Philosophy of Mind

Loneliness 2nd Edition is now available

Dr. Mijuskovic’s interdisciplinary work Loneliness is now available in a second edition. You can find it on  Alibris, Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Parker E. Lichtenstein provides a helpful synopsis in The Psychological Record:

  “The author has employed an interdisciplinary approach to the problem of loneliness. While psychologists have touched upon the problem, they have not done justice to it. Mijuskovic sees loneliness not simply as a frequent human condition but rather an aspect of man’s ontological being. In his words, man is ‘intrinsically alone and irredeemably lost’ and is ‘continually struggling to escape the solipsistic prison of his frightening solitude.’ This basic thesis is supported through philosophical analysis and wide-ranging examination of relevant literature…. [T]he author has presented a challenging picture of much human behavior as a flight from loneliness. On the whole this is an intriguing book which should be of particular interest to psychologists of a humanistic persuasion.”

Aside

The Achilles of Rationalist Psychology – A Response from Dr. Ben Mijuskovic

(It is an honor to post a piece by Dr. Ben Mijuskovic in response to the first chapter of Lennon and Stainton’s work.  Any comments or remarks will be directed to his attention for response.)

The Achilles of Rationalist Psychology (hereafter ARP) distinguishes two forms of the Achilles argument, a Narrow version, which addresses the issue of the unity of consciousness; and a Broad form, which concentrates on the immortality of the soul.

The first article in the study, authored by Professor Karen Margrethe Nielsen, titled “Did Plato Articulate the Achilles Argument?” asks “whether the Achilles can be found in Plato’s Phaedo, or anywhere else in the Platonic corpus” [ARP, 22]. As I understand Professor Nielsen’s position, she believes that Plotinus is the original source and in confirmation she refers to Moses Mendelssohn’s dialogue of the same name in support pointing out that if indeed Plato was the first source, then surely Mendelssohn would have cited Plato instead of drawing heavily on Plotinus and his arguments.

In my own study, The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments (ARA), I indicate that its origin could be traced back to the Phaedo. In support of this assertion, I discuss at some length the views of A. E. Taylor, who “warns against what he considers to be the anachronistic consequences in inferring that Plato’s argument proves the soul to be a ‘simple substance.’” Nevertheless, Taylor goes on to state that Plato’s reasoning in the Phaedo:

lies at the bottom of all the familiar arguments of later metaphysicians who deduce the immortality of the soul from its alleged character as a ‘simple’ substance,’ the ‘paralogism’ attacked by Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason . . . Socrates point is not that the soul is a ‘simple substance,’—he had not so much the language in which to say such a thing—but that it is, as the Orphic religion had taught, something divine. Its ‘deiformity,’ not its indivisibility is what he is anxious to establish; the indivisibility is a mere consequence. [ARA, p. 6]

Taylor himself remarks that Kant’s knowledge of the proof derives from Christian Wolff and Moses Mendelssohn [ARA, p. 6]. Perhaps. The first edition second paralogism treats the unity of consciousness but the second edition paralogism primarily deals with immortality.

By contrast, I also state that F. M. Cornford contends that Plato proves the soul to be simple because: “As immortal and imperishable, the soul is most like the divine, immortal, intelligible, simple, and indissoluble (because incomposite); whereas the body is most like the mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble (because composite) and perpetually changing” [ARA, pp. 6-7]. So I do consider the controversy over the attribution to Plato of the Broad Achilles. To suggest otherwise is somewhat misleading. Thus, I would say that it is a bit strong to say that, “Ben Mijuskovic nevertheless identifies Plato’s Phaedo as its first locus” [ARP, pp. 23 and 24]. In fact, my opening statement reads: “The argument seems to be first suggested as a proof for immortality in Plato’s Phaedo” [ARA p. 6].

At bottom, her conclusion is that “there is little evidence to suggest that Plato expressed either the Narrow or Broad Achilles.” [pp.25-26]

Professor Nielsen’s champion for a first source is Plotinus, via Mendelssohn no less, intimating that since Mendelssohn cites Plotinus rather than Plato it must be the former who is the authentic originator. [ARP, p.23] But she neglects to mention that I discuss Plotinus at greater length than I do Plato and that I explicitly attribute to the great Neoplatonist not only credit for both the Narrow and the Broad Achilles’ (unity and immortality) but, in addition, I also even credit Plotinus for the Broadest Achilles, which consists of an argument for continuous personal identity based on the simplicity of the soul [ARA pp. 8-10].

