When considering the nature of the human being, Descartes holds two main claims: he believes that the human being is a genuine unity and he also holds that it is comprised of two distinct substances, mind and body. These claims appear to be at odds with one another; it is not clear how the human being can be simultaneously two things and one thing. The details of Descartes' metaphysics of substance exacerbates this problem. Because of various theological and epistemological commitments, Descartes frames his metaphysics of substance in a way that ensures mind and body's real distinction from one another. Articulated from this perspective, the problem becomes one wherein it is not clear that two completely separate substances can come together to form one entity. The aim of this thesis is to show how Descartes can hold real distinction and true union without contradiction. To this end, I will first detail the problem and outline a variety of solutions that have already been presented. Then I will outline important concepts relating to Descartes' metaphysics of substance and attributes. This not only reveals the depth of the problem but also lays the groundwork for my proposed solution. I argue that the key to understanding how these two claims are consistent and in accord with Descartes' philosophy is through a comment Descartes makes to his contemporary Henricus Regius where he urges that the union of mind and body is achieved through a "mode of union." I substantiate this claim by arguing for the intelligibility of understanding union as a modal attribute within Descartes' framework. Finally, I show how Descartes can hold real distinction and true union with consistency. When union is understood as a mode, mind and body are able to exist apart from one another, ensuring real distinction. Moreover, union construed as a mode does not allow the complete separability of mind and body. Thus, when united, mind and body achieve the kind of unity Descartes desires for the human being.

Descartes and Malebranche often seem to argue that the self (or I) is identical to an immaterial thinking substance distinct from the body. But there are also many passages where they insist that the body is part of the self. This means that Descartes and Malebranche have a problem, since they seem to endorse three mutually inconsistent propositions: (1) I am an immaterial thinking thing. (2) Immaterial things don't have bodily parts. (3) I include my body as part of myself. I call this puzzle the self-body problem. It is a problem about understanding how we - the immaterial thinking subjects who engage in the self-reflective project of the Meditations - can incorporate our bodies into ourselves. I argue that Descartes and Malebranche have an elegant solution to this inconsistency. On my interpretation, the Cartesian self is not identical to an immaterial thinking substance. Rather, the Cartesian self is a variably constituted being that has different parts at different times and in different possible situations. Sometimes the self exists with both an immaterial thinking part and a bodily part. Other times it exists with only an immaterial part. The immaterial part is essential to the self, the bodily part is not. When Descartes and Malebranche say that I am immaterial, what they really mean is that I essentially have an immaterial part. But that is consistent with the claim that my body is part of myself. / Philosophy

<p>The study aims to explain the role of external causes in René Descartes’s (1594–1650) and Benedictus de Spinoza’s (1632–1677) accounts of the mastery of the passions. It consists in three parts: the mind-body union, the passions and their classification, and the mastery of the passions. </p><p>In the first part I argue that Descartes’s conception of the mind-body union consists in two elements: mind-body interaction and the experience of being one with the body. Spinoza rejects the first element because there cannot be psychophysical laws. He accepts the second element, but goes beyond Descartes, arguing that the mind and body are identical.</p><p>In the second part I discuss the classifications of the passions in the <i>Passions of the Soul</i> and the <i>Ethics</i> and compare them with the one Spinoza presents in the <i>Short Treatise</i>. I explain that <i>hilaritas</i> is an affect that expresses bodily equilibrium and makes it possible for the mind to be able think in a great many ways. Furthermore, I consider the principles of imagination that along with imitation and the striving to persevere provide a causal explanation for the necessary occurrence of the passions. </p><p>In the last part I argue that in Descartes the external conditions do not have a significant role in the mastery of the passions. For Spinoza, however, they are necessary. Commentators like Jonathan Bennett fail to see this. <i>Hilaritas</i> requires a diversity of sensual pleasures to occur. As Medea’s case shows, reason is not detached from Nature. Spinoza attempts to form a stronger human nature and to enable as many people as possible to think adequately. His recognition of the need for appropriate external conditions and a society in which ideas can be expressed freely allows him to present an ethics with a practical application, instead of another utopia or fiction.</p>

