Help Understanding (and Refuting Descartes) on Animal Minds
  • Grre
    196
    Two years ago I worked on a paper about other minds (in particular fish minds) which I posted about as a discussion on this forum here
    All of the input was very helpful and I've revised some of my work since then. I've also ordered the books suggested-Uekell and Tyre. However, as per my most recent course-I have to write my paper on Descartes, and in particular, I want to write about Descartes discussion of other minds in relation to his mind/body dualism. And then I want to refute Descartes (and the Judio-Christian and Aristotelian tradition he writes within) and make a strong metaphysical case for animal minds.

    My previous paper/project focused more widely on the subjective/objective divide and social and ethical concerns about our ranking of animal intelligence/use and anthropocentric bias. In this paper (or sequel) I want to directly confront the technicalities of Descartes argument that I feel provided the modern foundation for dismissing animal minds and animal sentience/intelligence...but I'm still a bit shady on Descartes in general. It was hard for me to get through reading some of his Meditations and I don't have any secondary sources (yet) that directly address his role in denying animal consciousness...not to mention his rumoured acts of animal cruelty.

    Therefore I'm wondering what you guys think about Descartes and his denial of other minds and consciousness? If anyone could provide any sources that explicitly discuss this aspect of Descartes that would also be appreciated
    Grre Options
  • Pop
    1.5k
    ↪Grre
    Unfortunately I can not give you any sources on Descartes that you can not google yourself. However I do have a short theory of consciousness that argues consciousness right down to microbial life. It and the discussions that follow might give you some ideas about a line of argument.
    Pop Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    At the library once I searched a bunch of articles on Descartes and animals. It seems unclear whether he held they had no thoughts whatsoever or only lacked a simple soul
    Gregory Options
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    I think he thought animals were just a kind of machine - but confirm that.

    If your course is about Descartes, then you're going to have to do the research. But if it's a general course about how you think and how you attack the question, then likely you can and maybe should answer out of your own thinking, informed by manageable research. Two very different assignments. What exactly is your instructor's expectation?
    tim wood Options
  • Grre
    196
    ↪tim wood

    The course is on early modern era philosophers, so we have covered a variety of different thinkers and theories from that area such as Bacon, Spinoza, Descartes ect. The scope of the project is to address a thinker/philosophy from that era in an original way-so I'm planning to discuss Descartes concept of other minds in depth.

    Yes my understanding from my earlier research was Descartes conception of animals as "machine-like", not really alive.

    ↪Pop

    This looks really helpful and I will read it over. If I have any questions I'll let you know!

    ↪Gregory

    Yes this distinction is what I'm starting to see I might struggle with
    Grre Options
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I don't know. I suppose nobody does. In fact, given solipsism, forget consciousness, even the very existential reality of anything not-self is in doubt.

    Nonetheless, I can, despite my serious misgivings, comment something regarding animal minds with regard to chickens.

    There was a case, reported in Wikipedia, about Mike, the headless chicken. The story goes that a poorly aimed butcher's knife severed the head off a hapless chicken but, most intriguingly, the chicken didn't die. While with a head, it was completely unremarkable, headless, it achieved fame which, no doubt, the owner would've relished more than the meat.

    Anyway...

    What I find interesting is this equation:

    Mike + head = Mike - head...behaviorally speaking

    There was no discernible difference in the behavior of Mike with a head and Mike without a head.

    This may mean many things of course but the lesson I drew from this small chapter in life's history on the planet is that even with a head, animals, actually just chickens, seem to be behaving reflexively...like...dare I say it, automatons.

    NB: A small section of Mike's brain had remained intact.

    This however doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to animals because that matter turns on the ability to feel pain and suffer, something animals, for certain, do.

    Take this where you want to take it...
    TheMadFool Options
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    I'm planning to discuss Descartes concept of other minds in depth. — Grre

    That sounds like a good idea but one that may be difficult to execute. May I suggest that before committing to that one you think up two alternatives. And, general advice to any student, keep your audience/reader in mind! And good enough can be good enough if it gets he job done.
    tim wood Options
  • Grre
    196
    ↪TheMadFool

    My understanding of the severed head dilemma, especially in chickens, is that nerves in the body take awhile to die, hence involuntary motor actions. That happens in humans too when certain nerves in the brain are stimulated even if the person is unconscious/in a coma ect.
    Grre Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories