In the comments below, post a response under your name to the following question(s):
Is Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter a reasonable way of understanding all reality? Does "I think, therefore I am" raise an unanswerable question of how mind and body interact? Are there better ways of understanding the self that have emerged in our scientific age? (This is worth 15 points. If I ask a follow-up question on a post, any good answer gets +3!)
72 Comments
BIGGS
9/6/2016 07:22:54 am
YEAH
Reply
Ryan munzlinger
9/8/2016 09:33:40 pm
The mind and body are not identical. They are totally two separate things. Matter is how our senses perceive the world. But we don't actually know if anything is real. We can't disprove or prove anything. My mind and thoughts I believe are controlled by a spirit but then again I can't prove or disprove this. This doesn't mean that they don't work together tho. Because my body doesn't just walk without my brain giving it instructions through neurons and chemical reactions. But what give my brain the thought of me to walk. What starts the initial thought or need for me to walk. My spirit does. So in reality the mind and thoughts are what control my brain which controls my body which means I have free will. Descartes's dualism of mind and matter isn't like full proof explanation of all reality but it does give us another opinion or choice for our spirits to choose or not to choose. I'm sure that there are better ways of understanding the self and deportation of mind and matter but it's up to you to choose what you believe in which is free will
Reply
Max Portman
9/6/2016 12:25:38 pm
Descartes' way of thinking is certainly suitable for those not wanting to ask more questions and are content with that as an answer but in my opinion, it is not as simple as "I think, therefore I am." Even having conscious thoughts that we believe are our own is a topic that is up for debate. Science has obviously proven that our brain controls our body but what if something else controls our brain? It is definitely possibly to hypothesize that there is some kind monster or wizard or higher power telling our brains to do things to us, to make us believe that we are in control where in actuality, we are not.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:07:28 pm
Right - Descartes takes a cheap way around the dilemma of "what if an evil demon is controlling my mind?" He says that even if that was true, then it would prove his mind exists - which proves GOD exists, and God wouldn't let an evil demon deceive him!
Reply
Max Portman
9/8/2016 05:52:05 pm
I suppose from a certain perspective or opinion, God wouldn't allow a demon inside our heads but it doesn't seem fair to rule that possibility out, right? If god is all good then technically, he can't be all powerful and if he is all powerful than how could he be all good?
Corbin N.
9/6/2016 01:34:52 pm
In this day and age, I do believe that there are more sound theories as to why we are who we are, yet at the same time, I don't think they out-do Descartes' original claim of "I think, therefore I am." If you peel back the layers of the new, more stable and scientific claims, you can find that the basis of these claims all relies on Descartes' original philosophy. No matter how much more we come closer to understanding ourselves, the most basic claims will always stand firm.
Reply
Parizaad M.
9/6/2016 02:51:02 pm
I think Descartes's way of thinking is reasonable because when we think in our minds that we are a certain way, we become a certain way. However, it does raise unanswerable questions. Such as who we want to be? I believe that there are certain tacits used to go into someone's inner subconscious that helps people understand themselves better.
Reply
Corey Van Huff
9/6/2016 03:33:17 pm
I believe that Descartes' idea of dualism is sound in the sense that our minds prove we exist and that the rest is just matter that help shape our thinking. This is how reality can be formed. I do however feel as though our minds form different realities since we think and see things differently. I feel " I think, therefore I am" actually shows how the body and mind interact. Your mind is the living, thinking thing while your body is just a physical extension of it. One cannot be complete without the other however as proven by scientific discoveries.
Reply
Dahlia Mozino
9/6/2016 04:03:56 pm
The idea of mind and matter is relatively simple. We've got the mind, lets just call it a "soul" for simplicity's sake, and matter, the body. That's all well and good, but Socrates brings up the argument of "I know nothing", and Descartes furthers that by saying, "Well that guy says we know nothing. That means we know nothing about ourselves, or what is real", which he then starts to make himself feel better with his statement of "I think, therefore I am" The thing about that is, it doesn't really seem to prove anything. We may be thinking things, but who's to say that even if we are thinking, we're not part of some dog's incredibly elaborate dream? A better way of proving "the self" exists is through how others perceive you, instead of how you perceive yourself. And yes, you could bring up the argument that this has all been a dream and that these people are just figments, telling you what you want to hear, but that would be perfectly fine. It would still be a perception of you.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:20:01 pm
So there is a split between the experience of the self from "within" by the self, and the perception of the self from "without" by others. And you think Descartes should have emphasized external perception instead of internal experience, even if those perceiving others' natures can be questioned. Do you think that Descartes's philosophy cuts us off from others by beginning from inner experience? Does it treat other people as an afterthought? One criticism of "Cartesian dualism," as this philosophy is usually called, is that it leads us to privilege the mind over the body and see other people as tools without minds of their own.
Reply
Jennifer Spinelli
9/6/2016 04:15:22 pm
I agree with Descartes' theory of Cartesian Dualism. The idea that we are actually the thinking thing, and that mind and matter are two separate things. I think the questions he was asking went deeper than those of Socrates. It is a reasonable way of understanding all reality, I think. If you think, you are an existing being.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:22:34 pm
Here's a weird question, though: Is thinking the same thing as "being a thinking thing"? What is the "thing" that thinks? As another philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, would write much later: "A thought comes when IT wants, not when 'I' want." He believe that the "I" or "thinking thing" is just another thought. Descartes, on the other hand, believed it was the soul, which Nietzsche did not believe in. What do you think?
