Metaphysics Argument Paper

1054 Words5 Pages

Metaphysics is the study of the most general characteristics of reality and existence. Metaphysics asks the question, “How are the mind and the body related”. Metaphysics can also help explain the mind-body problem. The mind-body problems asks the question, “Are the mind and body separate elements or the elements from the same substance?”. By using these definition of metaphysics it can help explain if Schwartz is a combination of two people of if “it” is a new person. When I explained what had happened to me they were shocked and had very different opinions on what had happened to my mind and body. I knew not to expect them to agree with each other but knew they both would have a valid argument to help me understand if I was a new person …show more content…

Descartes did not explain how the mind and body interact with each other. One point brought up by Descartes was the material body and an immaterial mind. When I asked how the mind and body interact in this situation he just said, “they are united”. I felt that Descartes did not make a strong enough argument to help clarify this point to me. Ryle’s was able to persuade me in his direction after presenting his argument. Ryle’s gave me a valid reason on why Descartes was incorrect but did not explain why Descates “I think” was wrong. Although both of their premises are true Descartes conclusion is false. Ryle’s says, “the phrase 'there occurs mental processes' does not mean the same sort of thing as 'there occur physical processes', and, therefore, that it makes no sense to conjoin or disjoin the two." This explains that the cause of body movement is both physical and mental and therefore can’t be conjoined. I also agreed with Ryle’s on dualism being a category mistake. Ryle’s supports this by explaining that it is a misuse of everyday language. Descartes was unable to defend himself against Ryle’s arguments and therefore was not as persuading to me. Overall, Ryle’s was able to get me a valid answer that can be supported with his …show more content…

This can best be explained by Descartes belief of the mind being separate from the body. This can explain how the doctors were able to take my brain and put in on my friend’s body. Although Ryle’s was able to disprove this it still is an interesting premise. Ryle’s did have a strong argument on how our behaviors are unique to each person, and how the mind and body are harnessed together. Bodily movements can be both physical and mental and therefore explains why our mind needs a body vessel to be housed in. After my accident my mind will be housed in a new body but will still have the same bodily movements. Descartes explained how this is possible since the mind can exist without the body. I decided that the mind can exist without the “correct” body but overall the mind needs a body. A mind has a behavior function of that and if a person can’t move their body, cry or have bodily functions then how can they comprehend human life. A mind is nothing without a body and vice versa. Although I was fortunate to be able to keep my mind it will be an adjustment to have this new body. Ryle’s explained to me how mind can still function even if my body has died. This has helped me feel more confident that after my accident that I will be able to live a “normal” life. I have concluded that my situation is unique and I can use my experience to help further philosophical ideas. As the first person to have a mind

Show More
Open Document