 Aspects of western philosophy, module 10 and lecture 10. This lecture will focus the following topics. We will try to understand the problem of the physical substance as it is explained in the philosophy of René Descartes. And in this context, he introduces another notion, the concept of God. And again, like many of his predecessors, particularly like many of his, many of the scholastic philosophers, Descartes also comes up with certain proofs for the existence of God. And also in this context, we will see the very important distinction which he maintains. Or rather, I would rather say that this is a very important problem which Descartes has initiated. It is not that Descartes has introduced it. Descartes actually has not introduced the mind-body dualism into western philosophy. It has been there since the time of Plato or even before that. But in Descartes, we would find a culmination of the discussions. All the implications of mind-body dualism have been brought out in Descartes philosophy. So, we will conclude this lecture with a brief analysis of mind-body dualism. So, when we talk about reality, we have been already examining all these concepts in the previous lectures. So, roughly we can say that this, the ontology of reality, these are the three important substances that we find when we talk about reality in this context. There is the mind, then the God and then the body. There is a certain reason why I follow this order. I began with mind, because as in the previous lecture we have seen, Descartes has already proved the existence of the mind. He is pretty sure about its existence and for him, I am a thinking substance. So far he has only proved that. So, the existence of the mind gains a kind of precedence or it comes first before all other things, which is followed by the existence of God and again after that, with the help of proving the existence of God, Descartes proves the existence of body or physical substance or the entire existence of the physical world, material world is proved as a third step. So, these three constitute roughly the domain of reality for Descartes or what we only understand as the substances. Now, as I already mentioned, the mind is the beginning, the affirmation of the mind is the beginning of all knowledge. We have already seen this, because Descartes was looking for a starting point and absolutely certain indubitable starting point in philosophy. So, if you have the starting point in philosophy that would function as a self, as an axiom, something which is very similar to an axiom in mathematics from where we deduct everything else. So, all knowledge system is in one sense based on this beginning and mind is that beginning and now the method of detection is applied and everything else is derived from this primary truth and everything else is known by the mind by having ideas. So, mind is very important because all knowledge even when I know that there is a camera in front of me or there is a computer in front of me, this does not directly or immediately imply that there is an object called a camera or a computer in front of me. It only means that I have an idea of a computer or I have an idea of a camera. So, what is absolutely certain for me is the existence or me having ideas, I am having ideas which further implies that there is a mind which has ideas or I am a mind, I am a thinking substance which entertain or which has ideas. There is nothing more easily or clearly apprehended than my own mind. So, because in every process of apprehension, whatever you know, whatever you comprehend, whatever you understand, even when you doubt the mind is pre-supposed. So, there is nothing that is so immediately and so clearly known like the mind. So, mind is the absolute starting point for the cut, but this importance given to the mind both as a starting point as and also as your central concept in this philosophical enterprise immediately leads to a kind of threat, the threat of solipsism. Solipsism is a situation which says that there is only my mind and its ideas that exist, nothing else in this world. The world as such is not real, there is only one thing in this world that is my mind, everything else is my creation or the creation of my mind. So, this is the problem. So, Kojito ergo zoom which I think therefore, I access the Kojito, the mind, the thinking substance prevents the systematic doubt from leading to skepticism. That is true in one sense, Kojito is the end point of your doubt. As we have already seen in the previous lecture, Descartes begins with a kind of methodological doubt, a kind of systematic doubt, but it ends somewhere. It is not that skepticism takes you to eternity so that you are nowhere, you are lost completely. No, it ends in a definite place with the Kojito. The discovery of the Kojito is the end point of your skepticism, but there are issues. This does not rule out the threat of solipsism. You might encounter a very peculiar, a different kind of or even a more serious danger now, because though you can talk about everything, you ultimately have not assured that there is a world that exists outside. I exist as a mind with my own thoughts, the only certain thing for me and this may lead to solipsism. My mind with its thoughts is the only thing that exists, the only reality that exists. So, this situation is not, in one sense it cancels all human enterprises, all philosophy, all literature, all arts, all science, everything is cancelled, because there is no meaning. To overcome solipsism thus becomes a very important problem and to prove that something else exists besides one's own mind and its thoughts. So, this is become the next step for Descartes and it is here again to strengthen this doubt or this worries. Descartes suggest that what assures me that the Kojito is correct, that is the question. See