Summary Of Cartesian Dualism

Jean Piaget’s study of the development of reasoning gives us the best insights into how we develop the self. This is best understood by assessing the insights of Cartesian dualism. ‘Cogito ergo sum’ is Latin for ‘I think, therefore I am’. In contrast, subjective interactionists claim that the “I” is the subjective self, whereas the “me” is objective. The older I get, the better I am at reasoning with my surroundings; even if I consider my body to be part of my environment. I adapt to my body much in the way that I adapt to my environment and this gives me a foundation for reasoning. Much in the way an infant might look at his hands and wonder what he should do with them, so an adult will assess something he has never perceived before and give …show more content…
According to Henslin, “Although our reasoning abilities are more developed, they remain concrete.” (2015) During this stage, we are said to understand causation. We are capable of concrete reasoning, but not yet capable of abstract reasoning. Some of our reasoning skills lay in our ability to defend ourselves. In chapter 6 of the text on Deviance and Self Control, in the Section on Labeling Theory, we see that many people who are labeled as deviants to society use techniques of neutralization, or rationalization in order to deflect society’s norms. (Henslin, 2015) Reasoning beyond our concrete understandings tends to be rationalized. We may use methods of rationalization to come up with a reason as to why we should do things that we know we shouldn’t do. A child who fails a term paper may rationalize that his teacher hates him. The problem with rationalization is that it tends to be exaggerated. However, these young people do not always do things for a reason. For example, a child might have a friend that keeps getting into trouble. He might feel bad for that other child and want to take the blame for something he did. He doesn’t have to have a reason to make such a sacrifice for his friend, and inevitably he will reap the consequences. That child might be labeled as a troublemaker because he took the blame for someone else. The teacher has no reason to believe that this child is a troublemaker other than the fact that the child claims to be at fault. The consequences are usually much worse than the child could ever imagine. The problem with this is that often times there is retribution for mere hearsay. Concrete reasoning implies that the one who is reasoning has concrete evidence to support his reasoning;