THE SENSUALISTIC PHILOSOPHY BY R.L.

DABNEY
Chapter 8: Spirituality of the Mind
Near the beginning, he answers the question from Christians, Can we
not just hold to what the Bible teaches about the soul? (They ask this
in opposition to using philosophy as a tool.)
o He answers, Yes!
o The history of opinion has taught us too clearly the
uncertainties of human speculation on these abstract subjects
(p. 108).
o What is the proper relationship of philosophy (human
thinking/views) to what has been revealed in Scripture? It is
obviously that of an obedient and grateful handmaid. We are not
to bend Gods testimony to our reasonings, but to bend them to
His testimony (p. 108).
He goes on to define what a soul is (p. 110).
o It is a substance that is simple, monadic, indivisible,
unextended, devoid of sensible attributes
o It cannot be observed or studied empirically. It is not tangible or
visible.
o We must use something other than the senses to determine
whether we have a soul.
o Spirit vs. Matter: The latter has extension, parts, weight,
resistance, figure, and usually color, with other secondary
properties. The former has none of these, but singleness,
indivisibility, identity. The power in matter is force. The powers in
spirit are heterogeneous, powers of thinking, feeling, choosing
(p. 114).
Do we have a soul?
o We find that we have a soul when we inspect ourselves
intuitively.
o The fact that we have consciousness implies that we are beings
that are conscious.
o The objective outside world can only be perceived by something
subjective within.
Matter cannot perceive matter. It can only respond to
matter (think of computers responding to stimuli;
computers and robots cannot perceive). The mind
perceives matter; therefore, it is immaterial.
o He talks about the Ego (synonym to Self/Subject [as opposed to
object]).
All of our various sensations flow into the same Ego/Self.
The knowing Mind remains identical through all these
diversities. But all material objects exist before us in
plurality (p. 111).
 Recall that according to Sensualists, the senses send
signals to the nerve-matter, which in turn causes a
necessary reaction. Dabney however, says that all these
sensual signals flow into a single place, the Ego. According
to the Sensualist, it flows down different pathways, never
flows into a single locality, and produces different effects.
To Dabney, this single locality is something much more
specific than the brain.
P. 123 (I put it here because I felt it was natural to do so):
He answers an objection that states that things that are
obviously plural simply seem unified to the mind, but are
not so. The example of a musical tone, which seems
unified, but is in reality a succession of vibrations.
He answers that this is not a seeming reality, but a
true reality.
The thing that unifies the plurality is the mind. The
mind is the unifier.
o He mentions that mental processes have characteristics that
cannot be described using physical/material descriptions.
We cannot picture our imaginations as being round or
colored, our emotions (affections) as triangular, or our will
(volition) as divisible by physical tools.
All the attributes of matter are absolutely irrelevant to
spirit and to all its modifications [i.e. processes] (p. 112).
o The fact that we can recall and remember previous memories
(even very old ones) without a previous sense trigger implies
that there is something within holding them.
Recall that Sensualists say that there is no mind. It is all a
system of object a sense detects that object the
sense sends an impulse to the brain the brain responds.
Recalling memories without a trigger from the senses
refutes this.
o He also mentions that the fact that we can make comparisons in
our head implies that there is a middle something that allows us
to compare.
o Free-agency is evidence of a soul.
According to Sensualists, we do not have a free will. We
simply react to our sensual stimuli.
The electric impulse is the force that moves us to react in a
certain way. (Force here is used in terms of physics.
Nothing will move unless it has a force that makes it move.
In the same way, according to Sensualists, humans cannot
make choices without a force causing them to do so. Force
= impulse from senses; Motion = choice/reaction).
 Force is blind, unintelligent, and necessitated. Choice is
intelligent and free. Whenever we exercise moral and
rational self-command against the attraction of some vivid
impressions on the senses, we have a clear evidence of the
subjective and spiritual seat of the will (p. 115).
Paraphrase: objects react to forces only one way, they do
not choice to do this or that. If you drop a ball, the
gravitational force will make it fall; the object cannot
choose to go up (it does not have a mind). Our will, on the
other hand, can choice to go this way or that. The fact that
we can sometimes go against our desire that was triggered
by the senses by some appealing object (whatever it may
be) argues that our choices are not governed by forces, but
by the will.
He brings up the example of sleepwalkers (he calls it the
somnambulic state). They act as if they were controlled by
forces (from senses). If our choices were only governed by
our senses, then we would behave just like sleepwalkers.
However, since this is obviously not the case, there is
something more in the equation than sense forces
(namely, a will).
Now, Sensualists may try to argue that the will and the
sense forces are simply one and the same thing. Dabney
argues against this (p. 116).
He argues first that all forces ultimately have their
origin in volition (will).
Volitions never arise from material forces.
Let anyone honestly inspect his own consciousness,
and he will see that the activity of his soul in volition
is from within outward; not from the object inward
(p. 116).
He brings up an example: suppose someone was to
insult you in French. You would not do anything. Now
suppose he insulted in the same way in English. You
would punch him (if you were the punching sort).
What is the difference? The internal, subjective Selfs
interpretation. It was not a matter of objective sound
waves, but of internal, subjective perception (an
immaterial perceiving agent within).
He goes on to show support to his claim that volition
causes forces, not vice versa.
o He says that passivity is the natural state of
matter. It is passive, not active. It is
incompetent to originate force.
 o Whenever you trace motion to its origin, you
always find volition as its cause (cannonball
flying cannon fuse human hand
electric signal from the brain will).
o Where did the ultimate force come from? All
natural forces had the same origin in the will,
namely of the supernatural mind, God (p.
117).
o Moral judgments also testify to the existence of a soul.
Materialism contradicts also the testimony of
consciousness as to our moral judgments (p. 119).
We know that we are responsible (p. 119). This implies
rational spontaneity (i.e. the ability to choose one way or
the other).
The Sensualistic system undermines responsibility. Had
man no spirit, there would be nothing to be accountable.
Were there no Spirit above him, there would be none to
whom to be accountable (p. 119).
o Another useful quote: If our conscious intelligence could be
simply a function of nerve-matter, then it would be very natural
to find every link of the nerve-action represented to us mentally.
But because conscious intelligence is not a material, organic
function, but is the action of spirit, a substance and cause wholly
heterogeneous from matter, therefore it is that there is naturally
a chasm of mystery just at the connecting-link between nerve-
action in the sensorium and the idea in the intelligence, and
between volition in the spiritual agent and contraction in the
efferent nerve (p. 120).
Paraphrase: If the mind was simply a function of the
physical brain and had nothing to do with the spirit (which
Sensualists say does not exist), then we should be able to
find a link between every nerve-action. However, since the
consciousness is immaterial, the link cannot be found.
o He answers an objection: Can we not just say that the brain is
the soul?
No. The brain is used in think, but it is not the Ego that
thinks.
The brain itself is not the intelligent agent, but its
instrument (p. 121).