when I open my eyes I could see a world around me, I experience the world around me in different ways, different sensations and feelings and emotions, they are all there and I could see colors and smells, I can experience colors and smells and taste and everything, but does it assure, I mean there is a possibility that my Kojito or the thinking substance which experiences all these things is making a mistake, it is not correct. Descartes assures me that the Kojito is correct, I could be a schizophrenic, a schizophrenic could see things which is actually these things are not there, but still he or she might experience them by mistake. What makes an idea true and certain is its clarity and distinctness. So, here Descartes comes up with a criterion to decide the truth, the truth of an idea, what makes an idea true and certain. So, anything that is true and certain must be clear and distinct, there should not be any confusion about it, there should be immediate. In order to be certainly true ideas must be self evidently clear and distinct like mathematical prepositions, when you encounter a mathematical prepositions or there is no scope for any further doubt about it. Even in mathematics there is a possibility that we are deceived by an evil demon or God. So, this is where Descartes comes up with another possible or potential threat to his knowledge systems, that even in the case of mathematics where you apparently feel that you are absolutely certain about your knowledge, there is a possibility that we are deceived by a demon, an evil demon or God. It is possible that you might be thinking that this is like this, but actually it is not the case, you are being deceived. So, even to this point you have not proved anything else, but only the existence of the thinking substance or the kajito. The most important problem or the immediate problem for Descartes is the knowledge of bodies, the knowledge of material objects around us, whether they really exist or what we know about them is true or not, correct or not, that is the question. So, here Descartes in order to sort of strengthen his arguments, Descartes takes up the example of a piece of wax. This is a classic example given by Descartes, he takes the example of a piece of wax, things that are apparent to the senses. When you see a piece of wax, what is apparent is it tastes of honey because it is taken from the honey. It smells of flowers, it has certain sensible color, size and shape, it is hard and cold and if struck it emits a sound. So, these are the apparent qualities you perceive when you perceive a piece of wax. Now, the question is whether from the perception or sensation of these qualities, these enumerated qualities which we believe are the qualities of a wax, can we assume that the wax, the piece of wax actually exist. So, Descartes says that if you put this piece of wax near the fire, these qualities change. The moment you put it, bring a piece of wax near the fire, these qualities like taste of honey, smells of flowers, certain sensible colors, size, shape, hard and cold, all these qualities might undergo certain changes. These qualities change although the wax persist. So, it might acquire a different set of qualities now, you know the qualities which it used to possess earlier no longer are there, but instead there are certain other set of qualities that the object possesses. Therefore, what appeared to the senses was not the wax itself and it is here, it says that the wax itself is constituted by extension, flexibility and motion which are understood by the mind not by the imagination. So, here actually Descartes introduces a distinction, there are two types of qualities, later on he calls it modes and attributes, but here at present he says that there are qualities which are apparently sensible like taste, smell and all that and there are qualities which are actually constitutive of the objects like extension, motion which according to Descartes are not something which the object possesses, but are understood by the mind not by the imagination, but the mind. The thing that is the wax cannot itself be sensible since it is equally involved in all these appearances of wax to various senses, the perception of the wax is not a vision or touch or imagination, but an inspection of the mind. So, it is not a vision or touch or imagination, but an inspection of the mind, basically he says that these material sensations which we get when we perceive, when the so called perception or apprehension of an object material object takes place. Several sensations and perceptions need not necessary point to the existence of an object, but only the existence of certain ideas in the mind. So, they do not prove anything else, but only the existence of the mind which Descartes is already proved, they do not necessarily prove the existence of a material substance, from all these assumptions can conclude that external objects or the very concept of an object whether it is a mistake, that is the question. The existence of wax does not follow from my sensibly seeing the wax, knowledge of external things must be by the mind not by the senses. To think that my ideas are like outside objects is an error and this is what we have reached. So, just because we have sensations or perception does not mean that there are objects in the world, so now the existence of material objects still remains a problematic thing. Material objects or bodies themselves are not properly perceived by the senses, but by the intellect alone. Bodies are not perceived because they are seen and touched, but only because they are understood by the mind. So, the mind as I mentioned plays a very important role even in the question of apprehending material objects. Just because I perceive them I cannot be sure of them I may be dreaming or God must