philosophy - soul, mind and body

what 4 scholars are studied in soul, mind and body?

Plato, Descartes, Aristotle and Dawkins

what is metaphysics?

branch of philosophy dealing with questions about what exists and the essential nature of things that exist.

what is the soul?

vague and confusing concepts: essentially  the ‘I’ or ‘self’ the subject of physical and mental states or spiritual experiences.

what is dualism?

humans have a material body and a spiritual mind/soul; these are separate things and the mind/soul is the centre of identity.

which scholars support dualism?

Plato and Descartes

what is monism/materialism?

humans are made up of one substance; mind and body are not separable; the mind is the product of the brain which is a physical organ.

Typically monists are materialists: the only substance or form of existence is physical.

which scholars support monism/materialism?

Aristotle and Dawkins

what is the soul to religious people?

• The part capable of having a relationship with God

• Sense of moral responsibility

• Able to live in the presence of God after death

what term do philosophers use instead of the soul?

the mind

what is Plato's view of the soul closely linked to?

rationalist approach + theory of the Forms

what are humans made up of (according to Plato)?

• The body -> material, physical, changing, temporary part of the person

• The soul (psyche) -> immaterial, spiritual, unchanging + eternal essence of a person (temporarily linked to the body)

what three things is the soul?

1. a life principle animating the body;

2. the activity of reason and uses the body as an instrument to see, hear etc.

3. The essence or identity of the person, the ‘self’ or ‘I’.

what is the chariot analogy?

soul consists of 3 elements → appetite and emotion, basic needs which pull us along and motivate us (like 2 horses pulling a chariot) and reason, (the charioteer who holds the reins) who controls our needs in the pursuit of truth - release from the body and contemplation of the Form of the Good.

what is Plato's reasoning for believing in life after death and the immortality of the soul?

• Argument from the forms (AKA argument from affinity)

• Argument from the opposites

• Argument from recollection

what is the argument from the opposites?

• opposites imply each other and depend for their existence on each other.

• things are in a constant state of motion between opposites.

• therefore, life comes from death and death comes from life in an endless chain of birth, death and rebirth.

what is the argument from recollection?

dialogue ‘Meno’ a slave boy with no education is taught to solve a geometrical puzzle just through a set of questions.

• Plato thought this shows we have intuitive knowledge attained by souls when lived in the world of perfect Forms

what are the strengths of Plato’s view of the soul?

- Reflects how we experience ourselves as more than our bodies + don't equate personal identity just with memories/thoughts

- Uses reason to conclude his arguments, not the senses (which can distort true experience)

- His views about the relationship between the body + the soul correspond with many religious traditions

- Supported by deja vu + out of body experiences/NDEs

what are the problems with Plato’s view of the soul?

• Opposites help understand what things are like NOT that they arise from each other/are cyclical -> if death is defined as the cessation of life then no life will come from it

• Depends on us accepting his theory of the Forms and rationalist approach to reality and true knowledge.

  No empirical evidence for Realm of Forms nor for spiritual soul; both are an assumption

• Unclear explanation of what the soul is + conflicting descriptions in different dialogues

• Vague moral implications -> what can be the role of morality in an afterlife of immutable souls who are presumably all identical? Seems to promote an amoral attitude.

• •Problem of interaction: how can a non-physical soul interact with a physical body/brain if they are completely incompatible substances?

  (How can a ghost with non-physical feet apply pressure to physical pedals). Plato never addresses this central issue (but Descartes does).

why does Geach oppose Plato’s view of the soul?

Tripartite view of the soul does not match our experience of ourselves as a single, unified personality. If the soul is pure reason how can it also be the ‘I’ which has developed over time through sense experience?

If only reason survives without a body, and feelings, isn’t that an abstraction which lacks essential parts which make up the ‘self’ or ‘I’.

why does Dawkins oppose Plato’s view of the soul?

Intuitive knowledge can be explained by ‘memes’, cultural ideas that ‘stick’ to pathways of our brain and passed down by evolution

who supports substance dualism?

Descartes

what is Descartes method?

extreme scepticism, doubting everything he knows to find out if anything can be known with certainty.

• Rejects anything he knows if there is any doubt of their certain truth -> establish which beliefs have endurance + stability

• Notes how senses can be mistaken

• Leads to a natural division between the body + the soul

what does Descartes say about the senses and certainty?

• The whole material world may be illusionary/a dream

• The only knowledge he cannot doubt is that he is thinking sceptically (the cogito)

• We have a mind (but no conclusion about whether we have a body)

why does Descartes know he has a mind?

•He then realises that the only certain piece of knowledge he could not possibly doubt is that he was thinking sceptically- the ‘cogito’- I think therefore I am.

