Evaluate solutions to the mind body problem
The mind body problem explores the way in which the mind and body are related. There are two
key approaches to this problem: dualism, the view that the body and soul (the non physical
aspect of a person known as the essential self, are two different substances, and monism, the
view that the body and the soul are made of one substance. This concerns post mortem
experience (existence after death) which requires an understanding of personal identity (an area
of philosophy that examines what makes us who we are) as all claims involve a continuation of
identities after death.
Dualism explained by Plato is known as Platonic dualism. It explains that the soul is separate
from the body and existed before we were born and continues to exist after we are dead. He
explains that our ability to reason is evidence that our soul had existed before us using the
argument from recollection. This refers to the argument that explains that we have knowledge of
perfect, eternal and unchanging concepts such as perfect beauty and justice even though we
have never experienced such things. Hence, we must have gained this knowledge a priori,
showing Plato’s rationalism, meaning we were born with these concepts and gained these
concepts before we were born. Plato concludes that our soul existed before in a realm where
there were perfect forms, hence we have gained knowledge of perfect forms such as perfect
beauty and justice. He also explains a tripartite soul, consisting of reason, spirit and appetite and
desire, where reason must rule the soul or the soul will be out of balance. Therefore, Plato’s
dualism offers a response to the mind body problem.
However, Plato’s dualism is criticised for claiming the existence of perfect, eternal unchanging
concepts such as perfect beauty and justice. This is because justice and beauty are subjective.
What one person may consider beautiful or moral, differs from another person, showing how it is
a matter of opinion. If everyone has a different concept of perfect beauty or justice, these
concepts are not objectively perfect, criticising Aristotle’s explanation of a world of forms.
However, Plato’s explanation of an uneducated slave boy being able to draw shapes despite
having no knowledge of mathematics, shows how there is perfect knowledge of mathematics. It
is objective showing how there are perfect concepts that people are previously aware of as their
soul was previously in a world of perfect forms. However, Hume responds by arguing that we can
actually create the idea of perfection in our minds even if we have never experienced it. We
already have the concept of ‘imperfect’, so we can simply conceive its opposite of ‘perfect’.
Moreover, Hume directly challenges Plato’s explanation of the uneducated slave boy, as
although he might have not had any mathematical training, he still would have seen shapes of
objects in his life, hence gaining knowledge from experience, and not from a world of perfect
forms. Therefore, Plato’s explanation of dualism is criticised, hence may not be a reliable
response to the mind body problem.
Monism explained by Aristotle is known as Aristotelian monism. He based his views on
empiricism to explain that the soul cannot be separated from the body. He uses the analogy of a
wax seal which cannot be separated from the imprint of the wax seal. Aristotle also explains four
causes that explain why things are as they are. These include material (what is it made of) formal
(how is it arranged) efficient (who made it) and final (what is its purpose). He explains the soul to
be the animating principle of the body, hence takes the form of the body. The soul enables us to
develop character and skills which are rooted in this world. Hence, when the body dies and its
animation is lost, the soul also dies, therefore explaining the inseparable nature of the body and
the soul and Aristotle’s monism.
However, Aristotle’s monism is criticised for claiming to be based on empiricism. This is because
empirical knowledge is based on our senses, yet formal causation (one of Aristotle’s causes) is
beyond empirical, scientific study. Francis Bacon uses the example of the ‘whiteness’ of snow to
explain this. Scientists could investigate the efficient cause of snow, as it is made by snow and
air, but not the ‘whiteness’ of it, meaning the formal cause is beyond scientific investigation. He
explains that the form cause does exist, but lies beyond science, hence there is no way we can
be sure that everything has a formal cause, such as the body’s formal cause of the soul.
