1

ONYEAKAZI JUDE CHUKWUMA PhD

Philosophy Unit
Directorate of General Studies
Federal University of Technology Owerri.
Email: jude.Onyeakazi@futo.edu.ng; judefuto@gmail.com
Phone: 08129937821, 08033694748

THE QUESTION OF MIND-BODY DICHOTOMY IN RENE DESCHARTES

ABSTRACT

Philosophy in its history has been marked with so many changes which have reflected in
different periods. Despite these changes, man has always remained the focal point of
philosophy. It is the positions given to man, or the different conceptions made of him by
different philosophers at these periods that define them. And so, the modern age is highly
remarked for its anthropocentrism, man became the centre of everything. Primacy was
given to human reason to the detriment of faith. This change in paradigm is attributed to
Rene Descartes considered as the father of modern philosophy. This is manifested in his
famous “cogito ergo sum” which is the basis of his philosophy. Therefore this work is an
exposition of his conception of man which can be deduced from his theory of knowledge:
man as a thinking thing, making a clear distinction and dichotomy between the mind (soul)
and the body; he reduced man to his mind or soul, thereby giving a mechanistic nature to
the body. Also, a juxtaposition of this mind-body dichotomy created by Descartes and the
present day notion and use of man will help us know how positively and negatively the
former could have influenced the latter, and so be able to suggest a better way by which his
anthropology could be understood and be of positive use in our society in the presence of
some ethical aberrations related to man.1

1.1. Explication of Terms

1.1.1. Man

Man as defined in the oxford advanced learners dictionary is an adult male individual. But
in a broader sense and especially in a science like philosophy, man is a concept used to refer
to every human race, both male and female. It is derived from the Latin root, humanitas
which means human nature. It is also men in general, the human race taken as a unit.2 Man
is one of the organisms found in the planet earth that shares the same space with other
numerous organisms. Anthropologically speaking, man is a material being and so is subject
to the laws of the physical universe making him similar to other animals in the universe. But
 2

it would be erroneous to make this side of him the whole of man. Apart from being made of
matter, he has a power, the power of reason3. It is this particular nature of his that makes
him different from other beings. He is considered to be an animal but has something
peculiar to him that makes him different from other animals, the reason. Therefore in
defining man, one can say that he is a rational animal4. This affirmation can be derived from
his different activities in the universe “such as the arts and sciences, the conscious ordering
of self and society, for which there is no parallel in the animal kingdom”5. The material
aspect of man is his body by which he marks his physical existence in the universe while his
rational or mental activities are carried out by his soul. Thus making man to be made of two
components: the body and the soul substantially united to form an entity. This reflects the
Aristotelian view of man, according to which man is made of matter and form. The form
(soul) giving man his essence and the matter (body) which limits man and circumscribes
him to a particular space and time6. This view of man is quite different from the platonic
anthropology which professes an accidental unity of the soul and body. Therefore, man is a
special kind of being different from other beings found in the universe.

I.7.2. Mind

The mind is one of the powers of the soul7 that is responsible for cognition, perception and
consciousness in a person. It is regarded as the residence of the reason and intellect. Though
from the antiquity till the mediaeval period, the soul has always been used to refer to the
vitalising and rational part of man that is responsible for movement and the acquisition of
knowledge as posited by the rationalist. But from the modern period, the mind takes place
of the soul. The functions ascribed to the soul is now attributed to the mind. That is why we
talk about mind-body dualism as opposed to the unity of the body and soul. But in its real
sense, the mind represents the spiritual part of man. It is made up of two faculties: the
intellect and the will which are spiritual powers and so cannot be found in space. Hence,
strictly speaking, the mind is nowhere to be found and is not form of any organs or parts of
the body, except for the fact that they are powers of soul which is considered to be united
with body by information. Thus the mind of a person is in the body without being anywhere
 3

within it8. Therefore the usage of the concept mind in this work could also be understood as
soul.

1.7.3. Body

According to the French dictionary, le grand Robert, body from its latin etymology,
corpuscorporis, is the material object characterised by its physical properties. It is the physical
substance by which every organism marks its existence in the planet earth. It is a natural
property of both living and non-living things. The body by its nature is extended, divisible,
possesses a certain figure and has a certain colour. By the body man shares the same nature
with other organisms. It is through this body that man can be able to relate with other
organisms. It is the centre of experience and sensation. “For the early Greek philosophers,
the world of nature was simply the world of bodies.”9 This implies that the nature was
principally made of bodies that can be qualified, quantified and numbered.

As regards to man, the body is the external aspect of man by which he occupies a particular
space and time. According to Aristotle, man like other living beings is made of two
principles: the form which gives him the kind of being he has, this is the soul of man; and
the matter which circumscribes, confines and limits him to a particular space and time, that
is the body of man. This doctrine of the form and matter composition of bodies (as
conceived by the early Greek philosophers) is called hylomorphism. Thus we can say that
the body is the material aspect of man that makes him part of the universe.

1.7.4. Dichotomy

Etymologically, the term dichotomy is from the Greek word, dichotomies meaning
“dividing into two”, “asunder”, “incision”. So, by dichotomy, we mean a division or
contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely
different. Dichotomy as used in this work depicts radical separation and distinction made
between two entities that comes together to form man, that is the body and the soul. Thus
dichotomy will imply showing the differences in the nature of the body and soul, in their
activities and the different role played by each in the making of a human being.
 4

INTRODUCTION

This work deals with the critical analysis of the mind-body dichotomy in Rene Descartes.
The huddles and the puzzles that has characterized the mystery of this composite being,
man, is something that remains perennial in the field of philosophy. Our present conception
of him makes it more difficult to understand what he really is. Man is a mystery that even
techno-scientific progress has not been able to solve entirely. Also, what is made of the
human body today especially in the western part of the cosmos, raises so many questions
concerning his essence.

