To better understand Descartes’s argument for the true distinction between the mind and body, one must first recognize and quantify the very foundations and trains of thought of the nature of the mind and body themselves individually, through the lens of Descartes’s viewpoint. It is virtually impossible to see the way in which Descartes argues these two things, the mind and body, interact and relate to one another without seeing the way in which Descartes views each.
From the viewpoint of Descartes, the mind is but the human soul in its entirety by another name, and not just a part of a greater sum. This mind is separate from the body by way of its metaphysical, immaterial nature, and has certain irrefutable qualities unique to its abstract existence.
The unique qualities of the mind are the foundation of the thought process “Cartesian Dualism.” From the view of Descartes, these qualities can be summarized as the mind being a “non-extended thinking thing,” that has simplicity in its nature in that “it cannot be divided,” and is capable of “existing separate from the body.” Cartesian Dualism is central to his argument on the relationship between the mind and body.
From the thinking of Descartes, to confirm that the mind is “distinct and separable” from the body, one might confirm that the mind may exist even in absence of the body. To play into this thought process, one must quantify the distinction itself. To the mind of Descartes, one must make a distinction between the forms of distinction itself.
By his finding, there is a conceptual distinction, or that we may understand one thing in existence without understanding another, and distinction in reality, in that two things can exist independently of one another. More intrinsic to this view is that Descartes argues one cannot exist without the other; essentially, for something to be “conceptually distinct” it must also be “distinct in reality.”
By the argument of Descartes, he states that: I have a clear and distinct [understanding] of myself, insofar as I amsimply a thinking, non-extended thing; and on the other hand, I have a distinct [understanding] of body, insofar as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing”. Essentially, he has stated that the mind and the body are conceptually distinct.
On the basis of his own principle, Descartes argues that from this conceptual distinction we might infer the mind and body are truly distinct as well. In his view, they are opposites intertwined with one another but not the same thing. To him, the mind is an “unextended, thinking thing” and the body is an “extended, un-thinking thing”.
By way of their distinction, Descartes believes that either can exist individually, without the other. Descartes inherently builds these claims upon the back of his earlier beliefs, that the body only requires an understanding of mathematics to perceive, and the mind defies the definition by the laws of math. To understand the mind, one only needs the “concepts of psychology.”
Meditation 2 sets the foundation for this argument for conceptual distinction, in that the understanding of self is separate from the understanding of bodies, insofar that in the absence of belief or understanding of bodies one may still understand and believe in the existence of self.
By this understanding, Descartes views that the mind and body are wholly distinct, and separate in every form, and by this avenue of thought are capable of existence in absence of the other. The way in which they come together is as two separate halves forming a greater conjoined whole, viewed as “the mind-body union”.
Overall, I do not view Descartes’s argument for the distinction and relationship between mind and body as wholly satisfactory. As often in his arguments, he relies on abstract concepts to build his thesis. In his view, due to the fact that in all cases we can think of, when two things are conceptually distinct, they are also really distinct, he argues this must always be the case.
This method of induction, in which we weigh the probability of possibility is not wholly reliable, in that humans lack the ability to know these abstract concepts with certainty. We may conceive something, but this does not inherently imply truth. In my own research, I have found this method is often called the “Coherent Conceivability Principle”, which inherently means coherent conceivability implies possibility.
I view that this principle cannot be used as a probable backbone for an argument, as it relies solely upon what-ifs as opposed to evidence, or the thought process that “you can’t conceive or prove that this is wrong, so it must be intrinsically right”. I believe this is flawed, and Descartes relies upon this principle far too often for me to take many of his findings seriously by way of modern psychological and philosophical understanding.
I risk paraphrasing the findings of many established contemporary philosophers, but it has been wholly proven that many of his philosophical findings on the matter are inherently incorrect, in that his view of the mind and body being wholly separate is incorrect by way of modern findings in science.
In my thinking, there are far too many holes in his argument for it to be taken seriously in modern times. The mind and body are inherently different by nature, but not distinct. I cannot attest to the greater abstract philosophical debates on the matter, but I believe it is folly to argue for dualism when it has been shown the mind and body are connected on a fundamental level, not separate but reliant on the other and actively contributing to the existence of the other.
To have a conceptual distinction between the mind and body inherently denies the interactions between mind and body, as for them to be distinct actively combats the evident truth of their intrinsically intertwined existence.
By way of Descartes’s own form of argument for the existence of self, in that, we are a thinking thing, and to deny this is a self-evident truth, I might infer that the mind and body being conceptually and truly distinct is a self-evident falsity.
To imply the dualism of mind and body is self-defeating by the nature of the causal and interpersonal interactions between the two. Only one of these concepts can be true, and only one has inherent evidence and a basis in reality. I think the view of the mind-body being distinct and the concept of dualism itself is dated and fundamentally wrong.
