Transcript Reading: More Evaluating René Descartes
We’re back to continue our discussion on René Descartes' philosophy. Last time, we left off with his proof that God exists and that our normal sense perceptions reveal the world as it really is. Now, let’s dive into another crucial part of his philosophy, starting with his arguments about the human mind.
Descartes offers a new argument to explain the relationship between the mind and the body. His first claim is:
- The human mind is a thinking thing.
This, Descartes says, cannot be doubted. Why? Because to doubt it, you would have to perform an action—thinking itself—and you can only perform an action if you exist. That’s the Cogito, ergo sum argument all over again. You can’t doubt the mind because doubting itself proves its existence. But he goes further:
- Physical bodies in space can be doubted.
- Therefore, mind and body are two distinct realities.
His conclusion is bold: the mind and body are two entirely different things. The mind is not in space, and bodies cannot think. Bodies also cannot perform other mental activities, such as willing, perceiving, feeling, doubting, or believing. Descartes argues that these two realities are "exclusively distinct," meaning whatever is true of one cannot be true of the other.
That’s a weighty conclusion, built on two seemingly simple premises. Let’s take a closer look at his second premise: physical bodies in space can be doubted. Descartes argues that since you can doubt the existence of your physical body, but you can’t doubt the existence of your mind, they must be fundamentally different.
But here’s the problem: he's basing this distinction on what can be doubted, not necessarily on what is. Consider this scenario: Imagine there’s a bush in my front yard. I walk past it every day without fear. But suppose it’s Halloween night, and I’ve had a drink or two. Suddenly, I think I’ve gone out the back door instead of the front, and when the bush brushes against me, I mistake it for a terrifying creature.
In that moment, I could be terrified by what is actually just a bush. My confusion doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bush—it just changes my perception of it. Descartes’ argument doesn’t account for the possibility that we might be mistaking our perceptions of physical objects or minds. Maybe what we think are distinct, non-physical minds are actually physical brains, and we’re simply misunderstanding them.
So, while Descartes asserts that because we can doubt bodies but not minds, they must be distinct, this doesn’t necessarily follow. The conclusion that mind and body are "exclusively distinct" doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
Now, let’s move to another of Descartes' arguments:
- Whatever is not in space cannot have parts.
- Whatever has no parts cannot be destroyed.
- The mind is not in space.
- Therefore, the mind cannot be destroyed and is naturally immortal.
This argument is attempting to show that the mind, being non-physical, cannot be destroyed because it has no parts to disintegrate. If something has no parts, it can’t fall apart, right? Therefore, Descartes concludes, the mind is immortal.
However, I think there’s a significant flaw here. Descartes assumes that the only way something can be destroyed is by being broken down into parts. But what if God, for example, simply decided to annihilate something? In the Bible, Jesus told His disciples that they should fear God, who has the power to destroy both body and soul. Destruction isn’t limited to things that can be broken into parts; if God wanted to, He could simply will something out of existence. So, Descartes' argument for the immortality of the mind seems to fall flat.
Moreover, I disagree with his claim that the mind isn’t in space. In my view, minds are connected to space. After all, doesn’t it seem that some minds know things that others don’t? For example, if you have a secret in one place, and I’m far away and don’t know it, doesn’t that suggest some connection between minds and spatial reality? Descartes says only bodies exist in space, but I think there’s more to the story. We have brains, yes, but we also have minds—or souls, as many would call them.
So why is Descartes pushing so hard to prove that the mind is distinct from the body? What’s driving these bold, far-reaching conclusions from such slender premises?
I think I know the answer to that question, and I’ll tell you what I believe Descartes has in mind. There’s something deeper motivating these ideas, and I’ll share that with you next.
In back of all this is a very sharp controversy over whether people have freedom or they are determined in their beliefs and actions. Determinism means that whatever you think the cause is doesn't matter. It could be how your brain's configured, or how your DNA is configured, or how you were potty trained. Doesn't matter what the cause is. These causes accumulate. They actually force you to believe what you believe, think what you think, do what you do. That's determinism.
