance (food, sex, popularity, wealth)
these need to be overcome & kept in control by charioteer (reason)
more abstract concepts e.g. courage, honour, justice are further removed from physical world & need less control by reason
charioteer could be understood as pure reason, being in control of things below it
Aristotle: hylomorphism
idea that all inanimate objects are made of certain materials (hyle) & each living thing has a certain form (morphe)
when applied to living beings, hyle = physical matter of living being & morphe = soul
soul provides a thing its capacities & purpose (e.g. plant made of certain matter — e.g. wood & leaves — & capacities (soul) will be to grow & reproduce)
matter & form cannot be separated
it is impossible to imagine bronze with no form whatsoever or a statue with no material
For Aristotle, there is:
A) No form without matter
B) No matter without form
term given to the idea that all objects are made of certain materials & each thing has a certain form (Aristotle)
hylomoprhism
Aristotle: the soul is not immortal
concept of hylomorphism leads to belief souls are not immortal
a body (matter/hyle) only displays its specific characteristics (morphe) when alive
a dead human body loses its capacity for thought, growth, etc. when it dies & the capacity for thought cannot exist independently from a body, therefore the capacities (soul) cannot exist independently from matter (body)
substance dualism
the theory that body & mind (consciousness/soul) exist as separate substances
bodily substance — occupies physical space
mind — has immaterial existence (does not occupy space)
substance dualists argue it is not necessary for the mind to be dependent upon the existence of a body & so can exist separately from body
the theory that body & mind (consciousness/soul) exist as separate substances
substance dualism
‘cogito ergo sum’ (Descartes)
‘I think, therefore I am’
we can deny the existence of most physical things, including our physical bodies, but we cannot deny that there is a thinking being doing the thinking
because denying is a form of thought, even though we can deny the existence of our physical bodies, we cannot deny that we are, at least, a thinking mind
the Problem of Interaction
problem for substance dualists — must offer an account of how the immaterial mind/soul could interact with a physical body
How does Gilbert Ryle argue that substance dualists are committing a category error?
they assert the mind/soul has some kind of independent existence from the body
e.g. ‘team spirit’ is the name we give to the interactions of existing physical entities (the humans who make up the team), so ‘mind’ is the name we give to certain physical interactions of physical entities (i.e. physical activity of the brain)
just because we can give a name to something (one type of category) does not mean it has an independent existence (a different type of category)
Who argues that substance dualists are committing a category error?
Gilbert Ryle
materialism
the theory that all that exists is physical matter
what we call the mind/consciousness is just the interactions of physical matter
all human capacities (rational thought, moral conscience, consciousness, etc.) can be reduced to & explained by the existence of physical matter (the physical workings of the brain)
the theory that all that exists is physical matter
materialism
the hard problem of consciousness
it seems difficult to explain how matter, which in itself is not conscious, can produce a being which is conscious
substance dualists — it is impossible for matter to produce consciousness so something immaterial must be responsible for our conscious experiences
metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality
the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality
metaphysics
which thinkers are substance dualists?
Plato, Descartes
which thinkers are materialists?