But, beyond that and more importantly. Professor Nielsen indicates that my infatuation with A. O. Lovejoy’s commitment to unit-ideas, exemplified in his classic The Great Chain of Being, leads me to operate with a rather “eccentric and confused conception” of the Achilles. I think that’s a fair criticism to which I would like to respond in the following manner. The unit-idea is not the Achilles argument as a whole. The unit-idea is the premise. The assumption is that the soul, along with its predicates, accidents, attributes, or properties are all simple, immaterial, unextended (just like Kant’s verse and its constituent words). (Although, by the way, Henry More, believed the soul to be both immaterial and extended.) As I have tried to correct – and argue – in subsequent publications, the simplicity premise has been used for no less than seven different conclusions: immortality; unity; personal identity; epistemological and metaphysical idealism; immanent time-consciousness; the freedom of self-consciousness; and the immaterial nature of meanings and relations. The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments was published in 1974. Since then there have been some twenty or so articles and reprints dedicated to “my” Achilles, the last one appearing in 2009, and I have tried to correct the confusion between the Achilles as a premise and as an argument. Actually, soon after the publication of my book, I rechristened the study calling it the Simplicity Argument.

Possibly, ARP appears to commit a similar “eccentricity and confusion” by assuming “Premise 2: Only a simple, unified substance can unify representations”; therefore the soul is (1) immortal (Broad Achilles) and (2) a unity (Narrow Achilles).

Let me also say this. Whether or not even the Broad Achilles can be attributed to Plato, it’s clearly the case that the second argument in the Phaedo is not considered by Plato as the strongest proof. Rather, Plato thinks that the strongest demonstration for an afterlife relies on the eternal synthetic a priori relation between the Forms of Life and Soul, which is modeled on an analogous connection established in the Meno between color and extension/shape [see Mijuskovic, “The Synthetic A Priori in Plato,” Dialogue, May, 1970]. But, of course, Plato invokes various arguments for immortality in different dialogues.

Also, I might suggest that in my mind there is a strong connection between Plato’s definition of the activity of thought, described as the soul’s internal dialogue with itself, and the ubiquitous reflexive, self-conscious paradigm of awareness that fuels the unity of consciousness claim, a model that is shared by Plato, Aristotle—see especially Aristotle’s characterization of the Unmoved Mover in the Metaphysics–Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, and many, many others. It isn’t only that consciousness is a unity; it’s that it is first and foremost a mental activity.

Finally, I think it’s a bit of a stretch for Professor Nielsen to usher in a discussion of the Wooden Horse metaphor from the Theaetetus, which deals with the five bodily senses as opposed to the obviously more relevant immaterial or simple concepts and their resultant unification in judgments. Certainly, this has little or no resemblance to Kant’s Second Paralogism argument. And I’m not sure what insight it provides in furthering the discussion. And, in fact, on ARA page 7, I state the following: “In the Republic and Phaedrus, of course, Plato refers to the tri-partite nature of the soul and this at once brings up the problem of reconciling the simplicity of the soul with its compositeness.”

The reason I dismissed pursuing the topic any further is because at least two of the parts of the soul are physical. And I conclude by saying: “But at least this much is certain; according to Plato, in order for the soul to be able to grasp the essence of the immaterial forms, in knowledge, it must itself share in the attribute of immateriality. However, whether from this Plato also believed that the soul’s simplicity followed is not clear” [ARA, p. 7].

Absolute Morality & Wittgenstein and Russell

Following The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments, Mijuskovic wrote an article for Journal of Thought entitled “The Simplicity Argument and Absolute Morality.” He focuses attention upon the moral idealism of Ralph Cudworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Edmund Husserl. This article lays the groundwork for the second chapter of Contingent Immaterialism, which later he describes as the fifth use for the simplicity argument. Just one year after the publication of ARA, it illustrates the broadening of the uses of the simplicity argument as Mijuskovic advances his study in history, particularly in the treatment of Husserl.

In 1976, Mijuskovic’s rapid publishing pace continues with “The Simplicity Argument in Wittgenstein and Russell.” From the opening paragraph, Mijuskovic anticipates further work by his passing mention of Hegel, Marx, Bergson, Husserl and Sartre as candidates for study. He also reveals two more uses for the simplicity argument. After reiterating the fifth use on the immateriality of meanings within moral idealism, Mijuskovic discusses a sixth use within the freedom of self-consciousness in Hegel, Bergson and Sartre. He then briefly alludes to a seventh, and final, use within arguments related to the consciousness of time by Schelling, Schopenhauer and Bergson.