•So he knew for certain he had a mind but not that he had a body.

→I think therefore I am (no experience if we weren't thinking -> as long as we think, we exist)

what did Descartes method lead him to conclude about the mind and body?

Privilege the mental over the (doubtable) material -> mind + body are different substances

why can Descartes method be criticised?

Prioritises the mind/mental over the body (empiricism + physical experience)

what is Leibniz’s law?

for two substances to the same, they must have the same properties.

how did Leibniz’s law lead Descartes to conclude that the mind and body are separate substances?

Body and mind cannot be the same because they have different properties.

what does Descartes say the body is?

material and performs physical activities observable to all. It is describable in terms of extension- space, time, depth, etc- and it is divisible – consists of many parts

what does Descartes say the mind is?

has no place in the spatio-temporal world; it is the place of thought, feelings and sensations of everything that cannot be physically located.

• It is known only by the person experiencing it and  indivisible - a simple thinking thing.

what is an essential property of a physical substance?

Extension

what can physical substances be because they have extension?

Divided

why is it possible for the mind to be separate from the body and, therefore, be non-identical?

the mind is non-extended so it is possible to conceive of it without any extended thing (e.g imagine being an immaterial ghost walking through walls)

what did Descartes say about divisibility?

"The body by nature is divisible, but the mind is not"

how does Descartes describe the soul and the body in Meditation VI?

Soul as the pilot of the body + the body is a sort of mechanism

can the mind and body interact with each other?

Yes

how can the mind and the body interact with each other?

the pineal gland

what is the pineal gland?

- Small gland located at the centre of the brain, in between hemispheres
- Control centre from which the soul moves the limbs
- Produced melatonin (hormone regulating)

why does Descartes argue interaction occurs in the pineal gland?

- It is a singularity + indivisible

- Everything else in the body comes in pairs (e.g eyes, ears, hemispheres)

what are the strengths of Descartes' substance dualism?

• Based on reason (not empiricism where senses may not always be trusted) -> lead to more logical certainties (however this moves from what we know to an area we know nothing about)

• Solves Plato's issue of interaction between the soul + the body -> they have an intersection (to an extent)

what are the problems with Descartes substance dualism?

• The argument from doubt is not convincing; may be our thoughts deceive us. Norman Malcolm uses Descartes's methodology against him: I can doubt that I am a being whose essential nature is thought and therefore I am not a being whose essential nature is thought.

• Just because our language distinguishes between our body and mind, does not mean they are separate. Descartes has done nothing to demonstrate that the mind is a substance; he has merely asserted it and given no empirical evidence.

• Does not solve the problem of interaction. The pineal gland is still physical and Descartes does not explain how exactly the mental can affect the physical. Also: not all things come in two - we have one tongue as a sense organ

• Ockham’s Razor- philosophical principle that you should not multiply entities beyond necessity and should generally take the simplest explanation. Dualism suggests there are 2 aspects to us and one of these is beyond empirical investigation. Materialism suggests there is one substance which can be empirically examined - simplest explanation

why does Ryle criticise Descartes?

Category error: Gilbert Ryle argues that the belief that there is a ‘ghost in the machine’, that there is a separate soul, is a mistake in the use of language; a category mistake.

• Illustrates with example: foreigner comes to Oxford university is shown colleges, libraries and playing fields etc and then say, “But where is the university?”

The error of applying a concept from one category to something that belongs to a different category. Descartes treated the mind as a thing, a substance, like the body, and then concluded that it must be an immaterial substance because it's not physical. Ryle argued that this is a category mistake because the mind is not a thing in the same sense as a physical object; it's more accurately understood as a collection of abilities, dispositions, and behaviors.

why does Dawkins criticise Descartes?

.belief in a soul is non-sensical and that everything can be explained in terms of physical processes.

Thoughts are caused by physical, electrical activity in the brain.

• Supported by neuroscience which can locate parts of the brain responsible for language, memory, emotion.

• Also shows how states of consciousness are affected by brain chemistry- e.g. depression and schizophrenia can be treated by medication/drugs.

what do Artistotles beliefs about the soul reflect?

Empirical approach to reality + the 4 causes

what is the soul included in (according to Aristotle)?

The matter + structure of the body -> essential essence of the body

what is the body (in terms of the 4 causes)?

The material cause (bones, muscle etc)

what is the soul (in terms of the 4 causes)?

The formal cause -> capabilities + characteristics to be what it is meant to (animates the body)

how is the soul technically the efficient cause?

