The Mind-Body Problem, the IQ Test, and the Social Darwinism

History and Theories of Psychology
Student's Name
Department, Institutional Affiliation
Course Code, Course Title
Instructor's Name
Due Date
History and Theories of Psychology
Question 1: Mind-Body Problem
The mind and body problem is one of the crucial ancient research in psychology. The mind-body problem theory identifies that every individual has a body and a mind (Reason, 2019). Plato and Aristotle are the distinguished philosophers who significantly contributed to the understanding of this theory. Equally important, the research questions and hypotheses these philosophers identified have remained significant in recent research in psychology. This segment will compare and contrast Plato's and Aristotle's views on the Mind-Body problem. Lastly, this part shall also compare why the issue is still so crucial within the field of psychology currently.
Significant differences exist between Plato's and Aristotle's forms and ideas regarding the mind and body. Foremost, Plato considers true forms eternal and transcendent (Reason, 2019). "For Plato, essences corresponded to the forms that existed independently of nature, and that could be arrived at only by ignoring sensory experience and turning one's thoughts inward" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 50). According to Plato, these true forms can be accessed directly and indirectly through intuition and reason. "SOCRATES: And in this process of acclimatization he would first and most easily be able to look at (1) shadows and after that (2) the images of people and the rest of things as they are reflected in water"(Sheehan, 2021, 3). In Plato's work in the Allegory of the Cave, he used these metaphorical words to stress his argument that people can access the mind through reason and intuition. In contrast, Aristotle connotes that the mind can form ideas from the soul (Pinker, 2006). In this case, Aristotle refers to the soul as a place of ideas. Unlike Plato's point, these ideas are accessed through intuition and are not separate. This scenario demonstrates the differences between Plato's and Aristotle's forms and ideas concerning the mind and body.
Plato refers to the mind as the soul, while Aristotle connotes a significant difference between the two. "Because science depends on empirical observation, Plato's philosophy did little to promote science and much to inhibit it. Plato created a dualism that divided the human into a body, which was material and imperfect, and a mind (soul), which contained pure knowledge. Furthermore, the rational soul was im- mortal. Had philosophy remained unencumbered by theological concerns, perhaps Plato's theory would have been challenged by subsequent philosophers and gradually displaced by more tempered philosophic views. Aristotle went a long way in modifying Plato's position, but the challenge was aborted. The mysticism of early Christianity was combined with Platonic philosophy, creating un- challengeable religious dogma. When Aristotle's writings were rediscovered centuries later, they were carefully modified and assimilated into church dogma. It was not until the Renaissance that Platonism (and Aristotelianism) was finally questioned openly and largely discarded" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 49). Gut et al. (2021) support Aristotle's views, claiming that the mind refers to thinking and emotions while the soul enables an individual to choose between wrong and proper morals. Regnier (2019) supports Plato's views about the mind and soul by suggesting that researchers can interchange the two since the soul refers to the mind, emotions, and desires. Therefore, a significant difference exists between Aristotle's and Plato's views regarding the mind and soul, as is also evident from other researchers.
Aristotle's views on reality regarding mind and body have considerable differences. According to Plato, reality comprises the existing pure thoughts in an individual's soul that occupy the whole universe regarding the concept of God. "Plato and Descartes, for example, believed that many ideas were a natural part of the mind" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 21). In the views of Aristotle, reality is a function concerning the mind and body. In addition, this philosopher also recognizes reality as a form in the material world. Therefore, according to Plato and Aristotle's views, these statements illustrate differences concerning reality about mind and body problems.
Death regarding the body and soul, which also exists as the mind, significantly differs from Aristotle's and Plato's views. "For Plato, all knowledge existed independently of nature; for Aristotle, nature and knowledge were inseparable" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 51). According to Aristotle, the body and the soul are the same; therefore, they do not exist in separate forms (Regnier, 2019). In addition, Aristotle suggests that without the body, the soul can not survive and will die. "Aristotle embraced both rationalism and empiricism. He believed that the mind must be employed before knowledge can be attained" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 51). However, according to Plato's idea, the soul exists beyond and above human matter. From Plato's perspective, the soul lives in eternity after the death of an individual. Therefore, the death of the body and soul significantly differs from Aristotle's and Plato's views.
