Aristotle Number Two

In this paper, I will examine the principal merits and challenges of René Descartes’ concept of dualism and then defend my preferred alternative among the options Paul M. Churchland discusses. After briefly defining Cartesian Dualism, I will show that its principal merits are that it is consistent with common sense and that it is able to explain phenomena that appear mental in nature. Next, I will show that its principal challenges are its failure to adequately explain how the mind and the body can causally interact, and its failure to respond to the observation that brain damage impairs the mind. Finally, I will explain why Functionalism is the best alternative to Cartesian Dualism.

connotative~ staying true and strong, never fading away, a constant feeling or emotion in life,

| Words that mean the same or can be used in conjunction with the term.

Descartes’ strongest argument for dualism is his doubt argument. He argues that the mind and body are distinct and separate things because by the very act of doubting there is a thinking thing, there must be something in the first place to do the doubting. Descartes goes on to develop his argument and declares that his mind could exist without his body. Some doubt Descartes claims, saying that just because two things are distinct, does not mean one can exist without the other. However, Descartes proves his famous argument “ I think, therefore I am”, and establishes the mind as a separate substance from the body.

In my mind, dualism is a more attractive view to take when considering the mind-brain issue. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is independent of the physical body is the central point of dualism. One reason it appeals to me is because of my religion, my Catholic upbringing. Introspection is another good reason why dualism is a little more logical to me than materialism.. It logically explains why the mind and brain are separate. Also, the divisibility argument raises good points to allow dualism to appear to be the more attractive idea in my eyes.

Dualism is the belief that reality consists of two different, separate substances: that of the mental and that of the physical. "In philosophy of mind, the belief that the mental and physical are deeply different in kind: thus the mental is at least not identical with the physical." It directly opposes materialism, as dualism dictates that the mind is unidentifiable to the body, as opposed to stating that the mind and body exist as one. The concept of dualism is not only fundamental in philosophy, but also affects our thoughts on science, religion and psychology: for example, if a convincing rejection of dualism can be formulated, the materialist approach of modern science will be vindicated. If, conversely, dualism can be convincingly

Twoness is “the fact or condition of being two, duality, doubleness” (Oxford Dictionary). Also known as duality which is “the condition or fact of being dual or consisting of

Descartes also supports his substance dualism theory with the divisibility argument: if two things are the same, they must have the same properties; if two things have different properties, they are not the same; if minds are not divisible into parts and bodies are divisible into parts, then minds and bodies do not have the same properties; therefore, the mind and body are distinct, and dualism is true. Since its introduction in the seventeenth century, the substance dualism theory has explained how the mind can be separate from the body through different supported arguments.

Classical dualism has a few points that are unclear. Swinburne says that you have a body under your control. The case presented of having your old mind in a new body and brain is questionable. Will you still have your morality in your new body and brain? Will you still have the same calling as you did in your old body and brain? Will you still have the same religious beliefs? These are all points that Swinburne failed to debate.

The debate about the spiritual nature of the mind has been going on for decades among dualists and materialists. The question that usually comes up during these debates is whether the mind and spirit exist and if there is a connection between the mind, the spirit and the body. The argument against the spiritual nature of the mind is based on Epicurus theory that the mind is bodily. Epicurus believed that the mind is a physical organ and has a connection to the body. From his theory, it is evident that the mind and body interact and influence each other. This shows that the mind is physical and there is no spiritual mind hence the argument that the mind is not spiritual in nature. Materialism is the argument against the spiritual nature of

a) Dualism: while anything that exists is either physical or mental, some things have both a physical component and a mental component.

Aristotle begins to question what is good? The good is explained to differ in different activities and arts, but shares a common ground because it appears to be for the sake of how things are done; a means to an end. Aristotle uses the example of medicine; its mean is to end in health. However, there are many different ends and humans chose some of them, as a means to something else, therefore not all ends are final ones. That which is chosen never as a mean to something else proves to be more final than that which is chosen for itself and something else. Therefore, Aristotle justifies that the mean that is always chosen for itself and not for means of something else is called the final. Aristotle uses this definition and applies it to happiness, since happiness is always chosen as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else. The thought of honor, pleasure and virtue being chosen as an end for itself may apply but can be assumed they lead to happiness as a means to an end.

I would concur with dualism being the prevailing "ism" for the above reasons. When we look through the lense of science, we find more things that we either thought we knew or completly got wrong. However, I see how you referenced religious practice as a "dance" and I would agree.In the baptism example, it is an outward expression of something greater. How I have understood this practice, is it is a outward response to an internal/heart change through a belief. I found the "dance" description as a unique way of expressing this, because I haven't heard it described as this.

According to the property dualism, there is only one kind of substance exist, but the properties of the substance varies that gives rise to property dualism. Thus, we should only think about one thing,

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.