Rene Descartes: Mind-Body Dualism

[punkforchrist]

There are some Catholic philosophers that have rejected dualism in favor of mind-body materialism, at least with respect to human beings. Peter van Inwagen is one such philosopher. However, the Church has not declared as dogma any particular view of the mind-body relation beyond a general creationism. Of course, there are some requirements in Catholic teaching, like the immortality of the soul and resurrection of the body. This is distinct, but not necessarily contrary to, the pre-existence of the soul (something Origen believed).

In sum, the Church does teach against pre-existence, as well as Traducianism (the soul is transmitted through the semen - Tertullian believed this). The general teaching of the Church is that the soul is created at the moment of conception. newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm. Nevertheless, this brand of creationism is perfectly consistent with mind-body dualism.

 

[itinerant1]

There are some Catholic philosophers that have rejected dualism in favor of mind-body materialism, at least with respect to human beings. Peter van Inwagen is one such philosopher.

In my opinion, Peter van Inwagen is one odd duck. I can’t take anybody seriously who believes such things as that Adam and Eve enjoyed the Beatific Vision on earth.

 

[Areopagite]

Why has the Catholic Church, and philosophers in general, rejected Mind-Body Dualism?

It seems obvious me that the Mind is of a different Nature to the Body.

It depends what you mean by “nature.” If you mean that they are two separate substances, then you are a heretic. If you mean the mind and body have different natures as different substantial parts have different natures (like the nature of an eye is different from the nature of an ear), then that’s okay. I would not call that dualism though.

I may be slightly off here, and I would appreciation correction if so.

I think you are referring to some form of bitheism (2 equally opposite Gods) which is a heresy, but mind-body dualism is not.

I may be theologically sheltered, but I’ve never heard tension between the body and soul (as Paul talks about it) as a dualism. Dualism definitely carries the connotation that two completely separate and contrary things by nature are unnaturally paired together (and often fight each other by nature). This is most definitely not the Catholic view of the mind and body. Naturally, they exist together. But sin has made them fight (but have no changed their essential natures … though obviously affected their second natures … or habits).

An interesting topic, indeed. If you think about it, you can identify three aspects: body, mind, and consciousness. Our bodies and minds differ but consciousness is what we have in most in common. Put in another light, we can control our bodies and minds voluntarily, but we can’t voluntarily control consciousness.

I would disagree. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by consciousness. But I can force myself to stay awake a lot of times, as well as dispose myself to fall asleep. That, I think, is an instance of controlling one’s consciousness. Likewise, we can’t control our bodies and minds in every way possible … and sometimes, we can’t control them in ordinary matters if it gets that bad. But, once again, I might be misunderstanding what you’re saying.

Concerning the philosophers and scientist the main reason why they reject substance dualism or “mind-body” dualism is that they are looking for a physical explanation for the mind. The problem is they haven’t truly found one that explains away every mental phenomena.

Well, I’d say the Catholic Church rejects mind-body dualism too for the opposite reason … namely, to avoid the Gnostic view that the mind/soul is actually an angel that has been trapped in body, and that it is natural to distance oneself from the body in order to achieve enlightenment. You could say the Dominican Order was founded to combat mind-body dualism. This was because they intended to fight the Albigensian Heresy, an successor of the Gnostic thread. Another reason why Gnosticism is so evil is that, although they think the body is evil and the mind good, it is common for them to always believe that sins of the flesh do not affect the goodness of the mind (due to their separateness) and thus sexual sins are okay … since it pertains to the body and not the soul. However, marriage is the willful elevation of corporeal evil to spiritual reality, and thus marriage is a sin. Procreation is a sin as well because it traps more angelic spirits into bodies. Really messed up stuff. But this is commonly the result of mind-body dualism. Thomas Aquinas was very much opposed to it.

This is at least what I’ve been told by actual theologians.

The reason many philosophers do not favor dualism is because of the lack of elegance it affords.

It seems much more beautiful to state that there is just one thing, one substance, or one reality.

Hmm. I’ve never heard of this. You could say that it would be more elegant if mind-body dualism were true, because then we would be pure angelic spirits, not intrinsically bound to disgusting corporeal matter. That I think is more the temptation regarding “elegance.”

Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church has rejected dualism?

Once again, if dualism mean that the mind and body are separate substances, then the Church condemns that. (Catechism 2516)

Any theory or doctrine of the mind-body relationship that holds mind to be spiritual and the body to be physical is type of dualism.

Really? I’ve never heard this. You might be right. Do you have a source? Because perhaps I’ve been completely wrong.

In philosophy there are different theories of dualism. Plato and Descartes held to an extreme dualism.

This is true. Plato was kind of Gnostic in that way. He believed it was natural for the soul to be separate from the body. He believed they were separate substances. It was no wonder that the Gnostics loved Plato (but Plato is still cool:thumbsup

Thomas Aquinas taught a moderate dualism in which the spiritual soul is the form and principle of life of the body.