One of the philosopher's findings hinders understanding the field of psychology, while the other forms a clear basis for developing reasonable hypotheses. According to Plato, an individual's perception may be unbiased because of individual and species differences (Regnier, 2019). In addition, an individual can access abstraction and concepts through intuition. In this instance, the reality of such intuitions is inherent in an individual's species leading to perception inequalities among people. According to Aristotle, an individual's emotions and sensations are attached to their body and soul and not inherent. Plato's views regarding mind and body hinder understanding people's psychology due to his claims of innate intuitions. At the same time, Aristotle's idea forms a significant foundation for understanding people's behavior since his idea is scientific.
Despite the significant differences between Plato's and Aristotle's views regarding the body and mind problems, there are also substantial similarities between the two philosophers' claims. "Both Plato and Aristotle were primarily interested in essences or truths that went beyond the mere appearance of things, but their methods for discovering those essences were distinctly different" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 50). Plato and Aristotle believe knowledge is based on what is unchanging, real, and fixed regarding mind and soul (Regnier, 2019). In addition, an idea is real only when individuals experience it through the soul and mind. "SOCRATES: It would take some getting accustomed, I think, if it should be a matter of taking into one's eyes that which is up there outside the cave, in the light of the sun"(Sheehan, 2021, 3). Plato's metaphorical words mean that individuals adjust their environment after a particular encounter with activities that engages their minds and soul. Lastly, Aristotle and Plato perceive ideas to occur past the material. Therefore, these instances illustrate the similarities between Plato's and Aristotle's views regarding the mind and body.
From the above discussions, the following points are the key comparison between Plato's and Aristotle's views on the Mind-Body problem:
1. Dualism vs. Monism: Plato's dualistic view posited a separation between the mind and body, while Aristotle's monistic perspective emphasized their interconnectedness.2. Immortality of the Soul: Plato believed in the soul's immortality, which existed before the body. Aristotle rejected the idea of an immortal soul and viewed the mind as inseparable from the body.3. The Form of the Good: Plato associated the mind with contemplating the Form of the Good, which allowed access to the ultimate truth. Aristotle did not subscribe to the notion of Forms and focused on the empirical study of the natural world.4. Knowledge Acquisition: Plato emphasized the role of reason and introspection in acquiring knowledge independent of sensory experiences. "GLAUCON: I think that he would prefer to endure everything rather than be that kind of human being" (Sheehan, 2021, 4). From Soctrates' inquiry, Glaucon responded that an individual learns from past encounters independent of sensory attachments. On the other hand, Aristotle highlighted the importance of sensory perception and empirical observation in acquiring knowledge.5. Teleology: Aristotle introduced the concept of teleology, arguing that everything in nature has a purpose or final cause. This idea influenced his understanding of the mind-body relationship, suggesting that the mind had a purposeful function within the body.6. Body as Instrument: Plato regarded the body as a temporary vessel or instrument for the soul, while Aristotle viewed the body as the instrument through which the mind functions.7. Essence and Form: Plato emphasized the eternal essence of the soul, which belonged to the realm of Forms "GLAUCON: It is obvious that he would get to these things -- the sun and whatever stands in its light -- after he had gone out beyond those previous things, the merely reflections and shadows" (Sheehan, 2021, 3). In this instance, Plato insists that human soul and mind can go beyond the limits of nature. Aristotle focused on the form or essence of the body as the basis for understanding the mind.8. Influence on Christianity: Plato's dualistic view of the soul and its immortality significantly influenced Christian theology, particularly in concepts of the afterlife "SOCRATES: And now, I responded, consider this: If this person who had gotten out of the cave were to go back down again and sit in the same place as before, would he not find in that case, coming suddenly out of the sunlight, that his eyes were filled with darkness? GLAUCON: Yes, very much so" (Sheehan, 2021, 5). This instance has a significant influence on the way Christians perceive their ways of life. In this case, darkness is a metaphorical word to mean human sins when they return to their old unrighteous life. Aristotle's monistic perspective aligned more closely with a materialistic worldview.9. Mind-Body Interaction: Plato considered the mind superior to the body and posited a unidirectional influence, where the mind impacted the body. Aristotle emphasized a bidirectional interaction, with the mind influencing the body and vice versa.
10. Contemporary Relevance: Plato's dualistic view and Aristotle's monistic perspective continue to shape philosophical and scientific discussions on consciousness, subjective experience, cognitive processes, and the relationship between mental and physical phenomena.