Reply
Natalie Gunderson
9/6/2016 04:19:26 pm
Personally, I believe that "I think, therefore I am" is a sound basis that proves the thinker exists. Where they go from there, is entirely up to their own self. Whether it be proving the body is an extension of the mind as Corey said, or proving that the body is just a mental projection that we learn to have in order to keep us grounded. To sum it up, Descartes is right in his philosophy, however it does not explain all reality because reality in itself is subjective.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
9/6/2016 04:26:43 pm
I think that Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter is a reasonable way of understanding all reality. No one can deny that we are driven by the thing inside of us that speaks to us everyday. I agree with him when he says that this is related to the mind/soul part of your body. This voice influences the physical aspects of us, driving us to do the things we do and act the way we act. The mind and body are two separate things, but they work in harmony to make us who we are as people and beings. Science will always have a logical way to explain why we are the way we are. Though it is comforting that there is a scientific explanation to just about everything, I think that it is beyond just chemicals and atoms.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:48:18 pm
Interesting. If there is nothing beyond chemicals and atoms, then the mind and the "inner voice" are CAUSED by those chemicals and atoms - which means that the mind doesn't influence the physical aspects of us, but moreso the other way around. You and Descartes argue instead that the mind is free of the body's atoms, and actually able to cause them to work in different ways that change them (like deciding to lift weights and get stronger, for example). The question is whether the mind is a separate "thing," i.e. the Soul, or whether the mind is just the activity of another physical thing, i.e. the Brain. How would you respond to someone who said that the Brain is the source of the mind, so it can't be a separate thing from the body? How does the Soul relate to the Brain? Obviously that's a really big question, but it's the key one!
Reply
Emma Vollmuth
9/6/2016 04:56:55 pm
I do agree with Descartes's dualism of mind and matter. Even though it is somewhat impossible to understand all of reality, this theory can bring us close to it. " I think, therefore I am." allows the person to relate their experiences and thoughts and apply them to their life. The questions he asks himself are very interesting and also allow him to think further and work toward the goal of better understanding all of reality.
Reply
Nelly Gomez
9/6/2016 05:05:34 pm
I believe Decarte's Dualism of mind and matter could be a reasonable way of understanding all reality, but nobody's reality is the same. We all see things differently and we all question things that we don't understand. Reality can't be just a mental thing and a physical thing reality is just more then the two. It's a bunch of things at once, nobody will really understand what it is because no matter how reality looks someone is always going to question it and try to say it's this or that.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:28:26 pm
So, would you say, things are just THERE, and we're the ones who invent ideas about what's what? That would mean that in a certain sense, all things are One, a Whole that our minds divide up with language. So there's no one right philosophy, because everything is essentially meaningless until we give it meaning. This perspective is usually called "existentialism" - would you say it's what you think?
Reply
Paige Whittle
9/6/2016 05:35:53 pm
While it may be impossible to fully understand and answer the questions of all reality, I think Descartes has a valid point when he says "I think, therefore I am" to some extent. Everyone who has their own thoughts can assure themselves that they are a conscious being on this earth; however, this brings up the question of what truly are you? Are you a make up of chemicals, hormones, and elements that make you react to your surroundings in a certain way? Or are you fully in control of your experiences and reactions to them? I believe that the act of thinking makes you a conscious being, but are you fully in control of this being, or do the things that make you you, such as your chemical make up and experiences, shape your thinking? Overall, I wonder what Descartes truly thinks he "is" just because he "thinks".
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:33:00 pm
Excellent post! Anyone interested in extra credit for extended discussion can try to answer any of the insightful questions Paige posts here.
Reply
Edith T.
9/7/2016 05:01:36 pm
These are some great question. We often think everything we do is something we chose to do. i have always wondered whether we are just being programmed by some form of propaganda, or maybe just certain chemicals. We often forget that we are also animals. Just like any cat, dog, or bird. The fact that we have a "Mind" is one of the only ways we are really different. If we look back on our live, we might even say that we never chose what we wanted to do. Like in school, or career, you may question why you choose what you learn and do. Were you influenced by your parent? Another Adult? Or maybe could what you "think" you love be something you have done in a past life. In so many ways we could be controlled, and following someone's footsteps. Do we know ourselves better than others? This is definitely worth asking.
Izzy Halloran
9/7/2016 06:13:51 pm
I like the point that you made that "everyone who has their own thoughts can assure themselves that they are a conscious being on this earth," but that raises a whole different question in my mind. How does one know that they are thinking their own thoughts? Is it possible to have thoughts that are truly your own, or has every single thought been thought before?
Reply
Parizaad Mohammadi
9/7/2016 06:38:08 pm
Those are some pretty tough questions. I believe that your environment has an impact on how you handle experiences. Sometimes you do have control of your experiences and your reactions. Bust sometimes unexpected things happen and you loss control of your reaction to them.
