2. Consider the following argument by Princess Elisabeth against Cartesian Substance Dualism:

1.Only a physical impulse can cause motion.
2.Anything immaterial cannot cause a physical impulse, and hence, cannot cause motion.
3.The mind sometimes causes motion in matter.
4.Therefore, the mind cannot be immaterial.

*note: Elisabeth and Descartes sometimes use “soul” as a stand in for the “mind”.

Do you think this is a sound argument? If so, explain why. If not, which premise(s) do you think is false/implausible, and why?

Question

2. Consider the following argument by Princess Elisabeth against Cartesian Substance Dualism:

1.Only a physical impulse can cause motion.
2.Anything immaterial cannot cause a physical impulse, and hence, cannot cause motion.
3.The mind sometimes causes motion in matter.
4.Therefore, the mind cannot be immaterial.

*note:  Elisabeth and Descartes sometimes use “soul” as a stand in for the “mind”.

Do you think this is a sound argument? If so, explain why. If not, which premise(s) do you think is false/implausible, and why?

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

My dear friend, Princess Elisabeth's argument against Cartesian Substance Dualism is quite intriguing indeed. She raises a valid point in premise one that only a physical impulse can cause motion. But let us examine her second premise, where she claims that anything immaterial cannot cause a physical impulse and hence cannot cause motion. Now, we must pause and ask ourselves, what exactly is immaterial? For if we define it as anything that does not have physical properties, then I must say, Princess Elisabeth may be on to something. However, if we define it as anything that is not physical, then I must point out that the mind, or soul, is not necessarily immaterial. It may indeed be that the mind is a physical entity that we have yet to fully understand.

As for the third premise, where Princess Elisabeth claims that the mind sometimes causes motion in matter, I beg to ask, how does she know this? Has she seen the mind, or soul, cause motion in matter with her own eyes? Or is this simply a belief she holds to be true? And if it is a belief, then we must remember that beliefs are not always based on facts or evidence.

Lastly, to her conclusion that the mind cannot be immaterial, I must ask her, why not? Is it not possible that the mind, or soul, can exist independently of the physical body? After all, we have yet to fully understand the nature of consciousness and the mind.

In conclusion, while Princess Elisabeth's argument has some merit, it is not completely sound. We must examine each premise carefully and question our assumptions. For as I always say, the unexamined argument is not worth entertaining.