Is this dualism though? I’ve never heard it used like that. Hmm. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that’s a incorrect use of the word.

 

[itinerant1]

This is true. Plato was kind of Gnostic in that way. He believed it was natural for the soul to be separate from the body. He believed they were separate substances. It was no wonder that the Gnostics loved Plato (but Plato is still cool:thumbsup

Is this dualism though? I’ve never heard it used like that. Hmm. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that’s a incorrect use of the word.

Plato believed that the spiritual soul is man. The soul happens to be imprisoned in the body for past offenses. Hence, the goal to become virtuous, enlightened and god-like will liberate the soul from being re-incarnated into the prison-house of the body.

Dualism: the question pertains to definition of terms. That is why one should clearly define or stipulate what they mean by the words they are using. It is typical in philosophy to use the term dualism to refer to any theory that posits a material and spiritual component to human nature. As I stated, there are various theories of dualism. Plato and Descartes held to extreme dualistic theories.

Any theory that recognizes spiritual reality as distinct from physical reality is dualistic. Those who recognize only one type of reality are monists. Plato may be seen as coming close to monism in that for him the physical world is not truly real, it has a sort of quasi-existence. Only the spiritual world of the Forms or Ideas, the Good, and so on have full reality. In other words, for Plato, the physical world is a crock…but insofar as he recognizes that it has some kind of existence, he is a dualist. Even though Plato held to an exaggerated dualism, and a number of other errors besides, his writings are essential for understanding philosophy.

Aristotle and Aquinas are dualists in that they fully recognize physical and spiritual or non-material reality. For references, I have a number of books that use “dualism” in the sense I have used it for Aquinas’ doctrine of the body and soul. One book is a Catholic philosophy text titled Nature, Knowledge and God by Brother Benignus.

 

[Areopagite]

For references, I have a number of books that use “dualism” in the sense I have used it for Aquinas’ doctrine of the body and soul. One book is a Catholic philosophy text titled Nature, Knowledge and God by Brother Benignus.

I did some brief looking myself, and I think you’re right. I stand corrected.

 

[itinerant1]

I did some brief looking myself, and I think you’re right. I stand corrected.

Since you are big enough to admit to an error, your punishment will be revoked. You are free to go.

 

[Areopagite]

Since you are big enough to admit to an error, your punishment will be revoked. You are free to go.

Sweet Lady Freedom!!! :extrahappy:

 

[I_buljan]

Sorry, the Pope is wrong! Descartes did not seperate thought from existence nor did he identify existence with reason. He simply argued that reason is the only way we can come to any conclusions about existence! Of course, if we did not exist we would not be able to conclude anything about anything. However, given the fact that we exist, by what means do we conclude anything? By the fact that we exist? Absurd!

 

[I_buljan]

By the way, I need to mention one very important point. Cartesian Dualism can be summed up by one question. Is the mind the result of a material process? Any Christian, Catholic in particular would have to answer NO! Just by that fact alone, any Christian is of necessity a dualist!

 

[I_buljan]

Wow this thread is as d as a dinasour. Is anyone seriously going to respond?D

 

[Linux]

By the way, I need to mention one very important point. Cartesian Dualism can be summed up by one question. Is the mind the result of a material process? Any Christian, Catholic in particular would have to answer NO! Just by that fact alone, any Christian is of necessity a dualist!

This is true.

 

[Sair]

The reason many philosophers do not favor dualism is because of the lack of elegance it affords.

It seems much more beautiful to state that there is just one thing, one substance, or one reality.

If you are going to say that there are two, why not three (like with consciousness)? Why not many?

Why not, indeed? Why not multiply entities until we have a single one for every experience we have?

Occam’s razor directs us towards the simplest adequate explanation, and that may well be one we haven’t found yet. If our experience of consciousness, mental phenomena, whatever, can be explained in terms of the physical sciences, there is no need to invent magical explanations. The latter come to bear because we are still seeking the former and are impatient for answers; but the problem lies in the fact that the latter have already explicitly ruled out the former!

I agree that there is great beauty, elegance and even a sense of comfort and peace to be found in the idea that all we experience has one source - and this, I suspect, I have in common with those who believe a supernatural god is that source. Obviously, I don’t think that is a tenable explanation…

 

[Sair]

I apoligise for this long post, but it is neccesary to my point. I am a writer, so i often fall into the habit of writing novels on issues that i am passionate about. I hope that you will have the patience to read it untill the much welcomed end.

Just to put it out there, I don’t think you should ever apologise for expressing yourself - if you feel it, write it; there are enough problems with communication in the world, so if you can effectively communicate your own thoughts, I say more power to you.