Reply
Michelle Mazzucca
9/6/2016 05:47:58 pm
I do believe that Descartes's dualism of mind and matter is a reasonable way of understanding reality.The general purpose of why people do things is found by simply asking unanswered questions. "I think, therefore I am" shows that people have the power to become what they want. People have their own control over what they do, but it goes unnoticed. They are used to viewing things a certain way, and living a certain way because it is what they are told. Overall, Descartes dualism of mind and matter suggests that the mind is powerful and is filled with answers to unknown ideas. There is more reasoning than we know.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:31:30 pm
One thing I take away from this, and which Descartes also pointed out, is that the mind has control over the body. This means we can pretty much always find the mental willpower to say "no" to physical desires, like if we are really hungry we can still stop ourselves from stealing food if we think it's morally wrong. Do you think that's true? How much control do our conscious minds have when, for example, we become extremely angry, or extremely depressed, or extremely scared? Does this prove that the "matter" of the body takes control of the mind at times?
Reply
Paige Davis
9/6/2016 06:51:13 pm
I do believe that "I think, therefore I am" does raise a question but it isn't unanswerable. Honestly the quote makes sense because whatever you think usually affects how you act and how you are as a person. It can raise unanswerable questions such as who am i? and do I like the person I have become? but the quote itself is not unanswerable because your mind is usually the thing controlling how you are as a person so what you think defines who you are.
Reply
Tara
9/6/2016 07:18:46 pm
I think that from a philosophical perceptive anything raises unanswerable questions but to someone who is content with what they are told "i think therefor i am" is enough for them to believe in the reality of their world.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:37:17 pm
Ha, it seems like all your fears are the same ones Descartes was trying to combat with his theory. He was obsessed with having total certainty about his existence, and he obviously felt that his body was not his true self. For him that led to religion, believing his "mind" was synonymous with the soul and in death would leave his body to go to its creator, God. But if God created you with that specific kind of mind, didn't he to some extent control the kinds of thoughts you could have, in much the same way as your girl-in-another-world analogy? I think this really shows one of the major problems with Descartes's theory from, as you say, a "personal perspective." As the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud would later show, many of our thoughts bubble up from unconscious parts of our minds - they aren't necessarily "our own" at all, at least if by "us" you mean our conscious minds.
Reply
Edith T.
9/6/2016 07:47:00 pm
Descartes way of seeing things can be understood, except there are the common holes of defining mind and defining matter. Both are very different, according to this idea. In order to justify these things make the most sense, we must define what it is we are looking at, in the first place. Descartes may have explained what we mean by mind and by matter. Either way we have to know what these things apply to. If we are talking your body and your thoughts that would be different than discussing your brain and the objects around you.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:27:03 pm
It sounds as if your approach would break things down into more parts than simply two different "substances" as Descartes called mind and matter. Why, you're asking, do we have to have that as a major dividing line - especially when it's hard to define mind and matter in the first place? I will say that for Descartes, "mind" is basically the substance that souls, Heaven and God are made out of, as well as our thoughts; while "matter" is anything that is part of the earth, anything physical and tangible, including our bodies.
Reply
Young Chen
9/6/2016 07:58:08 pm
I do believe that Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter is a reasonable way to understand many parts or reality, but not all of it. The quote "I think, therefore I am" does raise an unanswerable question of how mind and body interact, many would say that science has figured out the way how the body interacts with the mind. How do we know that is the only solution? We don't because our reality limits us to what we believe is the solution. I don't believe that there are new ways to understand the self in our scientific age.
Reply
Kelly Farley
9/6/2016 08:35:05 pm
Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" raises an unanswered question about the relationships between the mind and the body. If I were to have just read this I would think that this is just a simple answer and might be a basic part of a bigger reason for this relationship. However, after watching this video I see how much time and thought he put into getting this answer that might seem simple to others but to him it is a more complex statement than it seems. You cannot answer this question because different people might question this interaction in different ways. For me, I would want to build upon this and continue to ask more questions until I come up another statement that I understand but maybe someone else wants to build upon that or take away something from that. This question of the interaction between the mind and body is unanswerable because everyone questions differently therefore everyone could have different solutions to views on this topic.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
9/7/2016 09:47:32 am
In the scientific age we live in, we are provided means of both losing ourselves in an ideal self image and gaining awareness of our true selves. Personally, I think that our access to technology and social media in particular helps us lose ourselves more than discover ourselves. Of course, there are special cases where people utilize social media and technology in the way it was intended, to share ones personality and true life with friends and loved ones, but for the most part, social media has become a platform to build an ideal version of ourselves which our true selves are seemingly always in competition with, leading to this never ending internal struggle so many people face today. With the constant flow of information our techonologies have provided us, it is easy to lose our true selves. We create flawless alter egos online, we spend hours everyday staring at a screen, hoping maybe someone will text us, snapchat us or like our picture. Our minds are completely preoccupied. Instead of technology enabling us to discover more about ourselves, it has become a sort of competition for followers views likes subscribers etc. But, on the other hand, some people utilize technological outlets like blogs or websites to offer a platform for people dealing with the same things they are. People with certain medical conditions, disorders, family situations and many more have created websites and the like to have an outlet. This is really the only way I think our scientific age has helped us to discover ourselves. What our technological era has enabled is not self discovery. It operates under the guise of self discovery.
