Compare and Contrast the Philosophical Contributions Aristotle and Descartes Make to Our Understanding of a Person

René Descartes believed that the mind and body are separate; that the senses could not always be trusted, but that because we as humans are able to think about our existence, we possess some sort of entity separate than our fleshly body. I believe this separate entity to be a soul”an immaterial and

This distinguishes the human person from the human body: in the case that the human identity is tied up solely in its physical components, the scenario in which nothing existing would simply leave no room for the scenario’s consideration via one’s mind, creating a paradox. Therefore, Descartes’ conclusion that from the mind exists separately from the body lends itself to be the most immediate, logical explanation for human identity.

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

The form of an object helps clear up its behavior. Aristotle calls the forms of living things “souls,” which are of three kinds: plants, animals, or human beings. Because Aristotle believed that the soul is merely a set of determined features, he didn’t regard the body and the soul as two separate individuals that mysteriously combine to from an organism.

In vitalist doctrine, this mysterious additional feature may be argued to be the presence of a further entity, such as a soul, although it may also be explained as having to do with the existence in specific organisms of sets of conditions derived from their complexity and necessitating some form of life force or animal electricity injected in some way into inanimate bodies in order for them to become alive. In his expression of vitalism, Aristotle puts forward, in both De Anima and De Generatione, the view that the life of an animal consists in its psyche , thus offering a principle of explanation which determines the morphological development of an organism in terms of teleological causation.

Descartes had a very mechanistic view of the brain. He believed the body works similar to machines as it is material and follows laws of physics. He suggests that mind and body interact at the pineal gland. He predicted that there are tube-like structures inside our bodies that tighten under

Aristotle has a different view on the make-up of the soul. In Aristotle discussion On the Soul he talks about the kinds of souls possessed by different living things such as plants, animals and, beings. Aristotle then goes on describing the substance that makes up the soul, the first is matter which is not this in its own right, the second is form which makes matter this and the third form is the compound of matter and form. Every living body is a substance and the soul is the actuality of the body. The soul

In Meditation six: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body, Rene Descartes wrote of his distinctions between the mind and the body, first by reviewing all things that he believed to be true, then assessing the causes and later calling them into doubt, and then finally by considering what he must now believe. By analyzing Descartes’ writing, this paper will explicate Descartes’ view on bodies and animals, and if animals have minds. Before explicating the answer to those questions, Descartes’ distinctions between the mind and the body should first be summarized and explained.

Aristotle defines the function of a human being as an activity of the rational soul. He argues that most functions of humans, such as being alive or having sense perception, are shared with plants and animals and cannot be distinct functions of human beings. The only remaining possibility which is not shared with things other than human beings, according to Aristotle, is the part of the soul that has reason. Human function, therefore, is an “activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.” But further qualification must be made when referring to the something’s function in the context of a greatest good; in this case, it is not sufficient for something to simply function, it must also function well. For example, the function of a pianist is to play the piano, but the function of a good pianist is to play a piano well. According to Aristotle, adding a function’s best virtue to it will work without qualification to make something excellent in every case. So, the function of a human being is an activity of the rational soul and the greatest good for a human is activity of the rational soul in accordance with its virtue.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues in the Cartesian view of mind and body is how the two substances interact. In the book The passion of the Soul Descartes returned to the problem; he suggests that there is a gland in the middle of the brain in charge of the interaction; he maintains that “from there it radiates through the rest of the body by means of the animal spirits”) (Descartes, 1649/1984, p.341). But what does he mean? The pineal gland is itself physical; Gassendi pointed out that “If it is a physical point, the difficulty still stands, since such a point does not wholly lack of parts. If is a mathematical point, then such a point, as you are aware is, purely imaginary” (Descartes, 1641/1985, p.236) To

According to Descartes’ theory, a person is someone who possesses a body and mind, and he indicates

Aristotle asks many what questions when talking about what is a living being. He discusses us as a specific type of animals and how it relates to animals, plants and nonliving things. There is an hierarchy when discussing the differences between these things. For instance, all living things can ensouled destructible mobile substances. This means, all living substances can die and their body can disintegrate when no soul is in them. The essential features of “being an animal” is that it has a soul but not a rational soul compared to a human being. As stated in Arwin and Fine (1996), “An animal is a living item that has perception.” (413b1-5) These perceptions state that the animals have wants, desires,

Aristotle came to this conclusion because the soul for him means potentiality and actuality. He starts by explaining the three types of substance, the first one been the matter which he describes as potentiality (being alive), secondly the form which he calls first actuality and thirdly is the second actuality which is the matter and form that he says it engages in having action. Aristotle uses the axe as an example to describe the two concepts. The axe needs potentiality to have all materials ready in order to gain an identity. First actuality of the axe is to be properly configured (identity) and its functions to be discover as yet. The second actuality is for the axe to be actually used to cut. The second example that Aristotle uses is the eye because it gains its identity, in which the eye has the capacity of eyesight. He says that the components of the eye are present and it does not mean that the eye will gain its identity, because it does not necessary has to see. This shows that the eye does not have a soul because it depends of the organism. This just means that the eye does not have a soul because what controls it is the body because it is a natural organized body. This is why Aristotle came to this

Descartes and Augustine, in their respective examinations of the mind and God, come to the conclusion that the true understanding of all things derives from the withdrawal of the self from foreign influence and the necessity to look inward. Although each thinker’s journey or course of understanding was different, and at times rather contrasting, their ultimate realizations about knowledge are very coherent.