Ryle, Dawkins
how to define the word ‘soul’ in a philosophical sense
the ‘self’ — mental states & spiritual experience
Plato’s substance dualism (6)
Just as reality is divided into 2 distinct realms (ontological dualism), the human is divided into the body & the soul (substance dualism)
The soul explains the difference between living things & non-living things — anything with self-movement has a soul
The soul is not perceptible but intelligible (grasped by thought), not composed of parts (simple) & immortal, whereas bodies are mortal, composed of parts & perceptible
Soul & body are 2 separate entities — body = temporary, physical, material aspect of person; soul = immaterial, essential (being the essence of the person) aspect
Soul temporarily united with physical body (embodied) but leaves the body (becomes disembodied) at death. Undisturbed by constant bodily demands after death so it can reach its highest state
Soul must necessarily continue living — life is the essence of what a soul is (a soul is not something that has live, it is life)
link between the soul & the Analogy of the Cave (Plato)
Plato is a substance dualist so sees the bodily aspect of the ‘self’ as inferior to the soul aspect of the ‘self’
The soul is a different sort of object from the body — doesn’t depend on the existence of the body for functioning & can grasp nature of the Forms far more easily when not embodied/attached to anything physical
The soul always retains its ability to recollect what it once knew about the Forms when it was disembodied. The lives we lead are a punishment/reward for choices we made in a previous existence
Aristotle’s monistic view of the soul
body (matter) & soul (form) are inseparable
Aristotle is a monist — believes the human is made of one substance with differing capacities
believes the soul is the principle of life, but does not exist after death of the body (neither did it exist before the body existed)
the soul is the ‘form’ of the body — its definition/essence (e.g. what it is to be a human being)
living things are distinguished from non-living things by what they can do — their capabilities. These capabilities define the ‘soul’
Aristotle’s three types of soul
all living things possess a soul — possession of a soul differentiates the living from the non-living
the soul refers to the capacities the body has
three types of soul — rational, vegetative & sensitive — in a nested hierarchy (the soul at the top contains all the attributes of the types of soul below it)
matter/hyle — humans alone
form/morphe/telos — reason (rational thought)
matter/hyle — animals (and humans)
form/morphe/telos — emotion, pleasure, pain, ability to experience world (observation)
matter/hyle — plants (& animals & humans)
form/morphe/telos — reproduction, nourishment, growth
for Aristotle, humans = ‘rational animals’
the soul is what gives the matter its form, efficiency & final purpose (telos)
souls & their purposes (Aristotle)
The body of an axe is wood & metal (the material it is made from). However, the soul, were it a living thing, would be its capacity to chop. If it lost this capacity it would just be wood & metal, not an axe.
If an eye were an animal, its soul would be its capacity to see. If it is unable to see it is nothing but matter, ‘no more than the eye of a statue or painted figure’
A dead body is simply a body because it has lost its capacity to ‘do’ anything
Aristotle does not think inanimate objects actually have souls (since the possession of a soul distinguishes living things from non-living things), but he uses non-living examples to clarify what he means
What ideas about the soul are specific to Plato (5), specific to Aristotle (4) & shared by both (3)?
soul is immortal
separable from the body & is different substance (substance dualism)
can exist in a disembodied state & be reincarnated into a different body
tripartite soul (three aspects)
rational thought is the only thing which is ‘good’ for humans — emotions & biological inclinations are necessarily bad
soul is inseparable from body (hylomorphism, material monism)
never exists in a disembodied state (does not live on after body)
three types of soul
reason is good but also using observation to work out how to use our emotions to live a ‘happy life’ (eudaimonia) as physical beings — biological inclinations not necessarily bad because they are necessary aspect of what it means to be human
soul is what distinguishes the living from the non-living
give us our purpose — to use reason
provides us with the essence of what it means to be human
Plato’s ‘proofs’ of the existence of an immortal soul
The Recollection Argument — true knowledge is remembering
The Cyclical Argument — opposites rely upon one another & lead to one another
The Affinity Argument — the soul is more like the World of Forms
The Recollection Argument (Plato’s ‘proofs’ of the existence of an immortal soul)
Problems with this argument? (2)
True knowledge is remembering
if the soul in my body once existed in the world of the Forms, it has a full knowledge of the Forms
therefore, I have innate knowledge of the Forms