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:52:18 pm
So today there is no separating some inner "self" from the outer self-image that we project. And the internet means that not only are we more linked to other people than ever before, we are now projecting parts of our "selves" into machines. Would you go so far as to argue that any idea of a "true self" has been lost? I wonder if that could actually provide us with more freedom, since we could be whatever we wanted, except that in the absence of an authentic self, we instead choose to try to be what (we think) people want us to be.
Reply
Max Portman
9/8/2016 05:57:04 pm
This is off topic a tad but I have found myself almost daily just going to my computer and browsing reddit or facebook as a bit of a habit as opposed to reading a book or being alone with my thoughts or doing anything relatively productive or noteworthy with my time.
Max Lowrey
9/7/2016 01:29:16 pm
It isn't necessarily a sound way of thinking, rather a safe way: you know you are alive as long as you can think. It's more of a comforting statement, like a security blanket for an existential crisis. Is it a resonable way of thinking? Not really. I mean, if you only know thay you- yourself- are real, where do you go from there? Of course, the question will either haunt you forever (is anything but me real?) or you will ignore it until you die. Of course, scientists have tried to prove that we are real, but how can you trust someone else if you can't even trust your own thoughts?
Reply
Biggs
9/7/2016 01:40:03 pm
As I mentioned in another comment, Descartes went to religion - he argued that since he existed, something must have created him, so God exists, which means the world exists. A lot of people see this as a cheap way out, not because there's anything necessarily wrong with faith but because he doesn't make a truly philosophical argument. But I think "existential crisis" is exactly what happened to him. He dreamed about himself dreaming, and got so freaked out by the questions it raised that this theory was indeed fashioned as a "security blanket." Nice point.
Reply
Michael Deitz
9/7/2016 02:37:32 pm
Renee Descartes lived in a simpler time for people, mainly 1600-1650, where the troubles of life consisted of whatever Queen Elizabeth decreed is a trouble. For one of the most influential philosophers, Descartes suffers greatly from the time period he is from, colonization of the Americas was still fairly new and the age of Enlightenment was still 100 years away. People were not taught how to think and question the world around them, just to survive any outbreaks of diseases and dodge waste being thrown out of windows. Education became prominent throughout society and therefore, everyone began to think and question more. In this more complicated time, where major questions range from has technology taken over our lives and what defines gender and equality, the question of who am I seems sorely forgotten. But, I argue, no longer is Descartes simple and archaic answer enough to suffice this inquisition. For how complex and random we are as humans, this basic answer skims over so much, it's the plank of wood to start building the house of the self. With more constant contact than ever before, via call and text and Twitter and the like, others are shaping our life all the time. The shared experience that is living the human life is one best shared with friends, but almost everything molds us ways unexplainable by philosophy or science. Sure our brain and bodies are different, but our thoughts are a mixed stew of past experiences and interactions. We are everyone else, filtered through what are "our" opinions and values, and turned into, well, us. We can't explain who we are, people spend their entire lives searching for identity and while some of that can be grasped the answer of who am I is never going to be answered completely. Science has nothing to do with that, sure I'm made up of blood and muscles and bones but what does that have to do with me as an individual? The better way to ask the question is not to ask who am I, it's to ask who aren't I?
Reply
Marissa Seely
9/7/2016 02:58:47 pm
The fact that we, as humans, have consciousness and self-awareness is such a bizarre thing. Do you ever wonder why it's US that just so happened to be aware of our existence, and not common household objects, or clouds, or even shoes? Non-living objects cannot have thoughts, but why can't they have thoughts? Who decided what would be living and non-living? What force granted us the ability to think the thoughts we think, and didn't grant the same ability to other forms of matter? Reading this article seriously made me start thinking about this. What makes our composition so special that we get to think things, but the composition of a table or chair or a grape wasn't good enough to have consciousness or be aware of itself? I do believe that Descartes's theory of dualism of mind and matter is a reasonable way of understanding some of reality, but not all of it. I think it's easy, and perhaps almost comforting, for humans to agree with Descartes's "I think, therefore I am." We like to think that because we have thoughts and we are aware of them, that we must exist. But who knows who, or what, controls these thoughts, beyond just our brains and nerves? What if this is all just one big story, novel, or dream, and we're just characters being written and killed off?
Reply
Biggs
9/11/2016 12:39:23 pm
Consciousness is such an interesting questions. It seems like, according to biology, our brains are what allow us to have consciousness. But our brains are physical objects. In philosophy this is called the "hard problem": what is it that our brains are the only objects that seem to create thoughts? The lack of an answer to that question leads many to agree with Descartes that there must be "more than matter" involved in our minds.
Reply
Henry Ehlers
9/7/2016 03:53:21 pm
Descartes's statement "I think, therefore I am," makes me wonder how he thinks, from a physical standpoint. We know from modern science that thoughts are created and interpreted in the brain, which means he must have a brain! Brains need organs, and organs need a body, so that proves that he is in some way on the matter side of the dualism wall. To me, this takes away all the logic from the duality idea. In the modern scientific era, it seems to me that the most accurate way to identify one's self is as the series of nerve pulses powering the brain.
