Kaley Hall

PHI 2010 Introduction to Philosophy

Essay Exam II

Section I: Chapter 4: Mind and Body

Topic: What is substance dualism? Why do many philosophers think it is an inadequate theory
of mind? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

Section II/ Chapter 5: Free Will and Determinism

Topic: What is the problem of free will? What are the two common-sense ideas that seem to
conflict and thus give rise to the free will problem?

Section III / Chapter 6: Knowledge and Skepticism

Topic: What reasons does Locke give for rejecting the notion of innate ideas? According to
Locke, what is the difference between primary and secondary qualities?

10/30/20
Chapter Four

To begin, substance dualism is that the mind and body are two separate units that do not

work together to make a being. According to the text, the body is a "physical substance", while

the mind is the "nonphysical substance". The nonphysical things being thoughts, emotions, and

sensations. While the physical things within the body consists of chemicals and different organs.

When I think of the nonphysical commodities, I like to relate it to the different thoughts

that go through my head every moment of the day. The physical side of the human body are the

organs that make up the functional side of the body, like the heart or nervous system. Without

these structures human beings would not be able to survive. Not only do humans need these

systems but they need the soul part of the human body. If humans did not have thoughts or

feelings, then we would all be lifeless shells with no personality to us, just wandering the Earth

like zombies.

Substance dualists believe that these two elements are what make up a person and other

things within this universe. Many philosophers have been considered substance dualists. A few of those

thinkers being Plato and Rene Descartes. Descartes is one of the most famous philosophers regarding the

topic of substance dualism. This is because he was the first to argue that “Not only that the body and the

soul are composed of two distinct and independent substances, but these two parts of a person interact

causally.” He believed that the mind and the brain are two different things that interact in different points

of time, and that the physical body is also present within these interactions.

These thinkers believed that this was an inadequate theory of mind because of many

different reasonings. One of those reasonings being that these philosophers came up with another

solution called Cartesian dualism, which is “the view that mind and body are completely

independent of one another and interact causally.” Descartes came up with this theory to make
sense of substance dualism. Another reason why these thinkers came to believe this to be an

inadequate theory of mind because it has very little evidence to support its claim. The critics say

that this “idea of a nonphysical thing interacting with a physical thing is mysterious and

implausible—and Descartes does not provide a convincing explanation of how the physical and

nonphysical relate causally.” So, this correlates to not having enough evidence or it not being

credible.

From my understanding of substance dualism, I would have to agree that this is an

inadequate theory of mind. The first reason being that there is not much evidence regarding this

topic, that the mind and body are two separate things. It is hard to determine if this is actually the

case because I do believe that human beings do have souls or “minds”, as the philosophers say.

I have a hard time comprehending how the brain and the body can be two separate

entities. This is because everyone is made up of the same matter and we all have the same bodily

functions. If we didn’t have a soul, then I believe that we wouldn’t have our own unique

personalities and we would be empty shells. If we do have some type of soul, then where do our

souls go after we die? Our physical body stays here and so does our organs, we decompose and

stay on earth.

Another reason why that I believe that substance dualism is an inadequate theory of mind

is because it does not match up with science. I mentioned this previously in my last paragraph,

the text states “Cartesian dualism is incompatible with science, which affirms a physical cause

for every physical effect.” This relates to how science needs evidence and proof to prove itself

factual. I would like for this theory of mind to be true, but it is hard to believe something that

doesn’t come with hardcore facts. Its similar to believing in ghost, I mean I would like to believe

that they’re there, but human beings need more than just hearsay.
Chapter Five

Free will is the ability to choose a different course of action that is unobstructed. It is

believed by many that everyone has free will and that they can make their own choices. Free will

is similar to different ideas such as, moral responsibility and other judgements that can be chosen

whenever a person desire. It is argued that if our choses are predetermined then we don’t really

have free will. The problem with free will is defined as following, “the challenge of reconciling

determinism with our intuitions or ideas about personal freedom.” What this means is that

everything that has happened to a human being was meant to happen and that the choices we

make have no say in changing our futures. This is called determinism; it is a major threat to free

will.

According to the text, “Determinism says that all events – including our choices and

actions- are produced inexorably by previous events, which are caused by still earlier events,

which are caused by still others, the chain of causes leading back into the indefinite past.” What

the book is saying is that determinism is like a domino effect and that our past actions reflect

what will happen in our futures.

