Mind Over Matter? Descartes, Elisabeth, and the Limits of Dualism

I wrote this essay in university.

Introduction

Whether Descartes’ advice on health stands up to the scrutiny of Elisabeth is the question. To this, I will show that Descartes’ advice does not stand the scrutiny of Elisabeth’s concerns, particularly about mind/body dualism, due to a failure to answer her questions and justify his method in light of her objections.

Methodological Doubt

To understand what Descartes is trying to establish regarding knowledge of the body, we must first understand his initial goals and why he established his method of doubt. From the outset, it is clear that Descartes is trying to establish certain and unchangeable knowledge. But to succeed in this venture, we must tear down the foundations of what we believe to attain our desired goal. Descartes writes,

I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last. (Meditation 1, AT 7:18, page 76)

He goes over some reasons why our senses and our intuitions about objects can be doubted. As interesting as these reasons are, they are unnecessary, except for the evil demon argument. The evil demon argument causes us to question our senses and intuitive a priori truths like “1+1=2.” He writes,

And yet firmly rooted in my mind is the long-standing belief that there is an omnipotent God who made me the kind of creature that I am. How do I know that he has not brought it about that there is no earth… Moreover, since I sometimes consider that others go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge may I not similarly go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable? (Meditation 1 AT 7:21, page 78)

So, we can see that Descartes’ method is to provide us with the best skeptical argument. This argument is meant to demolish any confidence of certainty in most of our beliefs. As long as the evil demon is possible, we will never obtain certain knowledge.

Nature and God

It’s important to note that Descartes first uses God instead of an evil demon. It is only later that he uses a demon because,

… perhaps God would not have wished me to be deceived in this way, since he is said to be supremely good… I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.  (Meditation 1, AT 7:21-22, page 78-79)

If we assume that God cannot be a deceiver, it follows that whatever comes from God cannot be wrong. This includes ‘nature.’ Descartes writes,

Indeed, there is no doubt that everything that I am taught by nature contains some truth. For if nature is considered in its general aspect, then I understand by the term nothing other than God himself, or the ordered system of created things established by God. And by my own nature in particular I understand nothing other than the totality of things bestowed on me by God” (Meditation 6, AT 7:80, p. 116)

So, God, being good, provides us with a nature that thwarts us toward truth.

Methodological doubt will be important when considering what Princess Elisabeth has to say later. But as a primer, Descartes sought to establish that the distinction between mind and body is certain, and if this can be called into doubt, Descartes either had a false premise or his method is faulty.

Descartes’ Medical Advice

Hearing that Elisabeth has fallen ill with a cough, Descartes gives her some advice,

The remedies she has chosen – that is, those of diet and exercise – in my opinion are the best of all, after however, those of the soul, which has, without a doubt, a great power over the body…(The Correspondence AT 5:65, page 81)

Here, we see that Descartes does not disregard the use of the body to heal the body. However, he does emphasize the use of the mind/soul for a much greater healing. So, the problem with Elisabeth is that she isn’t thinking more positively! Descartes continues,

I know of no other thought more proper to the conservation of health than a strong conviction and firm belief that the architecture of our body is so good that, once one is healthy, one cannot easily fall ill…When one has an illness, one can restore one’s health solely by the power of nature… (The Correspondence AT 5:65, page 82)

Princess Elisabeth, however, points out the impracticality of this advice. Her, being a much important figure in her time, has a lot to deal with. Elisabeth writes,

… I will never see my house in order… I still do not know how to consider the injurious accidents that befall them under any other notion than that of evil, nor how to consider the useless efforts I make in their service without some sort of anxiety. This anxiety is no sooner calmed by reasoning than a new disaster produces another anxiety. (The Correspondence, AT 4:209, page 89)

The medical advice by Descartes may work for a philosopher, who apparently spends more time resting his senses than philosophizing. However, it won’t work for someone who is constantly met with one problem after another. Descartes concedes this point. He writes,

I have tried before to recommend carefreeness to your Highness, thinking that too serious occupations would weaken the body in tiring the mind, but I would not want this to dissuade her from those measures necessary for turning her thought from objects which can sadden her. (The Correspondence AT 4:238, page 95)

Of course, Descartes does not entirely concede to this point. He isn’t saying that the advice doesn’t work at all, but instead, he recognizes that if Princess Elisabeth began ignoring her problems, this would cause greater distress in her life. However, it is quite evident that Descartes’ advice on positive thinking is highly impractical.

Dualism and Methodological Doubt Doubted

Princess Elisabeth calls Descartes’ mind/body distinction into doubt. She writes,

So I ask you please to tell me how the soul of a human being (it being only a thinking substance) can determine the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions… (The Correspondence AT 3:661, page 62)

This problem of an immaterial object being able to move a physical object without an obvious causal relation between the two is known as the interaction problem. In response to this, Descartes writes back,

… in supposing that heaviness is a real quality, of which we have no other knowledge but that it has the power to move a body… we have no difficulty in conceiving how it moves the body… (The Correspondence AT 3:667, page 66)

This does not persuade Elisabeth.

… by appeal to the idea you once had of heaviness… should sooner persuade us that a body can be pushed by some immaterial thing, than the demonstration of a contrary truth (which you promise in your physics) should confirm us in the opinion of its impossibility. (The Correspondence AT 3:684, page 68)

Descartes is only pushing the problem further back rather than giving Elisabeth a proper account of the causal relation between material and the immaterial.

The significance of this problem is highly related to Descartes’ medical advice. If there is no causal relation between the mind and the body, how can the mind heal the body? If there’s no apparent relation between my willing to move my finger, why should I think this same will would magically heal a disease in my lungs? If Descartes is going to answer this problem, he needs to provide us with a proper account of this relationship. But the problem is, he never does. This is evident because, after Elisabeth’s last letter on this topic, Descartes’ following letter was on a different subject.

Elisabeth further pushes this problem of the unknown causal relation between mind and body. She writes,

For this reason, I think that there are some properties of the soul, which are unknown to us, which could perhaps overturn what your Metaphysical Meditations persuaded me of by such good reasoning: the nonextendedness of the soul. This doubt seems to be founded on the rule that you give there, in speaking of the true and the false, that all error comes to us in forming judgments about that which we do not perceive well enough. (The Correspondence, AT 4:2, page 72)

Elisabeth refers to Descartes’ use of clear and distinct perceptions to grasp truths. The problem with using this method is that it becomes apparent that the causal relation between mind and body is not perceived at all. And if it is not perceived, it won’t be clearly and distinctly perceived. While the soul itself may be an intuitive concept, the principle that an immaterial object can move a material one is highly counterintuitive. This fact calls into question the truths by which God and nature thwart on us since Descartes was so confident that the mind was immaterial.

Conclusion

I sought to show that Descartes’ advice does not stand the scrutiny of Elisabeth’s concerns, particularly about mind/body dualism, due to a failure to answer her questions and justify his method in light of her objections. The evidence for this is the impracticality of constant positive thinking brought up by Elisabeth’s personal hardship. Also, Elisabeth brings up the problem of the interaction between mind and body, which Descartes fails to account for. If there is no causal relation between mind and body, then the mind cannot heal the body. Descartes’ reliance on a good God and nature is doubted because there are properties of the soul that are not perceived, namely, the causal relation between material and immaterial objects.

Bibliography

Descartes, René. Selected Philosophical Writings. Translated by Cottingham, John, et al. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess, and René Descartes. The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes. Edited by Lisa Shapiro, University of Chicago Press, 2007.