Introduction
The concept of dualism has been researched extensively throughout human history. In general, it is the assumption that there are two basic types or categories of items or principles in each given subject. The view that the mental and physical, or mind and body, or mind and brain, are in some ways profoundly distinct sorts of objects is known as dualism in the philosophy of mind (Nagel). When it comes to spirit and body issues, dualism has a long history.
Main body
Plato’s Phaedo is the source of the traditional emphasis on dualism. Plato thought that real substances are everlasting forms, of which bodies are imperfect copies, rather than actual bodies, which are transient (Nagel). Because they operate as universals, these shapes not only make the world conceivable, but also make it understandable (Blackburn). In its contemporary version, dualism is discussed in terms of mind and body or brain – the essence of the soul is that it is a thinking substance – the mind – and the body is a complex but material reality (Nagel). Descartes was mostly responsible for its development. The body’s fundamental qualities are that it is physical, that it can be observed, and that it has a causal relationship with other material things and events (Loose and James). In contrast, the mind is non-physical and private, accessible only via introspection.
Religion is the first major argument in favor of substantial dualism. Every major religion believes in the existence of an eternal soul that will go on after death. This is extremely close to the premises of dualism. Irreducibility is another significant argument used to support the idea of dualism. This points to a variety of mental occurrences that defy scientific explanations. The quality and substance of human ideas and beliefs are an example. These phenomena are irreducible because they cannot be reduced to solely physical terms.
The ‘other mind dilemma’ is one of the most common objections to dualism. The issue stems from the dualism premise that the mind is private and only knows itself. In truth, no one can say whether or not everyone has a mind. Blackburn discusses the issue of zombies and mutants. Zombies have no awareness and no thinking despite the fact that they are biologically human and seem and act like people (Blackburn). The same is true with mutants, however, unlike zombies, mutants have minds, but their minds function in a unique way – they are mutant minds (Blackburn). These discoveries have led to the question of whether a person can tell if someone else is a zombie or a mutant, or if he has a human or no mind at all, based on your observations. Because dualists are incapable of doing so, it becomes “another minds dilemma.”
The ‘bug-in-the-box’ argument, which is popular among dualism opponents, has pushed the matter even further. This argument discusses the situation in which everyone has a box, implying a person’s thinking, and everyone can see into their own box but not into anybody else’s box, implying the confidentiality of the mind (Loose and James). It is unethical to inquire about another person’s box, and generalizations from one situation are impossible. By comparison, this argument is frequently used to refute the dualist argument. Because a person’s sole mind is his own, generalizing about other minds based on only one example is difficult because there are insufficient reasons.
Materialism, which maintains that everything that exists is material, is another important criticism of dualism. Everything that exists is material or physical, and everything that exists can be explained or reduced to physical parts and processes, including mental experiences, states, etc. (Nagel). Scientific research, not philosophical reasoning, is responsible for such an explanation or reduction. Furthermore, materialism asserts that evolution is dependent on physical processes; therefore, physicality is the sole entity that makes far more evolutionary sense.
The arguments presented by dualists on these critiques were produced by philosophers of different eras. While the materialists’ claims were faced with relatively consistent and monolithic counterarguments, the ‘other mind dilemma’ and the ‘bug-in-the-box’ argument left more room for debate. The dualistic argument between physicalism and materialism is well-thought-out and includes numerous important issues. The fundamental point of contention is that physical education or explanation is inappropriate. Physicalism provides a physical explanation for the physical, but this does not account for non-physical mental experiences (Loose and James). Reduction, which is crucial to physicalism, does not appear to be a sufficient basis for dualists, who consider it as a basic process that cannot explain or “reduce” mental experiences to physical processes.
The “other mind dilemma” can be addressed by assuming that other individuals have minds similar to their own. An analogous argument can be used to describe this type of defense. Dualists describe a scenario in which there are enough parallels or similarities that it is acceptable to believe that additional unobservable characteristics are comparable as well (Blackburn). This dilemma became an existential critique of the dualism concept, and the discussion is still far from being over.
Conclusion
Concluding, it can be seen that the concept of dualism is one of the founding in the history of philosophy. Being developed from ancient times, it faced several portions of critique but remained attractive to many famous philosophers. It is closely connected with some religious concepts and dismisses solely materialistic explanations of mental processes. The “other minds dilemma,” however, became the focal point of the concept’s critique, as we have seen.
Works Cited
Blackburn, Simon. Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Loose, Jonathan and James Porter Moreland. The Blackwell companion to substance dualism. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
Nagel, Thomas. What does it all mean?: a very short introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1987.