I can ‘remember’ (not ‘learn’) this knowledge by undergoing philosophical training in rational enquiry
e.g. by being shown simple maths such as 2+2=4, I will eventually ‘remember’ much more complex mathematical solutions
Proven by story of a young, uneducated boy with no knowledge of maths or geometry, who could be led to ‘arrive at’ knowledge which he did not know he possessed
Another example: argument we have innate knowledge of ‘equal’
Things in world which appear equal are in fact deficient in the equality they possess. We can never observe true equality via our senses
Therefore, they are not the same as true equality (the Form of ‘Equal’)
When we see the deficiency of the examples of equality, it helps us to think of/’recollect’ the Equal itself
In order to do this, we must have some prior knowledge of the Equal itself
Since this knowledge does not come from empirical observation, we must have acquired it before we were born
Therefore, our souls must have existed before we were born
Plato is not clear why the sensible world cannot provide us with a concept of equal — we can observe various things which are equal (lengths of rulers, shades of a colour, no. of things we count)
it is then not obvious that we must have an innate concept of the Form of ‘equality’, rather that we learn this concept from our observations & experiences
Even if Plato is correct, this only provides evidence that the soul existed before a person was born, not that it is immortal
The Cyclical Argument (Plato’s ‘proofs’ of the existence of an immortal soul)
Problems with this argument? (2)
Opposites rely upon one another & lead to one another
Birth & death are an eternal cycle of embodiment & disembodiment — being alive is preceded by, & precedes being dead
analogy: sleep comes after being awake & being awake comes after sleep
All things come to be from their opposite states: something that comes to be ‘larger’ must necessarily have been ‘smaller’ before
Between every pair of opposite states there are two opposite processes (e.g. ‘increase’ & ‘decrease’)
If the two opposite processes did not balance each other out, everything would eventually be in the same state (if increase did not balance out decrease, everything would keep becoming smaller & smaller)
Since ‘being alive’ & ‘being dead’ are opposite states, & ‘dying’ & ‘coming to life’ are the two opposite processes between these states, coming to life must balance out dying
Therefore, everything that dies must come back to life again
If the processes of ‘dying’ & ‘coming to life’ need to balance each other out, how does Plato account for the creation of new souls? The population has increased dramatically since Plato’s time so new souls must have been created
We know that ‘life’ does not come from ‘death’ but from ‘life’ through sexual intercourse (scientific knowledge contradicts Plato’s idea that life comes from death
Not everything has an opposite (e.g. ‘blue’)
The Affinity Argument (Plato’s ‘proofs’ of the existence of an immortal soul)
Problems with this argument? (2)
Depends on Plato’s ontological dualism:
There are two kinds of existences: (a) world of appearance (human, mortal, composite, unintelligible, always changing) & (b) world of Forms (intelligible, divine, deathless, non-composite, always the same)
The soul is more like world (b), whereas the body is more like world (a)
Therefore, supposing it has been freed of bodily influence through philosophical training, the soul is most likely to make its way to world (b) when the body dies (if the soul is polluted by bodily influence, it will likely stay bound to world (a) upon death)
Plato is begging the question — putting forward an argument whose validity requires its own conclusion to be true
to get the argument for the existence of an immortal soul going, we have to assume souls exist in the first place
what Plato should be saying it, ‘if souls existed, they would be more like the world of Forms than the world of Appearance’.
There is no evidence that an immortal soul exists — Plato recognises this & uses his metaphysical dualism as ‘evidence’ for the existence of an immortal soul
Problem with this: there is no evidence for the existence of an immaterial world of the Forms either
general strengths (4) & problems (2) with Plato’s concept of the soul
Shows how truth can be possible in an always-changing world (although Aristotle’s ‘tabula rasa’ idea provides a counter-argument)
Explains how humans are distinct from animals
Attempt at a philosophical justification for an afterlife, without using faith
Seems to describe human experience of inner conflict
The Problem of Interaction — little argument to support how the ‘immaterial soul’ interacts with & informs our ‘physical bodies’ (weakens Plato’s substance dualism significantly)
There is no need to assume the existence of a separate soul substance to explain humans’ capacity for reason — rational thought can be explained scientifically as the actions of the brain & is merely the result of evolutionary processes)
How do Plato’s Argument from Recollection & Argument from Affinity show that truth is possible?
