Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The Soul:, Dawkins-Hard Materialism, Aristotle's critique of Plato: -…

- - - - The chariot consists of The Charioteer and two horses; the Black horse, and the white horse.
        
        The Charioteer:
        logical
        represents reason and guides 2 horses. Should have vision and purpose, and understand where he's going and what he's doing. The charioteer possesses the highest aims of the three.
        
        The White horse
        Spirited
        immortal, noble and beautiful. Doesn't need to be guided by the charioteer. Wants victory and honour.
        
        The Black Horse:
        Appetitive
        mortal, stubborn, deformed and driven solely by appetite/desires
    - - Cyclical Argument:
        
        each quality exists because of its opposite e.g. darkness exists because because of light. From this Plato argues that just as Life exist so must death. If one of the pair did not exist, the opposite could not exist either. Death comes from life and life comes from death. Furthermore, Plato argues for and endless chain of life, death and rebirth. For this reason he believes there MUST be one constant, and that is our SOUL.
      - Argument from Recollection:
        
        We have prior, rational knowledge and when we 'learn' we're actually just recollecting-The theory of the forms. This knowledge must come from before birth and is therefore dependent on the existence of THE SOUL.
      - Affinity argument:
        
        This follows acceptance of the theory of the forms. The body is more alike the realm of appearances (the body is temporary and imperfect), while the soul is more similar to the realm of the Forms. The soul is likely to continue after death.
  - - - Body and soul
    - - Body with soul
  - - - This continual identity is considered to be the soul (Aristotle uses the term 'psyche').
        
        A person's formal cause is the soul. Otherwise they are just the material cause-bones, flesh etc.
    - - These capabilities may be:
        growing, feeding, reproducing
      - Aristotle believes these capabilities coe from the soul and define what the soul is. Therefore, ALL living things have a soul-
        
        The soul is not a separate entity distinct from the body but instead the capabilities a body has.
        
        Analogy of the Eye:
        
        "If the eye was an animal, then sight would be its soul...the eye is the matter of sight...The waking state is actuality in the same sense that cutting and seeing are, while the soul is actuality in the same sense as sight (the faculty of the eye for seeing) or the potentiality of a tool. The body is that which exists in potentiality; but just as pupil and sight are the eye, so, in our case, soul and body are the animal. "
        
        matter referring to the physical/physiological aspect or part of it-the body
        
        In other words..
        If the eye were an animal in itself, sight would be its soul...So the purpose and function of the eye as we know it, would be from its soul
        
        Analogy of an axe:
        
        "Suppose that a tool e.g. an axe were a natural body, then being an axe would be its essence, and so its psyche [soul]; if this disappeared from it, it would have ceased to be an axe, except in name. (De Anima)
        
        In other words...If an axe were a living thing, then to lose its soul would mean it were no longer an axe. So the soul not only gives something its design but purpose.
    - - Vegetative:
        Function: Being alive in the most basic form, e.g. growing, functioning
        Found in: All living things
      - Appetitive:
        Function: Passions, appetites and emotions, e.g. hinger, happiness
        Found in: Animals and humans
      - Intellectual:
        Function: Rational and directive-thinks, decides, remembers and reflects
        Found in: Only humans
    - - in his earlier writings Aristotle is clear that the soul CANNOT be separated from the body, and therefore along with the body dies. This emphasises his property dualist view which is very close to monism.
        
        however in his later writings:
        he later begins to question if reason could continue after bodily death, though he would not consider this to be an individual's personality. These writings are largely unclear and its difficult to discern what he really thought.
        
        "To attain any assured knowledge of the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world." De anima
    - - The primary function of the soul is to account for the substance's nature-i.e. why things are the way they are.
      - Being alive requires that something perform certain functions, like those Aristotle refers to-reproduction, feeding, moving but also perceiving (fro animals) and reasoning (for humans). These are the powers of the soul, and what give it, it's essence.
  - - - To do this he employed a method of doubt called cartesian scepticism
        
        He did this by firstly doubting everything he knew and then built up his knowledge from there. He begins with 3 waves of doubt...
        Afterall, Descartes points out just how frequently our senses are unreliable and fail us-for example when drinking it may feel as though the room is spinning.
        
        Wave 2:
        Even when I trust my senses, how do I know I am awake, when dreams are so similar?
        
        Wave 3:
        There could be an evil demon tricking me about everything I physically experience so I cannot trust anything Physical.
        
        Wave 1:
        Sometimes my senses trick me so they cannot be certainly trusted
    - - Global doubt:
        WE may not know ANYTHING with certainty, even about the most basic aspects of the world.
        Can't know anything at all
    - - Here its important to remember that Descartes wasn't argue that such a being existed-but rather that it was entirely possible, and as long as this was the case we are all stuck in a radical skepticism
        
        Radical skepticism=we cannot actually trust any of our beliefs. Anything that has ever entered our mind could be planted-from feelings to thoughts.
        
        But this lead Descartes to his most famous concept ever. In the Process of Doubting EVERYTHING he discovered one thing he could not doubt. The doubting itself. Regardless of the truth of anything else Descartes knew he had the ability to doubt, and he must therefore exist since he had the ability to think.
        
        Following his 3 waves of doubt lead Descartes to the one thing he could be certain of...
        