Reply
Will Weaver
9/7/2016 03:59:50 pm
The mind has control over the body because we need to think before we act which shows a huge connection. So i do not believe that the quote "I think therefore I am" raises an unanswerable question. But i also think that our actions effect the way we think. Also, i do not believe we need technology to better understand ourselves because we are born a certain way for a certain reason. In addition to that, i don"t think we need technology because only us as humans can understand who we are. Mind and matter is a reasonable way of understanding reality because the things around us help our mind ask questions and better understand whats around us.
Reply
Giulia Dostie
9/7/2016 04:00:05 pm
Yes, I believe “I think, therefore I am” raises unanswered questions because I believe it is not as simple as that. If I think that I am famous, it doesn’t mean that I am, and I feel as though a lot of people get trapped in this mindset of an unrealistic reality. They set unreachable goals, and end up failing because the mind is taking over and saying, “I can do anything I put my mind to”, but once they fail, they feel as though their body has betrayed them. Also, do we know that our mind control us, or are we just conditioned to believe that because that is what we have been told? If we are being told all these different things, then we aren’t as in control of ourselves as we thought, and that way of thought scares people. It feels like the more advanced our technology gets, the more opportunities people get to control, and manipulate us. This is just like my generation and technology. I believe that my generation is so fixated on the idea that technology can only bring good, not harm that we are losing sight of who we really are. On most social media accounts you will come across, it looks like that person’s life is perfect and they have no flaws, when in reality they have the power to make you see what they want, and they can manipulate that picture until they feel it is believable. Science has proven through technology that humans always want what they can’t have, creating a false sense of happiness so that we feel good about ourselves.
Reply
Holly Braverman
9/7/2016 04:40:01 pm
Descartes’ theory regarding the Dualism of Mind and Matter is a reasonable way of understanding all reality. After all, the mind lies within the body. The human brain controls the body and its functions, even though one is not entirely cognizant of this. Through the intricate arrangement of the nervous system, the brain sends signals to each part of the body. For example, if a person were to walk for one mile, they would not think “left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot…” for the entirety of their walk; the brain automatically sends signals to the proper body parts so they operate in the desired manner. This correlates to Descartes’ theory that “ ‘I’, the true self, is the ‘thinking thing’ inside the body”. Moreover, “I think, therefore I am” raises an unanswerable question of how mind and body interact. Descartes claimed that since he thinks, he could be sure that he existed as a thinking thing. I argue however, that one cannot be sure if you exist simply because you think. Who is to say that humans, at the very least, are not controlled by some sort of “higher power”, such as an evil demon (as mentioned by the latter of the provided videos) that acts as a puppeteer for one’s thoughts? Who is to say that we are all not pre-programmed in some way to think and to believe as each person does individually? One cannot say with complete confidence that they “are” or “are not”, they can simply say “I think I am/am not [, though I do not have the power nor the complete knowledge to know]”. We cannot begin to understand how our mind and body interact together until we are completely certain as to how each part works individually. Though we may not know the total answer as of now, our scientific age has produced more refinements to the understanding of the self. One of the most notable contributions (as mentioned in the former of the two provided videos) was made by the late 19th century psychologist Sigmund Freud, who brought up the notion of repressed desires, which emerge by way of unconscious forces. Perhaps we shall never fully “understand the self”, purely because we are trying to define ourselves. We are therefore ironically human minds trying to understand human minds, forever doomed to be limited by our knowledge and mental capacity.
Reply
Gabriella Lopez
9/7/2016 04:55:00 pm
I do believe Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter is a reasonable way to understand reality. Nothing in our world can truly be verified. For all we know, we could be living a complete lie powered by aliens who are in control of our destiny. Descartes's theory, however, does allow us to verify two things in our lifetime: mind and matter. He does not refer to these matters as physical subjects, but rather entities. His theory of mind is a substance that controls emotions, thoughts, etc. His theory of mind is a substance that conforms to the laws of physics. In our lifetime, all we do is question our world and seek answers. In all reality, nothing is guaranteed (except mind and matter). Therefore, the best way, and only way in my opinion, to approach reality is with the idea that Descartes's Dualism of mind and matter exists. It is the only reasonable explanation. Furthermore, I do not think his "I think, therefore I am" raises unanswered questions between the relationship of mind and body. As discussed last block, humans are constantly mimicking what the are surrounded by. I believe that by surrounding yourself with new thoughts of how you wish to be perceived, will eventually become reality. The thoughts will eventually turn into obsessions, leading to the mimicking done in everyday human nature. Furthermore, I do not believe there is a better way to understand the self, especially in our scientific age. I believe there are way too many factors that would alter such an experiment. Once again, there is no guarantee that alien's are not controlling our world. Therefore, how can we know that they will alter our experiment to yield us the outcomes we desire. There is no guarantee in this world that can definitely provide us the answers of knowledge of the self.