The question, ‘what is man?’ is the underlying interrogation concerning his nature. As a
rational being, man is the only animal capable of questioning himself concerning his
originality, his essence, his existence and the purpose of his existence. Throughout the ages,
no response has been satisfactory to fill this vacuum in man. Different sciences that studied
man has tried to furnish an answer to this great questions. But each gives its response
considering only one aspect of man. For example, the response that biology proffers to this
question will be quite different from that which will be obtained from psychology and
sociology. Biology will define man putting into consideration only the physical body that is,
the anatomy and physiognomy of man. While psychology will define man by his psyche,
that is his soul. Though the responses are correct depending on the focal point of these
sciences, but it is quite different when we interrogate the nature of man from the
philosophical point of view. The attitude of philosophy in defining the nature of man
implies the profound comprehension of man.

So, in the bid to respond to this question about man, so many philosophers have
propounded different ideologies. Each Philosopher in giving his response criticizes his
predecessors, thereby indicating a shift from the former. So the modern period, manifests a
new conception of man, owing to the place given to human reason. The question about man
is well seen during this period due to its anthropocentricism. The human reason is
enthroned to the detriment of faith. And this influenced in a great way the conception of
man from that time till our present age.
 5

Therefore, Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy in his quest to show the power
of the human mind, went ahead to propound his own knowledge of man in his famous
cogito ergo sum. In his quest to establish a strong foundation of knowledge that is based on
clear and distinct ideas, he made a great affirmation in his 2nd meditation from which his
anthropology could be deduced. He said: “I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is
to say a mind or a soul, or even an understanding or a reason, […] I am however, a real
thing and really exist; but what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks.”10

He also made a radical distinction between the mind and the body that is, the res cogitans
and the res extensa. And while trying to distinguish the mind from the body, he considered
the human body an extension which he likened to any other body outside of him, thereby
giving it a mechanistic nature which could function without being propelled by the soul.
This is seen in his Passion of the soul where he also affirms that the soul has its own passions.
This led to the great wonder on the place of the unity of man.

Moreover, the western world is characterised by so much progress and advancement in

technology, where by the human body is used for so many experiments as regards to
medicine. It is also characterised by so many ethical aberrations where man could make of
his body whatever he wished. The apex of these ethical aberration can be seen in the
legalisation of abortion. A close look at the conception and the division which Descartes has
given the body could make one attribute these contemporary development to his influence.
And so the quest to clear this eventual misconception and use of the body influenced by
Cartesian anthropology in the contemporary society, thereby giving it a positive orientation,
is the underlying propeller of this work. And this is intended to be achieved by a critical
analysis and evaluation of the Cartesian dualism.

3.0. MIND-BODY DICHOTOMY IN RENE DESCARTES

The analysis of the anthropological basis of Rene Descartes is a project that necessarily
plunges us into a brief study of his foundational philosophy so as to be able to decipher his
conception of man and how he created a dichotomy of the body and soul. Thus, the study
of his method.
 6

3.1. The Cartesian Method

Rene Descartes in his philosophical endeavour remarked the disorder found in sciences.
This disorder is due to the fact that every philosophical enterprise looks for true knowledge
through blind curiosity filled with uncertainty and sometimes hazardous. This led Descartes
to look for a method that is strong and certain which could be applied to the sciences so as
to attain the true knowledge of realities. So in his bid to attain this goal, that is, finding a
strong foundation of knowledge and finding a universal science, Descartes made recourse to
his reason11.

He also considered it “better not to study at all than to occupy one’s self with objects of such
difficulty, that, owing to our inability to distinguish true from false, we are forceful to regard
the doubtful as certain; for in those matters any hope of augmenting our knowledge is
exceeded by the risk of diminishing it.”12 This implies that we should only look out for what
is completely certain and incapable of being doubted. And so our quest for knowledge
should not be done haphazardly devoid of a defined method. Driven by this goal, he made
recourse to mathematics which he observed with admiration, the certainty and self-evident
truth it embodies, which was in contrast to the conflicting opinions that plagued
philosophy.13

Hence, he sought for a better method of investigation of truth in mathematics. This

mathematics according to him, functions by the use of two mental operation: intuition and
deduction14. In explaining what intuition is all about, he stated:

By intuition I understand not the fluctuating testimony of senses, nor the

misleading judgement that proceeds from blinding constructions of imaginations,
but the conceptions which are unclouded and attentive mind gives us so readily and
distinctly that we are wholly freed from doubt about that which we understand.”15

Thus by intuition he means the recognition of self-evident truths given immediately by an

unclouded and attentive mind that spring from the light of reason alone. Such truths are
simple and not dependent on any other truth for their validation16. For example, each
individual can mentally have intuition of the fact he exists and that he thinks, that the
triangle is bounded by three lines only, that the equation 2+2=4. They don’t usually need
experience or sensory dependence for their certainty. They are usually geometrical axioms
and arithmetic equations. Hence, this evidence and certitude, however which belongs to
 7

intuition, is required not only in the enunciation of propositions, but also in discursive
reasoning of whatever sort like philosophy.

The second mental operation used in mathematics that is, deduction, is for Descartes “a
method by which we understand all necessary inference from other facts that are known
with certainty, though not by themselves evident, but only deduced from true and known
principles by the continuous and uninterrupted action of a mind that has a clear vision of
each step in the process.”17 This implies that in making use of this method, there must be an
already existing fact that is true and certain from which other true knowledge are inferred.
This already existing fact that form the basis of deduction must be self-evident and
independent on other facts. Here Descartes means an orderly logical reasoning or inference
from self-evident propositions gotten from intuition. Thus deduction is successive in nature,
in the sense that it completes the work of intuition. “Wherever intuition stops, deduction
continues.”18 That is to say that intuition is the basis of deduction.

