Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Cartesian Dualism Does Not Commit the Masked Man Fallacy

Version 1 : Received: 1 June 2022 / Approved: 2 June 2022 / Online: 2 June 2022 (15:28:01 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 1 July 2022 / Approved: 4 July 2022 / Online: 4 July 2022 (03:40:56 CEST)

How to cite: Doyle, S. Cartesian Dualism Does Not Commit the Masked Man Fallacy. Preprints 2022, 2022060035. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202206.0035.v2 Doyle, S. Cartesian Dualism Does Not Commit the Masked Man Fallacy. Preprints 2022, 2022060035. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202206.0035.v2

Abstract

Descartes believed that there was a logical path from doubting the existence of the body to affirming mind-body dualism. In the 20th and 21st centuries, a critique of Cartesian reasoning first made by Arnauld in 1641 has been revived and widely accepted. Several writers including Paul Churchland and Gary Hatfield make the case that the argument for dualism commits the masked man fallacy; that the Cartesian argument relies on mere ignorance of the body to reach its conclusion. In this paper, I show that the argument from Cartesian doubt to mind-body dualism does not depend on mere ignorance. It depends on reliable knowledge about what can and can not be known. Descartes’ method of doubt leads to the conclusion that the body can never under any circumstance be known as the mind is known. The argument for dualism rests on that knowledge, not on ignorance. This paper reveals a viable Cartesian argument for mind-body dualism and explicates the missteps of Descartes’ contemporaneous and present-day critics.

Keywords

Descartes; Dualism; Intensional Fallacy; Masked Man Fallacy; Cogito; Introspection; Doubt

Subject

Arts and Humanities, Philosophy

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 4 July 2022
Commenter: Stuart Doyle
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: This version includes more background information on relevant philosophical literature.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.