The free will position is we not only have a body, and not only is it the case that many influential forces impinge on it. We have a DNA structure. We are influenced by our upbringing, and so on, and so on with the culture around us. But still, push comes to shove, we don't have to do A rather than B. We have the freedom in that moment to say, "No, I'm going to do B. I don't care what anybody says or what anybody likes."
Determinism, again, is the theory that every single thought, choice, belief, and action is forced on us by forces and influences, by causes that are not our own, that were outside of us and existed before us. We are the products of those causes. And the free will position is, however much we may be forced in some ways, nevertheless, we really have complete freedom when it comes to our choices and to our thoughts and to our judgments.
Now, the view that people have free will is what's assumed by the law. Everywhere that people live, we make certain things crimes because they're wicked, and then we say to somebody who breaks that law, "You had the choice whether to murder that person or not, and you chose to do it, so you're responsible for your choice and you're going to be punished for it." A determinist, to be consistent, should say those people should not be punished for it, as though it was something they could have avoided. They couldn't have avoided it, but since they have such a nature that it determines them, it forces them to kill another person. We should lock them up, not to punish them or reform them, but so that they can't get to more people to kill them. So, the determinist says we should segregate those people from the rest of society, but not blame them because they are not blameworthy. They did nothing to be the way they are, and they didn't have the freedom to choose to be different.
Now clearly, I think, it seems to me clearly, the Christian religion and its sacred writings, which are our sources for it, the scriptures, everywhere assume that people do have free will. When God addresses different people and they say and do how they respond, He is sometimes delighted and sometimes enraged. He treats people as though they really have the choice whether to obey Him or not. There are some things we're not free about, that's true, but regarding whether to do good or evil, we are free to choose, and that's why God rewards and punishes with respect to what we do, good or evil.
In fact, now that I'm on that topic, let me add something. I'm assuming that the vast majority of people who are viewing this are Christians. What I want to add there is that with respect to the final judgment of God of the whole human race, the way the scriptures describe that judgment is to say every human will be judged according to his works, whether they are good or evil. No scripture says we will be judged for whether we believed in God through Christ. Those who do not believe were not given that grace by God, and He doesn't hold them responsible for it, but He does hold them responsible for what they had the freedom to do differently, and that's whether they did good or evil. The judgment then is moral.
But not to get too sidetracked here. The theology is a fascinating sidetrack, but we're not going there. Descartes is trying to defend free will. That's what's going on. That's why we get these stretches, these arguments with dinky little premises that are questionable anyway, and huge, momentous conclusions. What he's trying to do is defend free will against determinism.
So here's what Descartes has in the back of his head. He's thinking about the way physics is progressing and how the more we investigate the world, the more laws we find hold in it. In other words, the less and less it looks as though the world, the world around us, is free to be one way or another. It looks less and less like it is—it's determined by laws. There are fixed laws in physics. Nothing that we know of in physics is an exception unless God does a miracle.
Okay, what the heck's going on? Then what's going on is that humans, who always assumed they had free will, assumed they were free to investigate the world. And the more they investigate the world, the more they find there are laws that show that more and more things are not free. And they're worried about themselves. They don't want the conclusion, "I am determined too. I am just another atom in the universe, and I do whatever the forces before me made it impossible for me not to do." And he wants to say, therefore, the mind is not physical. So it's not subject to physical laws. The mind is nowhere in space. The mind is not impacted by all the causalities that we can find in the universe and explain because it ain't there in the universe. It's not in space; it's in time, but not space. And it's not subject to physical laws. It has its own internal laws, and those laws are logical and mathematical, and they include axioms like the principle of sufficient reason—stuff like that. And minds are free to make the choices they want to make.
That's why we're responsible. He wants to keep freedom and human responsibility. We are to be held responsible for what we do and what we say and what we think and believe, and so on.
In back of all this is a very sharp controversy over whether people have freedom or they are determined in their beliefs and actions. Determinism means that whatever you think the cause is doesn’t matter. It could be how your brain is configured, how your DNA is configured, or how you were potty trained. It doesn’t matter what the cause is. These causes accumulate and actually force you to believe what you believe, think what you think, and do what you do. That’s determinism.
