René Descartes Meditations: The Nature Of The Human Body

René Descartes, born on March 31, 1596 in La Haye France, was both an accomplished philosopher as well as a brilliant mathematician. Growing up in a society with influential figures like Galileo and Isaac Newton whom constantly questioned traditional methods and ideologies, Socrates sought to devise a method for reaching absolute truth. His quest for truth led to a publication of a major philosophical work “ A Disclosure on Method, Meditations on First philosophy.” Descartes meditations were based on systematic doubt where “Anything which admits of the slightest doubt I will set aside just as if I had found it to be wholly false; and I will proceed in this way until I recognize something certain, or if nothing else, until I at least recognize that there is no certainty. ”(Meditations on First philosophy) With this method, Descartes, just like the great mathematician Archimedes, demanded to find “just one thing, however slight that is certain and unshakeable.” (Meditations on first philosophy) Descartes meditations have had an enormous impact on the subsequent development of modern western philosophy.

However in this particular assignment, the second meditation, The nature of the human mind, and how it is better known than the body, will be evaluated by: Determining Descartes’ reasoning for concluding the second meditation that “the mind is better known than the body” will be evaluated, whether he rightly characterizes the existence of self as a thinking thing, the relation between the mind and body and if his “dualism” presents any problems. Descartes’ conclusion in the second meditation that the mind is better known than the body stems from his demand to find “one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable.” (Meditations on first philosophy) To obtain that one element of certainty, Descartes had to suppose “everything I see is spurious. I will believe that my memory tells me lies, and that none of the things that it reports ever happened. I have no senses. Body, shape, extension, movement and place are chimeras.” (Meditation on first philosophy) He notes that if the physical world does not exist, this may also imply that he does not exist. This rationale is quickly refuted with the realization that for him to have these doubts he, the “thing” that is having these doubts must exist. After considering everything thoroughly, he concludes with the famous cogito “I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward or conceived in my mind. ” Unsatisfied with the understanding of what this “I” is, that necessarily exists, he traces back what he originally believed himself to be, subtracting anything that is capable of being weakened. His original beliefs were that, he had a soul, by means of which he was nourished, moved, could sense and think; and also that he had a body. All those attributes are capable of being weakened except his ability to think. Descartes acknowledges that he may exist without a body or soul, which he is nourished, but “thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist- that is certain.” As for the body he understands it to be “whatever has a determinable shape and a definable location and can occupy a space in such a way as to exclude any other body; it can be perceived by touch, hearing, taste or smell…” However, just like the wax example, this body that we distinctly think we understand can undergo certain transformations that changes all its sensible qualities; yet our knowledge of that wax or body stills exists. Therefore, our knowledge that the “extended, flexible and changeable” wax is the same as the solid wax, cannot be determined through senses since all its sensible properties have changed; but through intellect alone.
Descartes advances to claim that he is a “thing that thinks.” He further explains that thing as “ a thing that doubts, understands affirms, denies, is willing is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions.” The controversies to this claim is that Descartes does not fully explain what is meant by “thing” or “thinking.” All we know is that he rejects that he has senses or a body based on the belief that his existence is not bound by either a body or senses. This belief that he is not “bound by the body” presents some problems as he doesn’t provide proof that he can in actuality survive without the body. Descartes characterization of existence as a thing that thinks is not satisfactory because he only bases it on the reasoning that if he knows that he is a thinking thing, and does not know whether he is a bodily thing; his body and my mind cannot be one and the same because he should either know both of them or know neither of them. And since he is certain that he is a thinking thing, he can therefore not be a bodily thing.
Descartes has two versions regarding the relation of the body and mind: The first version is found in the sixth meditation, where he asserts that he has a clear and distinct idea of the mind as a thinking, non-extended thing and that he has a clear idea of the body as an extended, non-thinking thing. Therefore the mind is really distinct from the body and can exist without it. According to Descartes the ability to understand both the mind and the body separately from one another, implies each can exist without the other. This is based on the idea that existence is contained in the idea or concept of every single thing and we cannot conceive of anything without existing. The second version is also found in the sixth mediation: Where he notes that he understands the mind to be indivisible by its very nature, the body to be divisible by its very nature; and thus the mind is completely different from the body.
Both versions of this “dualism” present problems. Given the existence of an non-thinking object like stones or flowers, there is no question that the body can exist without the mind; but can minds exists without the brain. If the answer to this question is no, Descartes claim that the mind and body are distinguishable, is false.
In conclusion, Descartes mediations based on systematic doubts are very valid and provide some true certainties; yet his claim of the separation of the mind and body needs further proof to be more convincing.