Rene Descartes: Mind-Body Dualism

[tonyrey]

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.

Irrefutable! Conception alone does not explain how or why persons are created…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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,

You cannot use the Dogmas of the Church to support what you call " Substance Dualism, " when talking about the nature of the human Person. There are not two substances in man’s nature. There is only one substance, the man. He is composed of two principles. He is not composed of two substances. If he was his body could exist without the soul but it cannot. All substances can exist on their own in the ontological order. Thus, rock, angel, God, a dog, a tree, a man.

It is true the soul can exist without the body but not as a complete substance. As Thomas says, in its separated state it is an incomplete substance. This is proven from the fact that it is properly the substantial form of the man. Now in the order of extent things " form " does not exist alone in the natural world.

Finally, you have not defined what you mean by " Substance Dualism. " Perhaps if you would define that I could understand exactly what you attempted to say.

 

[onemangang]

Here is a definition from catholic culture

TRICHOTOMY
Literally anything that has three parts. In the Bible, St. Paul’s doctrine abouth the threefold division in the human beings, composed of body (soma), soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma). The body is the living organism, the soul is the rational intellect and will, and the spirit is that innermost part of one’s being where the Spirit of God abides.

DUALISM
Any view of reality that holds there are two fundamentally and irreducibly different types of being or operations. Thus God and the world, spirit and matter, intellect and will, truth and error , virtue and sin are typical expressions of dualism. (Etym. Latin dualis; from duo, two.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is a definition from catholic culture

TRICHOTOMY
Literally anything that has three parts. In the Bible, St. Paul’s doctrine abouth the threefold division in the human beings, composed of body (soma), soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma). The body is the living organism, the soul is the rational intellect and will, and the spirit is that innermost part of one’s being where the Spirit of God abides.

DUALISM
Any view of reality that holds there are two fundamentally and irreducibly different types of being or operations. Thus God and the world, spirit and matter, intellect and will, truth and error , virtue and sin are typical expressions of dualism. (Etym. Latin dualis; from duo, two.)

Ageed. But when we get to the human Person, we should no longer be speaking of dualism. The reason is that people will think you are saying, like Descartes, that man is composed of two substances and that is absolutely wrong. Man is not composed of two substances because all substances are beings in their own right. But in the case of man this is not true. His body and his soul are principles which cannot exist properly on their own. When I say properly I mean that the body can never exist alone and the soul was created for the body at conception And while it may exist alone after death for a time, that is not its proper mode of existence. In that mode it is called an incomplete substance.

I would prefer that the word " dualism " never be used at all because of all the trouble and confusion it has caused in philosophy and psychology since Descartes and Bishop Berkley. And it is still causing trouble as is evident all the time in this forum.

And of course the Church does not teach either Dualism or Trichotomy as a definition of man’s composition. Grace dwells in the Man, body and soul. The soul is man’s spirit. St. Paul was not teaching science or philosophy, he was trying to explain things in a way his hearers could understand.

 

[draco_cupri]

You cannot use the Dogmas of the Church to support what you call " Substance Dualism, " when talking about the nature of the human Person. There are not two substances in man’s nature. There is only one substance, the man. He is composed of two principles. He is not composed of two substances. If he was his body could exist without the soul but it cannot. All substances can exist on their own in the ontological order. Thus, rock, angel, God, a dog, a tree, a man.

It is true the soul can exist without the body but not as a complete substance. As Thomas says, in its separated state it is an incomplete substance. This is proven from the fact that it is properly the substantial form of the man. Now in the order of extent things " form " does not exist alone in the natural world.

Finally, you have not defined what you mean by " Substance Dualism. " Perhaps if you would define that I could understand exactly what you attempted to say.

I would have thought my post self-explanatory, but, I am happy to try to elucidate further. I have included a self-quote, below, for convenience in reference.

The nature of the entire world can be classified, probably in more than one way, but the classification scheme that concerns us here is Ontological. A primary consideration in Ontology is, what is there? Into what overarching category can “all there is,” be subsumed? There are several logical possibilities; I will enumerate the three basic ones as Nihilism, Monism, and Pluralism, of which Dualism is perhaps the most common variant. Essentially, Nihilism is the view that Everything is really Nothing; Monism, the view that Everything is basically One Thing. And Pluralism is the idea that there are several different kinds of things. Now, Nihilism, although it may seem self-contradictory, actually has a fair number of adherents these days. I do not deeply respect them as great thinkers, but there are enough of them that their views deserve at least to be mentioned. Many atheists, who are wannabe- or pseudo-scientists, pretend that Quantum Physics allows us to posit the arising of our entire universe out of literally Nothing at all. I think, that they are confusing the concept of ontological Nothing with the physical reality of “Empty Space.” Space, as known to Quantum Physics, is not actually philosophical “Nothing,” but rather, a “quantum foam,” or a “zero-point-energy field.” It is generally thought that the so-called “vacuum” is actually a sea of quantum fluctuations. So much for Nihilism. (Buddhism somewhat posits Nihilism also by asserting that everything begins in Ignorance, although it could be construed as merely asserting that we are Ignorant of the beginnings of everything.)