The study aims to explain the role of external causes in René Descartes’s (1594–1650) and Benedictus de Spinoza’s (1632–1677) accounts of the mastery of the passions. It consists in three parts: the mind-body union, the passions and their classification, and the mastery of the passions. In the first part I argue that Descartes’s conception of the mind-body union consists in two elements: mind-body interaction and the experience of being one with the body. Spinoza rejects the first element because there cannot be psychophysical laws. He accepts the second element, but goes beyond Descartes, arguing that the mind and body are identical. In the second part I discuss the classifications of the passions in the Passions of the Soul and the Ethics and compare them with the one Spinoza presents in the Short Treatise. I explain that hilaritas is an affect that expresses bodily equilibrium and makes it possible for the mind to be able think in a great many ways. Furthermore, I consider the principles of imagination that along with imitation and the striving to persevere provide a causal explanation for the necessary occurrence of the passions. In the last part I argue that in Descartes the external conditions do not have a significant role in the mastery of the passions. For Spinoza, however, they are necessary. Commentators like Jonathan Bennett fail to see this. Hilaritas requires a diversity of sensual pleasures to occur. As Medea’s case shows, reason is not detached from Nature. Spinoza attempts to form a stronger human nature and to enable as many people as possible to think adequately. His recognition of the need for appropriate external conditions and a society in which ideas can be expressed freely allows him to present an ethics with a practical application, instead of another utopia or fiction.

Il est courant de faire remonter l’origine du «problème corps-esprit» à Descartes et à sa distinction radicale des substances pensante et étendue. La question est bien connue : comment l’esprit, n’étant pas corporel, pourrait-il agir sur le corps et le mouvoir, et comment le corps pourrait-il agir en retour sur l’esprit, en causant ses sentiments et ses passions ? Si Descartes ne voyait là aucune difficulté qui aurait mérité d’abandonner la distinction des substances, ou au contraire la thèse d’une interaction causale réelle entre l’esprit et le corps, tel n’aura pas été le cas de ses lecteurs et interprètes. Ces derniers n’ont eu de cesse de faire valoir l’incohérence de son «dualisme interactionniste», souvent invoquée pour rendre compte de l’abandon, à l’âge classique, des relations causales entre l’esprit et le corps, et à l’époque contemporaine, du dualisme des substances au profit d’une ontologie physicaliste. Dans ce travail, nous revenons sur les difficultés engendrées par le cartésianisme concernant les rapports de l’esprit et du corps, en combinant trois perspectives qui associent réceptions classiques et contemporaines : celle des premiers objecteurs de Descartes ; celle de ses successeurs cartésiens, en s’intéressant à leur traitement de la difficulté liée à l’interaction âme-corps ; et celle des philosophes de l’esprit contemporains, dans le cadre de leur réflexion autour du Mind-body problem. Les problèmes philosophiques ainsi mis au jour sont utilisés pour relire les thèses de Descartes et proposer une nouvelle évaluation des doctrines sur la base des phénomènes psychophysiques qu’elles permettent ou non d’expliquer. / It is common to trace back the origin of the “mind-body problem” to Descartes and to his radical distinction between extended and thinking substance. The question is well known: how can the immaterial mind act on the body and move it, and how can the body, in turn, act on the mind by causing its feelings and passions? While Descartes did not regard this as the source of any difficulties that might have necessitated the rejection of the distinction between substances or, inversely, of the theory of real causal interaction between mind and body, his readers and interpreters did. They constantly insisted on the inconsistency of his “interactionist dualism,” which is often invoked as a reason for discarding the theory of causal relation between mind and body in the classical period, and for replacing substance dualism with a physicalist ontology in the contemporary period.In this work, we return to the difficulties generated by Cartesian philosophy about the relationship between mind and body from three interrelated perspectives, which combine classical and contemporary receptions of Descartes: that of the first objectors to Descartes; that of his successors, with special consideration of their treatment of the difficulties involved in explaining mind-body interaction; and that of contemporary philosophers of mind, whose reflections on the mind-body problem are examined. Our approach to the philosophical issues thus brought to light allows us to revisit Descartes’s theses, and to propose a new evaluation of the doctrines on the basis of the psychophysical phenomena that they are capable of accounting for or not.