The difference between these two mathematical methods is that intuition does not involve
any movement or succession; thus its truth is given directly while deduction involves a
successive movement from the truth procured already from intuition. In other words “the
first principles themselves are given by intuition alone, while, on the contrary, the remote
conclusions are furnished only by deduction.”19 For Descartes, “these two principles are the
most certain routes to knowledge, and the mind should admit no others.”20

3.1.1. The Methodic Doubt

Having exposed Rene Descartes’ epistemological purpose and the need to found a
knowledge that is built on a strong foundation and his recourse to mathematical principles
viz. intuition and deduction; we could realise that that he maintains that knowledge must be
certain. So philosophy and its investigation must be done with a particular method in the
pursuance of its goal which is truth. For “however that may be, it were far better never to
think of investigating truth at all, than without a method.”21 It is equally pertinent to note
that Rene Descartes detected how many were the false beliefs that he had from his earliest
youth admitted to be true, and how doubtful was everything he has since constructed on this
basis. So, from that moment he saw the need to rid himself of all opinions which he had
 8

formally accepted, and commence to build a new foundation22. This calls for a method to
achieve this distinctness in his knowledge of things.

This method for him are simple rules that must be observed for pure knowledge to be
attained. That is, how we can render ourselves more skilful in the application of the two
mental operations afore mentioned (intuition and deduction).23 This method involves
subjecting all his knowledge to the tribunal of the reason that is, doubting them and leaving
only the ones that are clear and distinct. In order to attain this, one should accept as true
only what is indubitable, that is to say all things that are clearly and very distinctly
conceived. So he summarised this method in four rules as stated in the second part of his
Discourse on the method. He resolved to:

a. Accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognise to be so: that is to say,
to avoid carefully precipitation and prejudice, and to accept nothing in my
judgements beyond what presented itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind,
that I should have no occasion to doubt it.
b. Divide each of the difficulties which I examined into as many parts as possible,
and as might be necessary in order best to resolve them.
c. Carry on my reflections in order, starting with those objects that were most
simple and easy to understand, so as to rise little by little, by degrees, to the
knowledge of the most complex: assuming an order among those that did not
naturally fall into series.
d. Last, in all cases make enumerations so complete and reviews so general that I
should be sure of leaving nothing out.24

Following Descartes’ maxims in his Discourse on the Method as well as in the Rule for the
Direction of the Mind, one could notice that one of the rules, however the first, has a
special status. In the latter there had been an injunction to “reject all such merely
probable knowledge and make it a rule to trust only what is completely known and
incapable of being doubted.25 Making reference to the first rule, Bernard Williams points
out that:

The rule appears as one piece of methodological advice among others. In Descartes
mature works, this rule comes to play a distinct and formative role. It is not that,
any more than the others, it can provide enlightenment in the abstract, if one is not
confronted with real intellectual problems. It is rather that the relevant problems
can be the basic problems of philosophy, and it is a distinctive feature of this rule
that when it is applied radically enough- more radically than it is in the context of
the Regulae [Rules for the direction of the mind]- it provided the basis of a critique of all
knowledge and hence of a distinctively philosophical enquiry. The other rules play
their part in that enquiry, as they do in any orderly intellectual project, but the first
rule has the special capacity of generating it. It gives the distinctive character to
Descartes’ investigation of knowledge, and the method which, following this rule to
its limit, he uses in that investigation is famously known as the method of doubt.26
 9

This implies that the other rules are hinged on the first rule which must be as the starting
point of any intellectual cum philosophical enquiry. We can then say that the Cartesian
method is thus: “to accept nothing as true which did not appear to be more clear and
more certain than the demonstrations of geometricians had formerly seemed.”27 This
implies doubting all his formal knowledge and retaining only the ones that are clear and
distinct to the human reason. This is referred to as the methodic doubt. This is the
hallmark of the Cartesian method. Through this method, he wished to give himself
entirely to the search after truth, he thought that it was necessary for me to take an
apparently opposite course, and to reject as absolutely false everything as to which he
could imagine the least ground of doubt, in order to see if afterwards there remained
anything in his belief that was entirely certain.28

However,it is also important to note that the methodic doubt is very different from the
doubt of the sceptics in the sense that the sceptics questions the certainty or validity of
our knowledge, thereby denying the possibility of true knowledge of realities; and in so
doing, adopt an attitude of suspending their judgement until a critical analysis is
complete, or all available evidence is at hand. Extreme sceptics argue that we cannot
employ any method of enquiry into reality because none is reliable. So, their doubt is
due to the unreliability and questionability of previously established methods or
principles on which these methods of enquiry depend for their validity. And so for them,
the entire structure cannot give reliable knowledge. Thus, according to them, nothing
exists, even if something exists, it cannot be known, even if it is known; it cannot be
communicated to others.29 Therefore, sceptics are “those who refuse the first principles
of the understanding, even the very existence of the self, as evident and knowable.” 30But
Descartes doubted in the bid to attain a goal: true and certain foundation of knowledge
that cannot be shaken. The methodic doubt becomes then the only way to distinguish the
truth from falsity. The doubt is envisaged and practiced in the sense of its methodic
value because it is nothing else than the suspension of judgement obliged by the rule of
evidence that proposed not to accept anything as true other than what cannot be
doubted. It also involves the avoidance of precipitation.
 10

Nevertheless, this methodic doubt is not the whole of Descartes philosophical method, but
it is considered the nucleus of his methods because it introduces and forms the enquiry;
paving way for a systematic vindication of knowledge, and an orderly reconstruction of
it which rests on a solid principle and foundation. Descartes regards the methodic doubt as
the right instrument for the research of truth. In the fourth part of the discourse he
writes:

But because of this case I wished to give myself entirely to the search after truth, I
thought that it was necessary for me to take an apparently opposite course, and to
reject as absolutely false everything as to which I could imagine the least ground of
doubt, in order to see if afterwards there remained anything in my belief that was
entirely certain. Thus, because our senses sometimes deceives us, I wished to
suppose that nothing is just as they cause us to imagine it to be. 31

The method of doubting everything, until one reaches, if one can, something that cannot
be doubted , is presented as a technique, as a systematic way of achieving something
which is Descartes’ basic aim; that is the discovery of a true and strong principle of
knowledge. So the application of this method made him to stumble on the sure
foundation on which his knowledge is built on, that is, the cogito ergo sum.

