Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Desh Raj Sirswal (2009). The Official Doctrine and its Relevance Today. PARISHEELAN.This seminar is an attempt to show that “official doctrine” is dead in only one of its ontological aspects: substance dualism may well have been repudiated but property dualism still claims a number of contemporary defenders. Here we will discuss Ryle’s explanation of Descartes’ dualism and also about its relevance. This doctrine of separation between mind and body is referred by Ryle as “the dogma of the ghost in the machine.” Ryle argues that there is no ghostly, invisible entity called ‘the mind’ inside a mechanical apparatus called ‘the body’. Ryle argues that the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and Matter. According to him this assumption is a basic ‘category mistake’, because it attempts to analyze the relation between mind and body as if they were terms of the same logical category. Ryle argues that traditional Idealism makes a basic ‘category-mistake’ by trying to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, and that materialism makes a basic ‘category-mistake’ by trying to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality. The Ontological commitments: The ontological commitment of the view is that there are two different kinds of things, body and mind, that are somehow harnessed together. The view that mind and body are somehow fundamentally different or distinct, but nonetheless interact, leads to the philosophical conundrum known as the mind-body problem. Thus two ontological aspects of the official doctrine – finding a place for the mental in the physical world and the problem of mental causation – still survive today. The Epistemological Commitments: According to the traditional view, bodily processes are external and can be witnessed by observers, but mental processes are private, “internal” as the metaphor goes. The epistemological commitments of the official doctrine lead to the philosophical conundrum known as the problem of other minds. Descartes was contributing to the field of cognitive science hundred of years before it was officially established. Descartes changed the way rational thinkers believed then and continues to influence people now. Most modern philosophers have rejected the view that mind and matter are different substances, but many remain realists about the mind. It is fair to say that Descartes is as an integral part of cognitive science as anyone, despite the fact that he didn’t ever know it.In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Scholar
Discussion of Desh Raj Sirswal, The Official Doctrine and its Relevance Today
Nothing in this forum yet.
Similar books and articles
In this seminar I have discussed the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body which assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and matter. According to Ryle, the classical theory of mind, as represented by Cartesian rationalism, asserts that there is a basic distinction between mind and matter. Mind is just the way the human body and its brain function. Thus, according to Ryle, a dualist makes a big category mistake by confusing the terms of different (...)
The mind-body problem is the problem of explaining how our mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes in our bodies. A question of the form, ‘how is A related to B?’ does not by itself pose a philosophical problem. To pose such a problem, there has to be something about A and B which makes the relation between them seem problematic. Many features of mind and body have been cited as (...)
No categories
This now-classic work challenges what Ryle calls philosophy's "official theory," the Cartesians "myth" of the separation of mind and matter. Ryle's linguistic analysis remaps the conceptual geography of mind, not so much solving traditional philosophical problems as dissolving them into the mere consequences of misguided language. His plain language and esstentially simple purpose place him in the traditioin of Locke, Berkeley, Mill, and Russell.
In my reading list
| Discuss this book | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: books.google.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: books.google.com | Scholar | More.. Dualism is the view that mental phenomena are, in some respect, nonphysical. The best-known version is due to Descartes, and holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes argued that, because minds have no spatial properties and physical reality is essentially extended in space, minds are wholly nonphysical. Every human being is accordingly a composite of two objects: a physical body, and a nonphysical object that is that human being's mind. On a weaker version of dualism, which contemporary thinkers (...)
Overview It is widely assumed that Descartes’ philosophy of mind is organized around three major commitments. The first is to substance dualism. The second is to individualism about mental content. The third is to a particularly strong form of the doctrine of privileged firstperson access. Each of these commitments has been questioned by contemporary philosophers of mind. Substance dualism is generally regarded as a non-starter, individualism has come under attack from a number of different quarters, and the doctrine of privileged (...)
From Plato's eidos, to Descartes' cogito, to Kant's numenon, our understanding of reality has faltered at a seemingly impossible, double-edged, impasse. First, an ontological 'hard problem': If mind and matter are so radically different and separate, how do they ever interact? Second, a related epistemological conundrum: How is it possible for mind to ever know anything about matter--including whether it even exists? Then came Whitehead. By shifting the mind-matter relation from substances interacting in space to complementary phases in process, he (...)
No categories
In this article, I examine and criticize John Searle's account of the relation between mind and body. Searle rejects dualism and argues that the traditional mind-body problem has a 'simple solution': mental phenomena are both caused by biological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain. More precisely, mental states and events are macro-properties of neurons in much the same way that solidity and liquidity are macro-properties of molecules. However, Searle also maintains that the mental is 'ontologically (...)
The mind-body problem in contemporary philosophy has two parts: the problem of mental causation and the problem of consciousness. These two parts are not unrelated; in fact, it can be helpful to see them as two horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, the causal interaction between mental and physical phenomena seems to require that all causally efficacious mental phenomena are physical; but on the other hand, the phenomenon of consciousness seems to entail that not all mental phenomena are (...)
In my reading list
| Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: ucl.ac.uk web.mac.com | Scholar | More..
| | Other links: ucl.ac.uk web.mac.com | Scholar | More.. Panpsychism is the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature of the world existing throughout the universe. One problem with panpsychism is that it is a purely theoretical concept so far. For progress towards an operationalization of the idea, this paper suggests to make use of an ontological difference involved in the mind-matter distinction. The mode in which mental phenomena exist is called presence. The mode in which matter and radiation exist is called reality Physical theory disregards presence in both (...)
