The Materialist Account Of Armstrong's Theory Of Mind
Introduction
In this critical response, I will consider Armstrong's materialist account of mind, and then I will argue the short-comings of the theories of behaviorism and science in accounting for the nature of mind in relation to Armstrong’s original perspective of what the mind is.
Background
In order to discuss Armstrong’s theories, we must first introduce ourselves to the fundamental base of his claims, which is the Doctrine of Science. The established scientific doctrine is explained as, “… the view that we can give a complete account of man in purely physio-chemical terms” (Armstrong, 258). It is also important to note that Armstrong stands by this account in a purely scientific point of view. That this account is only stationed on current …show more content…
He begins by discrediting the idea with this simple statement, “a man may be angry, but give no bodily sign” (Armstrong, 259). Simply showing that behaviorism can’t fully depict or explain the reasons why the mind does certain things. Here it is import to point out that only in some instance behaviorism falls short, don’t confuse this with the complete inability to find answers like how Armstrong presents the initial idea. He incorporates the idea of behaviorism when he sates, “the mind is not behind the behavior of the body, it is…part of that physical behavior” (Armstrong, 259). He runs the idea that mind is not just operating the body, but rather is an extension of your actions. He progresses his logic with the implementation of philosopher Ryle’s idea of ‘disposition to behave.’ With this in mind we learn that like a piece of glass we are predisposed to breaking, in other factors of emotion like anger. We have tendencies to act in a certain way, this does not mean we will always fall into that pattern that precede us. (Armstrong, 260) This conclusion with which I agree fully, is a good critique to the mannerisms of
In this critical response, I will consider Armstrong's materialist account of mind, and then I will argue the short-comings of the theories of behaviorism and science in accounting for the nature of mind in relation to Armstrong’s original perspective of what the mind is.
Background
In order to discuss Armstrong’s theories, we must first introduce ourselves to the fundamental base of his claims, which is the Doctrine of Science. The established scientific doctrine is explained as, “… the view that we can give a complete account of man in purely physio-chemical terms” (Armstrong, 258). It is also important to note that Armstrong stands by this account in a purely scientific point of view. That this account is only stationed on current …show more content…
He begins by discrediting the idea with this simple statement, “a man may be angry, but give no bodily sign” (Armstrong, 259). Simply showing that behaviorism can’t fully depict or explain the reasons why the mind does certain things. Here it is import to point out that only in some instance behaviorism falls short, don’t confuse this with the complete inability to find answers like how Armstrong presents the initial idea. He incorporates the idea of behaviorism when he sates, “the mind is not behind the behavior of the body, it is…part of that physical behavior” (Armstrong, 259). He runs the idea that mind is not just operating the body, but rather is an extension of your actions. He progresses his logic with the implementation of philosopher Ryle’s idea of ‘disposition to behave.’ With this in mind we learn that like a piece of glass we are predisposed to breaking, in other factors of emotion like anger. We have tendencies to act in a certain way, this does not mean we will always fall into that pattern that precede us. (Armstrong, 260) This conclusion with which I agree fully, is a good critique to the mannerisms of