This is the thing which angers me the most. It is the short sighted idea that just because a quality emerges from a natural process, then that ought to mean that the natural process involved is the ultimate cause of any given quality. Physics certainly explains the means by which qualities unfold; but it doesn’t explain to me why those qualities come into being in the first place. Why should an eye or a central nervous system arise according to any given pattern or structure in nature?

It may well be that there is some kind of preconceived purpose behind the reality we experience. But it could equally be the case that there isn’t any such thing. It may, indeed, be quite redundant to ask “why” certain qualities exist - there may be no reason other than ‘just because they do’. Science is concerned with how things exist - and that may be all there is to it, despite what our human fancies may desire. The fact that we have a nagging sense of being actors in a greater drama is really insufficient evidence for universal purpose.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why has the Catholic Church, and philosophers in general, rejected Mind-Body Dualism?

It seems obvious me that the Mind is of a different Nature to the Body.

Thus Lateran in 649 (against the Monothelites), canon ii, “the Word of God with the flesh assumed by Him and animated with an intellectual principle shall come . . .”; Vienne, 1311-12, “whoever shall hereafter dare to assert, maintain, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellectual soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body, is to be regarded as a heretic”; Decree of Leo X, in V Lateran, Bull “Apostolici Regiminis”, 1513, “. . . with the approval of this sacred council we condemn all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal or is the same in all men . . . for the soul is not only really and essentially the form of the human body, but is also immortal; and the number of souls has been and is to be multiplied according as the number of bodies is multiplied”; Brief “Eximiam tuam” of Pius IX to Cardinal de Geissel, 15 June, 1857, condemning the error of Günther, says: “the rational soul is per se the true and immediate form of the body”.

From the above found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is difficult to see how anything like the " Dualism " of Descartes could be held by Catholics. I would not say such a position is condemned by the Church according to Anathema cited above, only that it is difficult to see how one could believe both that the soul is the form of the body but at the same time the body could be one substance and the soul another.

We also have the following from the Catechism:

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So while " Dualism " may not be condemned, it is difficult to see how a Catholic can regard it a valid/licit view and still hold to what is taught by the Catholic Church. I would say that those who hold to some form of " Dualism " must be able to justify it by some positive teaching by the Church. And I don’t see how that is possible.

Those who maintain such a position are faced with the problem reconciling the positive teaching of the Church and not being able to support their position by reference to a positive teaching of the Church. It would appear to be impossible.

 

[I_buljan]

Dear friends, some in Christ, others not,

I like the point made by C.S Lewis. He essentially puts forth the proposition that things really boil down to one simple observation. Either matter is the cause of all that exists, MATERIALISM, in which case matter, one could argue, is omnipotent (all powerful), or, on the other hand, an omnipotent REASONING Being exists who is the cause of all that we experience. Given the fact that we use thinking (reasoning) to conclude anything about anything, thinking would have to have precedence over matter. In other words, it would be logically inconsistent for the resultant thing to give validity as to the thing from which it resulted, by virtue of circularity. If one is going to use Okham’ razor as the test, the simplest and most logical explanation is that something must exist, and if we are going to avoid circular reasoning, we must conclude that thinking is the thing which exists of its own nature without being created, and that it is pre imminent to all other things. Thinking implies a reasoning being, i.e God, not created, just simply existent. I believe that is one of the main points that Descartes argued for.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dear friends, some in Christ, others not,

I like the point made by C.S Lewis. He essentially puts forth the proposition that things really boil down to one simple observation. Either matter is the cause of all that exists, MATERIALISM, in which case matter, one could argue, is omnipotent (all powerful), or, on the other hand, an omnipotent REASONING Being exists who is the cause of all that we experience. Given the fact that we use thinking (reasoning) to conclude anything about anything, thinking would have to have precedence over matter. In other words, it would be logically inconsistent for the resultant thing to give validity as to the thing from which it resulted, by virtue of circularity.

What in the world are you saying here??? If you are saying that the things of this world cannot argue to the existence of God ( From effects, " resultant thing, " to God. ), then you are absolutel wrong. And that is not " circular reasoning " ( another sorely abused phrase).

If one is going to use Okham’ razor as the test, the simplest and most logical explanation is that something must exist, and if we are going to avoid circular reasoning, we must conclude that thinking is the thing which exists of its own nature without being created, and that it is pre imminent to all other things. Thinking implies a reasoning being, i.e God, not created, just simply existent. I believe that is one of the main points that Descartes argued for.

With all due respect, C.S. Lewis was not a philosopher and Descartes was a dang poor one. And why is everyone throwing around " Okham’s razor " these days. It was nothing more than a mental gimmick to escape the necessity for futher thought, an excuse to validate a false conclusion. I agree that God is Pure Existence. Indeed it was Thomas Aquinas who first reached that conclusion philosophically.