Reply
Biggs
9/11/2016 12:51:37 pm
The one problem with your logic here is that if the mind conforms to the laws of physics, it can't be a non-physical substance. That would mean Descartes is wrong, and there is only one kind of substance (matter) because everything (including minds) obeys the same physical laws. Instead of Dualism, we would have Monism, the idea that there is only one substance, and our minds are a form of matter. Since the brain fires electrochemical signals, this is at least a plausible argument. What do you think? Is Monism a better theory than Dualism?
Reply
Phoebe Carr
9/7/2016 04:58:57 pm
"I think, therefore I am" may be a conceivably true statement, but it is a clouded way to view things in aspects of "all reality". Reality surely includes the existence of other people, whether they are a figment of the mind (which I would imagine Descartes would propose) or not. To view /all reality/ in a way so specific to oneself is ignorant and borderline foolish. In regards to the interaction of body and mind, it does pose the question of how it is all connected, like how my hands can type exactly what I am thinking in this moment. It is hard to find an answer to this problem, sure, but if Descartes is relating mind to soul, wouldn't it make sense to say the soul is what connects body and mind? I have always thought of soul to be something that physically inhabits the body, giving people personalized mannerisms and quirks. Though I cannot say I am well-read on the topic of scientific explanations of the self (nor am I very close to understanding self in my own right), I can say that self can feasibly be a set of chemicals reacting in a certain way to evoke a certain emotion/personality, but that thought may even be more existentially distressing than the thought of an "evil demon controlling the mind".
Reply
emily clarke
9/7/2016 05:59:27 pm
(I accidentally hit submit before I wanted to)
Reply
Julia Maier
9/7/2016 05:52:10 pm
" I think, therefore I am" definitely raises an unanswerable question. Although this may change peoples perspective, I do not find this entirely true. This may motivate you to be what you think, but not nesserly be. If you were to think "I am am a doctor", you most certainly can strive to be a doctor, but that is up to to you whether you want to do the hard work to become one. I think this brings you into mind and matter. We have our mind telling us one way and our actions may be completley different. To conclude "I think, therefore I am" may be a reasonable statement, but not quite be true.
Reply
emily clarke
9/7/2016 05:57:23 pm
"I think, therefore I am" raises a multitude of unanswered questions. I believe that there are many more layers to that statement. It is unreasonable to go through life thinking that you have the answer to life because you think, therefore you are. It is much more complex than that. Descartes tying religion into it is not answering anything either and his answer makes little sense.
Reply
emily clarke
9/7/2016 06:02:18 pm
ok this is getting ridiculous I did it again.
Reply
Bella Glidden
9/7/2016 06:06:00 pm
I believe that the quote "I think, therefore I am" does effect the way you act. If you are thinking about doing something your thoughts will lead you in the direction to it. How do we know what we're thinking is always the right thing to do? We don't and i feel thats why people do them to see if it it us and what we want to do. Maybe there is something else controlling how we think but it is still us because it is in our body and would still control what we do. Our mind thinks things that do control our body and causes them to take risks. No matter what is taking control of our mind it will always connect us to the body even if the body does not react to it.
Reply
Izzy Halloran
9/7/2016 06:06:48 pm
In a class Freshman year, my teacher asked us, "what is one thing you know for sure to be true?" I immediately thought, I know lots of things to be true, but when she asked me to prove it, I didn't know how. The class decided that there is nothing we know for sure. Thus, I am brought to the conclusion that Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter is not a reasonable way of understanding all reality. Descartes is sure that he exists as a "thinking thing" but he himself stated that there is nothing he knows for sure. How can he know that he is a thinking thing when he cannot be sure that he is the one thinking his own thoughts? Perhaps he is receiving these thoughts from a higher power? There is absolutely no way to prove that we are the one's thinking our own thoughts, therefore, I disagree with Descartes's "I think, therefore I am."
Reply
Sofia Fernandes
9/7/2016 06:18:27 pm
Descartes’s Dualism of Mind and Matter is not really a reasonable way of understanding all reality. I believe this because the only things in the universe that can prove their existence through Descartes philosophy are those with a brain. Although it is a very good way to prove that people, animals, and insects are part of reality, it does not prove that inanimate matter is part of reality. Despite this, a scientific viewpoint may be used to consider the idea that living things could not exist without the existence of nonliving things in the environment, therefore everything is apart of reality. “I think, therefore I am” makes me question the idea that we physically exist. Although our thoughts seem to come out of nowhere, thus proving some portion of us is part of reality, do the thoughts also prove that our bodies physically exist? It is true that our bodies respond to commands given by our brains, but how do we know that there is nothing else controlling our bodies and the idea that our thoughts are is simply an illusion? In our scientific age, people have learned to better understand themselves by taking the time to observe how they react to the outside world. We also pay attention to the way other people and their actions make us feel in order to better understand our limits, likes, and dislikes. In my opinion, the easiest way to understand oneself in order to further understand others is to observe the instinctive emotions and reactions to others and the outside world.
Reply
Allie Talavera
9/7/2016 06:24:35 pm
I do believe that Descartes's Dualism of mind and matter is a resonable way to understand the many parts of reality. "I think, therefore I am" raises a tricky question in which is impossible to form a united answer. Everyone thinks in their own logical way which produces millions of different ideas on the reality of life. I personally believe this quote is a sensible explanation because your thoughts contribute to your actions and mold who you are as a person. No one really puts much thought into this subject, but when they do, it raises unanswerable questions of who you are as a person.
