Introduction
In the philosophy of mind, dualists usually emphasize the radical difference between the mind and the matter. Specifically, the dualists deny the idea of the mind and the brain are one and the same thing. However, other dualists deny the fact that mind as a whole is a product of the brain. In this regard, the dualist theory is of the position that the mental phenomenon, to some extent, is non-physical and that the body and the mind are not similar (Bunge, 2014). Dualism, therefore, encompasses a set of views regarding the relationship between mind and matter and the relationship between object and subject. The mind problem is a term that is used to describe a problem that tries to explain how the mental states, processes, and events, such as actions, thinking, and beliefs are related to the states, events, as well as processes that are physical in nature given that the mind of a human being is non-physical, and the body is a physical identity. The mind problem was first addressed by Rene Descartes, which resulted in the Cartesian dualism.
Cartesian Rationalism and Absolute Empiricism
The Cartesian rationalism seeks to distinguish between a priori knowledge and empirical knowledge. According to this theory, the empirical knowledge is seen to arise through the senses (Popper, 2013). The prior knowledge neither depends upon experience nor is it given in. The prior knowledge arises before the formation of sense experience through the process of pure reason alone. The Cartesian rationalism t argues that the prior knowledge is quite more fundamental as compared to the empirical knowledge. Since perception is unreliable, only reason alone seems to provide certain and reliable knowledge. Rationalism begins from the inside and moves to the outside through some form of logical analysis and real entities. Similarly, rationalists must assume the form of skepticism and try to move on to some certain knowledge through distinct and clear ideas that the logic and reason reveals. The Cartesian rationalism further argues that the path of certain knowledge never accepts any proposition as true unless it is very distinct and clear (Bunge, 2014). Similarly, the path of certain knowledge reexamines all ideas as well as considers all the counter examples. The rationalists come to a conclusion that empirical knowledge is and will never be certain. Similarly, the theory further argues that real knowledge will always be non-empirical. The Cartesian rationalism sees certain knowledge as one that can organize a particular knowledge into a more general knowledge.
Empiricism is a theory which argues that knowledge primarily originates from the sensory experience (Bunge, 2014). Empiricism emphasizes the role of evidence and experience and, in particular, the sensory experience during the formation of ideas over and above the notion of traditions or innate ideas. However, empiricists somehow argue that traditions may sometimes arise as a result of previous sensory experience. They claim that all ideas found in the mind of human beings were formed by some experience, which can be referred to as impressions. Therefore, the theory is based on the claim that human ideas, all of them, are just some less detailed copies of some form of experience. As a result of this, the empirical knowledge depends on and concern its self with the entities found in the external universe. Similarly, the senses are usually too unreliable; the empirical knowledge is seen to be very unreliable as well. According to this theory, God is not a deceiver and as such, there is a universe which is outside he mind and as a result, our ideas resemble the entities found in the universe to a lesser or greater idea. Because of this, it is only the human error that is responsible for inaccurate as well as false opinions
Absolute empiricism holds that there is nothing like the priori concept and that there are no priori propositions or beliefs. Whether seen as categorical or formal belief, the absolute empiricists disregard all priori concepts (Bunge, 2014). Absolute empiricism is completely against the idea that reason is responsible for the formation of certain knowledge. In their arguments, the absolute empiricists argue that reason alone cannot give rise to any form of certain knowledge. As a result, they largely reject what they call the indispensability of the reason thesis. The main difference between the absolute empiricists and the rationalists is that the empiricists are of the idea that human beings can gain knowledge through experience while the rationalism argues that knowledge cannot be gained through any form of experience.
Kantian Idealism and Phenomenology
Idealism as a group of philosophies argues that reality, as we know it today, is mentally constructed (Bunge, 2014). In simple terms, the main idea behind the philosophy of idealism is at reality is completely immaterial. The Kantian idealism commonly referred to as transcendental realism maintains that the human experience regarding different things is very similarly to the way these things appear to us. It implies a subject –based component of our experiences regarding particular things. In essence, the experience or rather the reality is not much dependent on the activity that directly makes a comprehension of the things as they are. Kant was committed to differentiating between things in themselves and how they appear to an outside observer (Karren, Smith & Gordon, 2013).The Kantian idealism, therefore, argue that human beings cannot in any way approach things as they are in themselves without the individual's mental world. Interestingly, Kant argued that the mind is not a blank space, but rather, it comes equipped with some categories which are geared towards organizing people’s sense of impression. The Kantian idealism attempts to solve the mind problem raised between the rationalists and the empiricist through the acknowledgment that people learn experience. However, Kant also recognizes that human beings cannot approach things without having to involve the mental mind.