In addition to laying the groundwork for his future articles, Mijuskovic discusses the immateriality of meanings in the works of Wittgenstein and Russell. A simple summary of his argument on Wittgenstein is, “[he] substituted an identity and unity of meaning for the traditional concepts of the identity and unity of consciousness”.[1] Similarly, Russell grapples with meanings in relation to his philosophy of mind: “What Russell really is engaged in is a theory of consciousness, a philosophy of mind, which is unfortunately disguised from him by his concentrated emphasis on a theory of meaning”.[2] Although there is no direct attribution to the simplicity argument by either philosopher, both Wittgenstein and Russell develop their concepts of meaning with premises akin to the unity, identity and simplicity premises found within the simplicity argument.

The Transcendental Analytic Revisited

Following the publishing of The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments, Mijuskovic writes “The General Conclusion of the Argument of the Transcendental Analytic” to continue what he addresses in his earlier work “The Premise of the Transcendental Analytic.” The first edition Transcendental Analytic and Paralogisms were edited substantially in the second edition, which begs many questions, including whether Kant operates under different presuppositions between these two. Mijuskovic contends the first edition is premised upon time consciousness – in agreement with N. Kemp Smith’s Commentary. From this Kant moves to demonstrate the unity of consciousness as he progresses through the Transcendental Deduction. Kant’s arguments for the unity of consciousness would be incoherent without this priority of the temporal nature of cause and effect prior to unification of these same events. In the order of logic, continuity must precede unity otherwise consciousness would cease.

Additionally, Mijuskovic explains a key dichotomy which will appear later in the simplicity argument’s history: Thus we know a priori (universally and necessarily) that all experience will have constitutive elements of both quantifiable extensity and qualitative intensity and that all possible experience must conform to these conditions in order to be manifested as human awareness.[1] A dichotomy of quantity and quality directly correlates to extension (physicality) and inextension (immateriality). Properties of consciousness should be classified by qualitative properties. All other properties will have a quantitative extension or physicality. This distinction is fundamental to the premise of the immateriality of thought which grounds the simplicity of consciousness. Physical/material properties cannot account for the nature of consciousness because they were never intended to do so. Only inextended, qualitative properties can logically apply to consciousness. Mijuskovic following Kant makes it clear the two must be made distinct since they apply to completely different categories of experience.

In sum, Mijuskovic concludes: First, we begin with the indubitabilty of our temporal consciousness; and then we proceed through a “deduction” showing that such an awareness depends upon a complicated interworking of transcendental activities of the productive imagination (A99-104), which finally, results in mutually conditioning ‘effects’ (both transcendental and empirical) of an awareness of a temporal unity and continuity of one consciousness and one spacetime continuum, the latter as apprehended in our representation of one unified system of nature.[2]

Genesis of the Simplicity Argument

The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments is the first installment of the history of an argument pioneered by Ben Mijuskovic – most commonly designated the “Simplicity Argument.” This 1974 expanded publication of his doctoral dissertation provides the groundwork for this history and the inspiration for this website. The title is inspired by Immanuel Kant’s description of one particular philosophical defense which he challenges in The Critique of Pure Reason A351-352. His lofty consideration of a this defense used by rationalists illustrates its nearly “impenetrable” nature akin to the mythic hero Achilles.

Mijuskovic chronicles the history of this argument from Plato through Kant in this unique study.  His contribution to the history of the simplicity argument is one of a systematizer.  The argument has been utilized by the likes of Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Leibniz, and the Cambridge Platonists.  Mijuskovic specifically discusses the benefits of its use in three particular debates: personal immortality, the unity of consciousness, and personal identity.

The simplicity argument has a fundamental premise of the immateriality of thought. Thought being immaterial implies that the mind is a simple substance. Three conclusions can be made about the human mind from this initial observation of its simplicity (1) what is simple is indestructible, (2) what is simple is unified, (3) what is simple is an identity.  These three prongs are fleshed out in subsequent chapters within The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments.  This basic argument has been analyzed since Plato. Mijuskovic’s genius is in observing how it has been used throughout history.  The Achilles of Rationalist Arguments primarily focuses upon the Cambridge Platonists, but it establishes a method for future consideration of others who have benefited from its use.

This heroic contribution emerged in a somewhat hostile environment of academic materialism.  Fortunately, there seems to be a swelling interest in the 21st century regarding the simplicity of the soul and arguments pertaining to dualism in philosophy of mind.  For this stance, Mijuskovic deserves much commendation.