3.2. Cogito Ergo Sum- his Foundation of knowledge

In his method of doubt, which must not be confused with scepticism, Rene Descartes
appeared to be left with nothing to believe. God, the world, corporeal things including his
own body, the past, all seems to have succumbed to it. None for him could stand the
tribunal of the methodic doubt; all might be illusions. He wondered if there is anything he can
know to be true, that can survive the process of doubt. Thus he opined at the beginning of
his second meditation:

I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false; I persuade myself that nothing
has ever existed of all my fallacious memory represents to me. I consider that I
possess no sense, I imagine that body, figure, extension, movement and place are
but fictions of my mind. What, then, can be esteemed to be true? Perhaps nothing at
all, unless that there is nothing in the world that is certain.32

But he never relented till he got to a certain point when his reflection brought the doubt to a
halt for the first time:

But I was persuaded that there is was nothing in the world, that there was no
heaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise
persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I Imyselfdid exist since I
 11

persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of something]. But

there is some deceiver or other,very powerful and very cunning, whoever employs
his ingenuity in deceiving me. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me as
much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am
something. So that after having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we
must come to a definite conclusion that this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily
true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it. 33

So by this, he arrived at a principle of philosophy which he was seeking. This is the fact that
he who doubted everything exists. But he wasn’t yet sure of what he really is and thus he
stretched more his doubt so as not to ascribe to himself some other object. He then realised
that the very act of doubting can only be carried out by a thinking thing, implying that the
very act of doubting is to think. Thus He said:

But immediately afterwards I noticed that whilst I thus wished to think all things
false, it was absolutely essential that the ‘I’ who thought this should be somewhat,
and remarking that this truth ‘I think, therefore I am’ was so certain and so assured
that all the most extravagant suppositions brought forward by the sceptic were
incapable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could receive it without
scruple as the first principle of philosophy for which I was seeking. 34

With this Descartes realised that he was thinking and so he existed, for to doubt his
existence is to think. This he could not doubt. Therefore his existence which is assured by
the fact that he thinks became the indubitandum that he was looking for. Therefore he made
‘cogito ergo sum’, ‘I think therefore I am’ the foundation of his philosophical system because it
is a clear, certain and indubitable truth. In this context, we could see that Descartes offered a
brief description of his own experience with the proper approach to knowledge. He began by
renouncing any belief that can be doubted, including especially the testimony of the senses.
So he came to realise that his existence was a perfect certainty that cannot be doubted due to
the fact he who is doubt is thinking. This his principle of philosophy encompasses his
essence as a man, the fact that he (a man) thinks, therefore he exists. This assertions leads us
into Rene Descartes’ conception of man, hence the Cartesian anthropology.

3.3. Man as a Thinking Thing

According to the philosophy of Rene Descartes, man is his mind, we get this affirmation
from his famous dictum, which is his principle of philosophy: cogito ergo sum. This implies
that his existence comes from the fact that he is a thinking thing. This is the only thing he is
convinced and certain of by putting his methodic doubt at work. All other things that come to
his thought such as: the existence of his body, the corporeal world, fire, etc. are fictions.
 12

That is to say that even though he is made or composed of the soul and body, the principle
of his being is this soul in which he exercises the activity of thinking. This means that he
gives primacy to his mind (soul), and so his existence does not depend on his body which he
considers as an extension, which might also be real according to him.

Thus being certain that he exists, but not yet sure of what he really is; his next question was:
what is this ‘I’ that exists? What am I? He says:

But I do not yet know clearly enough what I am, I whom am certain that I am;
hence I must be careful to see that I do not imprudently take some other object in
place of myself, and thus that I do not go astray in respect of this knowledge that I
hold to be the most certain and most evident of all that I have formerly learned.35

Nevertheless, he went further to reaffirm himself to be a man. But he needed to be sure of

the nature and essence to be attributed to man which he is. He says: “What then did I
formerly believe myself to be? Undoubtedly I believe myself to be a man. But what is a
man?36” And in order to answer this question as to what it takes to be a man, he went on to
rehearse the various things that he might be tempted to say that he was. ‘A rational animal’
he rejected as an answer, since it could lead only into an infinitude of further doubts and
difficulties about the meaning of ‘rational’ and ‘animal’37. This point brings forward
Descartes rejection of the traditional scholastic philosophy to which this phrase, as a
definition of man, famously belongs. This we shall see later while treating the nature Rene
Descartes ascribe to the body. He goes on to consider various other notions, which could be
ascribed to him, either the body or a subtle spirit; these too he rejects because he wasn’t sure
of the existence of physical realities. Similarly, he rejected various faculties or abilities as
belonging to this ‘self’ of his, as again implying the physical; these include even sensations,
since it were to imply the existence of a physical body which was not yet sure of.38

Following this path, he came back to the fact that he is a ‘thinking thing’,res cogitans. This he
expressed with the following words:

What of thinking? I find here that thought is an attribute that belongs to me; it alone
cannot be separated from me. I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just
when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I
should likewise cease altogether to exist. I do not now admit anything which is not
necessary true: to speak accurately I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is
to say a mind or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason, which are terms whose
 13

significance was formerly known to me. I am however a real thing and really exist;
but what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks.”39

So, according to Descartes, to think means to exist, thus man is a thinking thing. He went
further to affirm: “Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not
remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence excepting that I am
a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consist solely in the fact that I am a
thinking thing [or a substance whose essence or nature is to think].” 40 Therefore the essence
of man is based on the fact that he thinks, a thinking thing which is the mind or the soul.
Another confirmation of the fact that man is a thinking thing according to Descartes is
found in the search after truth where he ascribed thought alone to this ‘I’. Thus he asserts:

