Innatism: good and evil, language, and maths

Quite recently I’ve written a post on tabula rasa. You may probably wonder if there is a theory of mind which would be opposite to tabula rasa theory. The answer is: of course there is – this view is called innatism and claims that not all knowledge comes from experience (John Locke, however, argued that it does). Since, according to innatism theory, mind is not a blank slate there is some knowledge that you are born with. Despite the fact that innatism is not a very popular theory there are various branches of this view; the main difference is usually: what knowledge is innate.

Noam Chomsky
(1928)

Notions of good and evil is usually considered by innatists to be the part of innate knowledge. Numerous philosophers claimed that you are able to distinguish between good and evil regardless of your background. Descartes stated that some ideas are placed in people’s minds by God (including notions of good and evil). Nevertheless various terrorists are convinced that what they do is actually good (or they think it’s not good but serves a greater good). Think about the recent case of Anders Breivik who killed 69 unarmed adolescents at Utøya island, Norway. He has never had any regrets (or at least didn’t express them publically) of what he did – do you think it is caused by the fact that he is not able to distinguish between good and evil or by his mental illness? Or is a mental illness the result of his not being able to say what is right and what is not?

Epiphenomenalism

Ivan Pavlov
(1849-1936)

While many philosophers regard human being as a complex creature with an unexplored mental inside, others believe, however, that all your mental states are merely physical processes which take place inside your brain. This theory is known as epiphenomenalism. According to the epiphenomenalism definition these are not your thoughts which make you feel angry and turn red. These are only symptoms of the same external situation. Therefore thoughts are no more than a simple illusion caused by external conditions. Also there is no such thing as free will.

You’ve probably heard many times of Ivan Pavlov, Russian physiologist. He’s famous for his research on conditioning and reflex actions. He proved that animal’s behaviour may be altered by rewarding an animal for “good” actions and punishing for those which are considered to be “wrong”. Imagine that you’ve got a dog and you punish it for biting furniture and reward for obeying you; soon he will obey you even if there is no reward afterwards. This shows how much the behaviour has to do with upbringing. In philosophy of psychology there’s even a theory called behaviourism (which shares many similarities with epiphenomenalism) that all what people (and animals) do are in fact behaviours (including thoughts). What are the arguments for epiphenomenalism?

Tabula rasa – blank slate – meaning

We’ve already dealt with free will and determinism; however, you may still wonder what’s the origin of your mind. According to tabula rasa theory your mental content comes only from your experience. The meaning of tabula rasa originates from Latin “blank slate” or “white paper”; it means that you’re born with an empty mind which is to be filled with your life experiences which, according to tabula rasa theory, are the unique source of mental content. One of the most famous philosophers who held belief in tabula rasa is probably English philosopher John Locke who claimed that “all ideas come from sensation or reflection”. It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Personally, I don’t believe in tabula rasa theory. There are numerous literary works which aim to prove that we are not born with tabula rasa. Some of them (such as "Lord of the Flies" by W. Golding) seem to convince the reader of an innate evil, others (such as a classic of children’s literature "Pollyanna" by E. H. Porter) claim that all people are born good. It shows how different philosophical theories may be when it comes to mind – tabula rasa, innate evil, or innate goodness. Are you really born with tabula rasa then?

Solipsism: do others exist in your mind only?

Solipsism is one of the most interesting theories of mind. Why? I’ll tell you how solipsists define solipsism. Get ready, solipsism definition is as follows: one’s own mind is all that can be known to exist. But what does solipsism really mean? Not only solipsists and philosophers in general know the meaning of solipsism – also average people like you and me have probably experienced solipsism as a child (infant solipsism). Solipsism is so convincing that there is even a solipsism syndrome – therefore you could actually suffer from solipsism. If you’re not afraid to start doubting in others’ existence, continue reading…

Think about your childhood. What’s your first memory? Most people can trace their memories back to the time they were about 3 or 4 years old. You probably can’t remember from your own experience what had happened before your 3^rd birthday or even if you are it’s almost impossible to have any memories before 2^nd birthday. How can you know what had happened before then?

Defining free will – Schopenhauer and compatibilism

Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788-1860)

In the last post about determinism and free will it was stated that according to the determinism definition and the examples we’ve dealt with it is impossible to prove that we have free will. In fact, deterministic reasoning suggests that we have no free will; however, there are various branches of determinism – for instance compatibilism (since William James called also soft determinism). What’s the definition of compatibilism and what’s so interesting about it? The interesting part of it is probably combining free will with determinism – according to compatibilism free will can exist even if our actions are determined.

