Heidegger's Reading of Descartes' Dualism Essay

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

In Meditation Two of René Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy, he notes the sight of “men crossing the square.” This observation is important as Descartes states, “But what do I see aside from hats and clothes, which could easily hide automata? Yet I judge them to be men.” This is an important realization as Descartes argues that instead of purely noticing the men through sight, it is actually “solely with the faculty of judgement,” the mind, that perceives and concludes that the thing wearing a hat and clothes are men. I argue that this view of the outside world by Descartes is incomplete as his idea of “I” is faulty, as well as having a misunderstanding on the importance of the senses.

What is the mind-body problem? The mind-body problem asks the question, are the mind and body separate substances of elements of the same substance? In this paper I wish to propose, and try to provide support for Descartes notion of the immaterial mind, by critically discussing the view of substance dualism, pertaining to the relationship between the mind and body. The two arguments of which I will provide in this paper to support this view are divisibility and disembodied existence. There are two fundamentally different substances in this universe, physical and mental properties, this paper will explore both of these substances (8).

Descartes’ argue that mind is better known than body by first claiming humans as fundamentally rational, meaning “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling,” ( Descartes, 19) he therefore argues that humans have the ability to know their proper minds clearly and distinctly. He proposes the conception of the mind where the imagination and the senses are also inherent capabilities of the body (faculties), specifically powers of the mind.

First lets look at its strengths. In my opinion, the primary strength of Descartes argument lies in the fact that he claims the certainty of his own existence only. He utilizes a first person point of view throughout the meditations in order to exemplify the fact that he is not trying to prove the existence of others. This view of thinking is easily applicable to our own lives. This form of thought allowed Descartes to further his foundationalism whilst still maintaining his skepticism. Descartes acknowledged that this argument on its own proved very little and was open to questioning; yet it still provided a backdrop for the rest of his argument. Yet the Cogito is still not beyond all doubt. Just because Descartes has proven that thoughts exist does not necessarily mean that he exists. we could argue that merely thinking does not guarantee that ‘I’ exist, and therefore the cogito is not beyond all doubt. Descartes reject common definitions such as man, instead referring to simply “a thing.” Descartes concludes his

In the meditations, Descartes evaluates whether or not everything we know is a reality or a dream. Descartes claims that we can only be sure that our beliefs are true when we clearly and distinctively perceive them to be true. As the reader analyzes the third meditation, Descartes has confirmed that some of his beliefs are in fact true. The first is that Descartes himself exists. This is expressed in what has now become a popular quote known as the “Cogito” which says, “I think therefore I am. His second conclusion is that God exist and that he is not a deceiver. Descartes then presents his arguments to prove the existence of God. He argues that by nature humans are imperfect beings. Furthermore, humankind could not possibly be able to comprehend perfection or infinite things on their own. He writes, “By the name of God I understand a substance that is infinite, independent, all-knowing, all powerful, and which myself and everything else…have been created.”(16) Descartes uses this description of God to display the distinction between God and man.

Having assured himself that he exists and that the essential nature of his self includes at least the capacity to think he then explored the question What else am I? (Section 27) and reached this conclusion: But then what am I? A thing that thinks (res cogitans). What is that? A thing that doubts (dubitans), understands (intelligens), affirms (affirmans), denies (negans), wills (volens), refuses (nolens), and that also imagines (imaginans) and senses (sentiens) (Section 28). Descartes acknowledges that thinking includes doubt, understanding, affirmation, denial, will (volition), refusal, imagination, and senses .

Descartes answers his seemingly hopeless skepticism from the first meditation with the Cogito. The basic point of his Cogito argument is that for me to either perceive awry, or even to doubt my own existence, I must exist. It is, as Descartes says, “’I am, I exist’ is necessarily true every time it is uttered by me or conceived in my mind (Med2, par3).” He makes two arguments for the Cogito in his second meditation. Descartes arrives at the Cogito through the notion of an omnipotent deceiver actually. He starts to question his own

In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes offers the above proposition, in response to the radical doubt (Discourse on Method 15)This implies that, even the human ability to doubt one’s existence is proof that humans are thinking beings, and therefore must exist in the universe, despite all else. Nietzsche has written in contrast to this statement, discussing the contradictions and assumptions surrounding the proposition. Stemming from this initial premise, both Descartes and Nietzsche go on to discuss the mind/body problem. Descartes argues for the separation of mind and body, while Nietzsche offers a premise based on a deep connection between the two. I seek to compare the writings of both philosophers, and explore holes in judgment and scope on the part of Descartes, and prove as to why Nietzsche’s discussions are superior of the two.

In order to build a different interpretation about the Cartesian dualism and the union of mind and body, I have established two categories. I call diachronic interpretations those that maintain that Descartes was first a dualist (i.e., in the Meditations), and later on developed his stance on the union of mind and body (i.e., in the Passions).

Building off his established idea of the Cogito, Descartes continues to formulate an idea of how the world operates. He arrives upon one of the most widely held metaphysical opinions, especially among a majority of the world’s religions, which is mind-body dualism. Mind-body dualism states that there are two types of entities in the world; those which have extension and measurable qualities such as the body and existing separately is the non physical mind.

Seventeenth century philosophers René Descartes and John Locke endeavored to question the views on consciousness, self, and personal identity. They examined belief in God, the certainty of knowledge, and the role of mind and body. The goal of this paper is to deliberate John Locke’s and René Descartes views on “self” and personal identity and how each come to examine how knowledge is captured. René Descartes and John Locke both present arguments that are rational in the discussion of consciousness, self, and personal identity, but each lack conclusive evidence that would provide the proof necessary to believe one or the other philosophies are true.

Aristotle and Heidegger have conflicting views on what a human or beings are. Although, there are some similarities to each of their set of ideas. Aristotle has a clear hierarchical framework classifying the differences between humans, animals, and plants. Heidegger opposes this strict definitions by discussing this idea of “Dasein” which states of being there. Although, their approaches to this topic are different with the types of question one asks and how they theorize about what is a being. There is key similarities that they discuss almost two thousand years apart. Aristotle and Heidegger are two philosophers that have tackled the enormous question, what is it to be a being? This paper discusses the two different approaches to defining this long standing question.

He had assumed this for in his search of finding that something which is certain, he had a “eureka” moment of realization that the one thinking for the certain is that something which is the certain. Cogito is the mind. So if we use our definition of certainty, “that something which is a hundred percent not doubtful, and is upheld and assured with information that is acquired from this world,” the ‘cogito’ is still fit to have that definition. We could say that it is a hundred percent not doubtful, for if we doubt the self, it just strengthens the claim, that the self, is the one doubting. I believe Rene had use the term, ‘indubitable.’ The ‘cogito’ is the indubitable

During Meditations 2, Descartes establishes a version of his famous ‘cogito ergo sum’. He establishes that despite the fact that we may not know the world around us as well as we think we do, we can know the mind better and the trusting the mind can lead him to the seemingly justified conclusion that he exists.