be deceiving me. So, still the possibility of a deceiver a kind of an evil demon or a deceiving God exists. I can be certain of them only if I can prove that there is a God who is not a deceiver. So, now that becomes very important that Descartes has to somehow assure himself that there is no evil demon. So, that if or in other words we can say that he has to prove the existence of God and once he proves the existence of the God even the question of evil demon does not arise because God is so benevolent by definition God must be benevolent and God will not cheat God will not deceive. If at all God induces sensations in us they must be corresponding to objects outside my mind. So, that is this argument. So, in one sense the question of certainty about the material world is related to the question of God. How can I know that there is any reality other than my mind only the truthful nature of God to whom I owe my existence as a thinking thing guarantees the principle that whatever I see clearly and distinctly is true. So, all these things necessitates that Descartes should now prove the existence of God. Establishing God's existence is therefore a necessity and examine whether there is a God or not that becomes very important and if there is one investigate whether he can be a deceiver. The question of proving God's existence become a perennial problem a very important issue for Descartes. It has been a perennial problem for philosophers particularly the medieval philosophers Descartes also takes it up for various other reasons. Now, he comes up with the proofs for a God's existence and there are certain classical rationalistic proofs for the existence of God as we have already seen it Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas come up with rational detective arguments for proving the existence of God and there is a process of reasoning from axioms which are self evidently true and deduce the existence of God from them. Descartes found that many of these given arguments the so called proofs for the existence of God from the scholastic tradition are problematic. For example, Saint Thomas cosmological argument that God as a first course or the argument from design which suggest that there is a the universe exhibits a design and behind that there must be a conscious designer that is God. But Descartes cannot base his arguments for the existence of God on such things because he is yet to prove the existence of the world. So, one cannot deduct the proof for God's existence from the design one perceives in this world because the world itself is something which is yet to be decided. So, many of such classical proofs are not acceptable for him. This is what you know when you talk about the cogito so far we have only proved the existence of the cogito the cogito or the mind and the thinking substance and its ideas there are certain ideas which are innate there are certain others which are factitious and certain others which are adventitious. The innate ideas come from the nature of human reason mathematical and other kinds of ideas. The factitious come from human imaginative inventiveness and the adventitious come from things outside us in the world. So, that is now the problematic domain for us. So, this is just to explain that you know when you talk about the innate ideas examples of substance or thing cause existence time space the basic principles of mathematics and logic they are all innate. And when we talk about factitious they are basically invented by human imagination examples ideas of mermaids unicorns pitapias or future worlds these things do not exist they are just imagine they are just created by the human mind artificially. And adventitious ideas are ideas which appear to come from outside of us which nature seems to suggest to us and which come despite our will example hearing a noise seeing the sun trees or colors. So, these are not our creations they just come from outside of us. And the question here is I mean before we really get into the problem of material substance and existence of God we will just clarify it once again the question here is what is the reality of ideas. Ideas are present in our minds hence they exist actually in our minds they have actual or formal reality. And what are the ideas of what they are about what objects do they represent ideas are ideas of something of objects ideas represent or refer to objects they have objective reality. So, this is what Descartes was trying to assert and in this context let us examine the idea of God. So, he says that except for the idea of God all other ideas could be fictitious of my inventions there is a reason for that he says that all other ideas could be fictitious except the idea of God. Because God is an existence substance possessing all positive qualities in the fullest degree of reality the very concept of God the very notion of God presupposes a substance that exists possessing all positive qualities in the fullest degree of reality. It is an infinite perfect being God cannot be, but infinite if it is finite it is not God. We are all finite human creatures human beings are finite creatures, but God by very definition should be infinite. And since we are all imperfect everything in this world is come across are imperfect creatures imperfect objects, but God by definition should be perfect. He possesses the positive qualities of goodness knowledge power duration to this perfect degree. So, whatever qualities God possesses these qualities God must be possessing in its infinite degree all qualities. If there is goodness in God there must be goodness in God and in that case God must possess infinite goodness infinite knowledge infinite power and everything in its perfect degree. So, in this context the God initiates the first proof the first proof is that it begins by saying