Animates the body + gives it life/actualises its potential

what is the final cause?

eudaimonia

what souls do plants have?

vegetative souls- capability to feed themselves.

what souls do animals have?

perceptive souls- can interact with the world; also distinguish pain and pleasure, sexual desires; able to move.

what souls do humans have?

intellectual souls- can reason; distinguish right from wrong; have powers of memory and reflection.

• This enables humans to fulfil their purpose and reach eudaimonia (final cause).

what did Aristotle believe we had?

Body-soul unity

what is body-soul unity?

the soul cannot be separated from the body -> no life after death (the soul is one feature of the whole person)

what example does Aristotle use to demonstrate body-soul unity?

wax with a stamp in it: the shape made by the stamp  is inseparable from the wax, just as the soul is inseparable from the body.

why is Aristotle’s view soft monism?

He does not reduce the soul to physical processes- since matter needs the soul to animate it.

But Aristotle’s dualism is not the complete separation of different substances - since the soul is the capacities that the body has to do what it is meant to do.

what does matter need?

The soul to animate it

why is Aristotle's view soft materialism?

the soul is the capacities the body has to do what it is meant to -> not a complete separation

why does Swinburne support Descartes argument?

The fact that the body and soul are divided is a fundamental truth and that the soul can be divided after death

• Because the soil is unique

Our mental is different to physical because they have different properties – supports Leibniz's law

how does the problem of interaction discredit Descartes argument?

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia argued that only physical things can interact with other physical things - when one thing pushes against another.

Therefore, if the mind is non-physical it cannot interact with physical things. However, the mental can cause the physical e.g I want to get an orange so I reach over and grab it.

Counter-defense:

no evidence or argument given in support of Descartes’ claim - he thought only humans had a pineal gland however recent scientific discoveries prove this is false. 

Descartes is says where he thinks the mind and body interact, but doesn’t explain how they interact. 

why does the problem of interaction not discredit Descartes argument?

no evidence or argument given in support of Descartes’ claim - he thought only humans had a pineal gland however recent scientific discoveries prove this is false. 

Descartes is says where he thinks the mind and body interact, but doesn’t explain how they interact. 

Descartes responded to the interaction problem by suggesting that the mind and body interact at the pineal gland – in the middle of the brain.

• Third eye

The only singularity in the body and is located within the two hemispheres of the brain

why does Hick reject Descartes argument?

‘My soul is not me' - we are bodies but our bodies also have a spiritual aspect as there is no mind without matter.

In order to be a person is to be a thinking, material thing and the mental depends on the body and is more than a behavioral action to stimuli. Hick is opposed to any approach which assumes we shouldn't fear dying.

why does Anscombe reject Descartes argument?

Considers the phenomenon of pointing – if I point at something, than the action of the body is the whole of its meaning whereas if I point at a piece on the chessboard than the bodily action is a gesture but the meaning of the gesture cannot be figured out -> meaning and significance cannot be deduced from physical descriptions of the actions.

• Description of the bodily action may explain how the body is working but not why as it does not explain the action – we still need a body to do the pointing.

We need to have a description of the thought and the body to perform the action e.g. a disembodied soul could not point, it is the body that points

why did Francis Bacon criticise Aristotle’s argument?

was called the father of empiricism for establishing the modern scientific method → claimed that formal causation is a metaphysical matter that was beyond empirical study.

• He gave the illustration of the ‘whiteness’ of snow + explained how science could investigate how snow results from air and water - only tells us about its efficient cause, not its colour, the form of ‘whiteness’, which is beyond scientific investigation.

Modern science rejects formal causation, arguing that we have no reason to think it exists at all - the idea that colour is a ‘formal cause’ of an object is now much better understood to be a matter of the activity of particles like atoms and photons = what Aristotle thought of as ‘form’ actually reduces to material and efficient causation.

however why can Francis Bacon’s criticism of Aristotle be criticised?

• Science cannot explain how consciousness/reason reduces to brain processes, however. The brain is complicated and processes like reason and consciousness are not understood - modern science cannot yet justifiably dismiss Aristotelian soul & form as the explanation of reason.

however, there is scientific evidence at least linking the brain to reason, since if the brain is damaged then reason and other mental faculties can be damaged too → it’s more reasonable to think that mental faculties like reason are reducible to the material causation of brain processes rather than requiring Aristotelian form since there is no evidence for that.

why does Dawkins believe in reductive materialism?

• the only substance that exists is material.

• everything can be reduced to statements about physical processes, mental states (memories, feelings, desires etc) correspond to activities in different parts of the brain and behaviour of brain cells, neurons and electrical activity.

• these do not just cause mental events but are the mental events.

what empirical evidence is Dawkins’s theory supported by?

