Descartes on Dualism

Stephen Law

Descartes on dualism

Descartes is of course a dualist. But what is dualism? Students often muff this. They say something like Dualism is the view that mind and body are different. In fact the key term to use here is substance. A substance is something that is not dependent upon any other thing for its existence.

Distinct substances

Being substances means each can exist on its own, without the other. So substance dualism entails that minds can exist on their own: disembodied. Body
Oh! my mind has floated off from my body!

Mind

An Argument for Dualism

Descartes is often portrayed as offering an argument for Dualism called the THE ARGUMENT FROM DOUBT. Heres a first example of such an argument

FIRST ARGUMENT FROM DOUBT I dont doubt I exist I do doubt my body exists Therefore, I am not identical with my body This argument is an application of Leibnizs law: If objects are identical, they share all the same properties (so, if they dont share all the same properties, they are not identical).

Leibnizs Law

We regularly use this law to show that things are not identical. Suppose you are an explorer and you discover a mountain

Leibnizs law

Later you discover another mountain. Only you are not sure if it is a new mountain. Maybe its just the first mountain seen from a different angle? How might you show that the mountains are not identical?

Leibnizs law

Find a property one mountain has but not the other. For example, if you show that mountain 1 is 10K feet high and mountain 2 is not 10K feet high, you can then apply Leibnizs law like so:

Mountain 1 is 10K feet high Mountain 2 is not 10K feet high

Therefore Mountain 1 is not identical with mountain 2. This argument is COGENT!

Leibnizs law

Our first argument from doubt has the same form. It points out that I and my body differ in our properties: one has the property of being something I doubt exists whereas the other does not. The argument concludes that I am not identical with my body.

Refuting the argument from doubt - masked man fallacy

Suppose I see a masked man robbing a bank.

Masked man fallacy (cont.)

Later, my father is accused. Can I prove his innocence like so?

I dont doubt the masked man robbed them bank I do doubt my father robbed the bank Therefore the masked man is not identical with my father

Masked man fallacy (cont.)

The property of being someone I doubt robbed the bank is not a property to which Leibnizs law applies. True, my father has this property and the robber doesnt. But that doesnt entail that my father is not the asked man. Leibnizs law does not apply to properties involving someones attitude towards a thing (liking, hating, believing, hoping, etc.)

Masked man fallacy

This argument from doubt also seems to commit the fallacy: I dont doubt I exist I doubt my body exists Therefore I am not identical with my body The property of being something I doubt exists is a property involving my attitude towards something.

A second argument from doubt

What about this argument from doubt:

I CANNOT doubt I exist I CAN doubt my body exists Therefore: I am not identical with my body

Does this argument far better?

The second argument refuted

Define wibble: whoever is actually Berts favourite person. I CANNOT doubt I am in pain I CAN doubt wibble is in pain Therefore I am not wibble. But I could still be wibble. So it seems what I can or cannot doubt also isnt a property to which Leibnizs law applies.

Two arguments from doubt

I dont doubt I exist I doubt my body exists Therefore I am not my body

I CANNOT doubt I exist I CAN doubt my body exists Therefore I am not my body

Summary: Neither argument is valid.

Descartes divisibility argument

My mind is indivisible My body (brain) is divisible Therefore: I am not my body (brain)

This is also an application of Leibnizs law. Is this argument valid? (reminder - valid means: necessarily: if the premises are true, so is the conclusion).

Descartes divisibility argument

My mind is indivisible My body (brain) is divisible Therefore: I am not my body (brain)

Yes it is valid! But that does not mean its a good argument. What might be wrong with it?

Descartes divisibility argument

My mind is indivisible My body (brain) is divisible Therefore: I am not my body (brain)

The first premise may be questionbegging. Your mind might not seem divisible. But if its your brain, it is!

Descartes divisibility argument

The Corpus Callosum case.

This illustrates that while we might not think our minds are divisible, they are!

Two different failings

The divisibility argument is VALID but has a dubious premise. The two arguments from doubt are INVALID (even if their premises are true). So the arguments all fail, but for different reasons.

Descartes legacy

Descartes has been profoundly influential. However, examined more closely, his arguments seem fallacious). That is not to say there arent better arguments for dualism. Cartesian substance dualism is no longer very popular. However, property dualism remains fairly popular among some philosophers (e.g. David Chalmers).