that we have a clear and distinct idea of God that I have a notion of God as something which is perfect something which possesses all the qualities in its perfect degree. So, I have some notion or idea in my mind about God and since something cannot proceed from nothing there must be some cause of our idea of God every effect has a cause. So, now I have an idea the idea of God that exists in my mind as a perfect creature must have a cause also. What is more perfect cannot proceed from the less perfect it is a perfect being the idea of a perfect being which I have in mind the cause of the idea cannot be something which is imperfect since it is about a perfect being. So, it must be a perfect being who has created this idea in my mind there must be such a reality in the cause as in its effect as much reality should be there in the cause as in its effect. Therefore, God who is perfect must be the cause of the idea of God as a perfect substance. So, since my idea of God is an idea of a perfect substance the cause of this idea must be a perfect substance. So, perfection can come out of perfection alone that is the assumption and now when you talk about the innateness of the idea of God innate ideas are clear and distinct and are self evident to the mind the idea of God is native to the mind that is innate to the mind God is the cause of this idea and other ideas like the ideas of cause substance logic and mathematics are also imprinted to on our mind by birth there absolutely certain truth since God would not deceive us in what is self evident to the reason he has given us. So, since God has imprinted these original ideas this is called original ideas certain truths like the cause substance logic and mathematics they are there they are innate to us they are there from the very beginning and God has imprinted them in my mind and since God has imprinted them in my mind God cannot deceive us. Now, when we come to the second proof of God what are the possible causes of my existence that is the question I could not have been the cause of my own existence if I am the cause of my own existence that is not possible because for I have an idea of perfection and if I had created myself I should have made myself perfect and I should be able to preserve myself which is not the case since I have an idea of perfection in my mind and if I had created myself then I would have created myself as a perfect being, but I am not a perfect being since I am not a perfect being I cannot be the cause of my own existence. Therefore, God exists as the only possible cause of my existence as a thinking substance. So, that is the second proof now we come to the third proof all the properties I clearly and distinctly conceive God to have truly belong to them. The clear and distinct idea of a perfect being includes the perfection of existence to exist belongs to the nature of God as a perfect being if God lacked existence he would be less than perfect see this is something which you have already seen in the previous lectures that since God is a perfect being the idea of God is that of a perfect being and perfection includes existence. So, God exists if God lacked existence he would be less than perfect. So, perfection includes existence therefore God exists. So, in this way Descartes proves the existence of God and also proves that God is not a deceiver because God has imprinted these ideas on me he cannot be a deceiver. Now, with this he thinks that he can comfortably go ahead proving the existence of physical substance. No physical substance exists independently of my mind because all substances I come to know about them through ideas which are mental I have an idea of a substance that exists outside. So, they never exist independent of my mind can I know this with certainty and know what the properties of a physical things are that is a question now can I trust my senses this is another question is the idea physical substance my own creation is God the cause of this idea. So, these are some of the questions which Descartes puts forward and he says that I am not the cause God is not the cause of these ideas in my mind there must be actual substances outside the in the world the external world and they cause these ideas in my mind of course it is God who have created those substances created me as well, but the ideas which I get when I perceive an object is not cause by God, but by that substance I am not the cause because I could not be the cause of physical object since I am a thinking substance thinking or thought or mind and physical substance cannot they are diametrically opposite substances. So, I cannot be the cause of a material substance since I am a thinking substance the effect must be like the cause. So, a thinking substance if at all it produces something which is of that nature. So, a mind can have ideas because ideas are not physical substances, but mind cannot produce a physical world that exists outside the cause of the idea must be itself a physical substance and God is not the cause because God is not a deceiver God would not deceive me by creating ideas of physical substances in my mind. So, that I think that there are physical substances that exist actually in the world that is a kind of deception and God cannot be a deceiver God exist and is infinitely good because as I have already mentioned all qualities which we can conceive exist in God in its highest degree. So, goodness should exist in God in its highest degree God must be infinitely good a substance or God who is infinitely good cannot be a deceiver because deception is against goodness. He would not allow me to be deceived about everything that exists God authenticates my sensory experiences. So, the world of sensory experience the physical world the material world the material substances bodies exist objectively