Supported by empirical evidence: neuroscience and evolution.

what is soul 1?

separate substance of traditional thought which Dawkins rejects due to a lack of empirical evidence – disagrees with Aristotle and Plato

why does Dawkins reject soul 1?

beliefs in immortality of soul are based on wish-fulfilment and lack of courage of those who fear death. Individual cannot survive brain death- other than in memories of others or genes passed on to offspring.

what is soul 2?

 intellectual and spiritual power, emotion and feelings, individuality, personality, sense of identity, higher development of moral faculties, feeling and imagination – how we talk about those things, some brain activity is imagination, doesn't exist but symbolic/metaphorical activity in the body.

why does Dawkins reject a disembodied soul?

• Dawkins rejects Plato and Descartes ideas of a disembodied soul – finds no empirical evidence as science points to us being material beings made of DNA

However, is interested in the idea of the conscious and argues that science and DNA should be able to explain this.

why does Dawkins not believe in the immortality of the soul?

Dawkins assumes that there is no part of a person that is non-physical – consciousness cannot be separated from the brain and nothing exists other than matter.

• Once the brain has died consciousness will also end

Dawkins argues that beliefs in the immortality of the soul is based on wish-fulfillment for people who lack courage and fear death.

 

what does Dawkins believe humans are?

‘survival machines- robot vehicles’ used by genes and memes (units of cultural inheritance) which are programmed to replicate themselves in order to survive into the next generation

what does Dawkins argue human moral choices show?

•reflect kinship altruism (caring for and protecting one’s own genetic group) observable also in other mammals.

also includes non-reciprocal altruism: help strangers, give to charities etc. behaviours from which we do not benefit and which seem to transcend selfish survival.

He calls it ‘the lust to be nice’.

what does Dawkins argue is rooted in the body?

Evolutionary process and human consciousness are complex, awe-inspiring and yet to be fully explained by science

what does Dawkins argue have an evolutionary advantage?

•Consciousness, self awareness and individuality - are an ‘illusion’ created by our genes which group together in a body and ‘work together’ as a unit to replicate in the most effective way.

why does Chalmers reject Dawkins’s argument?

easy problem of consciousness - figuring out which brain process is responsible for which mental process e.g. memory

hard problem of consciousness - what brain process is responsible for consciousness

Chalmers illustrates neuroscience research has begun to solve easy problems of consciousness but has made no progress in solving the hard problems - argues that due to the lack of progress in solving the hard problem this suggests that explaining consciousness needs new discoveries  which are different to our current understanding.

Chalmers argues this could be dualist mental property or a physicalist material property.

 

what is a defence of Dawkins argument from Chalmers?

There are many things science cannot currently make progress on - doesn’t give us grounds for supposing something non-physical might exist. We still have no evidence that anything non-physical exists.

the brain is so complicated that it’s no surprise that no progress has been made on the hard problem of consciousness - cannot be evidence for the possibility of science not being able to understand it because of it being a non-physical thing

since we know that there is so much about the physical structure of the brain that we don’t understand, arguably that should be a case for expecting the explanation of consciousness to be found once we gain more scientific understanding of the physical brain.

what is behaviourism?

B.F Skinner believed that human thoughts are simply learned behaviours, the same way animals learn behaviours.

he says the idea that a mental state separate from the body in any capacity is a radial misunderstanding. this is widely criticised as reductionist.

why does Dennett criticise behaviourism?

argues that Skinner over-simplifies human consciousness; an animal consciousness is not the same as that of a human.

you do not read a book as a learned response - you have an explanation for it, such as to learn, orto enjoy the writing of the author

skinner misses this point. if a desire was just a desire, he would be right. but it is not. someone would give over a wallet when being robbed, but not if they knew the gun was empty, or if there were police everywhere. if we did, we would have no dignity or freedom, like animals. but we do not.

how does Flew criticise dualism?

is nonsensical, describing the mind/soul as a substance is a misuse of the term.

what does Locke say about dualism?

isn’t just the body that makes up an individual. There is something more. We understand the idea of waking up in someone else’s body, but keeping our mind.

what does Ward state about the soul?

Without belief in the soul, morality becomes a personal choice. Without a soul, humanity lacks a sense of final purpose.

how does the example of the axe demonstrate the soul?

If an axe were a living thing, then its body would be made out of wood and mental. If the soul would be the thing that made it an axe e.g. to chop.

what is the real distinction argument?

Have a clear + distinct idea of myself and have a distinct idea of the body – an extended non-thinking thing. – argument to know soul and body is separate

Certain he is distinct from the body

Things are divided – can have seperation

what does ‘Res Cogitans’ and ‘Res Extensa’ mean?

the mind and the body

What does ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ mean?

I think therefore I am