Various commentaries on the origins of Descarte's dualism from his texts (Meditations + Priniciples) and Cottingham's essay. Some jokes and references to Monty Python
1. Visite brève et pas très amusant des
origines de dualisme cartésien
Kama Pona!
Sources:
Descartes, Meditations 1 and 2.
Descartes, Principles of Philosophy Part 1, 51- 65
John Cottingham, ‘Cartesian Dualism: Theology, Metaphysics'
Talk will now be given in English rather than Toki Pona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona
2. Background and Motivation
Cottingham: Earliest work, Regulae (1628-ish), posits
separation of body and mind, abandoned
Later reasons for separation 'mixed':
- Cartesian method (building from extreme doubt) 'leads' to it,
says he (letter to Dean)
- Reasoning to 'support' theology (see letter to Dean)
Mathematical/logical corresponded with Père Mersenne
(primes guy!). Everything is 'orderly' (ordonné, l'ordre)
Theological, Metaphysical, Scientific, according to Cottingham
Didn't publish his Le Monde (heliocentric universe), so he was
somewhat 'afraid' of the RC church
3. Process, Meditations (1639-ish) →
Principles (1644)
Meditations establish method, Principles deal
with specifics
Meditation 1: Doubt as an extreme sport
- senses may deceive, evil demon (Nils!), God
may decide to deceive
Meditation 2: Mind is more easily/surely known
than body/sensations
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (and also the
more Libran: je pense donc je suis, au moins,
c'est ce que je pense, haha) Incidently this
'evolved' with his writings
4. Principles (bis) → Substances
G-d, primordial, depends on 'nothing' (#51)
(eek!)
'first class' substances: depend only on G-d
(#52): corporeal and thinking
corporeal: extended in space (attribute) (#53)
thinking : not extended (attribute?) (#53)
modes (properties, kind of) and attributes
(hmm, ratios?) (#56)
5. Principles (ter) → Distinctness
To get some 'decent' dualism (or more) going,
'stuff' must be distinct from from 'other stuff'.
#60 is the crucial turning point (my opinion!)
Only substances can be 'really' distinct (#60)
Vivid/clear understanding of x as distinct from
y ≡ x is distinct from y (#60)
If x can be understood without y, then it is
independent from y (#60) (ah, so many
questions, see controversies)
6. Principles (quater) → Payday (listen to:
https://youtu.be/gHNmxEyzZZg)
It is certain as a thinking thing I am really
distinct from every other thinking
substance and every other corporeal
substance (dualism and, bonus item, other
minds, imported)
G-d could join them, but could separate and
therefore they are in reality, really distinct (to
me this is somewhat Berkeleyan, incidentally,
another maths guy too) (asymettry,
counterfactuality!)
7. Le menage/Housework
Thought and extension as modes of
substance
Thought (of various types: desire for ice
cream, fear of wild rice, knowing triangles,
dreaming) is a mode of mind, I think..(#64)
Ordinary stuff (riz sauvage redouté, for
example) has extension
8. Plusieurs Controverses
Incorporality ≠ Immortality (Père Mersenne)
Architectural gap between 'thought' and
perception
Arnauld, 'missing' chains of perception, fallible
indivisibility, y is possibly necessary for x
No sense data for mind/soul after death of body
Scope/contribution of soul (what's left after the
machine operates?), deals with fragilité
9. Pona ! Endpiece
Detachability (metaphysical belief vs. science, tensions)
Immortality (theological, doesn't necessitate dualism,
ressurection-ready bodies)
Sharing out roles (what's left for the soul? brittleness)
Incorporality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%
(verifiable or 'not')
Air gap/perception is biggest problem, IMO
Philosophy and science, philosophy of science
C'est tout !
10. (Irrelevant bonus slide)
يسونْ لَ قَ نْ أَ بِ تلئةِ مْ مُ وامتيّ حَ
tomo tawa supa mi pi lon sewi li jo e kala linja mute mute
kala linja mute mute li lon insa pi tomo tawa supa mi pi lon sewi
Mon aéroglisseur est plein d'anguilles
Etc.
( )מיט פֿול איז שוועבשיף אםָ פרּ ײןַ מ
ווענגערס