        "Cogito Ergo Sum"
    - - "[my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it." Meditation VI
    - - Descartes argues that the body is clearly divisible-"Any corporeal thing can be easily be divided into parts in my thought;"
      - In contrast to this-Descartes sees the mind as indivisible-"I understand myself to be something single and complete."
      - Descartes argued that the essential property of physical substance is extension
        
        Anything that is extended ins pace can be divided, because there has to be some point along which it could conceivably be divided. The mind does not appear to be this divisible, because it seems to be non-extended
    - - His reason for this was because all other parts of the head were in doubles apart from the Pineal gland, which is central to the brain. Since Descartes time though, science has proven that the Pineal gland secretes Melatonin.
      - However-even if there is a physical place located for interaction between the mind and body, how is the physical converted into the mental and visa versa.
- - - - Body with Spirit
    - - Only body
  - - - Ryle isn't trying to reject the existence of these mental things like consciousness but is instead rejecting the idea that this is a separate part of being human.
    - - "His [referring to the man asking the question] mistake lay in his innocent assumption that it was correct to speak of Christ Church, the Bodleian Library, the Ashmolean Museum and the University, to speak, that is, as if ‘the University’ stood for an extra member of the class of which these other units are members. He was mistakenly allocating the University to the same category as that to which the other institutions belong.”
      - Cambridge/Oxford University example:
      - The person makes the mistake of thinking that the university belonged to the category of 'building', rather than in the category of 'a collection of buildings'.
        
        Ryle argues that the language we use to describe the mind confuses us about the logical category it belongs to.
        
        To Ryle, not being able to find the mind as a physical thing, does not mean it is a non-physical thing
    - - Ryle directly criticises Descartes substance dualism by accusing him of putting a "ghost in the machine". By machine, Ryle is referring to the body and the ghost is the separate mind. Ryle argues that this is a category error, since language is being used incorrectly. The separation of mind and body implies that that a person is made up of two different things, when they are actually one thing. The mind is not a separate part of the body but is part of the way the body behaves. The mind-body problem only arises because we think about the mind in the wrong way.
        
        MY CRITICISM:
    - - The error of assigning to something a quality or action which can only properly be assigned to things of another category, for example treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.
  - - - Dennett-Author of Skinner Skinned:
        Also a materialist but accused Skinner of being too reductionist and his theory of being too simplistic. He argues that the difficulty of explaining something does not negate the point of explaining it. His biggest objection to Skinner's behaviourism is Skinner's suggestion that humans do not have free will.
        
        If Behaviourism were correct "human beings would be little or no better than pigeons or wasps, and we would have to agree we had no freedom or dignity."
- - - - The soul is just yet another concept endorsed by religions to convince people that they need to work on their faith. Afterall, if a religion cannot convince you that you are LIVING your life wrong, the next best thing is to tell people that there's a punishment waiting for them in the afterlife. Its important that people like Dawkins debunk concepts created to exploit people.
        
        Think sale of indulgences-This was only made possible by belief in a soul. People are stilla t risk of falling for scams like this.
      - There are many things science cannot currently make much progress on, such as dark matter. This does not provide grounds for us to start arguing in favour of non-physical existence. In fact, the little knowledge we know about the brain for instance should further support that the explanation for consciousness to be found within the physical structure of the brain
    - - A large part of Dawkins thinking is based off of the fact that he believes eventually everything will be explained by science. We can't know when this will be, but it will happen eventually. However, some would argue that there it isn't fair to criticise religions for unscientifically based views (such as the soul), when Dawkins is willing to believe that eventually science will find a way to disprove the existence of the soul. In terms of principles, what is the difference between a belief in the soul and a belief that the soul will eventually be disproved.
      - If it were true that all humans are is physical beings, then why has the progression of neuroscience and imaging technology only brought as so far, but still not provided us with any real explanation of consciousness. While its true that science can always progress further, and we don't know what it will unveil in the next decade-but in order to be scientific its important to accept the falsifiability principle. Until you can prove the soul does not exist using science, can't dismiss the idea.
  - - - Category Mistake-Ryle
        
        it's wrong to argue that the mind and body are separate. It's a category mistake because for Ryle the mind and body are one entity. The mind is just a way of describing our capacity for actions.
      - Interaction issues:
        
        Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (Descartes' student) made the following argument to dispute Dualism:
        -Physical things (e.g. the body) on move if pushed
        -Only physical things can push physical things
        -So, if substance dualism is true and the mind is a non-physical, the mind cannot move the body.
        -But the mind can move the body
        -So, substance dualism is false (and materialism is true)
      - Ockham's razor and behaviourism-if behaviour can be explained purely in terms of physical brain processes (e.g. neuroscience), then the idea of a non-physical mind or soul in addition to this becomes redundant. In other words, dualism is an unnecessarily complicated theory compared to materialism and so should be rejected.
        
        Furthermore, Behaviourist psychologists have been explaining behaviour in purely physical, testable terms for years with a degree of success. There are studies and theories to support it, which successful applications in treatment. Does this not suggest that the mind is evident in our actions, and is therefore physical?
    - - Materialism has a hard time accounting for the existence of qualia. Even if materialism could give a complete account of how the physical brain causes a person's external behaviour, this wouldn't explain why it feels like something internally for that person to conscious. In other words, materialism can only account for objective facts about the brain but not the subjective aspects of the mind.
        
        Qualia are intrinsic (and non-intentional) phenomenal properties that are introspectively accessible. In other words-the subjective properties of experience e.g. the taste of beer when you have a drink, or the feeling of running your hand over sand paper.
        
        Even if a person learned all the physical facts about conscious experience of seeing colour (e.g. red) without actually seeing it for themselves, they would still learn something new upon experiencing it for themselves. This suggests that there are facts about qualia that are non-physical and thus materialism is false-
- - - - Replica Theory-
        Essentially that, when we die a replica (not a copy, because this is the real you) is created in the Kingdom of God.
        
        This however comes with a few criticisms:
        -If its a perfect replica-do we look how we did when we died
        -what age are you?
        -When are we replicated?
        -Based on a belief in the Judeo-Christian God...