Of all the attitudes which I bestowed upon myself, only one remains for me to
examine and that is thought; and I see that it is the only one that I cannot separate
from myself. For if it is true that I doubt […], it is also equally true that I think, for
what is doubting but thinking in a certain way? And if I did not think, I could not
know whether I doubt or exist. Yet I am, and I know that I am, and I know it
because I doubt, that is to say because I think. And better, it might be that if I
ceased for an instant to think I should cease at the same time to be. Likewise the
sole thing that I cannot separate from me, that I know certainly to be me and that I
can now affirm without fear of deception – that one thing, I repeat, is that I am a
thinking thing [res cogitans].41

However, he does not reject the existence of the body, only that he does not remark it to be
a necessity for the existence of man and so he (mind) that exists is quite different from his
physical body without which he can exist. Thus he opined in his sixth meditation:

And although possibly (or rather certainly, as I shall say in a moment) I possess a
body with which I am intimately conjoined, yet because on the one side, I have a
clear and distinct idea of myself in as much I am a only a thinking and unextended
thing, and as on the other, I possess a distinct idea of the body, in as much as it is
only an extended and unthinking thing. It is certain that this I [that is to say my soul
by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and
can exist without it.42

From this statement, we could see that there is a great distinction made by Descartes
between the mind and the body in the sense that they are two separate entities although
conjoined but can exist without the other. He also maintains that the essence of his
existence as a man is his mind, where the activity of thinking is carried out irrespective of
the existence of the body. This implies that he cannot conceive of himself without thinking
just as one cannot conceive of a plane triangle whose angle do not add up to two right
angles43.
 14

3.4. The Cartesian Dualism

The distinction made between the mind and the body by Descartes is today referred to as
the Cartesian dualism. Descartes made of the soul and the body two separate complete
substances, making all the essence of one, a thinking thing and the other, an extended thing.
The soul becomes for him a thing whose nature is to think while the body is only an
extension and does not think. We can see this distinction more apparently in his proper
words:

In order to begin this examination then, I here say, in the first place, that there is a
great difference between mind and body, in as much as the body is by nature always
divisible and the mind entirely indivisible. For as a matter of fact, when I consider
the mind, that is to say, myself in as much as I am only a thinking thing; I [mind]
cannot distinguish in myself any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one and
entire.44

Considering the above assertion and also the preceding ones, one could see the real
distinction which Descartes made between the mind and the body. Moreover, earlier in the
search after truth he pointed out that he exists and that he is not a body 45. That is to say that
it is in his essence to think, he could not exist without thinking; and again his body is quite a
separate and different thing from him and his mind (which are one).

For Rene Descartes, the mind (soul) remains the same, in other words does not change
while the body can change or be subjected to change. He went ahead to explain this using
an example of a wax of honey. The wax physically changes at different circumstances and
temperature but the thought that he has about the honey wax does not change. It is noticed
that it is only the extended part of the wax which is touchable or seen that is its body that
changes. So the Cartesian dualism bifurcates man into two complete distinct substances: the
body being only geometric extension and the mind as a thought that needs no space nor
depend on any material thing. He pointed this out explicitly in his Discourse on the method
where he opined:

From what I knew that I was a substance the whole essence or nature of which is to
think, and that for its existence there is no need of any place, nor does it depend on
any material thing; so that is ‘me’, that it is to say, the soul by which I am what I
am, is entirely distinct from body, and is even more easy to know than the latter;
and even if body were not, the soul would not cease to be what it is. The above
assertions confirms the essence of man as being his soul (a thinking thing) according
to Descartes as well as the dichotomy he created between the body and the soul .46
 15

In order to understand more about this dichotomy, that is the body and the soul as two
distinct entities, it will be pertinent to study the nature of the mind (soul) and the body as
postulated by Descartes.

3.4.1. The Nature of the Mind (soul) according to Rene Descartes

According to Descartes, the mind (soul) is essentially a thinking thing. This is because he
affirms that nothing else pertains to its nature except the fact that it is a thing that thinks.
Hence the soul is pure thought and immaterial substance. It cannot be divided and does not
have parts. It is a thing which doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses,
which also imagines and feels.47 Descartes affirms this discovery of the nature of the soul
when he says: “the mind is entirely indivisible […], I cannot distinguish in myself any parts,
but apprehend myself to be clearly one and entire. […] And the faculties of willing, feeling,
conceiving, etc. cannot be properly speaking said to be its parts, for it is one and the same
mind which employs itself in willing, feeling, and understanding.”48 So one could
understand that the different faculties of the souls according to him, does not imply its
division rather it makes a union of one unique nature of thinking. Here Descartes reduces
the soul to mind which only carries out the activity of thinking.

The nature which Descartes ascribes to the soul is quite different from the Aristotelian
conception of the soul in the sense that the soul for Aristotle animates the body and is
substantially united to it in the sense that one cannot exist without the other; while the
Cartesian soul does not animate the body but only carries out the function of thinking and
equally exist irrespective of the body. This is due to the fact that he reduces the soul to one
of its faculty, the mind. Thus leading him into the denial of the existence of vegetative and
sensitive souls in plants and animals respectively. For him, plants and animals are machines
and automata, thus excluding the Aristotelian-scholastic theory of the presence of souls in
them49. He conceives of animals as merely corporeal substances that functions according to
the disposition of their organs. Moreover in one of his replies to the objections of the mind-
body dichotomy by Arnauld, he affirms that “although mind belongs to the essence of man,
to be united to a human body is in the proper sense no part of the essence of the mind.” 50
 16

This affirmation buttresses the wide difference between the Cartesian mind (soul) and the
Aristotelian-scholastic soul.

3.4.2. The Nature of the Body according to Rene Descartes

Having made it clear that the mind is distinct from the body, Descartes attributes some
qualities to the body which cannot be found belonging to the soul. According to him, the
body is essentially an extended and unthinking thing. By extension he means that which has
breath, depth and length51. He postulates that the body “can be defined by a certain figure:
something which can be confined in a place, and which can fill a given space in such a way
that every other body will be excluded from it; which can be perceived either by touch, or by
sight, or by hearing, or by taste, or by smell.”52 He also affirmed that he does not consider
the power of self-movement and of thinking to appertain to the nature of the body. For him
the body is a collection of members governed by the law of mechanics 53. It is purely a
material substance. In his Treatise of man, he regarded the body as nothing but a statue or
machine made of earth54.

