Aristotle-vs-Descartes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Aristotle-vs-Descartes PDF

Description

Prescribed title:

Aristotle vs. Descartes. Suppose Aristotle was asked to comment on Descartes’s view on the relation between mind and body. In what way could Aristotle criticize the Cartesian view? Make use of the concepts Aristotle uses in order to describe body and soul, and make clear why they – from an Aristotelian point of view - are superior. Aliénor Labes Word count in essay: 2963 Footnotes: 182 Total word count: 3145

1

Introduction Within this essay the word mind and body is used to describe the Cartesian view and soul and body is used to explain Aristotelian views. I will present, and compare the two relations before answering my essay question. Aristotle and Descartes use complex justifications when they are clarifying their beliefs. Without having a clear understanding of Aristotle’s definition of the word soul, or Descartes’s definition of the word mind, the question is complex to answer. Once the difference is established, I will continue by arguing that from an Aristotelian point of view, the concepts Aristotle uses are superior. I will do this by showing that the Aristotle’s concepts answer the following questions in a more understandable and applicable way while the Cartesian views does not: •

“How does a nonphysical mind affect a physical body?”

•

“If the mind is not located in space, how come people’s mind change depending on what you do to their physical brains?”

Aristotle could ask Descartes these questions in order to criticize the Cartesian view. They prove that from an Aristotelian point of view, the soul and body concepts of Aristotle are superior to the Cartesian view of the mind and body which is the aim of this essay.

Aristotelian concepts of the soul and body In the following sections, I will introduce Aristotle’s concept of the soul and body. I will start with a short but detailed explanation of how Aristotle concluded that body is matter and that soul is something which makes matter become a specific body. I will then end with Aristotle’s definition of the soul as it is his search of this definition which lead to his concept of the soul and body.

In his psychology, Aristotle wants to answer the question “What is soul?1”. When inquiring about this soul, refuses to base his inquiry on previous definitions, because he wants to work on the question fully independently, starting from zero.

1

(Aristotle, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Science. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil in English. 2015, page 67) 2

“…let us now dismiss them and make as it were a completely new fresh start, endeavouring to give a precise answer to the question, What is soul? i.e. to formulate the most general possible definition of it.”

2

I will now explain how Aristotle derives his idea of the soul from the general idea of existing things in general.

Because Aristotle wants a single definition of the soul, he wants a universal definition. He thus decides to think very broadly and focuses on things in general. Aristotle recognizes that all things have substance. As he does this, Aristotle uses his matter/form distinction from his metaphysics where matter as what gives an object the potential to be a specific object, while form is defined as what makes an object a specific object (actuality)3. For example, the matter of a red chair is the colour red, and the form is the shape of the chair. I will present how Aristotle links his metaphysics to physical bodies, and how he uses this link to the soul.

When Aristotle observes physical bodies, he identifies two types; the ones that have some life in them (self nutrition and growth4), and those who do not have some life in them. Aristotle focuses on the living bodies as they have matter (potential) and form (actuality), while the bodies without life only have potential. He, then uses his matter/form distinction to describe the living body; the matter of the living body is the body and the form of the living body is life (motion). Aristotle then concludes that the living body cannot be the soul: “it is impossible for motion to belong to the soul5”. Aristotle does not explain his thought process any further. However, Aristotle recognizes that moving things have souls. I will show how Aristotle concludes that there must be more than one definition of the soul.

After affirming that living bodies have souls, Aristotle describes bodies as matter and the soul as form6. Aristotle states that the soul is what animates the body and when a body is given a soul, it can be involved in life. Different bodies are involved in the world in different ways so

2

(Aristotle, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Science. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil in English. 2015, page 67) 3 (Aristotle, Metaphysics, book I 350 BC, page 6) 4 (Aristotle, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Science. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil in English. 2015, page 69.) 5 (Aristotle, Aristotle's De anima 2007, page 153) 6 (Aristotle, Aristotle's De anima 2007, page 147) 3

they must have different souls. After observing that there are different souls, Aristotle establishes that a single definition for the soul is impossible to find; there are different souls so there must be different definitions of the soul. I will now explain how Aristotle sections different definitions of the soul.

Aristotle is confident that there must be more than one definition of the soul however, he recognizes that some common characteristics about the soul could be established. He consequently arranges the souls into three categories; the nutritive, sensitive, and rational soul. Each soul is given to different bodies as they have different principles of life. The nutritive soul is assigned to bodies which require growth and nutrition only7. The sensitive soul is found in bodies which requires perception and locomotion8. Finally, the rational soul is given to bodies that require brainpower9. Because all souls are represented through the body, when the body dies, so does the soul.

Aristotle’s psychology recognises that plants, animals and humans have souls. Hence, he believes that all living things have a soul. With his detailed process he is likely to come up with a commonly applicable definition, which he does.

Aristotle’s definitions of the souls: •

The soul is what gives a body shape and life.

•

There are three degrees of soul: nutritive, sensitive and rational soul

•

The soul is represented through the body and when the body dies, so does the soul.

