Descartes' philosophy regarding dualism is one of his most notorious philosophical legacies to this day. He claims the body and mind are entities that operate individually which allows one to exist without the other. It is to say that the mind is a non-extended, thinking entity and the body is extended and non-thinking. His notion evoked a deliberation over the essence of mind and body that stretched throughout hundreds of years. To this day a heated debate occurs about this idea of mind and body. In my essay, I will engage in Descartes claims and will reach a conclusion that could allow him to say he is correct to express that the mind and body are unmistakable. I will begin by looking at the at Descartes' dualism; the real distinction is
…show more content…
It is described that a substance does not require anything else to exist beyond the assistance of God's commitment. Referring to Descarte's theory, a mode necessitates an element to exist and must not be dependent only on God's existence. For example, if someone takes the time to acknowledge an item, like a square, then a mode could be observed. The shape of a square requires the continuation of a protracted substance. If this were the case, then the object necessary would be two-dimensional. Therefore, a square is only a mode of an element. It is not possible to think of something being able to exist without a two-dimensional part. To analyze a square that does not have two-dimensional attributes, it will lead to a discrepancy. The example provided is what Descartes means when he discusses substance. Another example would be how a boulder will continue to exist on its own without the assistance of any other being and does not need to adhere to any particular shape or size to affirm its existence. Descartes is trying to express that a substance is different from everything else besides God whom Descartes gives credit too as the maker of that commodity. The consequence of such an idea has lead Descartes belief to think that mind and body can exist without the other, assuming God made this choice to make them the way they have been made. Although, the chances the …show more content…
This approach may be recognized as one of many contentious issues for critics of Descartes’ philosophy. Descartes studies and writing often rely heavily on self-evident propositions. And Descartes’ criterion of truth is itself a seemingly self-evident proposition. It is important to stop here and question the very nature of such propositions. A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. As we can see from its name, particularly the “self” part, it relies wholly on the opinion of the very person who believes in it. Thus self-evidence is completely subjective. Herein lays a major problem with the self-evident proposition. What may be self-evident to one person cannot be said for another. The subjective qualities of Descartes work are further amplified with the language that can be seen throughout meditations. Here we can see an example of this subjective language I offer my undivided attention to things which I believe myself to perceive. I am persuaded of their truth that I let myself break out into words such as these. (Meditations part III, section 1). As I have cared to write earlier, one could say that the criterion of truth is “seemingly” a self-evident truth however one must be aware that this does not mean that is a self-evident truth for the idea of the criterion of truth may seem to have a dubious backing, to begin with. Thus
It is described that a substance does not require anything else to exist beyond the assistance of God's commitment. Referring to Descarte's theory, a mode necessitates an element to exist and must not be dependent only on God's existence. For example, if someone takes the time to acknowledge an item, like a square, then a mode could be observed. The shape of a square requires the continuation of a protracted substance. If this were the case, then the object necessary would be two-dimensional. Therefore, a square is only a mode of an element. It is not possible to think of something being able to exist without a two-dimensional part. To analyze a square that does not have two-dimensional attributes, it will lead to a discrepancy. The example provided is what Descartes means when he discusses substance. Another example would be how a boulder will continue to exist on its own without the assistance of any other being and does not need to adhere to any particular shape or size to affirm its existence. Descartes is trying to express that a substance is different from everything else besides God whom Descartes gives credit too as the maker of that commodity. The consequence of such an idea has lead Descartes belief to think that mind and body can exist without the other, assuming God made this choice to make them the way they have been made. Although, the chances the …show more content…
This approach may be recognized as one of many contentious issues for critics of Descartes’ philosophy. Descartes studies and writing often rely heavily on self-evident propositions. And Descartes’ criterion of truth is itself a seemingly self-evident proposition. It is important to stop here and question the very nature of such propositions. A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. As we can see from its name, particularly the “self” part, it relies wholly on the opinion of the very person who believes in it. Thus self-evidence is completely subjective. Herein lays a major problem with the self-evident proposition. What may be self-evident to one person cannot be said for another. The subjective qualities of Descartes work are further amplified with the language that can be seen throughout meditations. Here we can see an example of this subjective language I offer my undivided attention to things which I believe myself to perceive. I am persuaded of their truth that I let myself break out into words such as these. (Meditations part III, section 1). As I have cared to write earlier, one could say that the criterion of truth is “seemingly” a self-evident truth however one must be aware that this does not mean that is a self-evident truth for the idea of the criterion of truth may seem to have a dubious backing, to begin with. Thus