Reply
Adam Fioretti
9/7/2016 06:26:10 pm
"I think, Therefore I am" to me is half true. I truly believe that I am currently awake and active right now and I don't really need to question that. On the other hand there is really no way for me to prove that is true that I am awake and not dreaming. Descartes's dreams were exactly like real life and that's how some dreams are, so how do we really know we aren't dreaming? Like he said we cannot trust our five senses to bring us to the realization that we are or aren't dreaming because we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell things in some of our dreams and thats what makes them so realistic and hard to tell what is a dream and what is real life. This raises more and more questions as you go about thinking deeper and deeper into it because you can't really ever find the true realistic answer to these questions.
Reply
Kaitlyn Viola
9/7/2016 06:35:23 pm
Descartes' theory "I think, therefore I am" could be a mostly viable one. However, I believe that existence has to do with experience, not thoughts. Additionally, Descartes' theory that an "evil demon" could be controlling his thoughts could also be interpreted as experiences. Maybe experiences represent this demon in the sense that an experience can change the way you think, and exist. Whether your thoughts are determined by the chemical makeup of your brain or not, they can be affected by experiences or "demons".
Reply
Max Portman
9/8/2016 06:00:37 pm
I've found that thoughts and experience often contribute to each other, in the same way I believe that the brain and the soul work together in a kind of symbiotic relationship.
Reply
Erin
9/7/2016 06:46:36 pm
Getting deeper and deeper in thought, I always hit the conclusion that I cannot truly prove anything to be true. "I think, therefore I am" is sort of a blind way of addressing life. I may think something is right, but what makes that true? And what makes me think that is true? If you can get through in life by saying whatever I think is true to me then you can lead a happy and oblivious life. But asking so many question can leave you in "a whirlpool of doubt". For me personally, Decartes's mantra leaves too many open doors. Understanding the self is a personal matter I believe. Scientists are certainly trying to dig deeper to try to unravel the age old question who are "we". In my opinion we can never have all the answers. There was always be bigger questions left up to the individual to decide.
Reply
Jack McNally
9/7/2016 07:15:53 pm
I question if mind and matter are two things that should be separate. In many ways, mind and matter are so often intertwined, it can be hard to determine the line that is drawn between the two. The exterior environment that each individual faces obviously affects the mind greatly, so clearly the mind is impacted by matter. At the same time, the mind creates ideas, which result in actions, which result in changes in the physical world, meaning that matter is impacted by the mind. The line between matter and mind is even further blurred when you realize that the brain is simply an organ, made of cells, in turn made of atoms, which are of course matter. All the thoughts that an individual has are just created by certain neurons being fired off inside your brain. If one takes into account that neurons and brain cells are just physical things, that these physical things are what create thoughts, and that thoughts are what shape a mind, one can make a reasonable argument that the mind is no more than an extension of the physical world. So when Descartes states “I think, therefore I am”, is he really just stating that his brain exists in the physical universe, and no more than that? The scientific age has certainly helped us understand the concept of self better. Before neuroscience, people didn’t understand the way the brain functioned, so it was easier to say that the mind and soul were completely different from the physical world. This was the same reason why for the large majority of human existence, we did not realize that we ourselves are a species of animal, just like any other species. In fact, Descartes was known for arguing that only humans are conscious, and that all other species of animals are not self-aware.
Reply
Kiera Lee
9/7/2016 07:40:43 pm
Descartes saying that there are mental or spiritual things, and then physical things, raises an immediate question in one's mind: what is his definition of mental and material? This could be presented and applied to almost anything. A Christian, for instance, could say that God is both spiritual as well as physical. But does is that a general mentality? No, not according to other religions. Anyone could have any view on what is considered mental and "material," but neither are the only way to understand all reality. It isn't just black and white, and as opposed to the thinking of "I think, therefore I am," what one thinks and believes to be true is not always as it seems. There is no one way of understanding and analyzing the self, the real, the fake, and all in between.
Reply
Meghan Pawlak
9/7/2016 08:02:46 pm
There's no true way to understand reality but I think his perspective of dualism could help in understanding it better. The way the mind and body work together can easily be explained by some scientific answer, but its how the mind and body work together to form "I" is what stumps people. One could bring in personality and claim that, that is the mind's doing and could say that feelings or emotions is the bodies' doing. Now a days people enjoy taking personality quizzes to find answers but those aren't always honest because we tend to pick the personality we wish we had rather than the one we do have. In my opinion, there aren't any new WAYS of understanding self but rather new theories that people are more attracted to than previous theories; there are new ways of ATTEMPTING to understanding self.
Reply
Will Spencer
9/7/2016 08:24:52 pm
With the quote "I think, therefor I am", I believe it can be a negative thing. It almost has a selfish tone to it. It reminds of believing in what you want to believe. I think of what I am, therefor I am what I am. This saying won't get you far in life at all. Believing in only what you want to believe is a severe case of selfishness. What happens when your thoughts are wrong? Can thoughts be wrong? I believe thoughts can most certainly be wrong. If you think of murdering a man in the street, that can be classified as a wrong thought because that's a malevolent thing to do. So if you think about what you want to think about, and you do what you want to do all the time, it can prove to be very negative.