God is good and God is not a deceiver since God is good he will not act like a deceitful demon God has given me such a strong inclination to believe in bodies that he would be deceitful if they were there were none and God cannot be a deceiver therefore, bodies exist therefore, physical world exist. Now, this is the court from Russell we have seen that. So, before we really I read it up I will just summarize it we have seen you know in the previous lecture we have seen how Descartes began with a method of doubt a process of doubting methodological doubt doubt everything that can be doubted. So, that he can arrive at an indubitable starting point from where he can deduce everything else. So, he went on doubting and finally reached a point where he proved the existence of the thinking substance or mind and now the question is about the physical world physical substances or bodies since you cannot directly prove the existence of the physical world Descartes was trying to prove the existence of God on the one hand and also to prove that God cannot be a deceiver he has done it God exist and since God exist as a possessing all qualities in its highest degree he cannot be a deceiver. So, there must be a world that exist in the outside world which we perceive through our senses and the third one is therefore, the physical world exist. So, he has proved the existence of all the three possible substances God mind and body he would later on call God as the substance the absolute substance mind and body as relative or dependent substances. Now, let us see what Russell says Bertrand Russell in his history of philosophy commenced that the constructive part of Descartes theory of knowledge now onwards you know we can see that this is a constructive part is much less interesting than the earlier destructive part the earlier destructive part is doubting everything that can be doubted it uses all sorts of scholastic maxims such as that an effect can never have more perfection than its cause which have somehow escaped the initial critical scrutiny no reason is given for accepting these maxims although they are certainly less self evident than once on existence which is proved with a flourish of triumph Plato's theatres St. Augustine and St. Thomas contain most of what is affirmative in the meditation. So, Russell says that there are two aspects to Descartes philosophy Descartes meditations one is the destructive aspects where he employs the methodological doubts skepticism and he almost questions destroys the entire traditional scholastic philosophy and as far as that aspect of his philosophical thinking is concerned Descartes remarkably original when it comes to the constructive part is less interesting because here he accepts almost all the maxims of scholastic philosophy without any reflection and constructs his own ideas about it. So, now let us once again come to the old problem where we have begun with these three substances mind body and God or in the correct order mind God and body or in a more ontological order if you follow God mind and body God is the absolute substance I have already mentioned the three substances substance is one that so exist that it needs no other thing in order to exist. So, that is the definition of a substance it is something which does not need any other thing in order to exist something which is absolutely independent. So, that is the classical definition of a substance which is actually provided you will find this very similar to something of this sort in the classical Greek philosophy in scholastic philosophy it is so strong the this notion of substance. In reality only one such substance only one such being exists that is God mind and body are relative or dependent substances I have already mentioned this substances are known how do you know a substance how do you know something you know something you know a substance through its attributes the qualities of that substance which are so essential to it something which is characteristic of it. So, he says that an attribute is the essential characteristic or property of substance that which necessarily inheres in it something without which you cannot conceive it the substance. So, that is an attribute. So, you have three concepts here substance attributes and modes I have already very briefly mentioned about it sometime back attribute as I mentioned is the quality without which the substance cannot conceivably exist, but it can manifest itself in different ways or modes for example, modes cannot be conceived without substance and attributes. So, there is a kind of relationship between these three words substance attributes and modes substance cannot change its attributes, but it can change its modes I will clarify this for example, if you take physical substance figure and motion are modes of extended substances or bodies and you conceive a body what is the attribute of the body the most important characteristic feature which defines its very nature without which the body cannot be conceived every body will have this without that a thing will never qualify to be called as a body. So, what is it that is the attribute. So, figure and motion cannot be attributes there are only modes of existence then what is it extension is the attribute of body. Similarly, when you come to mind imagination or will are modes of thinking, but thinking as such is the attribute you cannot conceive of a mind which does not think to be a mind is to think and no other substances can think only the mind can think. So, mind and thinking are intimately related they are almost anonymous because thinking is the attribute of the mind, but imagination willing all these are modes of thinking. So, as I mentioned what we clearly and distinctly perceive in a body is the attribute of the body the spatial continuum of