Moreover, for him the body is by nature always divisible55. In his argument about the
absence of the soul in animals that is living bodies, he asserts that all actions of the brutes
resemble only those of ours which occur without the aid of the mind56. Though he does not
deprive any animal of life, only that life for him, life of the body consists only of the warmth
of the heart57. This implies that animals are machines or automata and the life found in
living bodies (both the body of man and animal) is not owned to the presence of the soul in
them. Rather they function like machine. Thus the human body being a corporeal
substance can subsist without the mind and so functions like a machine although some of it
actions are attributed to the mind. As such, “a many great physical processes continue
without the intervention of the mind: respiration, digestion, the circulation of the blood,[…]
Hence the human body is like a machine which can work to a great extent automatically,
though its energy can be applied in different ways by the workman”58. To show more
explicitly that body can function on its own as a machine, Descartes opined in his Passions of
the Soul:
 17

The body of a living man differs from that of a dead man just as does a watch or
other automation (i.e. a machine that moves of itself), when it is wound up and
contains in itself the corporeal principle of those movements for which it is designed
along with all that is requisite for its action, from the same watch or other machine
when it is broken and when the principle of its movement ceases to act. 59

3.5.0. The Mind-Body Interactionism

Having distinguished the soul from the body, Descartes attributed to them the quality of
independent substances implying that they can exist without the other. But it is good to note
that he does exclude totally their union. For at a certain point during his meditation, he
came to realise that he felt some of the things that affected his body. Also when he wills
something, it is carried out by some parts of his body. He said:

First of all then, I believe that I had a head, hands, feet and all other members of
which this body- which I consider as a part or possibly even as the whole of myself
is composed. Further, I was sensible that this body was placed around it many
others, from which it was capable of being affected in many different ways
beneficial and hurtful. And I remarked that certain feeling of pleasure accompanied
those that were beneficial, and pain those which were harmful. And in addition of
this pleasure and pain, I also experience hunger, thirst, and other similar appetites,
as also certain corporeal inclinations towards joy, sadness, anger and other similar
passions.60

Thus, he affirms the union of the mind which is his essence and the body owing to the fact
that he experienced some corporeal events and inclination that influenced his mind which is
completely immaterial and incorporeal.

Therefore, although he made the distinction about their nature, he does not deny their
union and interaction. It is true that following Descartes arguments about the different
nature of the soul and body, it could seem to follow that the body does not belong to his
essence or nature, since he is only a thinking thing different from the body which is an
extension. And consequently, the soul (him) will be taken to be lodged in a body like a pilot
in his ship or vessel. Man becomes then a spirit that makes use of a body. However,
Descartes denies this conclusion in his 6th meditation, saying: “nature also teaches me by
these sensation of pain, hunger, thirst, etc. that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in
a vessel, but that I am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it that I
seem to compose with it one whole.”61 This union and interaction of the mind and body,
according to him can only be understood through day to day experience in life. But then it
 18

does not exclude the specificity in their different functions as two separate substances. He
proceeded by saying that if only he was lodged in his body like a pilot in a vessel, when his
body is hurts, he who is only a thinking being, should not feel pain, for he should perceive
this merely by the understanding only, just as the sailor perceives by sight when something
is damaged in his vessel. But rather, he feels the pain as part of himself and are not in a
confused mode. Through these statements Descartes establishes the interaction of the mind
and body despite their different natures.

However, in the midst of all these proofs about the union and the interaction of the mind
and body, Descartes appears to be in a difficult situation. His application of the criterion of
clarity and distinction leads him to emphasise the real distinction between the soul and the
body and even to represent each of them as being a complete substance. Yet he does not
want to accept the conclusion which follows that the soul is simply lodged in a body which
it uses as a kind of vessel or instrument62. Copleston talking about Descartes, points out that
“he did not reject this conclusion simply to avoid criticism on the theological grounds for he
was aware of empirical data which militates against the truth of the conclusion.”63 That is to
say that he knows through grounded experience that the soul or mind is influenced by the
body and vice versa. So he went further to ascertain their point of interaction.

In his work, The Passions of the Soul, he stated that the soul is really joined to the whole body
and that it cannot be conceived to be existing in a particular part to the exclusion of the
others for it is indivisible. But nevertheless, he opines:

It is likewise necessary to know that although the soul is joined to the whole body,
there is a certain part in which it exercises its functions more particularly than in all
the others, and it is usually believed that this part is in the brain[…] not the whole
of the brain, but merely the most inward of all its parts, to wit, a certain very small
gland which is situated in the middle of its substance and so suspended above the
duct whereby the animal spirit in the anterior cavities have communication with
those in the posterior64.

Descartes makes it clear then that the mind-body interaction takes place in a very small
gland located in the brain and that “there is no other place in the body where they can be
thus united unless they are so in this gland.”65 When the soul desires something, it causes
the little gland to which it is closely united to move in the way requisite to produce the effect
 19

which relates to this desire. This gland pointed out is taken to be the pineal gland following
his description and the localisation of the gland.

Analysing Rene Descartes assertion of the point of interaction, Copleston opined:

Localisation of the point interaction does not, indeed, solve the problems arising in
connection with the relationship between an immaterial soul and a material body;
and from one point of view, it seems to underline the distinction between the soul
and body. However it is clear that Descartes had no intention of denying
interaction.”66

From the foregoing exposition, we could see that Rene Descartes the father of modern
philosophy has succeeded in bifurcating human personality into two distinct entities: mind
and body. He arrived at this instant on his quest for a principle that can be a strong
foundation of true knowledge. This he found out to be, the very fact that he exists; and that
his existence is made certain because of the fact that he thinks. Cogito ergo sum, I think
therefore I am, becomes then the indubitatum on which rests other knowledges. So in his bid
to ascertain what he really is, he made an assertion which portrays his dualistic
anthropology. He affirmed that he is a thinking thing, and his soul by which he is what he
really is, is quite different from his body which is only an extension. This implies that man
according to Descartes is a thinking thing. That is to say that the essence of man lies on the
very fact that he thinks. But later, his daily experience thought him that he (his soul) is
united to his body thus their interaction. That is to say that there are some bodily events that
affect and influence the soul, and vice versa.

