Assess the view that materialism makes more sense than dualism
Introduction
Define: Dualism: A person has two distinct parts, the mind/soul (immaterial) and the body
(material).
Materialism: There is only a physical existence, there is no such thing as a soul usually.
Importance: It is important to consider whether humans are more than merely their
physical selves, and whether there may be a soul that dictates our being more than we
realise.
Scholars: Aristotle, Plato, Dawkins
Conclusion: Whilst it is difficult to say definitively which one makes more sense, one should
be more willing to accept the possibility of the existence of a soul rather than dismissing it,
thus it is more agreeable in this instance that dualism makes more sense
Paragraph 1
Point: Materialism makes more sense than dualism.
Argument: Hard materialists believe that everything is purely physical and there is no soul.
Hard materialists don’t accept an individuals characteristics are anything more than physical
ones. Consciousness is only brain activity. They believe that the mind cant be separated
from the body, therefore when the body dies so does the brain.
Dawkins is a biological materialist, and he rejects the idea of the soul. He makes a distinction
between two different versions of souls, soul one and two. Soul one: The dualist, religious
idea of a separate soul, rejected as primitive superstition. Soul two: An intellectual, spiritual
power with developed moral faculties. This soul may exist and there is something to be
explained where science cant. Dawkins- “DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is.” “Life is
just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information”
Counterargument: Just because we don’t have evidence now doesn’t mean we won’t in the
future. It seems too simple and dismissive to suggest humans are only physical when a lot of
what we do and who we are is made up of non-physical aspects (consciousness, thoughts,
personal identity). The existence of the soul resolves issues of continual personal identity as
the true ‘me’ is my soul.
Paragraph 2
Point: Dualism makes more sense than materialism.
Argument: Plato is a dualist who proposed that the immortal soul descended from the
realm of the forms, which is the real identity of a person. Plato split the soul into 3 parts:
Reason- consists of wisdom and logic. This controls the spirit and appetite and tries to guide
, the soul onto the path of knowledge. Spirit- courage, energy, and enthusiasm. This part is
easily controlled by reason. Appetite- desires of the body e.g. hunger, sex. Hard to be
controlled by reason.
Plato’s dualism could provide an explanation for moral evil- emotion, if left unchecked can
make us become reckless.
Counterargument: Although dualism is more expansive in its view as it considers the
existence of the soul, it is important to not that Plato never explains how the body and soul
interact. Not only is there no evidence for the realm of the forms, but there is also no
evidence for the soul.
Plato is a dualist but not in the sense that the body and soul are a partnership. The body
imprisons the soul and the soul must break free, so one may find Aristotle’s substance
dualisms preferable to this viewpoint.
Paragraph 3
Point: Even if one finds Plato’s dualism disagreeable, Aristotle proposes a variation of
dualism which is still preferable to materialism.
Argument: Aristotle rejected Plato’s extremely rationalist methods. Aristotle is trying to
understand what it is that essentially makes us human and living, whereas Plato was more
interested in the importance of gaining wisdom.
Aristotle views the soul as a substance, by which he means a person’s ‘essence.’ The
physical body is in a state of change but the substance remains the same, giving a person
continual identity. Aristotle- “Living is the being of living things, and the soul is the cause
and principle of this” (De Anima, 415b). Aristotle believed there were 3 elements to the
soul: Vegetative soul- shared with all living things including plants, Appetitive soul- passions
and appetites and emotions in animals and humans, Intellectual soul- rational and directive.
Found only in humans.
Counterargument: Use of Ockham’s Razor suggests it is simpler to say we do not have a
soul- philosophers do not agree on what the soul is, making it very difficult to define and
understand. You cannot scientifically find a place for the soul in the body which lessens the
probability of its existence.
Introduction
Define: Dualism: A person has two distinct parts, the mind/soul (immaterial) and the body
(material).
Materialism: There is only a physical existence, there is no such thing as a soul usually.
Importance: It is important to consider whether humans are more than merely their
physical selves, and whether there may be a soul that dictates our being more than we
realise.
Scholars: Aristotle, Plato, Dawkins
Conclusion: Whilst it is difficult to say definitively which one makes more sense, one should
be more willing to accept the possibility of the existence of a soul rather than dismissing it,
thus it is more agreeable in this instance that dualism makes more sense
Paragraph 1
Point: Materialism makes more sense than dualism.
Argument: Hard materialists believe that everything is purely physical and there is no soul.
Hard materialists don’t accept an individuals characteristics are anything more than physical
ones. Consciousness is only brain activity. They believe that the mind cant be separated
from the body, therefore when the body dies so does the brain.
Dawkins is a biological materialist, and he rejects the idea of the soul. He makes a distinction
between two different versions of souls, soul one and two. Soul one: The dualist, religious
idea of a separate soul, rejected as primitive superstition. Soul two: An intellectual, spiritual
power with developed moral faculties. This soul may exist and there is something to be
explained where science cant. Dawkins- “DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is.” “Life is
just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information”
Counterargument: Just because we don’t have evidence now doesn’t mean we won’t in the
future. It seems too simple and dismissive to suggest humans are only physical when a lot of
what we do and who we are is made up of non-physical aspects (consciousness, thoughts,
personal identity). The existence of the soul resolves issues of continual personal identity as
the true ‘me’ is my soul.
Paragraph 2
Point: Dualism makes more sense than materialism.
Argument: Plato is a dualist who proposed that the immortal soul descended from the
realm of the forms, which is the real identity of a person. Plato split the soul into 3 parts:
Reason- consists of wisdom and logic. This controls the spirit and appetite and tries to guide
, the soul onto the path of knowledge. Spirit- courage, energy, and enthusiasm. This part is
easily controlled by reason. Appetite- desires of the body e.g. hunger, sex. Hard to be
controlled by reason.
Plato’s dualism could provide an explanation for moral evil- emotion, if left unchecked can
make us become reckless.
Counterargument: Although dualism is more expansive in its view as it considers the
existence of the soul, it is important to not that Plato never explains how the body and soul
interact. Not only is there no evidence for the realm of the forms, but there is also no
evidence for the soul.
Plato is a dualist but not in the sense that the body and soul are a partnership. The body
imprisons the soul and the soul must break free, so one may find Aristotle’s substance
dualisms preferable to this viewpoint.
Paragraph 3
Point: Even if one finds Plato’s dualism disagreeable, Aristotle proposes a variation of
dualism which is still preferable to materialism.
Argument: Aristotle rejected Plato’s extremely rationalist methods. Aristotle is trying to
understand what it is that essentially makes us human and living, whereas Plato was more
interested in the importance of gaining wisdom.
Aristotle views the soul as a substance, by which he means a person’s ‘essence.’ The
physical body is in a state of change but the substance remains the same, giving a person
continual identity. Aristotle- “Living is the being of living things, and the soul is the cause
and principle of this” (De Anima, 415b). Aristotle believed there were 3 elements to the
soul: Vegetative soul- shared with all living things including plants, Appetitive soul- passions
and appetites and emotions in animals and humans, Intellectual soul- rational and directive.
Found only in humans.
Counterargument: Use of Ockham’s Razor suggests it is simpler to say we do not have a
soul- philosophers do not agree on what the soul is, making it very difficult to define and
understand. You cannot scientifically find a place for the soul in the body which lessens the
probability of its existence.
