Surname 1

Student’s name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Substance Dualism

Substance dualism, alternatively known as the mind-body dualism, is a theory that was

conceptualized by one French philosopher and a mathematician by the name René Descartes. It

was back in the 17th century. During this era, the modern problem emerged of the mind's

relationship with the body, and Descartes then gave dualism its classical formulation. The

philosopher explained that the reason or immaterial substance was utterly distinctive from the

body, the material sense of a human being, referred to as dualism. Regardless of Plato, who

established the Theory of Forms as a dualist, Descartes presented another perspective on the

topic. This was achieved through the presentation of solid arguments against Descartes’s theory

by Arnauld, which will be presented to confirm the stand that substance dualism should be

dismissed as a theory to explain the mind-body relationship. Substance dualism is an invalid

theory because of the several arguments that questioned Descartes’ conclusion that mind and

body are not distinct from one another and that one cannot function without the other.

First Element – Critiquing Substance Dualism

In the First Meditation, Descartes chose to suspend judgment on anything he could doubt,

such as the material world, which he even considered a dream. Descartes jotted down the

discoveries he encountered during his meditation in the narrative titled Meditation on First

Philosophy (Descartes 6).The philosopher pondered on counting everything he ever knew before,

as a lie to determine if the foundation he had was proper or not. He began by questioning his
 Surname 2

existence apart from everything he could perceive. The first stage is that since one’s

understanding can conceive things extended through the comprehension of geometrical forms,

there is an excellent possibility of their existence. In the second stage, since the imagination is

exclusively directed towards the ideas of bodies and of how change can be directed towards

them, there is a possibility of the existence of such things. Finally, since the faculty where sense

is perceived is a passive ability entirely to receive several ideas of physical objects produced in

human beings by some external source outside their control, there is a possibility of the existence

of such objects.

Descartes finally came to two conclusions that birthed the argument of strict mind-body

dualism or famously known as Cartesian dualism. Due to the possibility of conceiving the mind

and the body as separate entities, it is safe to conclude that God could cause either to exist

independently of the other, which satisfies the traditional criteria for a metaphysical distinction

(Swinburne 22). Moreover, Descartes notes that the fact that a body occupies a defined region of

space geometrically also means that there is a possibility that it could be divided infinitely. Still,

the mind, regardless of its many operations and faculties, must be conceived as a unitary, single

and indivisible being (Nadler, 36). Since the mind and body cannot be defined to be one

substance, that both the mind and the body are perfectly distinct.

Therefore, because of analyzing the various difference between mind and body, it is

deducible that the thinking part of a human being is distinct from the physical body. While the

body is subject to the physical laws of nature, the physical laws of nature cannot affect the mind.

The soul cannot be substantially affected by death since death is an alteration of the physical

body's state only. This right here is Cartesian dualism (Brooke 658). Cartesian dualism has
 Surname 3

influenced most of the religious beliefs in that most religions tend to believe that the soul still

lives after the death of the body.

Second Element – Arnauld’s Objection to Conceivability

Arnauld was a significant figure in the philosophical landscape, especially in the last half

of the 17th century. He burst into the scene in 1641 when he authored the Fourth Objections of

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. On finishing the manuscript of Meditations,

Descartes sent it to Marin Mersenne to obtain comments from intellectuals in Paris. Arnauld later

wrote of objections that are of central importance both philosophically and because they make

possible articulation of Descartes’s position. His first objection was on the claim that the mind

and body are distinct. For the body and mind to be particular is for a reason to exist outside the

body and the body also exists and functions appropriately without the sense.

Arnauld questions the inference that human beings can distinctively conceive of mind

and body as separate to the reality of them being separable. He argues that, given Descartes’

argument, it causes many controversies. Controversies arise because Descartes claims that he is a

thinking, non-extended thing, and his clear and distinct idea of the body as an extended non-

thinking thing to the claim that he is entirely different from his body and can exist without it”.

While he does not clearly define what the clear and distinct thing was until later, he starts this

meaning and idea that had taken root into one’s mind and stiles him with particular strength.

