Rene Descartes once said, “There is a great difference between mind and body”. This statement comes from the idea that Descartes believed there were two substances that made up reality. One of the substances in reality Descartes called extension, or material being, meaning it takes up space. The other has to do with the mind, or thought, immaterial. This is called dualistic metaphysic’s. Descartes began his exploration on the material and immaterial by way of epistemological detour. This is simply finding out metaphysical truth by ways of epistemological analysis. The question at stake is one that has continued on for centuries, how are the mind and body independent of each other?
To come up with an idea of how mind and body work
…show more content…
This idea has to do with God. God in his divinity brings order linking all actions and occurrences. Neither of these ideas have stuck through the ages as being an absolute for explaining how the mind and body coexist. However, Descartes did believe he had conclusive evidence that the mind was not dependent on the physical laws. Especially because it did not take up physical space and had no movement. He thought that the physical being of a person did have some kind of impact on the mind and that the body’s movements had some form of impact on the state of mind.
One fellow philosopher who disputed Descartes was Thomas Hobbes. He believed that what exists was only material and there was no thought realm. Hobbes was also a metaphysics philosopher and also a materialist. Hobbes foundation of his study was that ‘ all that exists is bodies in motion’. Simply put, the constant changing from one place to another. Hobbes argued that there were actually two types of material beings, physical and political. Here we will just focus on the physical. Hobbes believed there to be a movement of sort that goes from the outside of one’s body to the inner being of one’s mind and that brings ideas, this is known as perception. Hobbes had another term for something on the outside affecting the inside, “phantasm”. He pushed further in the teaching that if you continue to maintain the perception or idea of an object seen and yet that object