The Free Will position says we not only have a body, and not only are there many influential forces that impinge on it. We have a DNA structure, we are influenced by our upbringing, and so on and so on with the culture around us. But still, push comes to shove, we don’t have to do A rather than B. We have the freedom in that moment to say, "No, I’m going to do B. I don’t care what anybody says or what anybody likes."
Determinism, again, is the theory that every single thought, choice, belief, and action is forced on us by forces and influences, by causes that are not our own, that were outside of us and existed before us. We are the products of those causes. And the free will position is, however much we may be forced in some ways, nevertheless, we really have complete freedom when it comes to our choices, thoughts, and judgments.
Now, the view that people have free will is what’s assumed by the law. Everywhere that people live, we make certain things crimes because they’re wicked, and then we say to somebody who breaks that law, “You had the choice whether to murder that person or not, and you chose to do it, so you’re responsible for your choice and you’re going to be punished for it.” A determinist, to be consistent, should say those people should not be punished for it, as though it was something they could have avoided. They couldn’t have avoided it. But since they have a nature that determines them, it forces them to kill another person. We should lock them up, not to punish them or reform them, but so that they can’t get to more people to kill them. So the determinist says we should segregate those people from the rest of society, but not blame them, because they are not blameworthy. They did nothing to be the way they are, and they didn’t have the freedom to choose to be different.
Now clearly, I think, it seems to me, the Christian religion and its sacred writings, which are our sources for it, the scriptures, everywhere assume that people do have free will. When God addresses different people and they respond as they do, He is sometimes delighted and sometimes enraged. He treats people as though they really have the choice whether to obey Him or not. There are some things we’re not free about, that’s true, but when it comes to the freedom to do good or evil, we are free to choose, and that’s why God rewards and punishes with respect to what we do—good or evil.
In fact, now that I’m on that topic, let me add something. I’m assuming that the vast majority of people who are viewing this are Christians. What I want to add is that with respect to the final judgment of God of the whole human race, the way the scriptures describe that judgment is to say every human will be judged according to their works, whether they are good or evil. No scripture says we will be judged for whether we believed in God through Christ. Those who do not believe were not given that grace by God, and He doesn’t hold them responsible for it, but He does hold them responsible for what they had the freedom to do differently, and that’s whether they did good or evil. The judgment then is moral.
But let’s not get too sidetracked here. The theology is a fascinating sidetrack, but we’re not going there. Descartes is trying to defend free will. That’s what’s going on. That’s why we get these stretches, these arguments with dinky little premises that are questionable anyway, and huge, momentous conclusions. What he’s trying to do is defend Free Will against determinism.
So here’s what Descartes has in the back of his head. He’s thinking about the way physics is progressing and how the more we investigate the world, the more laws we find that hold in it. In other words, the less and less it looks as though the world around us is free to be one way or another. It looks less and less like it is determined by laws. There are fixed laws in physics. Nothing that we know of in physics is an exception unless God does a miracle.
Okay, what the heck’s going on? Then what’s going on is that humans, who always assumed they had free will, assumed they were free to investigate the world. And the more they investigate the world, the more they find there are laws that show that more and more things are not free. And they’re worried about themselves. They don’t want the conclusion, “I am determined too. I am just another atom in the universe, and I do whatever the forces before me made it impossible for me not to do.” And he wants to say, therefore, the mind is not physical. So it’s not subject to physical laws. The mind is nowhere in space. The mind is not impacted by all the causalities that we can find in the universe and explain because it isn’t in the universe. It’s not in space; it’s in time, but not space. And it’s not subject to physical laws. It has its own internal laws, and those laws are logical and mathematical, and they include axioms like the principle of sufficient reason—stuff like that. And minds are free to make the choices they want to make.
That’s why we’re responsible. He wants to keep freedom and human responsibility. We are to be held responsible for what we do, what we say, what we think, what we believe, and so on.