On the other hand, phenomenology is concerned with the study of the structures entailing consciousness as experienced from the point of view of the first person. According to this theory, therefore, the central structure surrounding experience gained is the intention. An experience is therefore seen as being directed towards a given object by the virtue of its meaning or its content together with all other enabling conditions (Bunge, 2014). Every person will always tend to experience some form of experience, and this might include thought imagination, motion, desire, action and perception. The domain of phenomenology is the range of these different experiences. Importantly, experiences do not only include the passive experiences as in hearing or vision, but also, the active experiences such as the ones gained through activities such as walking or even kicking a ball. The conscious experience seem to have a unique feature in that human beings can experience them; human beings either perform them or even live through them (Karren, Smith & Gordon, 2013). The basic structure of intentional consciousness is often found in analysis and reflection, and this further involves some other forms of experience. Phenomenology thus develops a very complex account of awareness that is temporary in nature, spatial awareness, attention awareness, self-awareness or even awareness gained from one's own experience. According to the philosophy of Phenomenology, what makes an experience conscious is a particular or certain awareness a person has of a given experience either through performing it or even living with it.
The most basic starting point of phenomenology is the conscious experience. However, experience crops up and shades off the conscious experience into a conscious phenomenon (Karren, Smith & Gordon, 2013). This theory tries to solve the mind problem by recognizing that consciousness is as a result of experience while at the same time acknowledging that intention is very critical in the experience gained. Through this, the theory tries to integrate both sensory experiences as spearheaded by the empiricists and reasoning as spearheaded by the rationalists.
Evaluation and Response
The sharp rift between rationalism and empiricism concern the extent to which human beings are dependent upon the sensory experience in their effort to gain some knowledge. Although rationalism and empiricisms are seen as antagonizing philosophies, they both present some important issues concerning the issue of mind problem. The mind and the body are different from each other. Precisely, even the desires of the body are quite different from the desires of the mind. What is feed to the mind may not be the exact thing that needs to be fed to the physical body? The empiricists view that we learn things through experience sounds as an informed one (Johnson, 2013). Individuals are born with no knowledge. However, as one grows, we tend to gather more knowledge. For instance, the knowledge that a person possesses which in his teenage years is not the kind of knowledge that he or she possesses in his middle age years.
The philosophers behind these particular philosophies were of the idea that people are only vaguely aware of the things which are in the periphery or the margin of their attention (Popper, 2013). Similarly, people are implicitly aware of the things which are in the wider horizon. In performing the practical activities performed by an individual, such as walking, speaking or even hammering a nail, people are not explicitly conscious of their habitual patterns of the particular action
People tend to learn new things and the new things shape their thinking as well as their knowledge. The learning that happens to the human beings can be attributed to the different experiences they encounter. For instance, some experiences tend to harden people. However, the fact that this theory completely disregards the idea of reasoning as a way of forming knowledge is quite misleading in my opinion. The minds of human beings are constantly engaged. Ass a result, human beings are required to think and reason accordingly. It results in the formation of some new knowledge. Senses are major sources of human knowledge; however they are not the only sources of human knowledge. The integrating sound reasoning is also important in creating knowledge. Some of my views are completely similar to the views propagated by these philosophies. However, the philosophies seem to act from the extreme point, and this is what enhances the mind-body problem. However, by integrating the philosophies together may result in an amicable solution to the problem.
Conclusion
The Cartesian rationalism seeks to distinguish between a priori knowledge and empirical knowledge. The empirical knowledge depends on the entities found in the external universe. The senses are usually too unreliable; the empirical knowledge is seen to be very unreliable as well. Accordingly, it is only the human error that is responsible for inaccurate as well as false opinions. On the other hand, the priori knowledge neither depends upon experience nor is it given in The Kantian idealism, commonly referred to as transcendental realism maintains the human experience of different things is very similarly to the way these things appear to us. Phenomenology is concerned with the study of the structures entailing consciousness as experienced from the point of view of the first person. Some of my views are completely similar to the views propagated by these philosophies. However, the philosophies seem to act from the extreme point, and this is what enhances the mind-body problem. A solution to the problem can be found by integrating the conflicting theories.
References
Bunge, M. (2014). The mind–body problem: A psychobiological approach. Berlin: Elsevier.
Johnson, M. (2013). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Karren, K. J., Smith, L., & Gordon, K. J. (2013). Mind/body health: The effects of attitudes, emotions, and relationships. New York: Pearson Higher Ed.
Popper, K. (2013). Knowledge and the body-mind problem: In defence of interaction. London: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2015). Cognitive psychology. New York: Nelson Education.
Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body problem.
