Property Dualism Implies Substance Dualism | ||
| پژوهش‌های فلسفی -کلامی | ||
| دوره 26، شماره 1، فروردین 1403، صفحه 21-46 اصل مقاله (1.43 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/jptr.2024.10209.2989 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Ralph Weir* | ||
| Associate Member, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford; Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Lincoln, UK. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| According to a widely held view in the philosophy of mind, property dualism is a respectable theory whereas substance dualism need not be taken seriously. This paper argues that property dualism, as it is usually understood, is incoherent. The commitments that are meant to lead to property dualism actually lead to substance dualism. The argument presented here adds weight to David Chalmers’ suggestion that the serious nonphysicalist options are in fact various kinds of panpsychism and substance dualism. Along the way, I offer an account of the substance/property distinction, argue against the existence of substrata as distinct from substances and properties, and describe a new position that I call ‘transcendent panpsychism’. I identify some reasons why philosophers of mind might have overlooked the incoherence of property dualism and finish with some thoughts on the significance of my conclusion for developmental psychology. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Substance؛ Properties؛ Mind؛ Dualism؛ Physicalism | ||
| موضوعات | ||
| فلسفه ذهن | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Property Dualism Implies Substanc Dualism | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ralph Weir | ||
| Associate Member, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford; Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Lincoln, UK. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract: According a widely held view in the philosophy of mind, property dualism is a respectable theory whereas substance dualism need not be taken seriously. This paper argues that property dualism, as it is usually understood, is incoherent. The commitments that are meant to lead to property dualism actually lead to substance dualism. The argument presented here adds weight to David Chalmers’ suggestion that the serious nonphysicalist options are in fact various kinds of panpsychism and substance dualism. Along the way I offer an account of the substance/property distinction, argue against the existence of substrata as distinct from substances and properties, and describe a new position which I call ‘transcendent panpsychism’. I identify some reasons why philosophers of mind might have overlooked the incoherence of property dualism and finish with some thoughts on the significance of my conclusion for developmental psychology Abstract: According a widely held view in the philosophy of mind, property dualism is a respectable theory whereas substance dualism need not be taken seriously. This paper argues that property dualism, as it is usually understood, is incoherent. The commitments that are meant to lead to property dualism actually lead to substance dualism. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| substance, properties, mind, dualism, physicalism | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aristotle. (1949). Aristotelis categoriae et liber de interpretatione. (L. Minio-Paluello, Ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198145073.book.1. Armstrong, D. (1989). A combinatorial theory of possibility. Cambridge University Press.
Bering, J. (2004). Descartes’ baby. Basic Books.
Bering, J. (2006). The folk psychology of souls. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 29(5), 453–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009101.
Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10(1), 147–151.
Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. (2022). Philosophers on philosophy. Philosophers’ Imprint, 22. https://doi.org/10.3998/phimp.2109.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2006). The foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In M. García-Carpintero & J. Macià (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics (pp. 38–140). Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2010). The character of consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Cleeveley, H. (2022). The a priori truth of modal rationalism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 72(4), 816–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqab061.
Cooper, J. W. (1989). Body, soul and life everlasting. W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Davidson, D. (1970). Mental events. In L. Foster & J. W. Swanson (Eds.), Essays on actions and events (pp. 207–224). Clarendon Press.
Descartes, R. (1984–1991). The philosophical writings of Descartes. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, & A. Kenny (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (CSMK). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172226
Goff, P. (2010). Ghosts and sparse properties: why physicalists have more to fear from ghosts than zombies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00352.x. Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
Hempel, C. (1969). Reduction: ontological and linguistic facets. In S. Morgenbesser & et al. (Eds.), Essays in honor of Ernest Nagel. St Martin’s Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00577.x. Hume, D. (2007). A treatise of human nature. D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton (Eds.). Oxford University press.
Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077.
Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism or something near enough. Princeton University Press.
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press.
Ney, A. (2008). Defining physicalism. Philosophy Compass, 3(5), 1033–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00163.x. Nida-Rümelin, M. (2007). Grasping phenomenal properties. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 307–138). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195171655.003.0013. Plato. (1995). Opera volume 1. (E. A. Duke & et al., Eds.). Clarendon Press.
Priest, S. (2000). The subject in question. Routledge.
Putnam, H. (1973). Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 299–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025079.
Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V. (1951). Semantics and abstract bbjects. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science, 80(1), 90–96.
Schneider, S. (2012). Why property dualists must reject substance physicalism. Philosophical Studies, 157, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9618-9.
Van Inwagen, P. (2014). Existence: essays in ontology. Cambridge University Press.
Weir, R. S. (2021a). Bring back substances! The Review of Metaphysics, 75(2), 265–308. http://doi.org/10.1353/rvm.2021.0040. Weir, R. S. (2021b). Can a post-Galilean science of consciousness avoid substance dualism? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28(9–10), 212–28. https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.28.9.212. Weir, R. S. (2023). The mind-body problem and metaphysics: an argument from consciousness to mental substance. Routledge.
Williams, D. (1953). On the elements of being: I. The Review of Metaphysics, 7(1), 3-18. Zimmerman, D. (2010). From property dualism to substance dualism. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 84(1), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2010.00189.x. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 9,647 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 482 |
||