three dimensions length breadth and thickness which is nothing but the extension is called the attribute of the body and physical things need not have colors or taste or orders in order to exist, but extension getting extended in space and time length breadth and thickness are essential for a physical substance to exist they must have size and shape. When you come to the mind its attribute is thinking I have already mentioned it mind is not extended and it always things since we have already discussed a lot about the thinking substance in the previous lecture I will rather concentrate here a little bit more on the physical world very interesting thing to be noted here is that with this separation with this dualism of mind and body and conceiving them as separation entities separate substances they are bound to be separate they cannot come together because both of them possess very diametrically opposite attributes mind thinking and body extension minds are not extended and bodies cannot think each of them must be having an independent realm of their own with their own laws and their own principles the domain of the physical world must be having its own unique principles and laws and the card says that this can be explained in terms of mechanics the source of motion is God. So, he says that here again he is bringing God because body though it constitutes an independent domain its independence is always a relative independence it is independent from the mind, but it is not absolutely independent because in the absolute sense there is only one substance which is independent that is God. So, body or material substance is dependent on God it is independent of the mind, but it is dependent on the God the source of motion is God it is God which gives bodies the physical world its motion God created matter along with motion and rest God is a prime mover. So, this is again an Aristotelian conception which is also accepted by the scholastic philosopher there is a notion of prime mover and cause unmoved mover God has given this world a certain amount of motion in this world is constant bodies must be moving fast or slow or are in rest, but that is all modes of motion the amount of motion put together is constant in this world on the other hand the thinking substance of mind one that doubts understands conceives affirms denies wills refuses imagines and feels that is the thinking substance thought includes everything that we term as consciousness. So, these are all part of consciousness what we say not a part of nature this is where he separates the mind from the body it is never part of the physical world or physical nature it occupies a totally independent domain than the territory of the body it can exist without the body because they are diametrically opposite and independent it is this context or this situation as actually has introduced several problems because now we have seen that the territories of the mind and body are totally different independent. Now, how do you explain the relationship because our day to day experience our usual day to day experience tells us that there is a very close relationship that excess between mind and body and they are diametrically opposite substances bodies are extended and are passive, but cannot think minds can think and hence are active, but are not extended both domains follow their own independent loss. So, I have already explained this situation introduces certain problems there are certain very interesting and significant implications of this dualism which are not confined to the world of philosophy alone, but to the world of science and culture and all that. So, that is the reason why Dakot is considered as the most one of the most important philosopher or probably according to some evaluations is the most important thinker after Aristotle. So, it says that the implications of dualism nature and its workings can be explained purely in terms of mechanical explanations which is something what was the requirement of the age the requirement of the age means you know it was the time when modern science natural science was sciences were emerging and natural sciences were primarily concerned with the physical world. So, it requires a completely autonomous independent system of knowledge to be developed completely free from the domain of mind, soul, God and other things independent of religion independent of the conception of revealed knowledge which is so important in religion. So, you require a domain that is an independent domain the domain of the physical world with its own laws and principles the mechanics the terms of mechanical explanations. So, this is what the one of the immediate implications of this dualism physics proceeds its own laws human body like the bodies of animals is a machine follows the laws of mechanics. So, this is another very important and very significant implication of this dualism body human body is like a machine like the animal body and it follows the laws of machines heat in the heart is a moving principle nerves are the organs of sensation and the muscles are the organs of motion. So, everything explained in terms of mechanical principles and laws it functions like a machine. So, this is what Descartes dualism ultimately implies there are certain advantages as well as disadvantages of this dualism which we would be explaining in the course of our lecture further, but the main problem is that if they exist in diametrically opposite domains and territories, but that is not the case as far as our experience suggests a very close interaction we have to somehow respected I mean with this kind of a clear dualism you would fail to explain our normal understanding of life which presupposes a very close interaction between mind and body there cannot be any interaction if you follow Descartes philosophy