What it is Like to be a Dualist?
- Posted by Andrew Bailey on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 4:44 PM
| 
10 Comments |
Peter van Inwagen is one of several prominent analytic philosophers who underwent a conversion to Christianity well into his career. He describes what it was like to look back at his past unbelief as follows (this is from his wonderful autobiographical essay, "Quam Dilecta"):
I can remember pretty well one feature of this period that is particularly relevant to my topic: what it was like not to have any religious beliefs. That is, I can remember pretty clearly certain episodes of thought that are possible only for the secular mind, but the memory is not "sympathetic"; it is a sort of looking at the past from the outside. Here is an analogy. Suppose that you now love someone you once hated. You might well be able to remember an episode during which your hatred manifested itself--say, in the writing of a letter in which you said terrible things to that person. You might remember very clearly, for example, hesitating between two turns of phrase, and deciding that one of them was the more likely to wound, and choosing it on that account. But since you now love that person, and (presumably) cannot feel the way you felt when you hated, there is a good sense in which you cannot "remember what it was like" to write the letter. You are looking at your past from outside.
Something similar has happened to me in recent years. Not a religious conversion, but rather a conversion with respect to certain philosophical doctrines.
I once had many intuitions about mind and body, especially of the modal variety. It seemed clearly possible to me that I might exist and my body not. These intuitions pulled me toward substance dualism. But the more I thought about minds and bodies and the more I read about physicalism, the less sway these intuitions had on me.
Nowadays, I can't really muster those intuitions at all. They've vanished. I have nothing profound to say here. But I will remark on the oddness of this state. It feels strange to not clearly remember what it was like to believe the things I once did. All I can say, I suppose, is that it's weird, and that van Inwagen's remarks capture this feeling as well as any.
10 Comments:
Daniel at 7:17 PM said... Isn't that sort of like gaining wisdom as one grows older? and it took me a lot fewer words to say it?
at 9:08 PM said... The same you was once a dualist? Cool. And, if you can't remember what it was like to have those intuitions, I guess you don't hold to the physicalist account of persons via memorialism.
at 11:09 PM said... I suppose what is intuitive for a person depends on what propositions are in their background knowledge. For instance, if I were not a theist, in particular of the orthodox Christian variety, dualism might seem less intuitive. But, since I already believe in one Soul, why not more? In particular, since I believe that in some sense I am made in that particular Soul's image, dualism seems very intuitive to me.
This, of course, wouldn't mean much for a naturalist, but I'm wondering what you think of the connections between theism and dualism Andrew.
Jeremy at 7:31 AM said... Interesting post, Andrew. I had been wondering about this for awhile, since it was fairly obvius reading your posts that you were a physicalist of some sort. As for me, I think my dualist intuitions have also faded over time. However, I'm still a dualist, even though it doesn't seem as obviously true to me as it once was. Instead, I'm a dualist now because I think physicalism seems obviously false and because I think there are some good arguments for dualism, and because it fits better with my Christian beliefs.
You must feel that you are in a strange position sometimes - I know of compatibilist Christian philosophers, and I know of physicalist Christian philosophers, but being both is a unique type of heresy.
Andrew Bailey at 9:14 AM said... Jim,
That's right. But I'm unsure as to why *anyone* would hold that account in the first place. =)
Justin,
There definitely are connections between substance dualism and theism. Many arguments for physicalism will be unimpressive to the theist (eg, causal closure and the like). I also think that theism tips the scales in favor of dualism in another debate over the possibility of thinking matter. Plantinga says that intuitively, matter can't think. van Inwagen responds with a parity thesis: intuitively, non-matter can't think either; so the thought gets us nowhere. But PvI's wrong on this, I think, since the theist has reason to think that non-matter *can* think.
Jeremy,
You're right; being a dualist has been the rule for Christian philosophers. But this is changing, I suspect. And in fact, there are several Christian philosophers who are both compatibilists and physicalists (Hud Hudon and Lynn Baker are the most prominent instances, I think).
at 7:00 PM said... Andrew,
I don't see how the same you was once a dualist?
Jim
Kevin at 7:45 PM said... Andrew,
Building off of Jeremy's comment, you are right about Lynne Baker. She's also a universalist of a pretty strong sort (and that, perhaps, is heretical?). But I guess if I were a compatibilist, I'd be a universalist too. (And I'm not just saying that because conditionals with necessarily false antedents entail anything.)
at 9:41 AM said... I might be paraphrasing but I believe it says in the Bible somewhere, "Your intuitions suck, to hell with your intuitions."
Andrew, I am a philosophy failure. I got an MA in phil. from Talbot and applied to Ph.D. programs in the fall of '05--the same time as you.
Like you I had a nearly perfect track-record with the very best grades and the respect of my peers. But unlike you my sample paper was crap and I had no faculty backing. For some reason they thought I was good enough for a 3.97 gpa but not good enough for a strong recommendation. I applied everywhere--many of the same schools as you--but I go in nowhere.
I have read your blog and am insanely jealous of you. I wonder why God allowed an egghead like you into ND and left me in the cold. If I were there I wouldn't be doing the same ridiculous, hand-wringing dance around the teachings of Jesus. I'd serve Christ seriously. I'd be a asset to the kingdom; not another dime-a-dozen smart kid who trusts his deep warm-fuzzies and is more impressed with his own intellectual lincoln log castles than the unbreakable Word of God.
Sorry to get all Bible-thumper on you but sometimes that's just the way it is.
We stupid Christians really need you to make a passable attempt at keeping faithful to Christ. Otherwise you'll force me to reapply.
Andrew Bailey at 10:32 AM said... bible thumper,
I'm not sure I understand the charge; is it that being a faithful Christian requires belief in substance dualism?
Regardless, please feel free to email me privately to discuss further. =)
Derek at 4:43 PM said... Andrew,
I understand something is gained in being a physicalist-(i.e. causal closure concerns) but what about what is lost? an 'intuition' that strongly entials at least property dualism is the existence of emotions with, espeically those that have no physical intention (I may feel depressed partly because of brain physiology, but the content of my depression-expreince is no atom, nor a conglomerate of atoms, nor any atoms stacked-humanly). If the physical picture can only supply a partial cause of depression, but not the phenomenon itself (I can't find my experience in the physical picture), doesn't this ential some sort of dualism- at least until you can see where the phenomenon happens in the physical picture?
I understand Van Inwagen's parody of Plaintinga, but I think there's more to it than merely saying "matter can't think." I'd put it this way:
1- No where is thinking located (no physical picture has the properties of thinking)
2- Thinking is a thing.
3- Therefore thinking must be had somewhere.
4. If not matter, somwhere else.
5. Let's call somewhere else the 'mind'.
6. Since the process of the mind can't be located in the physical picture, it must be located somewhere else not-physical.
7. Therefore dualism (of somesort) is true.