Reply
Biggs
9/11/2016 12:47:15 pm
This is a very good point. If we base our whole philosophy on the self, it can lead to a kind of self-enclosure. We see others as at least potentially "less real" to us. This is very different from what Emerson and Thoreau, to use an example from sophomore English, called self-reliance. They thought we should see the self as connected to all things, in which case we would recognize it as malevolent to harm other things, as opposed to just a "neutral" thought. It allows us to think morally by reminding ourselves our existence is tied up with other people's existence.
Reply
Nora Fraser
9/7/2016 08:50:05 pm
I do not think that Descartes's Dualism of Mind and Matter can be considered a reasonable way of understanding reality, as it raises more questions than answers, such as how do mind and body interact? And how can we draw the line between two elements which are so deeply intertwined? His theory "I think, therefore I am" touches upon the fact that we can't be sure that our material forms even exist, or those of other people and creatures. This theory proves that he exists as a thinking being, however it cannot even prove the existence of a physical brain, and we cannot ever prove whether or not our bodies exist, much less whether they interact with our minds the way we think they do. However, his theories do not have to leave the ponderer with an understanding of reality, but an understanding of the fact that nothing can truly be proven, and that reality exists, but is undefinable. It may not lead to total understanding, however it can lead to acceptance. Regardless of whether our bodies are reacting to the world the way we perceive them to, or of whether our bodies or the world even exist in the way we experience them, our experiences are all we have to go on, so acceptance that a true understanding of reality will forever allude us may be constructive than attempting to search for a true answer.
Reply
Kyle Eber
9/7/2016 08:53:05 pm
I can see both sides of Descartes' Dualism, where it is both reasonable and unreasonable. Because if my body is connected yet separate from my mind, why is my consciousnesses just not floating all about and causing havoc. It's reasonable in the sense where if you believe in souls and other spiritual ideas then it's simple to disconnect your mind and your body but not everyone can do so. But, I think that's the take and go part of Dualism where you know that one this is certain and the other is not so certain yet you believe in both- I hope I'm understanding that correctly. And in our scientific age, with technology, we can understand ourselves and who were down to the chemistry of atoms or something more complicated as a brain scan and seeing our bodily matter connected directly with our thoughts. I, personally, don't know whether this is all a dream or a false reality but I know that in my dreams, words don't appear. Yet on my screen, right now, I'm seeing letters being typed and I can read them. In it's simplest form, in our age, we're able to know ourself through the habits that we've formed through living each day.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
9/7/2016 09:28:33 pm
I do not agree with that Descartes way of thought and don't believe it to be a reasonable way to understand reality. The reason for this is when you start to apply ,"I think, therefore I am" , to yourself then it doesn't make sense. An example would be, if I believe that I am a rock does that mean I am a rock? Also if I think I am a god of some kind does that mean that I am a god? I believe that there are more scientific ways to understand ones self and example would be to go and see a psychologist to see how you act or to take personality tests.
Reply
Dixie O'Connell
9/7/2016 10:20:47 pm
Science has shown that a rock does not have a brain it is just made of matter but it still is. A rock can arguably have a soul without it having thoughts. A rock is still in the constant state of being much like a human is in the same state. It is a way of understanding how a persons existence is legitimate but not the answer to why and how these things exist. I agree that one is a physical thing and a spiritual thing but someones spirit does not effect their physical being. Having certain thoughts does not change physical traits. It seems that studies went from a simplistic, to optimistic and then pessimistic way of perceiving self understanding. Being able to study the brain and see certain levels has changed the way of self.Being able to experiment and study in test groups with patients and also therapy has given a way to understand ourselves with evidence.
Reply
Biggs
9/11/2016 12:43:17 pm
Some of the most ancient religions claim that all things have souls (these are called Animistic religions, like "animation").
Reply
Bijou
9/8/2016 04:11:27 am
I do agree with his theory , not all times life has to be made with a scientifical reason . The theory mind and matter makes a lot more sense. Your mind and the way you think has a lot to do with life.
Reply
Kevin Rojas
9/13/2016 06:20:15 pm
i do belive that change is a reality because if it wasnt then that would mean we are all the same person we were since the firt day we were born. And i do belive change is nessisary in order to mature and develop as a person if we were not to change that would mean that we would be unable to grow or develop as individuals.
Reply
Katherine Godinez
9/13/2016 09:29:01 pm
"I think, therefore I am", might just be a way to explain what we cannot yet explain. How can we explain "reality"? What is the reality of all things ? Though it cannot be proven, I believe the mind and the body work as a whole, like a machine one is used to trigger the other. Without the body the brain is just an organ on its own, with out the brain the body cannot function . Statements as such are applied to people lives depending on what they believe and how they were raised all together. Some may agree with Decrates statement while others may not & it all contributes to our beliefs and how we make sense of our reality. There are many unanswered questions about "life" and who where are, many people try to find the answer to questions that cannot be answered and graps to what makes sense to them, in the attempt to stop themselves from opening the doors to a tunnel of unanswerable questions. It's hard to believe that we are just a small little dot in what we call the "universe".
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |