Non-reductive Physicalism, Irreducibility of the Mental and the Problem of Mental Causation : A study of Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's positions in the philosophy of mind

In this study I consider what kind of perspective on the mind body problem is taken and can be taken by a philosophical position called non-reductive physicalism. Many positions fall under this label. The form of non-reductive physicalism which I discuss is in essential respects the position taken by Donald Davidson (1917-2003) and Georg Henrik von Wright (1916-2003). I defend their positions and discuss the unrecognized similarities between their views. Non-reductive physicalism combines two theses: (a) Everything that exists is physical; (b) Mental phenomena cannot be reduced to the states of the brain. This means that according to non-reductive physicalism the mental aspect of humans (be it a soul, mind, or spirit) is an irreducible part of the human condition. Also Davidson and von Wright claim that, in some important sense, the mental aspect of a human being does not reduce to the physical aspect, that there is a gap between these aspects that cannot be closed. I claim that their arguments for this conclusion are convincing. I also argue that whereas von Wright and Davidson give interesting arguments for the irreducibility of the mental, their physicalism is unwarranted. These philosophers do not give good reasons for believing that reality is thoroughly physical. Notwithstanding the materialistic consensus in the contemporary philosophy of mind the ontology of mind is still an uncharted territory where real breakthroughs are not to be expected until a radically new ontological position is developed. The third main claim of this work is that the problem of mental causation cannot be solved from the Davidsonian - von Wrightian perspective. The problem of mental causation is the problem of how mental phenomena like beliefs can cause physical movements of the body. As I see it, the essential point of non-reductive physicalism - the irreducibility of the mental - and the problem of mental causation are closely related. If mental phenomena do not reduce to causally effective states of the brain, then what justifies the belief that mental phenomena have causal powers? If mental causes do not reduce to physical causes, then how to tell when - or whether - the mental causes in terms of which human actions are explained are actually effective? I argue that this - how to decide when mental causes really are effective - is the real problem of mental causation. The motivation to explore and defend a non-reductive position stems from the belief that reductive physicalism leads to serious ethical problems. My claim is that Davidson's and von Wright's ultimate reason to defend a non-reductive view comes back to their belief that a reductive understanding of human nature would be a narrow and possibly harmful perspective. The final conclusion of my thesis is that von Wright's and Davidson's positions provide a starting point from which the current scientistic philosophy of mind can be critically further explored in the future.

Idyll eller verklighet? : Albert Edelfelt och Gunnar Berndtson i det moderna genombrottets ambivalens

Idyll or Reality? Albert Edelfelt, Gunnar Berndtson and the ambivalent breakthrough of modernity Albert Edelfelt (1854-1905) and Gunnar Berndtson (1854-1895) have much in common. In this dissertation, I study their paintings of local peasants and fishermen and of the gentry’s summer in the county of Uusimaa in southern Finland, in the context of Nordic history of ideas. The breakthrough of modernity, with its attention on debating social problems, provides a novel angle into the oeuvres of the two artists. My focus is on the paintings which emerge in the collision of the public discussion of social matters and the values of the artists’ manorial milieu. The artists’ relation to the public discussion is scrutinized through two of the main topics: the question of the common people and democracy, and the question of equality between men and women. My dissertation is a contextual study which is based on the analysis of the artworks of Edelfelt and Berndtson, on their letters, and on the study of drama and fiction of their time. The notion “liberté, egalité, fraternité” is linked to the breakthrough of modernity. Both artists were aware of the ideal of equality. They used the means and the themes of contemporary art in their presentations, but their pictures contain the ideal of an earlier epoch: the hardworking, but still complacent common people. This conception of the common people is also reflected in the poems of J. L. Runeberg. Women of the late 19th century challenged woman’s primary role as wife and mother. In Edelfelt’s and Berndtson’s depictions of the gentry enjoying summer, women and children have the main role. Notwithstanding the debate of the breakthrough of modernity they depicted women almost without exception as good mothers. Their paintings often depict lazy days in the sunshine, which were, in reality, rare moments for the mistress of the house. Edelfelt’s and Berndtson’s subjects from the Uusimaa countryside coincide with the topics of the breakthrough of modernity, but both the pictures of the common people and the depictions of the gentry enjoying summer, are a retouched picture of reality, often an idyll, in which the public discussion of social matters is evident only materially or not at all.