The textbook also states that “Our everyday experience also suggests that sometimes it is

indeed up to us how we choose and act, and that we could have chosen and acted otherwise than

we did.” This makes me think of when you have an argument with someone, and you say

something that you wish you hadn’t. You think of other things that you could have said but you

didn’t, and you can’t anymore because you aren’t in the moment.

Most people are uncomfortable with the fact that the choices that we make might not be

up to us. We’re like puppets on strings being controlled by some unknown force. This brings up
the fact that there are many common-sense ideas that seem to conflict and thus give rise to the

free will problem.

One of the common-sense ideas that give rise to the free will problem is the idea of

compatibilism. This concept is defined as the view that although determinism is true, our actions

can still be free. Compatibilism contradicts both free will and determinism, so this gives rise to

the problem of free will. It is also known as soft determinism. It is the belief that “You act freely

when you are able to do what you desire to do; you do not act freely when you are not able to do

what you desire to do.” Some people reject this notion of compatibilism, they think that being

able to act according to your desires without constraints is not real freedom if your desires are

determined for you in the first place.

The second common-sense theory that gives rise to the free will problem is the notion of

libertarianism. This is a little bit different from compatibilism, meaning it is the view that some

actions are free, for they are caused or controlled by the person or agent. Libertarians believe that

determinism is not true, determinism and free will are incompatible, and finally we can

sometimes act freely depending on the situation. This is different from the other position of free

will, it contradicts compatibilism. Contrary to compatibilist, libertarians don’t agree with

determinism, but they accept incompatibilism.

These are the two of the many different common-sense ideas that give rise to the free will

problem. They are compatibilism and libertarianism; these ideas contradict each other in a

variety of ways that involve free will.

Chapter Six

The belief of innate ideas is one that states that humans are born with certain principles

and knowledges imprinted on the mind. John Locke says rationalists argue “that since all people

seem to possess knowledge of certain universal principles, this knowledge must be inborn”.

Locke claims that these universal principles don’t exist and that if they did, they could have been

learned through experience. Locke gives four points that argue against the notion of innate ideas

in his “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”.

Locke’s first argument against innate ideas is “the way shown how we come by any

knowledge”. This argument points to the fact that we have the ability to learn these said innate

principles to a level of certainty fairly easily. This in turn makes it seem “as if they were

originally imprinted on the mind”.

Locke’s second argument against innate ideas is “universal consent proves nothing”. This

argument is addressing the belief “that there are certain principles, both speculative and practical,

universally agreed upon by all mankind”. Locke argues “if there can be any other way shewn

how men may come to that universal agreement, in the things they do consent in, which I

presume may be done”, then there would be no way to prove them innate.

Locke’s third argument against innate ideas is “what is, is; and it is impossible for the

same thing to be, and not to be; not universally assented to”. He believes that the argument of

universal assent pointing to innate principles actually proves that there are no such thing as

innate principles. He says this “because there are none to which all mankind give an universal

assent”. He then brings in the phrases “Whatsoever is, is” and “It is impossible for the same

thing to be and not to be”. These phrases seem like ones that would very easily be agreed upon
and are ones that Locke believes that if anything is allowed the title “innate”, it is the principle

that these phrases represent. However, he goes on to point out that not everyone agrees upon this

principle much less even knows about it; therefore, it is impossible to assume that everyone

universally assents on anything.

Locke’s fourth argument against innate ideas is “not on the mind naturally imprinted,

because not known to children, idiots, etc.”. This points out that if “children and idiots have

souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, they must unavoidably perceive them, and

necessarily know and assent to these truths: which since they do not, it is evident that there are

no such impressions”. This quote from the text speaks for itself, for if not every single being is

universally under said impressions then they must not be innate.

Locke claims that primary qualities and secondary qualities are the “two kinds of

properties external objects can have”. Locke states that primary qualities are “objective

properties such as size, solidity, and mobility. They are in material objects, independent of our

senses, and would be possessed by the objects even if no one was around to sense anything”.

Locke states that secondary qualities are “subjective qualities such as the color red and the smell

of roses. They are in the mind, in that they depend on the operation of the senses.” So according

to Locke, the difference between primary qualities and secondary qualities is that one is

independent in a sense of existence while the other is dependent on the mind in a sense of

existence.
Citations:

Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life. Oxford University

Press, 2019.