The Cartesian view on the relation between the mind and body In the following sections, I will introduce Descartes’s view of the mind and body. I will start by introducing Descartes’s meditation I and II. I will follow with explanation of how Descartes concluded that mind and body are separate and that the mind can exist without the body. I will then end with Descartes’s views of the mind.

7

(Aristotle, Aristotle's De anima 2007, page 151) (Aristotle, Aristotle's De anima 2007, page 152) 9 (Aristotle, Aristotle's De anima 2007, page 152) 8

4

In his first meditation, Rene Descartes justifies that he can doubt the beliefs he has developed, as his believes have sometimes deceived him. He is convinced that doubting is the only way to reason as we can never be certain about anything. He is also sure that because knowledge requires certainty, and that certainty is impossible, we can therefore have no knowledge. In conclusion, Descartes says we can only be certain about something if it is impossible to doubt it. Hence, if something comes to be so clearly and so distinctly that is is impossible to doubt it, it must be true10. In the following section I will explain how Descartes checks is something can or cannot be true.

In order to test if something is true or untrue, Descartes suggests arguments which challenges the existence of consciousness (perception), God and the physical world. I will go over his arguments. In his argument for consciousness, he compares his day to day perceptions to the perceptions he has when dreaming. Descartes states that there is no certain way to distinguish the perceptions of our awaking moments to the perceptions of our dreams. He therefore concludes that he may be dreaming at the moment and thus, everything he sees is false11. In his argument for God, he explains that because he has a clear idea of a percect being, God must exist. Hence, only God could plant this clear idea into our minds therefore he exists12. In his argument for the physical world, Descartes identifies two fundamentally different substances in the universe; physical and mental. Then physical things, which are extended in space, he calls res extensa. The mental, which are not extended in space, he calls res cogitans. Bodies are made of res extensa, minds are made of res cogitans and the two are separated. These arguments give Descartes reasons to doubt his beliefs, which then makes him believe that nothing in the world can be certain.

10

(Descartes, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Sciences. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil. in English. 2015, page 87-88) 11 (Descartes, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Sciences. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil. in English. 2015, page 88) 12 (Descartes, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Sciences. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil. in English. 2015, page 89) 5

In his second meditation, Descartes re-states that if everything he perceves is false, he is being deceived, hence, nothing can be certain. However, to recognizes he is deceived, he needs to think. To think, he needs to exist, hence his famous quote: “I think therefore I am13.” Descartes finally finds something which is true; thinking. I will now explain how Descartes concludes that the mind and body are separated based on that thinking is the only truth. Back in his first meditation, Descartes established that bodies are made of res extensa, minds are made of res cogitans and the two are separate. When Descartes makes references to the body, his definition is complex as it is anything extended in space which can perceive either by touch, sight, hearing, taste or smell14. When Descartes mentions the mind, he identifies it as something that controls the brain. He sees the thinking mind, however, as the only truth. In other words, Descartes views the mind and the body as two separate things. The body is not certain but the thinking mind is. Because the body is extended in space and the mind is not, the mind can exist independently of the body and is more easy to know than the body. When the body dies, the mind remains since. I will give an example to illustrate Descartes’s conclusion; a pen in water. When half a pen is putted into water vertically, the section which is under water seems to be bent (See picture A15).

Picture A The pen (body) can therefore not be trusted because it appears to have changed form during a process which should not have changed its form. However, the fact that we are thinking about

13

(Descartes, Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Sciences. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil. in English. 2015, page 94) 14 (Descartes 1996, page 68) 15 (Dendane 2015) 6

the pen can be trusted because the idea of the pen can only be put into our mind if we are thinking about it.

Descartes’s idea(s) of the mind: •

The human mind is a thinking mind

•

Thinking is the only truth

•

The mind is not extended in space

•

The mind is separate from the body

Aristotelian VS Cartesian In this section I will established the difference between the Aristotelian concept of the soul and the The Cartesian view of the mind.

The Aristotelian concept of the soul is that it is what gives a body shape and life. A body acts and feels because it it given expressions from the soul. The soul is represented through the body and when the body dies, so does the soul. For Descartes, he mind is entirely distinct from the body. It exists independently of the body and is more easy to know than the body. When the body dies, the mind remains.

The Cartesian argument for the relation between the mind and body simply assumes that everything is false except for the mind. The arguments of consciousness (perception), God and the physical are not very convincing as they arise many questions. Next, I will present how Aristotle could criticize the Cartesian view.

If Aristotle could criticize Descartes If Aristotle could criticize the Cartesian view, he would ask questions which challenge the Cartesian view:

•

“How does a nonphysical mind affect a physical body?”

Two bodies are separated by definition because they inhabit different bits of space, and the mind seems to go where a body goes. But if the mind doesn’t have a location in space, this mind is not more in my body than it is in yours. The Cartesian view of the mind and body 7

thus assume that my mind can be yours just as much as it can be mine. This idea is absurd as we know bodies do not share minds. If bodies did share minds, everybody would be able to read other people’s minds, which they do not.

