Why this Website?
Unified Theories
In this scientific age, we have been lead to believe of the virtues of
unified theories, in which all observed things in the world follow
from one set of scientific laws of nature. This virtue would be clearly obtained
if all the world, and all of everything in it, were composed of one kind of
substance, since there should then be a unified set of laws for the
behaviour of this thing. This is monism, in which there are no two
different kinds of existing things.
If this one existing substance is material, we have materialism.
If this one existing substance is mental, we have idealism,
If this one existing substance is divine, we have pantheism.
If this one existing substance has material and mental properties, we have
panpsychism.
etc.
Is it TRUE that there is just one existing substance?
Many philosophers, and many scientists in the philosophy of their everyday
life, do not believe that there is just one existing substance.
So we ask the obvious question: is dualism true: that there are are
two (or more) existing substances?
Or is it true that there is just one existing substance?
DesCartes' Dualism
Rene Descartes, in
Meditations, is the best known exponent of the theory of
dualism:
that material and mental substances
are distinct entities.
From his own speculation, he developed what is now called Cartesian
Dualism. This is explained separately, but the basic idea is that mental
substances were not extended in space, and that material substances were
composed of pure extension in space. Minds, though unextended, were thought to
exist at specific places, namely, Descartes thought, in the human pineal gland.
Physicists now longer believe that substances in nature are so simply
characterised as this, but Cartesian Dualism has become the most widely known
formulation of dualism. Widely known, and these days, widely despised!
Robert Bolton
points out:
The philosophy of this century
has been dominated by a reaction against Descartes, which has meant a reaction
against Dualism in general, so that it has ended by becoming almost a term of
abuse, after having been taken for a reality since very early times.
The first question to be considered is: How
far is this reaction justified? Indications that it may not be appear, for
example, in the way that materialistic and monistic thought enjoy a willing
suspension of disbelief that is not afforded to other philosophies; this
would imply motives more social political than philosophical. There is a
tacit conviction that the truth must be simple, despite the fact that this
belief is not supported either by logical reasoning or by experience. Where
this is expressed in anti-Cartesianism, a certain irrationality also appears in
the fact that when we attribute the influence of Dualism to Descartes, we are
implicitly attributing to him the power of imposing his own peculiar way of
thinking on a whole civilisation for three centuries together. In reality,
this kind of power is so rare that it is usually considered an attribute of
the founders of religions, not of philosophers.
Conversely, a more rational line of
criticism would suggest that what Descartes really did was to identify a
certain element in the way in which human minds have always worked, and
create a system around it. Being founded on a universal tendency of human
mind, it would then be sure of acceptance for perfectly natural reasons. This
explanation, however, would take away our right to reproach Descartes with
the problems raised by Dualism as such. The fault, if fault it was, would
have to be with us all. That, however, would be more rational than to
attribute supernormal powers to a secular thinker who is believed to be
discredited.
Because of a
widespread desire for unification and thereby simplification, anti-dualist
philosophies have become so prevalent that anyone could be forgiven for
thinking these philosophies have proved their point and are able to provide a
complete and satisfactory account of reality. But this is only an appearance.
Cartesianism
'Cartesianism' as a doctrine has taken on a life of its own as a position
that few people want to defend.
John Paley, in a recent editorial,
explores some of the paradoxes in the modern acceptances and rejections of
Cartesian dualism. As does a book by Baker and Morris reviewed
here.
Very often it is misrepresented. For example, very many ills of modern thought and practice are attributed to the
separation of body and mind that resulted from this particular conception.
Animals, for example, were not thought to have mentality, but to be like
machines. Affections in the body, for another example, were not allowed to be
related to mentality as such. However, Descartes believed that 'affections in the body' were just that: in
the body and not in the mind.
More discussion on the Descartes legend, and
what he actually said.
Non-Cartesian Dualism: the challenge here!
The challenge discussed at this website is to develop a
Non-Cartesian Dualism.
We can begin by acknowledging that complete theory of dualism should
show how dual substances may be intertwined and contiguous at many levels and
at many scales. Just by analogy with the blue and green in the
logo above,
which are intertwined and contiguous at all scales. What makes this a dualism is
the the blue and green are not continuous with other, but contiguous. We
surely know, for example, that the mental processes are related to more
activities in the human body than just in the pineal gland.
How is dualism possible?
Our challenge requires us to show how dualism is possible. What
coherent theory of dualism & interactions can be formulated? Only then can we
discuss which theory is compatible with empirical evidence and other
constraints!
As well as imagining how dualism is possible, we really need to know
when, where, and why too. A good theory should have the
potential of answering all these questions.
Go to Dualism on the WWW!
or
Go to the New Dualism!
I.J. Thompson, 10 Jan 04
| 