Monism, is far more philosophically appealing, and a far deeper threat to Faith. Monism is the doctrine that all things are essentially variations or modifications of One Fundamental Thing, or Substance. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism is monistic. So is Buddhism in its more accessible and common manifestation. So is atheistic Physicalism or Materialism. So are all forms of what may be termed Emanationism, the idea that the Universe emanated from the Substance of God and is part of His Substance. So, Pantheism and its variants are also Monisms. Basically, there are three variants of Monism: Physicalist, Idealist, and Neutral. Physicalism posits that Matter or Physical Energy is the sole existing substance, and mind arises or “emerges” from particular configurations of matter. Idealism posits the opposite — that Mind is the only real substance and matter is created by mind, as some kind of illusion or role-play. (This is the most common Buddhist stance.) Neutral Monism posits some unknown One Substance that subsequently differentiates itself into matter and mind.

 

[draco_cupri]

Now, having considered the alternatives, it should be somewhat obvious by now that the philosophical base of Catholicism is at its heart Dualistic. And this, in more than one way, which I will presently describe. First, and most basically, there is the insurmountable and eternal distinction between God and His Creation. They are ontologically distinct, and can never be ontologically joined. To do so is heresy, possibly the basis of every heresy. God is God; His Creation is His Creation. No matter how exalted a creature may be, the creature never becomes God. God indeed took upon Himself our human nature, but He did not, by that action, Himself become a human creature. He is the Creator in His human nature; the Sacred Humanity, as Saint Teresa says. Not even Mary, is God, and Jesus is not a creature.

Beyond this, however, there still could arise a question as to how many different kinds of substance or being did God create? I am not speaking of individual substances, but of overarching categories of substance. Water and earth have in common that they are matter, and fire is energy, but we know, scientifically, that matter is translatable into energy and vice-versa, so matter and energy cannot really be classed as two distinct kinds of substance. Conversion of one thing into another thing is changing its form, not its substance. Matter and energy are two variants of a single substance that could be called proto-matter, or physical energy. The Hindus call it Prakriti and differentiate it from Purusha. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to it generally, following the Philosopher, as Matter. What we usually call energy, Saint Thomas also called Matter. Contrasted with this, what the Hindus call Purusha, is the substance of living spirits.

The Catholic Church specifies that God created two distinct kinds of substance, to wit, the spiritual and the bodily. Substance dualism is nothing more or less than the acknowledgement of this dogmatic fact as a philosophical fact. Further, in contrast to monism, it would assert that neither kind of substance can properly be reduced to the other. So, in contrast to the fact that energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, it is not possible to convert a soul into a body, or vice versa. Bodies are not dreamed up by souls in some spirit slumber, and neither does that soul or mind emerge from the body by some inexplicable magic, as the atheists are so fond of asserting and denying they assert.

Animals are living bodies without immortal souls. Angels are immortal souls without physical bodies. Human beings are both, body and soul. The fact that when we die, our souls separate from our bodies, proves substance dualism. It is not a fact that the body cannot exist without the soul, since this is exactly what we mean by a corpse — a body whose soul has fled. It is also Catholic Doctrine that the souls of the Blessed do not slumber and await the General Resurrection, but rather, that they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. So, I remain a substance dualist.

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Now, having considered the alternatives, it should be somewhat obvious by now that the philosophical base of Catholicism is at its heart Dualistic. And this, in more than one way, which I will presently describe. First, and most basically, there is the insurmountable and eternal distinction between God and His Creation. They are ontologically distinct, and can never be ontologically joined. To do so is heresy, possibly the basis of every heresy. God is God; His Creation is His Creation. No matter how exalted a creature may be, the creature never becomes God. God indeed took upon Himself our human nature, but He did not, by that action, Himself become a human creature. He is the Creator in His human nature; the Sacred Humanity, as Saint Teresa says. Not even Mary, is God, and Jesus is not a creature.

Beyond this, however, there still could arise a question as to how many different kinds of substance or being did God create? I am not speaking of individual substances, but of overarching categories of substance. Water and earth have in common that they are matter, and fire is energy, but we know, scientifically, that matter is translatable into energy and vice-versa, so matter and energy cannot really be classed as two distinct kinds of substance. Conversion of one thing into another thing is changing its form, not its substance. Matter and energy are two variants of a single substance that could be called proto-matter, or physical energy. The Hindus call it Prakriti and differentiate it from Purusha. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to it generally, following the Philosopher, as Matter. What we usually call energy, Saint Thomas also called Matter. Contrasted with this, what the Hindus call Purusha, is the substance of living spirits.