You may wonder how it is possible but as you’ll see the answer is really easy. It’s all about defining free will correctly (from the compatibilists’ point o view of course). It is possible to define free will in such a way that – despite deterministic limitations – free will will be still free (though it will not be free from determinants). Take a closer look to the definition of free will by Arthur Schopenhauer:

Determinism and free will

In the post about materialism and substance dualism we’ve briefly dealt with the problem of making decisions (such as standing up). But did you really have free will to actually decide to stand up? Well, according to the determinism theory you did not. Why did you stand up then? Determinism definition states that all events are ultimately determined by causes which are independent of the will. There are many examples of determinism and – as in the case of most philosophical theories – there are various branches of determinism including soft and hard determinism (known also as compatibilism and metaphysical determinism). If you want to see how determinism works practically, click "read more" (or if you already did then start reading the next paragraph…

Property dualism: physicalism in disguise?

Property dualism scheme

Do you think it is possible to combine the physicalism (materialism) with the substance dualism? (If you don’t know the differences between these two check out the previous post.) For centuries people have tried to find common aspects of completely different ideas, theories etc. (what’s interesting is that this is actually how some religions were established). Philosophers have also tried to find something in common as far as the substance dualism and physical monism are concerned. One of the possible outcomes is the property dualism.

What is exactly the property dualism? As in the case of physicalism it states that there is only  one entity (physical). It also states that the physical entity has two properties – mental and physical; so don’t let yourself be fooled by the word “dualism”. In fact, the “dualism” does not refer to the substance dualism but to the dualism of the physical substance. I believe this view is even closer to the monism than to the dualism. Why do I think so?

Physical monism vs. substance dualism - arguments

In the last post we’ve been dealing generally with the differences between the two major schools which are monism and dualism. It’s time we take a closer look to one of the most popular branches of the dualism – substance dualism. It states that there are two completely different substances (entities) – mental and material. This used to be one of the most popular theories in the times of Descartes – nowadays, however, as the science progresses it seems that it's becoming more and more difficult to defend such a controversial view. Why is it so?

Perception of world by substance dualists

To my mind, the biggest problem in understanding the concept of the theory is the definition of substances which turns out to be quite misleading. While we’re usually sure what the physical substance is, many of us get lost when it comes to explaining the non-physical entity. The word “substance” means that something must be physical, whereas substance dualists argue that the world we live in consists of physical substance (which could be actually regarded as a pleonasm) and non-physical substance (which seems to be a paradox). Such a great confusion in the very definition of the philosophical theory may cause the whole theory to be unclear and tricky. Some dualists compare non-physical substance to wind, music, or energy; however, these comparisons are the source of even greater confusion. All of these examples are strictly physical – wind and music consist of waves which can be heard, felt, and with the use of scientific apparatus you’re even able to see them. Personally, I believe that a much better term would be simply a form, which does not suggest that it needs to be physical.

Descartes, dualism and monism

Let’s assume that both you and me do have minds; I guess it would be way easier to think this post over if you had some free mind to use. Otherwise the idea of thought without a mind might get a little bit tricky – but as you’re about to see, thought could exist without a mind. Anyway, before I become completely incomprehensible let’s start on with our bodies.

René Descartes
(1596-1650)

You probably do not have to think much to say what your body really is. You know that you’ve just used a hand to open this blog and you’ll probably use it again to scroll this blog for other posts or maybe to close this window (but please don’t do it now). You know your body is something physical – you can touch it, you can see it, sometimes you can even smell it, and if you were desperate enough you could try to taste it. However the problem of what exactly made you open this blog, read it, and finally close it is more complex. I guess most people, probably including you as well, would say that they did so because they wanted to. They thought that this blog would be interesting to read so they gave it a try. You may therefore argue that because you are able to think you have also your own mind. That would mean that everyone of us has the mind and the body. In the philosophy of mind this view is called dualism. It means that the body and the mind (not to be confused with the brain which is a part of the body!) are not the same and that mind is not something physical thus it can’t be neither touched nor seen (and you can’t taste it either). One of the most famous philosophers who believed in dualism and who is often regarded as the father of this mind-body problem is a French philosopher René Descartes (he was the first philosopher whose works I began to read, and if you still haven’t read any of his texts, I really recommend that you start with “Discourse on the Method” – you can easily find it on the Internet).

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog!

Since I've been interested in the philosphy of mind for some time already, I decided a few days ago that I should finally find a way to share my views on the subject - so here I am! I will try to write as much as I know and do my best to encourage you to develop your own ideas, recommend some interesting books, movies etc. I'll explain different theories of mind, show how they differ, what their flaws are...

In the next post I'll explain you the very basics of the philosophy of mind and write a short introduction to the mind-body problem... You'll see how the mind influences the body (and vice versa), assuming that you have your own mind at all - practically nothing is certain when it comes to philosophy!

I hope you'll enjoy the blog and I'd love to hear from you too!