Plato's views have assisted modern psychologists in understanding the relationship between the supernatural and physical reality in human life. Psychologists appreciate individual spirituality, and Plato's work formed the basis for more discoveries for modern psychologists (Reason, 2019). Besides, Aristotle is the pioneer of modern science since his work formed the foundation for discoveries in various fields, including psychology, biology, and physics. From his findings, psychologists can understand human behavior through biology. Equally important, both Plato's and Aristotle's works have enabled psychologists to understand the significance of personal relationships concerning individual connections. Therefore, life, science, and relationships are crucial in psychology today.
Apart from the above points on the significance of the mind-body problem in today's field of psychology, the following points are also crucial:
1. Consciousness and subjective experiences: The issue of how subjective experiences arise from physical processes in the brain, known as the "hard problem of consciousness," is central to the Mind-Body problem. Understanding the relationship between the mind and the body is crucial for comprehending consciousness and subjective phenomena.2. Mental health and well-being: Psychology aims to understand and promote mental health and well-being. Exploring the Mind-Body problem helps psychologists comprehend the intricate connections between psychological states, cognitive processes, emotions, and their underlying neural and physiological mechanisms. This understanding aids in developing effective therapeutic interventions.3. Psychosomatic interactions: The Mind-Body problem is closely tied to psychosomatic interactions, where psychological factors influence physical health and vice versa. Research in psychoneuroimmunology, for instance, investigates how mental states and emotions can impact the immune system and overall health. Understanding these interactions is vital for comprehensively understanding human behavior and well-being.4. Neural basis of cognition and behavior: Investigating the Mind-Body problem contributes to unraveling the neural basis of cognitive processes and behavior. By studying how mental phenomena, such as perception, memory, language, and decision-making, are grounded in neural mechanisms, psychologists can gain insights into the complex relationship between the mind and the body.
In summary, Plato and Aristotle offered contrasting perspectives on the Mind-Body problem. While Plato viewed the mind and body as separate entities, Aristotle saw them as interconnected. The ongoing importance of this problem within psychology stems from its relevance to consciousness, mental health, psychosomatic interactions, and the neural basis of cognition and behavior. By grappling with this issue, psychologists continue to deepen their understanding of the human mind and its relationship to the body.
This section has compared and contrasted Plato's and Aristotle's views regarding the Mind-Body problem. In addition, this part has also compared why the issue is still so crucial within the field of psychology currently. Notably, Aristotle and Plato are one of the greatest philosophers in psychology. The work of these individuals has resulted in significant transformations in this field. In brief, one of the issues which these scholars addressed is the mind-body problems.
Question 2: The Intelligence Quotient
The intelligence quotient (IQ) measures innate intelligence. The test aggregates cognitive abilities like working memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning, and non-verbal and verbal skills (Ganuthula & Sinha, 2019). All the above aspects form the construct of intelligence and are influenced internally. The inside wisdom entails the spine and a wholly operative nervous system. Therefore, if a nerve cell in the brain is faulty, an individual will likely fail an IQ test (Locke, 2017). "Based on these findings, Galton urged that English schools be reformed to make them more like Scottish schools; here, Galton was acknowledging the importance of the environment. His revised position was that the potential for high intelligence was inherited but must be nurtured by a proper environment" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 304). Moreover, the swiftness to process information and memory depends on neurons in the brain; those with many will be faster than those with fewer. The production of these materials highly depends on inherited genes. As a result, parents and children are highly likely to have similar IQ scores.
Furthermore, the IQ test points to internal causes when some individuals have difficulty in school, exhibit inadequate problem-solving capabilities and fall behind peers despite having a favorable and effective environment (Ganuthula & Sinha, 2019). Additionally, studies reveal that siblings and twins with higher IQs have shown tremendous progress in school and career-wise compared to those with lower and average scores. As a result, the inborn knowledge sets the related children apart because they share a common gene and have a familiar environment (Jensen). "Under Galton's influence, Cattell believed intelligence was related to sensory acuity and was largely inherited" (Hergenhahn, 2009, 307). In summary, factors inside the person affect their cognitive ability scores.
An IQ test is flawed, and it does not measure innate intelligence. First, there is no agreed-on theory of what happens inside a human being (Quílez-Robres et al., 2021). "This argument from universal consent has a defect in it. Even if it were in fact true that all mankind agreed in accepting certain truths, that wouldn't prove them to be innate if universal agreement could be explained in some other way; and I think it can" (Locke, 2017, 3). Therefore, the test does not have a specific construct to validate its findings nor specify what differences on the inside are reflected by the scores. "Children and idiots have ...