mind cannot cause changes in the body and body cannot cause changes in the mind, but this is not consistent with our experience our experience suggest an intimate union of mind and body often mind and body compose a substantial unity there is a substantial unity which needs to be explained further and if I were a merely thinking substance if my mind is not intimately conjoined with the body then when I am hungry I may know that I am hungry, but may not feel hungry. So, this is a very interesting paradox that if there is absolutely no connection between these two when I am hungry I may know that I am hungry because I am a thinking substance I can know that I am hungry, but I may not feel hungry because feeling is a bodily exercise, but that is not the case when I am hungry I feel that I am hungry feeling is also very active how does Descartes explained this situation is the problem here Descartes comes up with mind body interaction which will also mention when we discuss contributions of other philosophers who follow. So, I will be just mentioning it here they are combined in man a unity of composition and not a unity of nature this is what he says they are not united as a matter of nature I mean in the sense that they are they are diametrically opposite territories, but there is a unity of composition not a mixture of two bodies though thought can be troubled by organs without being the product of them. So, when I see something I feel happy I feel happy which is again a feeling. So, when I am hungry it is a feeling basically the body needs body has some wants, but then my mind also knows that I am hungry. So, there is a close interaction. So, he says that thought can be troubled by organs without being a product of them sensations and feelings are disturbances in the mind resulting from its union with the body, but they remain distinct. So, Descartes maintains a very interesting body mind interactionism without really conceiving them as interacting with each other or belonging to the same domain. A physical state neither becomes or produces a material state and vice versa, but is troubled by it. Often suggest causal interaction and he says that mind has its principle seat in the pineal gland of the brain and this position is introduced several interesting questions like you know if pineal gland is where mind and body interacts then is pineal gland a part of body or of mind. These are questions which later on critics raised against Descartesian dualism for which Descartes has not given a very satisfactory answer and the mind body dualism has been a very interesting and a very troublesome domain in philosophy aversions Descartes introduced this problem to resolve the enmity between the new science and church. So, in one sense this dualism helped in resolving the kind of enmity between the new science and the church between rational knowledge based on sense observation which science emphasizes and divine revelation which is the model of knowledge in religion. So, these two things apparently go in two different directions and corner each other, but Cartesian dualism in a sense helped the western European intellectual tradition to resolve this problem. Physical substances and their laws for example laws of motion are controlled by science and mental substance not causally determined by the physical laws and comes under the church because they are part of the divine domain. A compromise and reconciliation between the church and the scientist was possible with this. So, here I just quote Anthony Kenny who makes a very interesting observation which would also summarize Descartes position. There are two key ideas that are presented in the discourse and elaborated in later works. First human beings are thinking substances second matter is extension in motion. Everything in a system is to be explained in terms of this dualism of mind and matter. If we nowadays tend naturally to think of mind and matter as the two great mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive divisions of the universe we have it that is because of Descartes. So, here is kind of a summary. So, there are several arguments initiated. He begins with the arguments for universal doubt which is again divided into three. For example, the dream argument we have seen this the deceiving god argument again we have seen that you know he concludes that god is not a deceiver and then comes the evil demand argument and now the arguments for the cogito is being raised. Arguments for the existence of god is followed by that and finally arguments that material objects exist. So, Descartes introduced several problems as Russell said as I mentioned his destructive part is more interesting than his constructive part. He has rather introduced more problems for later philosophers to solve and grapple with. And we will also be doing in our subsequent lectures some of these problems will creep in and we have to tackle them and we have to deal with them and even in contemporary philosophy there is a very interesting observation made by Richard Benstein that Descartes is the father of philosophy in the Freudian sense. In the sense that in Freud's scheme of things the father is a figure who is constantly negated. Similarly, Descartes is a father of philosophy in the Freudian sense that later philosophers all the philosophers who came after Descartes primarily considered Descartes as an opponent to be encountered. So, the next philosopher whom we are going to discuss is Spinoza. Spinoza is also a rationalist who has been tremendously influenced by Descartes, but he tries to advance some of these issues particularly the mind body dualism which created several paradoxes and riddles in the Cartesian system and which Spinoza tries to resolve with a pantheism. We will see it in the subsequent lectures. Thank you.