Arnauld questions Descartes’ belief by stating that suppose someone knows for sure that the

angle in a semi-circle is a right angle, and hence that the triangle formed by this angle and the

diameter of the circle is right-angled. Despite the person’s ignorance, he may doubt, or not yet

grasp assure, that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the yards on the other two sides;

indeed, he may even deny this if some fallacy becomes misleading. Now, if Descartes relies on
 Surname 4

the same argument as that proposed by our illustrious author, he might appear to have validation

of his false belief, as quoted below:

‘I clearly and distinctly perceive,’ he may say, ‘that the triangle is right-angled’;
but I doubt that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the yards on the other
two sides; therefore, it does not belong to the essence of the triangle that the court
on its hypotenuse is similar to the squares on the different sides’(Descartes, 6).

Arnauld presents this argument to disagree with Descartes’ argument since it makes it

seem possible for a right-angled triangle in which the square of the hypotenuse may not be equal

to the sum of the other two sides, nullifying the accuracy of the Pythagoras theorem. Arnauld

argues that a person considers a right-angled triangle but does not embrace that the sum of the

squares of the two sides produces the court of the hypotenuse. He claims that using Descartes’

argument means that one conceives a right-angled triangle without recognizing the existence of

the Pythagoras theorem. One can conclude that a right-angled triangle could exist without

considering the Pythagoras theorem, a conclusion that is untenable.

Arnauld’s second objection states that:

“I have one further worry, namely how the author avoids reasoning in a circle
when he says that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true
only because God exists. However, we can be sure that God exists only because
we clearly and distinctly perceive this. Hence, before we can be sure that God
exists; we ought to be sure that whatever we perceive clearly and is accurate”
(Nadler 36).

This is argument is accurate enough to identify the contradictions that Descartes’ theory

of substance dualism presents. The inconsistencies in the statements he makes leave room for

gaps that remain unexplained by the philosopher. The holes in the idea not only led to

questioning of its eligibility by Arnauld but also the top philosophers to whom Descartes
 Surname 5

presented the argument. As a result, the view was later nullified in explaining the relationship

between the mind and the body.

Conclusion

It is permissible to agree that substance dualism is not a valid theory, as the arguments

presented by other philosophers were not good enough to disqualify substance dualism. The idea

presented by Arnauld concerning the Pythons theorem is not strong enough since if someone

ignores the existence of the theorem regardless of its validity does not mean that it is impractical

to compute the value of a right-angled triangle. Implying that such ignorance does not

necessarily mean that it is inexistent. Descartes leaves several gaps in the theory to explain the

relationship that the mind had with the body.

 Surname 6

Works Cited

Brooke, Roger. "Descartes’ Dualism and the Phenomenological Tradition: A Response to

Elizabeth Urban’s ‘On Matters of Mind and Body: Regarding D." Journal of Analytical

Psychology 63.5 (2018): 658.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger-Brooke/publication/328244025_Descartes

%27_dualism_and_the_phenomenological_tradition_a_response_to_Elizabeth_Urban

%27s_%27On_matters_of_mind_and_body_regarding_Descartes

%27_Response_to_Urban/links/5de6d509299bf10bc33d56e5/Descartes-dualism-and-the-

phenomenological-tradition-a-response-to-Elizabeth-Urbans-On-matters-of-mind-and-

body-regarding-Descartes-Response-to-Urban.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Descartes, Rene. "Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation II." The European Philosophers

from Descartes to Nietzsche, New York: The Modern Library (2002). 6.

https://yale.learningu.org/download/041e9642-df02-4eed-a89570e472df2ca4/

H2665_Descartes%27%20Meditations.pdf

Nadler, Steven. "Dualism and Occasionalism: Arnauld and the Development of Cartesian

Metaphysics." Revue Internationale de Philosophie 48.190 (1994):36.

http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/682%20Readings/nadler%20occasionalism.pdf

Swinburne, Richard. "Personal Identity: The Dualist theory” (1984). 22.

https://iweb.langara.ca/rjohns/files/2016/11/swinburne_identity_short.pdf