Counter-argument?
humans are capable of discovering ‘a priori’ truths e.g. maths, geometry
these truths cannot come from this changing world
there must be some aspect of humans which is not part of the physical world but contains innate knowledge of truth (the Forms) — Plato’s soul
Aristotle — we are born ‘tabula rasa’ — even mathematical truths are learnt from experience (e.g. we learn 2+2=4 from experience & recognise that 20+20=40 without having to count since we recognise the structure)
Plato’s argument doesn’t necessarily show the only way we can obtain truth is that we have an eternal soul — casts doubt upon Plato’s theory of the existence of an immortal soul
What word does Plato use to refer to the process of ‘remembering’ the Forms?
anamnesis
How does Plato’s distinction between ‘bodily substance’ & ‘soul substance’ suggest there is something unique about the human capacity for rational thought & rational truth?
if a human were simply bodily substance, we would only fulfil our appetites (like animals) — food, sex, pleasure
this is not the case, so humans must be essentially different from all other animals. The soul accounts for this difference
strengths (4) & problems (4) with Aristotle’s concept of the soul
Removes the problem of how souls & bodies interact whilst still explaining how humans are unique in their capacity for reason
Uses observation as a starting point — easily accessible
Explains differences between humans & other animals
Provides humans with a purpose (using observations & reason to understand what a good life entails)
Does not account for how truth is possible — we will always be left with mere opinion
No possibility of an afterlife — strips away true purpose of human life from Christian perspective
There is no purpose to the function of things apart from what has helped the species evolve — materialistic understanding would argue reason is a consequence of evolution & we do not need to use reason to be fully human
Other animals can engage in reasoning — Aristotle is wrong about the distinctions between humans & other animals
the mind-body problem
a philosophical problem concerning the relationship between thought & consciousness in the human mind, & the brain as part of the physical body
how is it possible that dead matter which can only be acted upon produce beings that have a consciousness & can act for themselves?
a philosophical problem concerning the relationship between thought & consciousness in the human mind, & the brain as part of the physical body
the mind-body problem
features of the mind & consciousness (3)
private — I cannot directly experience someone else’s thoughts & nobody can directly experience my thoughts
the centre of experience — it is my conscious mind which has new experiences (emotions, understanding things, daydreaming, feelings of right and wrong, etc.)
the feeling of ‘I’ — consciousness is what makes me my ‘self’ rather than someone else. The feeling that I am a being separate from other ‘things’
two possible solutions to the mind-body problem
substance dualism
humans are composed of dead matter — body substance & a separately existing mind/soul substance. The soul/minds substance accounts for our consciousness
material monism
humans are solely composed of matter, however consciousness can emerge from matter via purely natural processes
What analogy does Descartes use to describe how philosophical arguments should be built?
building a house — if a house is on unstable foundations it is likely to collapse
in the same way, if a system of philosophy is built upon unstable assumptions it is not likely to reach an idea of truth
Descartes’s method of ‘radical scepticism’ (Cartesian Scepticism)
Descartes will set aside anything if there is a reason we can doubt it as resulting in truth
begins by saying we cannot trust sense experience — our senes play tricks on us (e.g. optical illusions, hallucinations, dreaming)
uses example of how it looks as if a spoon bends when in water
no a posteriori knowledge can serve as the foundation for truth, so we need to reject it as absolutely false
we cannot be sure the table in front of me exists or if the person sitting next to me exists (they may be illusions). We cannot even be sure our own bodies exist, as we are only aware of them through sense experience
we cannot even trust our a priori knowledge because our reasoning may be flawed/an ‘evil demon’ may be causing me to believe things to be true (more modern example would be we are in a simulation controlled by computers)
we may merely exist as brains in a machine & our ‘knowledge’ is merely an illusion with no relationship to reality
we must also discard a priori knowledge because there is some doubt to its truth
I think, therefore I am
Descartes cannot doubt that he is doubting &, as doubting is an act of thought, he can be certain he is a thinking being
because our knowledge of ourselves as thinking beings is not dependent upon the senses & the mind cannot be empirically sensed, the mind must be very different from the body — they cannot be compatible because they have incompatible properties
the existence of the mind does not depend upon the existence of the body (like Plato)
Dscartes is a substance dualist
advantages of Descartes’s substance dualism (3)
Supports our common sense understanding of who ‘I’ am
I do not think of myself as merely a body but that there is some non-material aspect to who ‘I’ am
Offers a philosophical argument for substance dualism
more persuasive than Plato’s because does not start with the assumption of dualism. Instead starts with a capacity we are all capable of — doubt
Holds out the hope of life after death
the radical difference between mind substance & body substance as well as idea that ‘I’ am a disembodied mind that doesn’t require a body to exist mean Descartes’s argument holds out hope that minds can continue to exist after death of body
Mind-body problem — offers better explanation for ‘consciousness’ than materialism can offer at the moment
how does Richard Dawkins describe humans?
