The Platonic conception of human nature that Descartes follows does not consider man as a unity in being. [1] According to Platonic views, man is not really one thing but is composed of two things. He has a mind and a body and they are not interconnected to each other. The body and the soul are not united with each other in the unity of existence. I did some research on Thomistic epistemology and found it fascinating, like how Aquinas rejects the notion of mind-body dualism that Wilhelmsen uses to construct his arguments. Although I am the opposite of Whilhelmsen in accepting the Thomistic view of monism, I have understood that Aquinas does not address the problems dealt with in this cutting-edge philosophical subdiscipline with respect to their relevance to solving the “mind-body question”. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay No such problem existed in Aquinas's time, and for him, critical refinement was not about mind and body, but rather about soul and body. . In fact, even this is perhaps misleading, because Aquinas does not mean by "soul" what many contemporary so-called philosophers tend to mean by it, that is, a substance not relevant of the type insisted by Descartes. However, the way Descartes explains mind-body dualism is completely wrong. As the author cites in his book about the example of the ship and the helmsman and how the notion of unity is separate between the mind and the body is fallible. The ship could exist without a helmsman and the helmsman could remain the same without a ship. [2] As Wilhelmsen explains, the mind and body are definitely considered a unity and are not two separate things. Despite the fact that there is some discussion among Christians about anthropological dualism, most Christian scholars tend to recognize a Thomistic dualism. As I read, I embarked on a new journey to discover our dualism of man. As I read, I embarked on a new journey to determine whether Aquinas' approach could be called dualistic. Despite the fact that there is some discussion among Christians about anthropological dualism, most Christian scholars tend to recognize a Thomistic dualism of man, where there is a mixture of material and insignificant substance and that both substances are present in the same way. in humans. Such a view is opposed to a Cartesian perspective of man, which asserts that the year is essentially irrelevant and that the physicality of man comes very close to a reconsideration of what comprises the man. [3] Wilhelmsen was very clear in rejecting mind-body dualism and idolizing the notion of the monistic view that the soul and body are identical and constitute a single unity. By saying this, he rejected not only the dualistic nature of human thought, but also the materialistic nature. Rather, Aquinas considers what is currently called “determination” to be the unmistakable element of the psyche, and one that is, at a fundamental level, difficult to understand. clarify in materialistic terms. Meanwhile, he does not consider determination in a remarkable way as contemporary scholars do. Furthermore, while he is not a realist, he is certainly not a Cartesian dualist either, his view being in some ways central to these choices. It is clear that Thomas Aquinas rejects dualism of the Cartesian or Platonic type. In contrast, Thomas Aquinas clearly seems somewhere in the camp.