Compare And Contrast Aristotle And Descartes

In my essay, I am going to argue for Descartes mind-body dualism against Darwin’s monism. I believe that the mind and body are two separate entities and that human life is not simply the result random mutations that took place throughout the past two billion years or so. I am not going to attempt to disprove science; I can’t do that. I am however, going to try to give specific examples on the origin of existence and the nature of reality.

Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the

Like many people today, Descartes believed that the mind and soul were separate. He believed that the mind’s purpose was only for “thinking” and “non-extended” things. While, the body is an extension; non-thinking. Descartes thought that the mind and body were different substances, thus they

This essay attempts to explain Descartes’ epistemology of his knowledge, his “Cogito, Ergo Sum” concept (found in the Meditations), and why he used it [the cogito concept] as a foundation when building his structure of knowledge. After explaining the concept I give a brief evaluation of his success in introducing and using this cogito as a foundation. Finally, I provide reasons why I think Descartes succeeded in his epistemology.

Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy is a discourse by Rene Descartes, which largely focuses on the nature of humanity and divinity. This essay is a discussion of this discourse, and will summarize, explain and object to various parts of his work. The majority of this essay focuses on Descartes Sixth Meditation, which includes his argument that corporeal things do exist.

If these great thinkers (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were to discuss instead the soul’s connection to the body, what might each say (both on his own behalf and in response to the other)? Would they find any places where they might agree? If not, why not? (These are, after all, smart guys!)

In conclusion, this paper has explained Descartes view on bodies and animals, and analyzed whether Descartes believed that animals had minds. Explanation of Descartes view of minds and bodies has been provided, indicating that he believed that the mind and body were “tightly jointed”, as well as, his view of how the body would act without a mind. From these explanations, we have been able to conclude and explain why that Descartes would believe that animal do have minds.

Rene Descartes was a complex man who had questions about God and the human soul, and preferred to work through problems by eliminating all doubt with a particular issue. He works to prove that God exists and develops arguments to point out the limits between the mind or soul and the body, as well as, corporeal (physical) and incorporeal (mental) properties. When Descartes refers to mental properties, he is alluding to thoughts and emotions. When mentioning physical properties, he is talking about the brain. Hence, mind-body

Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my work well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

Aristotle has formulated an economical and clear argument, but the passage that contains it fails to connect all the premises to other parts of the text to lend them supporting arguments. Aristotle extended his approach of starting from what is commonly believed to even this human function argument which is crucial to the whole work. As a result, many readers may be left unconvinced.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes strives first and foremost to provide an infallibly justified foundation for the empirical sciences, and second to prove the existence of God. I will focus on the first and second meditations in my attempt to show that, in his skepticism of the sources of knowledge, he fails to follow the rules he has set out in the Discourse on Method. First I claim that Descartes fails to draw the distinction between pure sensation and inference, which make up what he calls sensation, and then consider the consequences of this failure to follow his method. Second, I will show that in his treatment of thinking Descartes fails to distinguish between active and passive thinking.

This paper will attempt to explain Descartes’ first argument for the distinction that exists between mind and body. Dualism is a necessary aspect of Descartes’ metaphysics and epistemology. This distinction is important within the larger framework of Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) because after doubting everything (body, extension, senses, etc.), Descartes comes to the conclusion that because he doubts, he must be a thinking thing and therefore exist (p.43). This means that the mind must be separate and independent from the body. One can doubt that the body exists while leaving the mind intact. To doubt that the mind exists, however, is contradictory. For if the mind does not exist, how, or with what, is that doubt being accomplished.

In Meditation Six entitled “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and Real Distinction between the Mind and Body”, one important thing Descartes explores is the relationship between the mind and body. Descartes believes the mind and body are separated and they are two difference substances. He believes this to be clearly and distinctly true which is a Cartesian quality for true knowledge. I, on the other hand, disagree that the mind and body are separate and that the mind can exist without the body. First, I will present Descartes position on mind/body dualism and his proof for such ideas. Secondly, I will discuss why I think his argument is weak and offer my own ideas that dispute his reasoning while I keep in mind how he might

To begin with, I’d like to elaborate on the important material relating to each philosopher. Descartes argument for personal identity lied on the what's in our minds rather than the body. He felt that the mind was an undervalued component in considering human identity. Descartes perspective on the body was akin “To each substance there belongs one principal attribute... in the case of body it is extension”(Reference 1).This is highlighted by descartes famous quote during his philosophical career, “‘I think therefore I am’” (Reference 3). Therefore due to a lack of ability for the body to think or participate in his definition of thought, he believed it did not properly reflect an individual's true personality.