 

[levinas12]

If our experience of consciousness, mental phenomena, whatever, can be explained in terms of the physical sciences, there is no need to invent magical explanations.

What do you mean by “can be explained in terms of the physical sciences”?

First-person or subjective experience, intentionality, the sense that I have of my body that it’s “mine” - please tell us how physical science might explain such phenomena.

I’m only asking for hypothetical outlines of such an explanation.

As you acknowledged, physical science has yet to provide a definitive explanation.

But surely there must be some possible “models”.

It would be helpful if you would express all this in your own words without cursory references to academic articles, etc…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What do you mean by “can be explained in terms of the physical sciences”?

First-person or subjective experience, intentionality, the sense that I have of my body that it’s “mine” - please tell us how physical science might explain such phenomena.

I’m only asking for hypothetical outlines of such an explanation.

As you acknowledged, physical science has yet to provide a definitive explanation.

But surely there must be some possible “models”.

It would be helpful if you would express all this in your own words without cursory references to academic articles, etc…

 

[I_buljan]

What in the world are you saying here??? If you are saying that the things of this world cannot argue to the existence of God ( From effects, " resultant thing, " to God. ), then you are absolutel wrong. And that is not " circular reasoning " ( another sorely abused phrase).

With all due respect, C.S. Lewis was not a philosopher and Descartes was a dang poor one. And why is everyone throwing around " Okham’s razor " these days. It was nothing more than a mental gimmick to escape the necessity for futher thought, an excuse to validate a false conclusion. I agree that God is Pure Existence. Indeed it was Thomas Aquinas who first reached that conclusion philosophically.

Mr. Linusthe… you need to read the posts a bit more carefully. I am saying just the opposite! However, the point being made by C.S. Lewis and others, including myself, is: WHAT KINDS OF THINGS ARGUE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER? Only thinking and reasoning “things” can do such things. If thinking and reasoning are the result of a materialistic process, and if they are used to argue the existence of the materialistic process to be the cause of such thinking and reasoning, than we have circular reasoning. You who seems to claim that you understand philosophy better than C.S. Lewis or Descartes, ought to be able to see that. Just in case you still don’t get it, here is an example. It is like saying: “God inspired the Bible to be written.” How do we know that he did? “Because the Bible tells us so.” Do you get the picture?

My post had nothing to do with who first argued the nature of God. The argument is about MATERIALISM vs. RATIONALISM.

 

[draco_cupri]

Thus Lateran in 649 (against the Monothelites), canon ii, “the Word of God with the flesh assumed by Him and animated with an intellectual principle shall come . . .”; Vienne, 1311-12, “whoever shall hereafter dare to assert, maintain, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellectual soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body, is to be regarded as a heretic”; Decree of Leo X, in V Lateran, Bull “Apostolici Regiminis”, 1513, “. . . with the approval of this sacred council we condemn all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal or is the same in all men . . . for the soul is not only really and essentially the form of the human body, but is also immortal; and the number of souls has been and is to be multiplied according as the number of bodies is multiplied”; Brief “Eximiam tuam” of Pius IX to Cardinal de Geissel, 15 June, 1857, condemning the error of Günther, says: “the rational soul is per se the true and immediate form of the body”.

From the above found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is difficult to see how anything like the " Dualism " of Descartes could be held by Catholics. I would not say such a position is condemned by the Church according to Anathema cited above, only that it is difficult to see how one could believe both that the soul is the form of the body but at the same time the body could be one substance and the soul another.

We also have the following from the Catechism:

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So while " Dualism " may not be condemned, it is difficult to see how a Catholic can regard it a valid/licit view and still hold to what is taught by the Catholic Church. I would say that those who hold to some form of " Dualism " must be able to justify it by some positive teaching by the Church. And I don’t see how that is possible.

Those who maintain such a position are faced with the problem reconciling the positive teaching of the Church and not being able to support their position by reference to a positive teaching of the Church. It would appear to be impossible.

I have long held that as a Faithful Catholic, my ontology is properly Substance Dualism. I support that with reference to the First Vatican Council, to wit,

dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume1.htm#Chapter%201%20On%20God%20the%20creator%20of%20all%20things

This one true God,

by His goodness and almighty power,
not with the intention of increasing His happiness,
nor indeed of obtaining happiness,
but in order to manifest His perfection by the good things which He bestows on what He creates,
by an absolutely free plan,
together from the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing
    the twofold created order, that is
        the spiritual and the bodily,
        the angelic and the earthly, 
    and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].

The “twofold” character of the created order clearly expresses that there are not one, but two distinct kinds of substance created by God, which I generally call spirit and matter. A human being is composed of both, a spiritual soul and a material body. This does no violence to the natural unity that a human being is, but it does clarify that we partake of being in some way common with angels and in another way common with beasts.