What Is Self Or If There Even Is A Self?

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 this paper, I will discuss the “Divisibility argument” on Descartes mind- body dualism presented on Descartes meditations. I will claim that the mind and the body are in fact different as Descartes argument suggests, but I will more rather neglect and explain why his belief that the mind is indivisible is wrong. I also will discuss how Descartes argument on the body’s divisibility is reasonable, and the reasons why I believe this argument is true.

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.

As Descartes defines the mind and body, as clearly and distinctly separate entities with mental and physical properties, only when considered separately from each other. But then they cannot without irrationality also be considered as united, for this would be to consider them at the same time as two different and one single substance, which, as Descartes admits,

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.

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

The concept of self identifies the essence of one’s very being. It implies continuous existence having no other exact equal, i.e. the one and only. Whether or not the specific characteristic(s) used to define self are objectively real, i.e. physical attributes, or purely subjective, i.e. imaginary traits, the concept makes distinct one entity from another. Rationalism is the theory that truth can be derived through use of reason alone. Empiricism, a rival theory, asserts that truth must be established by sensual experience: touch, taste, smell, et al. Rene Descartes, a philosopher and rationalist concluded that one self was merely a continuous awareness of one’s own existence; one’s substance was one’s ability to think. On the other

Summary: The problem of the soul continues as Descartes suggested that the human is composed of two completely different substances; a physical body which Descartes compares with a machine, and a non-physical mind, related to the soul, that allows humans to think and feel even if it has no “measurable dimensions” (67). But Elizabeth put in doubt his ideologies when she realized that a non-physical thing doesn’t have the strength to push and move the body. This led to several questions unanswered and also let space for other materialist theories such as behaviorism, mind-brain identity, and functionalism, which also fail in offering an explicit solution.

In Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, he introduces the divisibility argument for his idea of mind-body dualism. It argues that the mind is distinct from the body and that they are different "substances". The argument has two premises; the mind is indivisible and the body is divisible. In this essay, I will interpret Descartes' argument by discussing the key points of these premises and how they are supported. I will also be incorporating my own thoughts on the argument to determine whether the divisibility argument is enough to validate the idea of mind-body dualism.

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.

     Hume on the other hand, took a different approach to the idea of self. He believed that there in fact was no such thing as selfhood. Instead he asserts that “it must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self…is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference…” (597). By this he implies that in order to form concrete ideas, ones impressions of pain, pleasure, joy, etc. must be invariable throughout time. This, Hume states, we know without a doubt to be impossible. Passions succeed each other over time and give rise to new passions, therefore “…it cannot be from any of these impressions…that the idea of self is derived, and consequently there is no such idea” (597).

The main idea of cartesian dualism is that one’s ability to clearly and distinctly conceive of mind and body warrants the inference to the notion that minds and bodies are separable. More specifically, Cartesian dualism is based on the premise that if an individual can “clearly and distinctly understand one thing apart from other”, than that is sufficient evidence for him to conclude “that the two things are distinct”. Using this intuition, Descartes concludes that his soul is distinct from his body, since he has a clear and distinct idea of himself (his own soul) as well as a clear and distinct idea of his body. He adds the assertion that it is possible for him to exist without his body, since it is an extended, non-thinking thing. According to Cartesian dualism, minds are thinking things and are not located in physical space.

Since Descartes was able to think, he knew that he existed ultimately. With this in mind, Descartes reckoned that a person 's "self" illustrates their identity. Descartes states: “that he possesses a body intimately conjoined... and that he has a clear and distinct idea of himself, inasmuch...it is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it" (Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy, pg.29). In fact, Descartes proposes that the body connects dually with the mind, which he believes the body is "divisible", and the mind as "indivisible", but he also informs the readers that he knows certainly who he is. Not only did Descartes deem this information as true, but he was adamant about the possibility of living without a soul. In particular, Descartes depicts a vivid picture of how the

To support his claim of dualism, Descartes presents a number of arguments that attempt to prove that the mind is separate from his body. Two of his strongest points are from the conceivability argument and divisibility argument. Further reinforcement of his claims comes from the idea of privileged first-person access, where he concludes that only an individual has full access to his own thoughts and state of mind.

In this paper I intend to examine the rationalist philosophy of Rene Descartes and fundamental empiricism of John Locke’s philosophical arguments, in particular their ideas relating to the science of man, his identity and attempt to explain distinctions between the two. As I lay the framework of my argument it is important to understand the precepts that serve as the underpinning for the views considered by Descartes and Locke respectively. Rationalism and empiricism are two modes of thought that have been adopted within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. In fact, other than the ties to epistemology the two schools of thought are very plainly much like Descartes and Locke, the direct opposite of each other. Rationalism is the belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. Empiricism on the other hand is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke. While John Locke convincingly asserts and defends the empiricist’s belief that sense perception is the main source of knowledge and thereby personal identity. My views regarding consciousness and self are in