But this discovery which he affirmed, that is, the interaction between the body and the soul,
poses a problem to the previously established dichotomy between the body and the soul:
how can the body which is purely material and extended influence the soul which is
unextended and purely spiritual, and vice versa? This problem he tried solving using the
pineal gland, a small organ found in the brain as the point of their interaction. He made the
pineal gland the seat of the soul. However this solution was not satisfactory owing to the
fact that the gland in question is also material and extended. This unsolved problem will
then form the basis of some anthropological cum metaphysical criticisms on his regard. It
will also be the driving force behind some philosophical and scientific development. This is
going to be part of the following chapter.
 20

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

Evaluation

Although many works on the philosophical analysis of man have been achieved in the
history of philosophy, yet the problem hinged on the understanding of the concept of man
remains a perennial one. This quest for the understanding of human nature reached its
climax in the modern period fathered by the great philosopher of his time, Rene Descartes.
This is due to the fact that the human reason was enthroned creating a room for self-
consciousness in man. This self-consciousness is thanks to Rene Descartes. And so man,
who is now conscious of the fact that he existed went on to question and find out what
makes him a unique being. So in order to buttress this problem, it was pertinent that we
went back to the root of the whole awareness which can be found in the foundational
philosophy of Descartes, who in his bid to found philosophy and knowledge on a strong
foundation made an assertion that pertains to man making him a thinking thing: ‘cogito ergo
sum’, I think therefore I exist.He arrived at this conclusion by the application of his
methodic doubt which demands that he accepts nothing as true except that which is clear
and distinct. For him, this is the only thing that withstood the tribunal of his reason after
doubting all his preconceived knowledge. He realised that that he cannot doubt the fact that
he is a thinking thing, for to doubt is to think. This he made the principle of his philosophy
from which other things can be derived including his conception of man.

Rene Descartes in asserting that he is a thinking thing, that is to say a thing which nothing
else pertains to its essence other thinking, went on to create a radical dichotomy between the
body and the soul, making them two distinct and independent entities both in their nature
and working. One being purely material and whose activity is purely thought that is, the
soul; while the other is purely material and extended that is the body. This dualistic
approach to man became controversial as regards to the explanation of the mutual influence
of the body and the soul. That is to say that there are some mental states that affect the body
and vice versa. Descartes tried to respond to this problem using the pineal gland as a point
of convergence between the body and the soul, making this organ the seat of the soul. This
response wasn’t satisfactory because it implies giving the soul some material properties
 21

making his initial statement about their dichotomy a contradiction. Thus by this Rene
Descartes, created a perennial problem in the philosophical cum metaphysical conception of
man. One tends to wonder the possibility of a disembodied reason.

The mind-body relationship is not actually a new philosophy in the domain of anthropology
as regards their union but rather it was made new in the light of Descartes; in the sense that
he made explicit the dichotomy between the two as regards their nature and functioning,
thereby making the soul(mind) the sole essence of man. This fact made it worthwhile to
look into the ideas of some philosophers before Descartes and those after him so as to
compare their arguments with his. Aristotle exposed man as a composite of two
interdependent principles of a substance: form and matter. ‘Form’ in man being the soul,
while the ‘matter’ is the body. For him, these two cannot exist substantially without each
other. Therefore the body and the soul are always in constant unity in order to make a man.

Following the Cartesian dichotomy came up some philosopher who tried to reconcile the
body and the soul after the radical separation made by Descartes. One of these philosophers
is Nicholas Malebranche, who used the notion of occasionalism to solve the question
concerning the possibility of the mutual influence between the soul and the body despite the
dichotomy made by Descartes. For him, God is the only causal agent, and creatures merely
provide the occasion for divine action. This implies that the body and the soul do not have
any causal relationship rather it is God that causes certain bodily states and events on the
occasion of certain mental states and events, and vice versa. Leibniz on the other hand used
the concept of monads to tackle this issue; monads being simple substances which enter into
compounds. And the relationship between the body and the soul is due to a pre-established
harmony between monads, coupled with the degree of the confusedness and distinctness of
each group of monads. The soul and the body being made up of simple and complex
monads respectively makes the body to be usually influenced by the soul due to the fact that
the monads of the soul are more distinct than that of the body fostered by the harmony that
existed between monads from creation. Finally, a contemporary philosopher, Gilbert Ryle
contested with the dichotomy created by Descartes and stated that mental events and bodly
events should not be taken to be existing into different worlds; one being immaterial and the
other material, as postulated by Descartes. He rather opined that mental processes are
 22

merely intelligent acts that are not just represented by the acts but are the acts themselves.
Thus the mind and body are always inconstant simultaneous relationship, that the events
associated with one cannot be separated from the other.

However, despite all the solutions proffered by these different authors that came after
Descartes, it remains evident that the mind-body dichotomy still has its influence in the
development of the western thought, and the way man is being conceived today depending
on the manner Rene Descartes idea is being understood. In a negative sense, his doctrine
can be said to be a radical reductionism in the sense that man is reduced to his soul or to a
machine depending on the perspective taken. It could also be said to be the cause of some
ethical aberration in our present age. But the dichotomy has also been of some positive
influence which has helped the amelioration of man as it triggered the self-consciousness in
him, making him to realise his capabilities. Man came to realise that the rightful use of his
reason makes him the master of nature. Its influence in the development of medicine
remains unescapable in the sense that the study of the human physiology and anatomy
came to place, making it possible to cure some certain ailments that were termed incurable.
More so, the scope of philosophy expanded as it provoked somany thoughts amongst the
western philosophers.