nothing more than ‘survival machines’
the vehicles of genes, which are only interested in replicating themselves in order to survive into the next generation (this is a metaphor)
human beings do not have immortal souls, they are just a mixture of chemicals
Who describes humans as nothing more than ‘survival machines’?
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins: ‘soul one’ & ‘soul two’
viewpoint claiming that the soul is a distinctive immaterial substance, part of a person which could be capable of surviving death
substance dualist understanding
Dawkins — there is no evidence for this type of soul; all capacities it is supposed to explain (free will, consciousness, rational thought, capacity for moral choices, etc.) can be explained better by neuroscience & the blind natural processes of evolution
more Aristotelean understanding — someone’s personality & individuality, intellectual power, moral faculties & imagination
Dawkins accepts ‘soul two’ since it does not include notion of life after death or connection with something supernatural/divine
capacities are rooted in processes of physical body & processes nature is yet to be scientifically explained (but will be explained as science improves)
reductive materialism (Edwin Boring)
Mental states can be classified into different types (e.g. memory, pain, happiness, desire, etc.) & these correspond to activities in different parts of the brain
When neurochemical reactions happen in a particular part of the brain, we feel an emotion/make a decision/remember a fact, depending on the type of mental event that corresponds to that part of the brain
Edwin Boring asserted that mental events & physical events in the brain are identical:
it is not that when X happens in the brain we have a separate feeling/thought of Y, but that X & Y are the same
the activity in the brain is the feeling/thought/memory, etc.
the neurochemical reactions do not cause the mental events, they are the mental events
Even though we cannot yet fully explain the material roots of consciousness, once we do all of human consciousness will be fully explainable by material processes
problems with substance dualism (4)
Gilbert Ryle & the ‘ghost in the machine’ (category error)
substance dualist response — a thing is greater than merely the sum of its parts
We appear more unified than substance dualism suggests
injury is linked to emotional distress
hunger/fatigue (bodily states) can impact mental states
mental states (e.g. stress, anxiety) can make us become physically ill (physical states)
Problem of interactionism — how do minds & bodies interact?
how does my immaterial mind affect my physical body in order to let me carry out tasks?
Descartes’s solution — pineal gland
Solipsism & the ‘Problem of other Minds’
materialism solves this — if the ‘mind’ can be reduced to the functioning of the brain, we can observe that other people have brains & therefore have ‘minds’
Gilbert Ryle & the ‘ghost in the machine’ (criticism of substance dualism)
any talk of a ‘self’ or ‘soul’ existing beyond the physical body is a mistake in the way we use language (a category error)
treats the mind & body as if they are two different things of a similar logical kind when they are not in fact in the same category of existence
substance dualists see the body as simply a machine that is incapable of acting — it is somehow controlled by a ghost-like immaterial consciousness
examples Ryle uses:
visitor goes to Cambridge University, sees all the different colleges, libraries & museums and asks ‘where is the university?’