The Catholic Church specifies that God created two distinct kinds of substance, to wit, the spiritual and the bodily. Substance dualism is nothing more or less than the acknowledgement of this dogmatic fact as a philosophical fact. Further, in contrast to monism, it would assert that neither kind of substance can properly be reduced to the other. So, in contrast to the fact that energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, it is not possible to convert a soul into a body, or vice versa. Bodies are not dreamed up by souls in some spirit slumber, and neither does that soul or mind emerge from the body by some inexplicable magic, as the atheists are so fond of asserting and denying they assert.

Animals are living bodies without immortal souls. Angels are immortal souls without physical bodies. Human beings are both, body and soul. The fact that when we die, our souls separate from our bodies, proves substance dualism. It is not a fact that the body cannot exist without the soul, since this is exactly what we mean by a corpse — a body whose soul has fled. It is also Catholic Doctrine that the souls of the Blessed do not slumber and await the General Resurrection, but rather, that they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. So, I remain a substance dualist.

I want to thank you for the time and attention you gave to the subject. I do not deny that there is some validity to what you say. I think you are wrong in saying the Catholic Church teaches an " overarching Dualism " for God’s creation. I understand clearly that it is an attempt to explain the two type of beings God created.

And here you come very close to the true solution which is that all things are beings, including God. God is a Being by " attribution of proper proportionality. " His Being is Pure Being, Ipsum Esse Subsistens. Angels are beings by " proper proportionality, " which HAVE EXTENCE. Man is a being composed of the principles of body and soul which has being. A man is one being, not two.

Contrary to what you said above, the body cannot survive after death. It immediately begins to decompose into ultimate elements - the essential " dust " of prime matter. And contrary to what you say, the soul, separated from the body, exists as an incomplete substance. Eventhough it then exists in Heaven or Hell or possible " Purgatory, " it nevertheless exists as an incomplete substance, as St Thomas teaches ( the Church does not teach anything on this point as far as I know). In this state, according to Thomas, it knows only " universals, " it does not know particular beings unless God provides such knowledge.

So I continue to be convinced that it is better not to use the term " Substance Dualism, " because of the unfortunate history of the word " dualism. "

I deny that the Church says anywhere that it describes God’s creation as " Subsistance Dualism." If the Church can be said to hold any philosophical view on the exact nature of this creation, one could make a very strong argument that it favors the explanation of St. Thomas that created reality is composed generally of contingent, caused beings. Beings who HAVE EXISTENCE from God Who Is Existence.

 

[Love4All]

I want to thank you for the time and attention you gave to the subject. I do not deny that there is some validity to what you say. I think you are wrong in saying the Catholic Church teaches an " overarching Dualism " for God’s creation. I understand clearly that it is an attempt to explain the two type of beings God created.

And here you come very close to the true solution which is that all things are beings, including God. God is a Being by " attribution of proper proportionality. " His Being is Pure Being, Ipsum Esse Subsistens. Angels are beings by " proper proportionality, " which HAVE EXTENCE. Man is a being composed of the principles of body and soul which has being. A man is one being, not two.

Contrary to what you said above, the body cannot survive after death. It immediately begins to decompose into ultimate elements - the essential " dust " of prime matter. And contrary to what you say, the soul, separated from the body, exists as an incomplete substance. Eventhough it then exists in Heaven or Hell or possible " Purgatory, " it nevertheless exists as an incomplete substance, as St Thomas teaches ( the Church does not teach anything on this point as far as I know). In this state, according to Thomas, it knows only " universals, " it does not know particular beings unless God provides such knowledge.

So I continue to be convinced that it is better not to use the term " Substance Dualism, " because of the unfortunate history of the word " dualism. "

I deny that the Church says anywhere that it describes God’s creation as " Subsistance Dualism." If the Church can be said to hold any philosophical view on the exact nature of this creation, one could make a very strong argument that it favors the explanation of St. Thomas that created reality is composed generally of contingent, caused beings. Beings who HAVE EXISTENCE from God Who Is Existence.

Linus, it seems to me that there are two different kinds of contingent, caused beings. So beyond the duality God/God’s Creation, there is also the duality of animate/inanimate. I don’t think he was using dualism in the Manichean or Gnostic sense, but simply saying that matter cannot be reduced to spirit and spirit cannot be reduced to matter. There are two kinds of being, the corporal and the spiritual, and man is a being composed of both. So man, in a way that is foreign to the angels, actually participates in the whole of God’s creation, not just the physical and not just the spiritual.