Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Immateriality of the Mind question

**Posted by joewaked** 2/02/2017 8:38 pm

Folks,

I was not sure where to post this question so I apologize if I should not have started a new topic. I used to email Scott Ryan (RIP) with my neophyte questions and he was wonderfully patient and wrote with such simple clarity. Lord do I miss him.

My question is this. Is there a way to construct an argument/explanation for the immateriality of the mind -- to someone with no education in philosophy -- without having to first explain form & matter and delve deeper into metaphysical philosophy? I'm so new at this. I try to simplify Aristotle's arguments and by the time I'm through, I have lost the listener! I also tried using Dr. Feser' argument from both Aquinas and TLS.

These conversations are with atheists and agnostics and I am trying to establish the existence of a spiritual human component, whether the mind or the intellect, to demonstrate that death may not end the existence of that immaterial component.

Thanks ahead of time for the assistance!

Joe

Last edited by joewaked (2/02/2017 8:39 pm)

**Posted by John West** 2/03/2017 11:54 am

joewaked wrote:
I used to email Scott Ryan (RIP) with my neophyte questions and he was wonderfully patient and wrote with such simple clarity. Lord do I miss him.

In twenty-two days, it will have been a year since he passed.

Me too.

My question is this. Is there a way to construct an argument/explanation for the immateriality of the mind -- to someone with no education in philosophy -- without having to first explain form & matter and delve deeper into metaphysical philosophy?

You might find these articles (I, II, III, IV, V) and this round-up helpful.

**Posted by joewaked** 2/03/2017 3:20 pm

My question is this. Is there a way to construct an argument/explanation for the immateriality of the mind -- to someone with no education in philosophy -- without having to first explain form & matter and delve deeper into metaphysical philosophy?

You might find these articles (I, II, III, IV, V) and this round-up helpful.

Thanks John.

Unfortunately, those articles by Dr. Feser only confirm what I was afraid of: there is no relatively simple argument for immateriality! One has to be a philosophical attorney and build a case for the mind's immateriality.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 2/04/2017 10:59 pm

It depends what you mean by simple. I think there are somebrelatively simple arguments for the immateriality of the mind; for example, the argument from abstract concepts. But there are almost always objections to answer. That is usual for most philosophical arguments

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 2/05/2017 11:22 pm

I definitely think it would be interesting to catalogue the different arguments for the immateriality of the mind, presenting them in standard form along with their premises and assumptions, important objections, and counters to these objections. So if you have one mind, joe, please mention it.

**Posted by joewaked** 2/06/2017 1:32 am

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I definitely think it would be interesting to catalogue the different arguments for the immateriality of the mind, presenting them in standard form along with their premises and assumptions, important objections, and counters to these objections. So if you have one mind, joe, please mention it.

Let me try one. Imagination is an operation of the brain, i.e. a material operation. The intellect relies on that material operation in order to understand abstract concepts, which you mentioned previously. Furthermore, it is impossible for the intellect to imagine abstract concepts apart from matter. So based on the necessity of a material operation and the inability to imagine abstracts separately from some sort of matter, there is no such thing as immateriality.

Keep in mind Jeremy. I do not believe this. It would be an interlocutor's objection.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 2/06/2017 4:45 pm

Well, that is more an objection to immateriality of the mind than an argument for it. But I'm not sure what you mean by apart from matter. Everything material is particular and individual, not abstract. You see, whether with your eye's or imagination, a particular triangle, with a particular location, size, shape, colour, etc. Abstract concepts are almost by definition not material.

**Posted by joewaked** 2/06/2017 9:22 pm

My apologies Jeremy, I just jumped right to an objection... If you don't mind, indulge me a bit and let me continue with the objection.

Is it even possible to imagine an abstract concept without allowing the entry of any particulars into the imagination? For ex, can triangularity be "seen" with the mind without particular lines, angles, space around/in it? I would say the answer is no.

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 2/06/2017 10:03 pm

@joewaked

I think the question is ontological not epistemic.

**Posted by joewaked** 2/06/2017 11:18 pm

Mysterious Brony wrote:
@joewaked

I think the question is ontological not epistemic.

But doesn't that go to my original issue (in my first post above)?

"....and I am trying to establish the existence of a spiritual human component, whether the mind or the intellect, to demonstrate that death may not end the existence of that immaterial component."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Last edited by joewaked (2/06/2017 11:18 pm)