Metaphysics: Mind-Body Dualism

96문장 0% 태국어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
3 영상보기
영어 to
태국어
2단 보기 1단 보기
번역 0%

Metaphysics: Mind-Body Dualism발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) So my name's Alex Byrne.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I teach philosophy at MIT, and today I'm going to explain an argument for so-called mind-body dualism, the view that we are not physical or material things.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And if we're not physical or material things, the natural alternative is that we're mental things of some kind.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Immaterial minds or souls, as it's sometimes put.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Hence the term "mind-body dualism."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

On this view, the universe contains two quite different sorts of things: physical bodies like stones and planets and brains on the one hand, and non-physical minds on the other.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Well why is this view important?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Well, physical things normally aren't around forever.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If I smash my watch into tiny pieces or throw it in a furnace, that's the end of this beautiful piece of Swiss engineering.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The watch doesn't exist anymore. Similarly if your body is devoured by worms or consumed in a crematorium, that's the end of this beautiful piece of biological engineering.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Your body doesn't exist anymore. So, if you're a physical thing, a complicated bag of cells, then your eventual bodily destruction means that there's no hope for immortality.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, if you're invested in the prospect of life after death, a lot hangs on the argument for mind-body dualism.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes is the most famous proponent of mind-body dualism, and that's why the view is sometimes called "Cartesian dualism."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You'll remember Cartesian coordinates from high school geometry, and Descartes invented those.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

His most famous work is called "Meditations on First Philosophy," which was published in Latin in 1641.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And the sub-title promises that the work will demonstrate the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We can only do so much in a few minutes, so we'll have to leave the demonstration of the existence of God for another episode of Wi-Phi.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Now the argument I'm going to present is not quite Descartes's argument as we find it in the Meditations.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's basically a variant of Descartes's argument, given by the contemporary philosopher Saul Kripke in his classic book "Naming a Necessity," which was published in 1980.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And what's more, it's a simplified version of Kripke's argument.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But even with the simplifications, I think we can see that it certainly leads to an argument that deserves to be taken seriously.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

All right, so now to the argument.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Let's give your physical body a name.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Call it "Bert." Everyone, dualist or not, can agree you and Bert are intimately connected.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Stamp on Bert's toe, and you feel pain.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If you decide to get some aspirin, that will result in Bert moving towards the medicine cabinet.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

However, that doesn't mean that you are Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And according to the dualist, you aren't.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There are two things here: you and Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And what the dualist argument tries to establish is that you are not Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

More explicitly, you are not identical to Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You are not one in the same thing as Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Okay, so that's the conclusion. So now, to prepare for the premises of the argument, we need a distinction, between truths that could have been false and truths that could not have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, here's a truth: I am a philosopher.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That truth could have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I could have been a plumber, say.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Plumbing might have struck me as a more fulfilling and secure career than philosophy, and I might have studied for a plumbing certificate instead of studying for a PhD in philosophy.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Here's another example: it's true that there were dinosaurs.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But that could have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Evolution could have failed to produce any dinosaurs, or life might not have evolved at all.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So some truths, then, could have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But some truths could not have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

They had to be true, come what may.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, here's a logical truth: either there were dinosaurs, or there were no dinosaurs.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That's true, but it didn't just happen to be true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It couldn't have been otherwise. However the world turned out, that logical truth would have been true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Here's another example, which is the relevant one for our purposes.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagine that the President of the United States, say, is sitting opposite us.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I point to him and say, "He is Barack Obama."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That's true. But could it have been false?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Well, how could it? How could that very man fail to be Barack Obama?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We have just one thing here: that man, also known as "Barack Obama."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

When I say "He is Barack Obama,"발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I'm picking out the same thing twice over.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's as if I were to say "He," pointing at Obama, "is him," pointing at Obama again.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

A thing can't fail to be identical to itself.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So "He," here I point at Obama, "can't fail to be identical to Obama."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, when I say "He is Obama," what I say is not just true, it had to be true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's one of those truths like that logical truth I just mentioned.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It could not have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If you're inclined to doubt this, you're probably thinking of some different, but related, truth that could have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, it's also true that he, pointing at Obama, is named "Barack Obama."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But that's a truth that could have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

He might have had some, different name say Fred Blogs.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But the truth that he is Barack Obama is not the same as the truth he's named Barack Obama.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The first truth is not about language, although of course it is stated in language, like truths in general.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's just about the man, Barack Obama.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The second truth is about language, at least in part.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Specifically, it's about the name "Barack Obama."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And of course these are quite different things.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Barack Obama is the president, but his name has not been elected to any office.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

All right, now we're ready for the argument.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Go back to you and Bert, your body.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagine I point to you and say "You are Bert."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Suppose that's true. Then, since it's just like the Obama example, it's one of those truths that could not have been false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In other words, if it's true that you are Bert, it had to be true that you were Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You are Bert, come what may.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So this gives us the first premise of our argument for dualism.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If it's true that you are Bert, then it could not have been false that you are Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But hold on. Couldn't you have existed without Bert existing?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, you can imagine being disembodied, not having a body at all or you can imagine that you have another body, Bertha, not Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagining these situations is not at all like imagining, or trying to imagine, say, a situation in which there's a round square table.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That situation seems obviously impossible, not a situation that could have obtained.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

There could not have been a round square table.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But there seems nothing at all impossible about a situation in which you exist without Burt existing, perhaps because you're disembodied, perhaps because you have Bertha and not Bert as your body.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This is not the actual situation, but it seems like a possible situation.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You could have existed without Bert existing.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But if you could have existed without Bert existing, then it could have been false that you are Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

A situation in which you're around and Bert isn't is a situation in which you aren't Bert.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So this gives us our second premise, "it could have been false that you are Bert."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So now notice that the second premise is the negation of the sentence after the word "then," in the first premise.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So our two premises have the following abstract form: "If P, then Q; and not Q."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And premises of this form logically imply, by a rule of inference called "modus tollens," "not P."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And our two plausible seeming premises, then, imply "it's not true that you are Bert."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In other words, you are not Bert, which is the dualist conclusion.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top