Maverick Philosopher

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.

Reader Asks: Are You a Substance Dualist?

Jimmy Licon writes:

So I take it from your recent responses to objections against interactionist substance dualism that you are a proponent of such? If not, are you a dualist at all?

Are there any good contemporary defenses of substance dualism? Any recommendations?

I ask because I've always had a hard time accepting physicalism, or something near enough (haha!)

(show)

Posted by William F. Vallicella on Saturday October 29, 2005 at 11:24am
Joseph Jedwab (mail):
May I also add the following to the reading list?

1. Dean Zimmerman, ‘Material People’ in Loux &Zimmerman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, or ‘Christians Should Affirm Mind-Body Dualism’ in Peterson &Arragon (eds), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion.
2. Michael Rea, World Without Design.

On idealism:

3. John Foster, The Case for Idealism, or better 'The Succint Case for Idealism' in Robinson (ed) Objections to Physicalism.
4. John Foster, The Nature of Perception.
5. Howard Robinson, Matter and Sense.
6. Robert Adams, Leibniz: Theist, Determinist, Idealist.

I believe John Leslie's Infinite Minds also argues for some kind of idealism.

Something we don't hear much about is Rusell's Neutral Monism, which is defended by people such as Michael Lockwood in Minds, Brains, and Quantum, and David Chalmers in The Conscious Mind. Some of these titles are on my list to read when I retire (I should say I haven't yet started a full-time permanent philosophy job).

Best wishes,

Joseph Jedwab
10.30.2005 8:09am
Joseph Jedwab (mail):
One addition to that list is a forthcoming title:

Peter Unger, All the Power in the World

Unger entertains and defends substance dualism and idealism. The book is not out yet but lengthy chapters are available at his website.

Best wishes,

Joseph Jedwab
10.30.2005 10:56am
Bill Vallicella (mail) (www):
Joseph,

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. I am aware of some of those titles, but was too pressured to list them all. In particular, I have Foster's book on idealism. I liked his discussion of topic-neutrality and how it could be used to support idealism. I also have Robinson's Matter and Sense, which I recommend.

Unger's a brilliant fellow -- not that the others aren't -- so I am particularly interested in acquiring his book.

Let me throw in two more:

William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Cornell, 1999).
Charles Taliaferro, Consciousness and the Mind of God (Cambridge 1994)
10.30.2005 11:12am
Mike (mail):
Just a question for clarity. Doesn't Hasker defend essentially a property dualist position? I may be wrong as I am not around my book an have limited notes. But, it seemed to me that he has about 3 versions of emergence and tries to distinguish or build his position from his 3rd version of emergence in which processes such as respiration are new kind of properties/processes made up of base structures complexly arranged and go on to require new laws to explain the processes. Much of my understanding and thought about this work was around the notion of libertarian freedom, which he seems to take as a novel causal power. With his emergent dualism, a unified individual emerges with novel causal powers like free will. Anyway, it just seemed to me that either he was a property dualist with the complex substructures serving as distinct properties from his emergent unified individual and the causal powers that accompany it. I guess if he is a substance dualist, you might say that this emergent unified individual would have to be considered a distinct substance at some point in emergence. Maybe his view is sufficient given your view of a substance. No matter what, I still concur that it well worth the read in understanding issues central to substance dualism. Commence your clarification...
11.1.2005 11:57am
Bill Vallicella (mail) (www):
Welcome on board, Mike Harper, and thanks for the comment.

I thought I might be asked why I included Hasker's book since he is not a substance dualist but rather an emergentist. I did so because of his good discussion of substance dualism in chapters 5 and 6. Particularly good is his discussion of the unity of consciousness, a phenomenon which is a real thorn in the side of physicalism.

So I don't disagree with your characterization of his position.

Are you working primarily in the philosophy of mind?
11.1.2005 3:43pm
Mike (mail):
As I went back to the book, I was reminded of his discussion. I do agree that he does a good job.

I am not working primarily in philosophy of mind. Primarily metaethics...I do like philosophy of mind, so much so, that I am using Kim's critiques of supervenience in philosophy of mind to hopefully unfold similar critiques of its use in realist views of ethical naturalism.

Thanks for giving your reasoning &keep up a great blog! I know I have learned a lot.
11.2.2005 11:43am
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.