Hylomorphic dualism

Dualist options

1. Substance dualism
2. Property dualism
3. Hylomorphic dualism

Against substance dualism, the nasty version

1. (Premise) If substance dualism holds, my soul is an entity that thinks my thoughts.
2. (Premise) I think my thoughts.
3. (Premise) I am an entity.
4. (Premise) There is only one being that thinks my thoughts.
5. Therefore, if substance dualism holds, I am my soul. (1-4)
6. (Premise) The body is not a part of the soul and the body is not the soul.
7. Therefore, if substance dualism holds, my body is not a part of me or me. (5 and 6)
8. (Premise) Crimes that only directly affect something that is neither me nor a part of me are not directly crimes against the person.
9. (Premise) Rape and battery only directly affect the body.
10. Therefore, if substance dualism holds, rape and battery do not directly affect me or a part of me. (7 and 9)
11. Therefore, if substance dualism holds, rape and battery are not directly crimes against the person.
12. (Premise) Rape and battery are directly crimes against the person.
13. Therefore, substance dualism does not hold. (11 and 12)

Against substance dualism, the nice version

1. (Premise) Holding hands and kissing is a form of the physical contact that romantic lovers, who are persons, seek.
2. (Premise) Holding hands and kissing occurs between romantic lovers, who are persons.
3. (Premise, see 5 from previous argument) If substance dualism holds, persons are souls.
4. (Premise) Physical contact between souls is impossible.
5. If substance dualism holds, physical contact between persons is impossible. (3 and 4)
6. Therefore, substance dualism does not hold. (1, 2 and 5)

The same arguments can be levied against materialism with the following substitutions: “substance dualism” à “materialism”; “soul” à “brain”; “body” à “body outside the brain”; “battery” à “battery not of the brain”; “contact” à “contact not of the brain”. The arguments probably also apply to property dualism, if the non-physical properties are properties of the brain.

Against property dualism

1. (Premise) Physical objects only have physical properties.
2. (Premise) If property dualism holds, some physical objects have non-physical properties.
3. Therefore, property dualism does not hold.

1. (Premise) We could survive the total destruction of the body.
2. (Premise) If property dualism holds, we could not survive the total destruction of the body.
3. Therefore, property dualism does not hold.

In favor of hylomorphic dualism

• It’s the best theory that reconciles the insight that we are animals with the insights of dualism.

Against hylomorphic dualism

• It seems much harder to get clear on what hylomorphic dualism says than with the other theories.

Forms

1. (Premise) We know about perfect circularity, equality, etc.
2. (Premise) If we know about something, then it exists.
3. Therefore, there is perfect circularity, equality, etc. (1 and 2)
4. (Premise) There is no perfect circularity, equality, etc. in, or even partly in, the physical world.
5. Therefore, there is perfect circularity, equality, etc. outside of the physical world. (3 and 4)
6. (Premise) What is dependent on the mind is subjective.
7. (Premise) Perfect circularity, equality, etc. are not subjective.
8. Therefore, perfect circularity, equality, etc., exist mind-independently outside of the physical world. (5-7)