A Challenge to Materialism

Cartesian Dualism Challenged

In this paper, I will examine the issues of individuation and identity in Descartes' philosophy of mind-body dualism. I will begin by addressing the framework of Cartesian dualism. Then I will examine the problems of individuation and identity as they relate to Descartes. Hopefully, after explaining Descartes' reasoning and subsequently offering my response, I can show with some degree of confidence that the issues of individuation and identity offer a challenge to the Cartesians' premise of mind-body dualism.

Before diving into a critical examination of these two issues, it would be wise to first discuss the basis of Descartes' philosophy. Descartes begins his discussion of mind by first disregarding everything that he can call into doubt. After this mental cleansing, Descartes is left only with the maxim that Ð''I cannot doubt that I am doubting.' From this conclusion, Descartes states that some entity must be doing this doubting, and claims that this entity is his mind. The Cartesian mind has only one property: thinking. Consequently, Descartes establishes a distinction between mind and body. The two share no characteristics, as the body does not indulge in thinking, the mind's solitary function. Further, mind and body are independent of each other; mind can exist even in the absence of body. At the same time, Descartes does not doubt that "the mind begins to think as soon as it is implanted in the body of an infant." Yet the mind does not need the body to engage in introspection, the action of thinking about thinking. Only introspection is immune from illusion, confusion, or doubt. Information about the world outside of mind is prone to these hazards. We cannot conclude with certainty that other minds exist. Thus, the Cartesian is left to what I would dub a lonely existence: "Even if [a Cartesian] prefers to believe that to other human bodies there are harnessed minds not unlike his own, he cannot claim to be able to discover their individual characteristics. Absolute solitude is on this showing the ineluctable destiny of the soul. Only our bodies can meet."

Now I will critically examine Descartes' mind-body philosophy by addressing the issues of individuation and identity. First, I need to be clear about the issues I am addressing. In order to fully understand the problem of individuation, we need to focus on what the word individuation itself means. We can derive individuation from the Latin verb dÐ"®vÐ"®do, meaning "I divide up" or "I separate into parts," and also the prefix in-, which in this case means "into." So, when we talk about individuation, we are talking about a state wherein an object can be separated or isolated from other objects: I can individuate Brown University sweatshirts from Rhode Island College sweatshirts based upon my observation of the insignia on them. Specifically, I am concerned with how I can distinguish minds from each other.

Strawson articulates the need for this distinction in his discussion of what he labels "the central difficulty in Cartesianism." Strawson argues that if we want to talk about individual itemsÐ'--minds, bodies, computers, baseball cards, bananas, or practically anythingÐ'--we must first understand the difference between one of that item and two of that item. In other words, to talk about an individual, you have to be able to count the individual. However, Cartesian philosophy does not allow for counting minds. The only mind you can know about is your own. Through introspection, I may be able to conclude that I am a thinking thing myself, much like Descartes did, but I cannot tell if the girl sitting at the computer next to me has one mind, three minds, seventeen minds, or even no mind at all. Thus the Cartesian cannot individuate minds. Strawson finds this fact problematic for the Cartesians, as the Cartesian "wants his doctrine to have the consequence that a perfectly ordinary manÐ'... has just one soul or consciousness which lasts him throughout." Anti-Cartesians like Strawson have no such difficulty as they hold to the principle