Descartes
SID: 1429422
Topic: How does Descartes argue that mind and body are distinct? Is he right?
“Mind versus Body”
In his sixth meditation in the Meditations of First Philosophy, Descartes argues that mind and body are distinct and that the mind is distinct from the body in a way that it can exist without the body. I will discuss how Descartes argues that the mind and body are distinct, and I will argue as to why he might not be right because this better explains our intuition that sensations and feelings on the body have a direct effect on the sensations and feelings on the mind (intuition and understanding that the mind is an extension of the brain). Descartes argues that the mind and body are distinct because he has a clear and distinct understanding …show more content…
Descartes says that there is no “corporal or extended thing [he] can think of that [he] may not in [his] thought easily divide into parts” (Descartes 65). For example, a foot or an arm can be amputated to divide a body to smaller parts without dividing the mind in any way. In this way, any corporal or physical object (like paper or glass) can be broken to smaller parts and therefore “a body, by its very nature, is always divisible” (Descartes 65). This however cannot be done with the mind. Descartes claims that the mind is utterly indivisible as even though it has faculties that allow it to will, sense, and understand, these are not “parts” of the mind as it is one and the same mind which is doing the willing, sensing, and understanding. Thus Descartes concludes that if the mind and the body were not distinct, then their nature would be both divisible and indivisible, which is not possible. Hence, they must be distinct …show more content…
There are many reasons to believe that many of his premises don’t hold truth. In Descartes’ argument based on his clear and distinct ideas that the mind is a thinking, non-extended thing and the body is an extended, non-thinking thing his premises do not hold truth. His first premise that the body is an extended, non-thinking thing is strong as by observation we see physical objects that are non-thinking. However, we cannot be certain that these objects are in truth non-thinking objects. We cannot be certain that an inanimate object truly does not have some form of a mind or thought that is not perceivable by humans. However, this argument is weak and Descartes would not be too worried about it. However, the main concern lies with his second premise that states that the mind is a thinking, non-extended thing. This premise does not hold truth if we consider the possibility that the mind is actually an extension of the brain, and that the mind would not be able o exist without a brain. The brain, being a corporeal thing shows that Descartes premise does not hold truth and that the mind is not a non-extended thing. Furthermore, as showed above, Descartes uses his belief in the power of God to prove that certain and distinct ideas must always be true (Descartes 64). He also uses his certainty about God being a non-deceiver to prove this. However, if we consider the possibility that God truly
Topic: How does Descartes argue that mind and body are distinct? Is he right?
“Mind versus Body”
In his sixth meditation in the Meditations of First Philosophy, Descartes argues that mind and body are distinct and that the mind is distinct from the body in a way that it can exist without the body. I will discuss how Descartes argues that the mind and body are distinct, and I will argue as to why he might not be right because this better explains our intuition that sensations and feelings on the body have a direct effect on the sensations and feelings on the mind (intuition and understanding that the mind is an extension of the brain). Descartes argues that the mind and body are distinct because he has a clear and distinct understanding …show more content…
Descartes says that there is no “corporal or extended thing [he] can think of that [he] may not in [his] thought easily divide into parts” (Descartes 65). For example, a foot or an arm can be amputated to divide a body to smaller parts without dividing the mind in any way. In this way, any corporal or physical object (like paper or glass) can be broken to smaller parts and therefore “a body, by its very nature, is always divisible” (Descartes 65). This however cannot be done with the mind. Descartes claims that the mind is utterly indivisible as even though it has faculties that allow it to will, sense, and understand, these are not “parts” of the mind as it is one and the same mind which is doing the willing, sensing, and understanding. Thus Descartes concludes that if the mind and the body were not distinct, then their nature would be both divisible and indivisible, which is not possible. Hence, they must be distinct …show more content…
There are many reasons to believe that many of his premises don’t hold truth. In Descartes’ argument based on his clear and distinct ideas that the mind is a thinking, non-extended thing and the body is an extended, non-thinking thing his premises do not hold truth. His first premise that the body is an extended, non-thinking thing is strong as by observation we see physical objects that are non-thinking. However, we cannot be certain that these objects are in truth non-thinking objects. We cannot be certain that an inanimate object truly does not have some form of a mind or thought that is not perceivable by humans. However, this argument is weak and Descartes would not be too worried about it. However, the main concern lies with his second premise that states that the mind is a thinking, non-extended thing. This premise does not hold truth if we consider the possibility that the mind is actually an extension of the brain, and that the mind would not be able o exist without a brain. The brain, being a corporeal thing shows that Descartes premise does not hold truth and that the mind is not a non-extended thing. Furthermore, as showed above, Descartes uses his belief in the power of God to prove that certain and distinct ideas must always be true (Descartes 64). He also uses his certainty about God being a non-deceiver to prove this. However, if we consider the possibility that God truly