Critique on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz's Theories on the Mind

The mind and the body are very controversial entities that has caused philosophical debate between dualists and physicalists. Common knowledge states that the mind inevitably will affect what the body does. The mind and body issue is a question of what the nature of the mind is and how it relates to the body. The mind is the psychological aspect of your being as in your mental state. The body is all physical parts of you: your height, weight, color. With all this in mind, we can use Leibniz’s Law to make an argument supporting either a physicalist or dualist point of view. I will be

“The Accidental Mind”, by David J Linden, adequately covers the broad subject of human brain evolution by covering the intriguing concepts of love, memory, dreams, and religion. To make the non-fiction accessible to enthused readers, rather than advanced scientists, Linden separates the chapters by topic and evenly distributes his information by applying context to real world situations. His immense knowledge and research conducted shows through, with thorough explanations of some theories and concepts that are vital in biology.

The mind-body problem is a sophisticated topic discussed by many philosophers. But one philosopher in particular, Peter Carruthers, explains and solves the mind-body problem through the identity theory. I agree with Carruthers' claim that the mind and brain are both the same physical states. Opposing views argue that the mind is separate from the brain/body. Carruthers has made his concepts clear in his article “The Mind Is the Brain”.

Leibniz’s law of identity states that mental and physical states are not identical, and cannot be the same entity because they do not share the same traits. The notion of sameness(considered Leibniz’s law) serves to present a case where if A equals B, then A and B share all the same properties. Even

Descartes argues that the mind is indivisible because it cannot be broken down and does not have extension. The body, as an object that can move and take up space can be divided in to many things whereas the mind is one complete substance that does not have extension and is non –spatial. Since the mind and body are different substances with different properties, they must be able to exist independently as they must not be the same thing. Leibniz' Law supports the argument and shows that the mind and body are not the same because they do not have all of the same properties.

Leibniz argues that there does not exist two of the same substances. Instead, he argues that each substance it like an individual world with everything that it will do or become already existing in its nature. He maintains that individual substances contains all predicates true of it past, present, and future. For example, he argues that humans encompass everything that it needs to exist in their being. As a result, it seems that the essence of the human is the human itself. He suggests that humans have a unique ability to make choices because they have a mind and are able to rationally choose between doing A or B. He notes that animals do not have this choice because there is no evidence that they make choices based on rational thought and mental processes. Thus, humans already encompass an ability that this different from everything else in

First, the only proper method to distinguish the difference between two substances would be attribute and mode. If we were to go about Leibniz way of having two substances share a similar attribute but a different second attribute, the definition of having the same nature or attribute does not follow which then makes one of the two ways of identifying a substance useless. Second, the definition of substance itself is that it is in itself and conceived through itself without needing others for it to be formed.Focusing on the essence rather than its alteration, two substances with a similar attribute would still have the same essence. (possible different modes) Which then, by putting the alteration aside would mean that the two substances are similar. Finally, with the fact that the two substances with similar attributes thus cannot be distinguished, and there are only two methods in which it can be distinguished, the conclusion comes to that two substances cannot have the same

Most famously advocated by René Descartes, substance dualism is an intuitive doctrine holding that minds, which are essentially thinking and consist of mental substance, and bodies, which necessarily have extension and are made of material substance, are ontologically separate entities. As the mental and material have entirely different natures, a mind cannot be equivalent to a body and human beings, therefore, must be mixtures of the two substances. Despite lacking properties in common, minds and bodies are connected through the capacity of each to causally affect the other (Kim 34). However, regardless of how commonsensical and attractive this view may initially appear, Descartes and subsequent dualists have all contended with a multitude of complications surrounding mental causation.

Is the mind and body one cohesive unit, or are both components mutually exclusive? This issue of mind and matter, as the article illustrates, has been a pervasive problem for centuries. How does matter, such as a combination of cells, develop the ability to reason? Our brain is a combination of cells generating a conscious being. How does this transition occur? This contentious issue has plagued generations and has yet to be adequately solved. As the article illustrates, the inability to solve this problem originates from man's tendency to apply a narrow discipline to a complex issue. During the 17th century civil war for instance, the concept of mind and body was reduced to a more convenient answer. During this period, philosophers and thought leaders were prone to find simple solutions to many of societies more complex issues. Thought leaders during this period believed that all things were comprised of both mind and matter. In many instances, the concept of the mind was very vague and difficult to define. These solutions however were inadequate as they didn't take into account the interconnectedness of many of the variables in which they used. In many instances, thought leaders of the period simply attempted to isolate one variable in hopes of finding a solution to the problem of mind and matter.

The concept of mind and body interactions has been debated among many modern philosophers. Some believe that our minds and bodies are different things, thus existing separately, while others believe that they exist as a whole. In this paper, I will be introducing two rationalist philosophical views regarding this topic, one which is by Rene Descartes and the other by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Rationalists, in philosophical terms, are the ones who obtain their knowledge through reasoning rather than the human senses. Descartes and Leibniz both have similar perspectives, but Leibniz takes a slightly different approach to improve Descartes’ argument. This paper will first show Descartes’ original argument, an example that proves the argument to be invalid, and then lastly, a revised version of the argument with Leibniz’s help.

Given that he almost does not believe that the body exists, then it is safe to decide that he sees himself as a thought. It is the only thing, after all, that cannot be separated from him. He talks about feeling things, especially his perception of things such as light, heat, and noise. According to Descartes, feeling is a form of thought because it is an intuition of the mind. It could be right or wrong. Wrong, in the event he is dreaming and right in the event that it is actually happening.

Descartes’ mind-body dualism establishes the mind as an immaterial, non-extendable entity, which engages in the processes of thinking, imagining, reasoning, and feeling. He distinguishes matter as the material substance that is extendable, and conforms to the mechanistic laws of physics. He believes the human mind (immaterial) and the human body (material) are clearly distinct from each other, yet they interact with each other , with the former causing the latter to act by causing mental events.

In The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle labels the theory for mind-body dualism as “The Dogma of the Ghost in the Machine” (Ryle, 5). The argument for mind-body dualism states that two substances exist: physical substances and mental substances. ‘Physical substances are composed of matter’ (Ryle, 3). Moreover, physical substances are beings like bodies; they have a spatial location, but they cannot think. In comparison, ‘mental substances consist of consciousness’ (Ryle, 3). Mental substances are beings like minds; they can think, but they do not have a spatial location. Furthermore, the theory for mind-body dualism states that every living person has both a mind, which is a mental substance, and a body, which is a physical substance, and that the mind interacts with the body. Thus, when Ryle speaks of the ghost in a machine, he is referring to the idea that there exists a mental substance, a mind, which exists inside of the body, a physical substance. The mind is the ghost, which is inside the body,

Examine and comment on the claim that the mind and body are the same, with reference to the topic you have investigated.

The Concept of Mind (1949) is a critique of the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and it is a rejection of the theory that mental states are separable from physical states. According to Ryle, the classical theory of mind, as represented by Cartesian rationalism, asserts that there is a basic distinction between mind and matter. However, the classical theory makes a