OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 05:29:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cartesian Argument for Dualism?  (Read 373 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,689


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« on: July 21, 2012, 04:54:32 PM »

Descartes' argument goes something like this:

Quote
#1) I can doubt that my body exists.

#2) I cannot doubt that I exist as a thinking thing.

Therefore,

#3) I, a thinking thing, am not identical with my body.

Essentially--if I understand this correctly--the logic he is using is that if two things are identical, or 'the same thing', then it should be impossible to imagine a possible world where one exists and the other does not exist, since that would be a logical contradiction (Law of Non-Contradiction). For example, I can imagine a world where bullfrogs exist, but in that same world, I cannot imagine that amphibians do not exist. Therefore, they must be the same thing. And that is correct because bullfrogs are amphibians. If they were different, then it should have been possible to imagine one existing and the other not existing. In order to get this second point by, let us use another reverse analogy. I can imagine a world where Orthonorm exists, and in that same world, I can imagine whiskey not existing. Therefore, we can conclude that Orthonorm and whiskey are not the same thing. Which, is indeed true. (Although, he probably drinks a lot of whiskey).

Theoretically, in order to refute this argument, one would need to think of two objects that are actually identical, or 'one' and imagine a possible world where one of the objects exists and the other does not. This would show that the Cartesian argument is faulty since they were able to imagine object existing and the other not existing even though the two objects in question are indeed the same object.

Critics of Descartes--and believe me, he has many--believe that they have done precisely that. A common argument they use against Descartes is that of a telephone and a ringing. They say that they could imagine a possible world where ringing occurs and the telephone does not exist and vice versa, thus, which would lead them by Descartes' logic to conclude that the telephone and the ringing are two different objects. The critics say that this is a false conclusion because they believe that the telephone and the ringing are precisely the same thing as they both go along with each other, therefore Descartes' argument is false.

Apologists of Descartes' state that this refutation is faulty because it assumes that a telephone and the ringing from a telephone are not the same thing, and to assume that they are is illogical. They assert that there is indeed a difference between an object and the function of an object--in this case, the ringing which comes from the telephone. Therefore, it is not illogical to believe that the telephone and the ringing are two separate objects, therefore Descartes' argument still stands.

Essentially, it all comes down to a game of semantics. What is a telephone and what is ringing? When we use one of the words, what precisely are we referring to? When a critic refers to a telephone, they could be referring to both the object you hold to your ear and talk into, along with the ringing sound that it makes. While an apologist of Descartes could only mean the former when they say telephone. Therefore, this leads to confusion. Critics of Descartes can further argue that there is not actually a difference between an object and the function of an object, because the latter cannot exist without the former, therefore, any 'possible' world where the function exists without the origin is actually illogical, and in turn, an 'impossible' world, or, in other words, utter nonsense, thus successfully refuting Descartes' argument.

What are your thoughts on this topic? As of right now, I find myself uncertain and undecided. I feel that I could easily defend and argue against each side.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2012, 05:05:45 PM »

I think his argument relies on assumptions, and as long as you're willing to admit those assumptions, everyone can move forward. The argument is not a way of rebuilding and defeating skepticism, it's a way of starting to rebuild and saying "we can't disprove radical skepticism, but life would be silly and meaningless if we didn't go forward assuming radical skepticism is wrong, so we'll just give a wink and a nod and move forward..."
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2012, 06:14:37 PM »

Descartes' argument goes something like this:

Quote
#1) I can doubt that my body exists.

#2) I cannot doubt that I exist as a thinking thing.

Therefore,

#3) I, a thinking thing, am not identical with my body.

Essentially--if I understand this correctly--the logic he is using is that if two things are identical, or 'the same thing', then it should be impossible to imagine a possible world where one exists and the other does not exist, since that would be a logical contradiction (Law of Non-Contradiction). For example, I can imagine a world where bullfrogs exist, but in that same world, I cannot imagine that amphibians do not exist. Therefore, they must be the same thing. And that is correct because bullfrogs are amphibians. If they were different, then it should have been possible to imagine one existing and the other not existing. In order to get this second point by, let us use another reverse analogy. I can imagine a world where Orthonorm exists, and in that same world, I can imagine whiskey not existing. Therefore, we can conclude that Orthonorm and whiskey are not the same thing. Which, is indeed true. (Although, he probably drinks a lot of whiskey).

Theoretically, in order to refute this argument, one would need to think of two objects that are actually identical, or 'one' and imagine a possible world where one of the objects exists and the other does not. This would show that the Cartesian argument is faulty since they were able to imagine object existing and the other not existing even though the two objects in question are indeed the same object.

Critics of Descartes--and believe me, he has many--believe that they have done precisely that. A common argument they use against Descartes is that of a telephone and a ringing. They say that they could imagine a possible world where ringing occurs and the telephone does not exist and vice versa, thus, which would lead them by Descartes' logic to conclude that the telephone and the ringing are two different objects. The critics say that this is a false conclusion because they believe that the telephone and the ringing are precisely the same thing as they both go along with each other, therefore Descartes' argument is false.

Apologists of Descartes' state that this refutation is faulty because it assumes that a telephone and the ringing from a telephone are not the same thing, and to assume that they are is illogical. They assert that there is indeed a difference between an object and the function of an object--in this case, the ringing which comes from the telephone. Therefore, it is not illogical to believe that the telephone and the ringing are two separate objects, therefore Descartes' argument still stands.

Essentially, it all comes down to a game of semantics. What is a telephone and what is ringing? When we use one of the words, what precisely are we referring to? When a critic refers to a telephone, they could be referring to both the object you hold to your ear and talk into, along with the ringing sound that it makes. While an apologist of Descartes could only mean the former when they say telephone. Therefore, this leads to confusion. Critics of Descartes can further argue that there is not actually a difference between an object and the function of an object, because the latter cannot exist without the former, therefore, any 'possible' world where the function exists without the origin is actually illogical, and in turn, an 'impossible' world, or, in other words, utter nonsense, thus successfully refuting Descartes' argument.

What are your thoughts on this topic? As of right now, I find myself uncertain and undecided. I feel that I could easily defend and argue against each side.
I think it is pretty obvious that a telephone and ringing are not the same. For example, you can have a ringing in Church by bells, but at the same time,  the priest could ban all phones in Church.
And to get to Descartes question, you can have thinking and a body, but you could have a body which does not think. Similarly, you can have a body and seeing, but you could have a body that does not see. You can have a body and hearing, but you can have a body which does not hear. So the function of sight and the entity of the human body are not exactly the same thing. But I don't see where that gets us anywhere or gives us anything that we did not already know.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 30 queries.