For example, I am handed a cigarette. My body perceives the cigarette (its colour, shape, texture) but my mind thinks about the cigarette (smocking can kill, destroy your teeth, is addicting). If the mind refuses the cigarette, how come the body refuses it as well? Why is it that when the mind sais no, the body obeys the mind and does not take in hand the cigarette? And if the mind is not more in my body than it is in yours, how come you do not refuse the cigarette while I accept it? A valid argument to this would be that the body will not listen to the mind because of physical attraction. However, if the body acts against the mind, the mind will be conscious that the body is doing something wrong and the body will feel guilt. For example, cigarette addicts know they are addicted and should stop smocking. However, their addiction is stronger than their mental will, and thus continue to smock knowing they should not. There is therefore a connection between the mind and the physical body. Descartes does not recognise this connection.

The Aristotelian concept does not see the soul and body as two separate things. According to Aristotle the soul does have a location in space as it is part of the body. The soul cannot be shared as it can only be part of a single body since it is in the same location in space as the body it occupies. Because the soul is part of the body, it affects the physical body. In the example of the cigarette, Aristotle would simply explain the connection with his concept of the soul and body that were explained earlier.

•

If the mind is not located in space, how come people’s mind change depending on what you do to their physical brains?

I know if a physical brain is damaged, so is the mind. For example, if a medial temporal lobe is damaged, the mind will struggle with memory. According to Descartes, the physical brain and the mind are two separate things and only the thinking mind can be trusted. However, if the mind struggles with memory, something must have happened. In this scenario, Descartes does not view the brain damage as the issue. He only recognizes that the mind has memory

8

deprivation. This makes no sense as something must have caused the mind to have complications with memory.

The Cartesian view of the mind and body makes it difficult to explain how the thinking mind functions. It completely doubts the existence of the physical body, making the thinking mind an independent feature which functions on its own. But how come when the physical brain is damaged, so is the mind? The Cartesian view can only explain this using spiritual explanations which have a weak ground of evidence and support. It views the world as physical (body) and mental (mind). Because these are not the same, the two are separated and the mind can therefore function without the body. This is the only argument Descartes offers to explain his view. It is a relatively simple explanation for such a complex idea. His argument is thus not convincing or reliable.

The Aristotelian concept, however, makes the connection between the mind (soul) and body. The soul is represented through the body, hence if the body is damages, so will the soul. This gives a simple, understandable, and hence, convincing explanation.

Conclusion Aristotle’s concepts are more like the ones we understand. We know that our mind/soul affects our body because it is part of us. We know our mind changes depending on what is done to our physical brains because they are related to each other. The process behind the concepts is detailed and thought through. Aristotle firstly derives his idea of the soul from the general idea of existing things in general, then links his matter/form distinction to physical bodies and uses this link to the soul. Finally, he concludes that there must be more than one definition of the soul as bodies differ from one another. Aristotle’s process is satisfying and suits our understanding.

Cartesian views of the mind and body calls to spiritual explanations which is harder to accept. The process behind his view is not well justified. Descartes is firstly convinced that doubting is the only way to reason as we can never be certain about anything. This is a dramatic thought and yet, no further clarification is given. Descartes then suggests arguments which challenges the existence of consciousness (perception), God and the physical world. From

9

these arguments, he states that everything he sees, including the body, is false and that the only truth is thinking. Again, these are explanations are too vague and do not fully explain why they are enough to support such an idea. Therefore, from an Aristotelian point of view, the Aristotelian concepts of the soul and body are superior to the Cartesian views of the mind and body.

10

Bi Bibliografy bliografy Alanen, Lilli. 1982. Studies in Cartesian Epistemology And Philosphy Of Mind. Redigert av Ilkka Niiniluoto. Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Findland . Aquinas, Thomas. 1999. A Commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Oversatt av Robert Pasnau. Ernst Cassirer Publications Fund. Aristotle. 2007. Aristotle's De anima. Redigert av Ronald Polansky. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. —. 2015. Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Science. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil in English. . Oslo: University of Oslo . —. 350 BC. Metaphysics, book I. Oversatt av R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye. 2001. Dendane, Dr. Abdelkader. 2015. Refraction of Light Rays, Examples and Solutions. 26 September . Funnet March 13, 2016. http://www.problemsphysics.com/optics/refraction.html. Descartes, Rene. 2015. Ex.Phil. History of Philosophy and Sciences. A Selection of Basic Texts for Ex.Phil. in English. . Oslo : Universitetet i Oslo . —. 1996. Meditations on First Philosophy . Redigert av John Cottingham. Cambridge University Press . Lloyd, G.E.R. 1968. Aristotle: The Growth And Structure Of His Thought. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Prior, Jim. 2014. Central Problems in Philosophy. 24 September. Funnet March 13, 2016. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/intro/notes/meditation2.html. Ross, Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. 1934. The philosophycal Works of Descartes . New York: Dover Publications. Weiner, Edmund. 1884. Oxford English Dictionary . Redigert av John Simpson. Oxford University Press .

11...