display all the ideas for this combination of texts
11 ideas
| 2276 | The mind is a non-extended thing which thinks [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: My concept of the human mind is a thinking thing, not extended in length, breadth or depth, and having nothing else from the body. | |
| From: René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §4.53) | |
| A reaction: But he admits (in Med 6) that the mind is so closely integrated with the body that they seem inseparable. Perhaps he shouldn't trust his own concept of the thing, because he is too close to the subject matter. You can't count a crowd if you are in it. |
| 2298 | Mind is not extended, unlike the body [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Since I am clearly a thinking thing and not an extended thing, and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of a body, as merely an extended thing and not a thinking thing, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it. | |
| From: René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.78) | |
| A reaction: How can he be 'certain' for this reason? This is a classic confusion of ontology and epistemology. Given that the mind is a special case, he should be asking WHY his thinking is clear to him, but his body isn't. Maybe it is because of his viewpoint. |
| 3423 | Descartes is a substance AND property dualist [Descartes, by Kim] |
| Full Idea: Descartes' dualism combines substance dualism and property dualism; two disparate domains of substances, and two mutually exclusive families of properties. | |
| From: report of René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.78) by Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind p.211 | |
| A reaction: I would have thought that substance dualism entailed property dualism. How would you distinguish two substances from one another except by their properties? There seems a merely logical possibility that God gives two substances the same properties. |
| 2303 | The mind is utterly indivisible [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: There is a great difference between a mind and a body, in that a body, by its very nature, is always divisible, but the mind is utterly indivisible. | |
| From: René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.85) | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as being simply false. I don't just mean that surgeons can split the mind in half. We should think of the mind as a team of conscious and non-conscious processes, which are held together by a self in normal healthy people. Selves change. |
| 6153 | Interaction between mental and physical seems to violate the principle of conservation of energy [Rowlands on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: It is often argued that any interaction between the physical and the mental - as defined by Descartes - would require a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, the principle of conservation of energy. | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641]) by Mark Rowlands - Externalism Ch.2 | |
| A reaction: This would be because consciousness is adding energy to the system (in order to generate movement) without it having come from anywhere else in the physical system. A good objection, which only a miracle could overcome. |
| 3625 | The 'thinking thing' may be the physical basis of the mind [Hobbes on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: It may be that the thing that thinks is the subject to which mind, reason or intellect belong; and this subject may thus be something corporeal. | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §2.27) by Thomas Hobbes - Objections to 'Meditations' (Third) 173 | |
| A reaction: Of course, Descartes goes on to reject this view. Presumably he is suggesting that mind etc. might be properties of something corporeal, rather than being identical with it. Descartes was well aware of materialism in Hobbes and Gassendi. |
| 2552 | Knowing different aspects of brain/mind doesn't make them different [Rorty on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Why should an epistemic distinction reflect an ontological distinction? Why should our epistemic privilege of being incorrigible about how things seem to us reflect a distinction between two realms of being? | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.78) by Richard Rorty - Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 1.2 | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as being one of the most important ideas in philosophy, mainly as a corrective to a lot of bad philosophy, rather than as wisdom offered to non-philosophers (for whom Rorty's thought is probably common sense. How is it? How do we know? |
| 4305 | Descartes gives no clear criterion for individuating mental substances [Cottingham on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Descartes gives no clear criterion for individuating mental substances. | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.78) by John Cottingham - The Rationalists p.86 | |
| A reaction: Presumably I can individuate my own mind by the 'natural light' of reason, and the implications of the Cogito. The minds of others do seem to be a problem. Why should they coincide with bodies, and not overlap or blend or swap? |
| 4861 | Does Descartes have a clear conception of how mind unites with body? [Spinoza on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: What does Descartes understand by the union of the mind and the body? What clear and distinct conception has he got of thought in most intimate union with a certain particle of extended matter? | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], §6.82) by Baruch de Spinoza - The Ethics V Pref | |
| A reaction: This is the classic, original and strongest objection to Cartesian dualism - that mind and body are held to be too different to interact. Spinoza may have overreacted a bit when he saw the only solution as the total identity of the two things. |
| 6540 | Even Descartes may concede that mental supervenes on neuroanatomical [Lycan on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Even Descartes may have conceded that the mental supervenes on the neuroanatomical. | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], 6) by William Lycan - Consciousness 5.2 | |
| A reaction: This is true (early in Meditation Six) despite his later suggestion of the pineal gland as the linking point. It proves nothing, but I have heard John Cottingham suggest that Descartes might well be a materialist if he came back today. |
| 7733 | Superman's strength is indubitable, Clark Kent's is doubtful, so they are not the same? [Maslin on Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Descartes's claim that mind and body are separate because the first is necessary when thinking and the second isn't, is like arguing 'Superman's strength is indubitable; Clark Kent's strength is widely doubted; so Clark Kent is not Superman'. | |
| From: comment on René Descartes (Meditations [1641], p.156) by Keith T. Maslin - Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind 2.7.1 | |
| A reaction: I've heard people defend Descartes on this, and Kripke is interesting on the subject, but Descartes had better not be following this pattern of argument, or else a great philosopher would really be presenting an absurdity. |