5.2. Conclusion

Having gone through the exposition of the anthropology of Descartes, in other words, his
conception of man which is mainly hinged on the dichotomy he made between the body
and the soul, one could be tempted to say that Rene Descartes was totally wrong in his
ideology in the sense that he tends to ascribe the essence of man to his soul or even reduced
man to his soul or mind; making the body to be only a possessed property of the soul which
is man. But it is quite important not to lose sight of the initial intention of the author, which
is to give reason a predominant place in the understanding of man. His philosophy revolved
around making man to realise that he is a creature endowed with the ability to think, and
when this thinking is put into right use, following the method of clarity and distinctness,
man will be able to discover the laws of nature, overcome this nature and become its master
 23

for the good of mankind and the society. This is manifested in the different ways: the
development of science and technology, the development in medicine and the scope of
philosophy at large.

Moreover, it is apparent that the world still has people or societies that still believe in
fatalism, predestination and fatalism. These ideologies hinder them from putting their
reason into use in order to realise something positive and beneficial to them and the society
at large. Therefore, Descartes’ philosophy should be a motivating principle that puts people
into action. As seen in his influence on western philosophy giving rise to idealism and
materialism, in the sense that some took his philosophy to be idealistic while others saw
materialism in it. It should rather be a combination of the two schools of thought that is,
orthodoxy and praxis. This implies that, that which is thought by the mind should be
actualised by the body.

Therefore, instead of adopting a negative interpretation of Descartes’ notion of man, it

would be worthwhile to take up the positive influence which has always been his intention.
That is to make man a superior being by the rightful use of his reason.

END NOTES

1
2
Encyclopaedia, what is man according to philosophy, https://www.the- Philosophy.com/man-philosophy, 2 Nov.
2018.
3
Daniel J. SULLIVAN, An introduction to philosophy, perennial principles of the classical realist tradition, North
Carolina: TAN books, 1957, p. 63.
4
George Peter KLUBERTANZ, The philosophy of human nature, New York: Appleton-century-croft, 1953, P.302.
5
Daniel J. SULLIVAN, An introduction to philosophy, perennial principles of the classical realist tradition, P. 66.
6
Daniel J. SULLIVAN, An introduction to philosophy, perennial principles of the classical realist tradition, P. 34.
7
George Peter KLUBERTANZ, The philosophy of human nature, p.310.
8
Cf. George Peter KLUBERTANZ, The philosophy of human nature, p.310.
9
Daniel J. SULLIVAN, An introduction to philosophy, perennial principles of the classical realist tradition, p.195.
10
Rene DESCARTES, the meditations of first philosophy,trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique
Chavez(ed),Great Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P.142.
11
Cf. Jude Adindu ONUOHA, Specifics in epistemology, P. 99.
12
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique
Chavez(ed), , Great Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P. 5.
13
Jude Adindu ONUOHA, Specifics in epistemology, P. 99.
14
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 9.
15
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 9.
16
Cf.Jude Adindu ONUOHA, Specifics in epistemology, P. 100.
17
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 10.
18
Jude Adindu ONUOHA, Specifics in epistemology, P. 100.
 24

19
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 11.
20
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 11.
21
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 11.
22
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique
Chavez(ed), Great Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P. 134.
23
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 31.
24
Rene DESCARTES, Discourse on the method,trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique Chavez(ed), Great
Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997 P. 82.
25
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, p. 5.
26
Bernard WILLIAMS, Descartes: the project of pure enquiry, England: Penguin Books, 1978, P. 33.
27
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 97.
28
Cf. Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 91.
29
Cf. Romanus ANOSIKE, Epistemology with great minds and their theories of knowledge, Owerri: Assumpta press,
2007, PP. 62-66.
30
Daniel J. SULLIVAN, An introduction to philosophy, perennial principles of the classical realist tradition, P. 88.
31
Rene DESCARTES, The discourse on the method, P. 91.
32
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations of the first philosophy, P. 139.
33
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations of the first philosophy, P. 140.
34
Rene DESCARTES, Rules for the direction of the mind, P. 92.
35
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 140.
36
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 140.
37
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 140.
38
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 141.
39
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 142.
40
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 181.
41
Rene DESCARTES, The search after truth,trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique Chavez(ed), Great
Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997 P. 402.
42
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 181.
43
Bernard WILLIAMS, Descartes: the project of pure enquiry, P. 109.
44
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 187.
45
Rene DESCARTES, The search after truth, P. 398.
46
Rene DESCARTES, Discourse on the method, P. 92.
47
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 143.
48
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 187.
49
Frederick COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists Descartes to Leibniz, P. 136.
50
Rene DESCARTES, Objections and Replies,trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique Chavez(ed), Great
Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P. 233.
51
Rene DESCARTES, Principle of Philosophy,trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique Chavez(ed), Great
Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P. 311.
52
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 141.
53
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Descartes and the pineal gland, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-
gland, 2013.
54
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Descartes and the pineal gland.
55
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 187.
56
Frederick COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists Descartes to Leibniz, P.136.
57
Cf.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Descartes and the pineal gland.
58
Frederick COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists Descartes to Leibniz, P. 37.
59
Rene DESCARTES, The passions of the soul, trans. by E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Enrique Chavez(ed), Great
Britain: wordsworth classics, 1997, P. 360.
60
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 178.
61
Rene DESCARTES, Meditations on the first philosophy, P. 183.
 25

62
Cf. Frederick COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists Descartes to Leibniz, P. 121.
63
F. COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists Descartes to Leibniz, P. 121.
64
Rene DESCARTES, The passions of the soul, P. 372.
65
Rene DESCARTES, The passions of the soul, P. 373.
66
Frederick COPLESTON, A history of philosophy-the rationalists descartes to Leibniz, P. 122.