‘the university’ is not a ‘thing’ separate from the collection of individual parts but a name we give to that collection of buildings
visitor watches a cricket match & asks ‘where is the team spirit?’
the ‘team spirit’ is not a thing that exists separately from the interactions of the players but is the name given to explain how the players on the team are interacting
we are shown a person with a body, a brain, bones & a nervous system but ask ‘where is the mind?’ as if it was something separate
the ‘mind’ is not separate from the body but the name we give to certain functions a body performs (thinking, moral reasoning, the feeling of ‘I’, etc.)
error comes from a misuse of language (category error) — ‘mind’ is a shorthand way of explaining what we mean by the actions of someone’s brain
criticisms of Descartes’s substance dualism (3)
when we hurt ourselves, we actually feel the pain & its mental consequences (e.g. distress), rather than simply noticing the damage in the way we might notice a dent in a car
cannot explain how mental thoughts cause physical responses e.g. how my mental decision to go over there can result in walking or my feelings of embarrassment can cause me to blush
the ‘problem of other minds’ — if the mind is separate from the body, we can only perceive that other people have bodies & have no way of knowing whether they have minds
Antony Flew — to refer to a mind/soul/personality is to refer to the behaviour of the material, physical person, & no more — the soul/mind/personality could not survive after death since the body no longer has behaviour (it is a misuse of the term ‘mind’ to speak of it as if it were a substance)
compares concept of soul outliving the body after death with Cheshire cat in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland slowly disappearing until there was nothing left of it than its grin (a ‘grin’ is not a substance, in the same way that a ‘mind’ is not a substance)
interactionism
the theory in the philosophy of mind which holds that matter & mind, being distinct & independent, exert causal effects on one another
the theory in the philosophy of mind which holds that matter & mind, being distinct & independent, exert causal effects on one another
interactionism
Descartes’s solution to the problem of interactionism
the pineal gland — in centre of brain, has something to do with mind & body
came to this conclusion because other parts of brain are ‘double’ but we only have one pineal gland & it is central — could be the connecting point between material body of person & immaterial mind/soul
science has since discovered the pineal gland controls melatonin & is a physical, material aspect of the brain (there would still be an issue as to how a piece of matter interacts with an immaterial mind)
this explanation is not coherent
solipsism
the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist
especially relevant to the idea of the existence of other minds — how do I know other people have minds?
especially relevant to Descartes — quite specific that all he can know for certain is the existence of himself existing as a cogito (disembodied thinking mind)
materialism solves this — if the ‘mind’ can be reduced to the functioning of the brain, we can observe that other people have brains & therefore have ‘minds’
the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist
solipsism
Key ideas of materialism in relation to mind and consciousness
The experience of consciousness is produced by physical brain activity
most materialist view assume there is no part of a person which is non-physical
consciousness cannot be separated from the brain because nothing exists except matter
consciousness is produced by the physical activity of the brain
conscious experience can be reduced to the interaction of neurons & chemicals in your brain
There is no possibility that the consciousness can continue after death
because consciousness is product of brain activity, consciousness stops when brain consciousness stops
no separate ‘mind’/’consciousness’ which continues to exist when brain stops functioning
problems () and strengths () of materialism
Doesn’t fit with our common sense view of who we are
Descartes — the ‘body’ & ‘soul’/’mind’ really are different (counterargument — reductive materialism)
Swinburne — without a soul, certain capacities we observe in ourselves would be impossible (counterargument — result of evolution)
Ward — without a soul, human life would be meaningless (counterargument — you can live a happy life without belief in a soul e.g. utilitarianism, Kantian ethics)
Holds out hope of answer to mind-body problem
The simplest solution
There is some evidence that minds have their origin in physical matter (brain scans)
problem with materialism: doesn’t fit with our common sense view of who we are
materialist response?
we do not consider ourselves to be merely physical matter that acts in accordance with laws of nature, but we have free will & a consciousness
our view of ourselves as a body & a mind, and how we use language, lend themselves to the ideas of substance dualism
materialist response: our common-sense views are not good guides for what is true (would lead us to think the planet is stationary & the sun moves)
Ryle — we also cannot trust language to give us accurate view of reality because language can fool us with errors regarding what has existence
problem with materialism: the ‘body’ & ‘soul/mind’ really are different (Descartes)
materialist response?
reductive materialists cannot be right that the physical activity of the brain is just mental activity
body & mind have incompatible features — bodies have extension (length, breadth & height) & can be broken down into parts whereas ‘minds’, thoughts, emotions etc. do not have extension (are immaterial) — mind must be different from ‘body’
‘mental activity’ cannot be the consequence of ‘physical activity’ but of a separately existing mind/soul
‘emergent materialism’ — as physical things become more & more complex, new properties ‘emerge’ from them, which cannot be reduced simply to the material
the properties of the mind are an emergent property of the matter of the brain but cannot be simply reduced to the matter of the brain
Descartes is wrong to argue that just because two things have different properties they must be two separately existing things
just as the properties of water are different from the properties of oxygen & hydrogen, it is still caused by them, so mental activity is caused by & dependent upon physical activity
emergent materialism & Reductive Materialism also solve the problem of interactionism — we don’t need to account for how ‘minds’ & ‘bodies’ interact because ‘minds’ are just the same as ‘brains’ (reductive materialism) or ‘mental activity’ is the result of ‘physical activity’ (emergent materialism)
idea that as physical things become more & more complex, new properties ‘emerge’ from them, which cannot be reduced simply to the material
emergent materialism
Swinburne’s criticisms of materialism
materialist response?
Without a soul, certain capacities we observe in ourselves as existing would be impossible
logical, ordered & complex thought
free choices (possessing free will)
having moral obligations & recognising the ‘good’
cannot be the result of simply adding together atoms, which possess none of the above capacities
denies emergent materialism
because we are aware of these capacities, we must assume they arise from the existence of an immaterial & separate soul
Dawkins & Dennett — these capacities are the result of evolution
supported by scientific experiment & neuroscience, whereas Swinburne’s argument is a matter of faith
Frans De Waal — many species of monkey possess quite complex moral concepts e.g. justice & cheating (evidence for it being result of evolution)
Who argues that without a soul, certain capacities we observe in ourselves as existing would be impossible?
Swinburne
Which primatologist found that many species of monkey possess quite complex moral concepts?
Frans De Waal
Keith Ward’s criticism of materialism
materialist response?
Without a soul, human life would be ultimately meaningless
consequences of materialism are so serious it makes sense to believe in existence of a soul
morality — without a soul there is no need to make a moral distinction between one arrangement of matter over another (why should humans be treated any differently than tree, rocks or tables?)
with the existence of a soul, humans receive a special dignity (sanctity of life) which means we have responsibilities to each other above & beyond how we treat other objects
God gifts us our souls
strips down dignity & meaning from human existence & ultimately leads to nihilism — rejection of all religious & moral principles in belief that life is meaningless
moral codes eg. utilitarianism & Kantian ethics don’t depend upon existence of God for existence of morality
atheist materialists appear to live happy, meaningful lives knowing they are just physical processes in the brain — it is not impossible to create your own meaning
strengths of materialism: holds out hope of answer to mind-body problem
substance dualist response?
does appear to be some progress being made w/ regard to how matter can give rise to consciousness
substance dualism can never ‘prove’ itself to be true but materialism may
materialists have not provided a sufficient solution as to how physical matter can give rise to consciousness
will not necessarily prove itself to be true
strengths of materialism: materialism is the best explanation as it is the simplest
even if science has not found solution, it is better to assume the answer must have a materialist foundation, as the alternative raises more questions than it answers
materialism does not need explanation of how ‘bodies’ & ‘minds’ interact
if we try to give materialist account of moral conscience & freedom, scientific explanations appear to break down/make morality & freedom seem like illusions
strengths of materialism: there is at least some evidence that minds have their origin in physical matter
substance dualist response?
images of brain activity act as physical evidence that consciousness has origin in the brain
thoughts, emotions, moral responses to situations can all be observed taking place in the brain
this could be the consequence of the effect of the immaterial ‘mind’ upon the body
Note
Flashcard