sohimoОмский научный вестник. Серия "Общество. История. Современность"Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity2542-04882541-7983Омский государственный технический университет10.25206/2542-0488-2025-10-4-89-98AYHZSEsohimo-192Research ArticleФИЛОСОФИЯСознание как проблема: современное картезианствоThe problem of consciousness: recent cartesianismhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9064-1175КочневР. Л.KochnevR. L.

КОЧНЕВ Роман Леонидович, кандидат философских наук, доцент кафедры «Философия, медиа и журналистика»

625003, г. Тюмень, ул. Володарского, 6

AuthorID (РИНЦ): 961891

ResearcherID: AAZ-6320-2021

KOCHNEV Roman Leonidovich, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Philosophy, Media and Journalistic Department

Tyumen, Volodarskogo St., 6, 625003

AuthorID (RSCI): 961891

ResearcherID: AAZ-6320-2021

r.l.kochnev@utmn.ruТюменский государственный университетРоссияUniversity of TyumenRussian Federation2025301220251048998Copyright © Кочнев Р.Л., 20252025Кочнев Р.Л.Kochnev R.L.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://ois.omgtu.ru/jour/article/view/192

Статья содержит историко-философский обзор современных рецепций картезианского субстанционального дуализма в качестве подхода к решению проблемы сознания-тела. Исследуются генезис дуалистической метафизики Декарта, ее ключевые аргументы (модальный аргумент представимости), а также характерные для нее систематические затруднения, такие как проблема каузального взаимодействия разных субстанций (так называемый ‘скандал интеракционизма’). Рассматриваются альтернативные интерпретации подхода Декарта и картезианства: интеракционизм, окказионализм и конкурентизм. Особое внимание уделено критике субстанциального дуализма в современных дискуссиях: проблеме других сознаний, эпистемической асимметрии, мереологической аргументации и тезису концептуальной автономии ментального. Демонстрируется, что субстанциональный дуализм, несмотря на внутренние противоречия, остается отправной точкой для большинства современных дуалистических и физикалистских концепций сознания.

The article contains a historical-philosophical review of recent receptions of Cartesian substantial dualism as an approach to solve the mind-body problem. It examines the genesis of Descartes’ dualistic metaphysics, its core arguments (including the modal argument of conceivability), and its characteristic systematic challenges such as the problem of the causal interaction between heterogeneous substances (the so-called ‘scandal of interactionism’). The author considers alternative interpretations of the Descartes’ approach and the Cartesianism: interactionism, occasionalism and concurrentism. Particular attention is paid to the critique of the substance dualism in contemporary debates like the problem of other minds, epistemic asymmetry, mereological arguments, and the thesis of conceptual autonomy of the mental. It is shown that substance dualism, despite its internal contradictions, remains the starting point for most recent dualist and physicalist conceptions of consciousness.

картезианский дуализмДекартпроблема сознания-теласубстанцияинтеракционизмокказионализмпроблема гетерогенностипроблема других сознаний.Cartesian dualismDescartesmind-body problemsubstanceinteractionismoccasionalismheterogeneity problemproblem of other minds.ReferencesRosenthal D. Consciousness and the Mind. Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly. 2002. Vol. 51, no. 2. P. 227–251.Rosenthal D. Consciousness and the Mind. Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly. 2002. Vol. 51, no. 2. P. 227–251.Kirk L. The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind / Eds. S. Stich, T. A. Warfield. Bodmin: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. P. 2–46.Kirk L. The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind / Eds. S. Stich, T. A. Warfield. Bodmin: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. P. 2–46.Brenner A. Personal Ontology: Mystery and its Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. 241 p.Brenner A. Personal Ontology: Mystery and its Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. 241 p.Декарт Р. Размышления о первой философии, в которых доказывается существование Бога и различие между человеческой душой и телом // Сочинения. В 2 т. Москва: Мысль, 1994. Т. 2. С. 4–72.Descartes R. Razmyshleniya o pervoy filosofii, v kotorykh dokazyvayetsya sushchestvovaniye Boga i razlichiye mezhdu chelovecheskoy dushoy i telom [Meditations on First Philosophy, in which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul are Demonstrated] // Sochineniya. V 2 t. [Works in 2 vols.]. Moscow, 1994. Vol. 1. P. 4–72. (In Russ.).Декарт Р. Возражения некоторых ученых мужей против изложенных выше «Размышлений» с ответами автора // Сочинения в 2 т. Москва: Мысль, 1994. Т. 2. С. 73–417.Descartes R. Vozrazheniya nekotorykh uchеnykh muzhey protiv izlozhennykh vyshe «Razmyshleniy» s otvetami avtora [Objections and Replies to the Meditations] // Sochineniya. V 2 t. [Works in 2 vols.]. Moscow, 1994. Vol. 2. P. 73–417. (In Russ.).Clarke D. Descartes’s Theory of Mind. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 267 p.Clarke D. Descartes’s Theory of Mind. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 267 p.Hoffman J., Rosenkrantz G. S. Substance: Its nature and Existence. London: Routlage, 1997. 218 p.Hoffman J., Rosenkrantz G. S. Substance: Its nature and Existence. London: Routlage, 1997. 218 p.Schechtman A. Substance and Independence in Descartes. The Philosophical Review. 2016. Vol. 125, no. 2. P. 155–204. DOI: 10.1215/00318108-3453167.Schechtman A. Substance and Independence in Descartes. The Philosophical Review. 2016. Vol. 125, no. 2. P. 155–204. DOI: 10.1215/00318108-3453167.Swinburne R. Mind, Brain and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 251 p.Swinburne R. Mind, Brain and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 251 p.Unger P. All the power in the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 670 p.Unger P. All the power in the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 670 p.Baker L. R. Need a Christian Be a Mind/Body Dualist? Faith and Philosophy. 1995. Vol. 12, no. 4. P. 489–504. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199512446.Baker L. R. Need a Christian Be a Mind/Body Dualist? Faith and Philosophy. 1995. Vol. 12, no. 4. P. 489–504. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199512446.Lowe E. Why my Body is not Me: The Unity Argument for Emergentist Self-body Dualism. In Emergence in Science and Philosophy / Eds. A. Corradini, T. O’Connor. London: Routledge, 2010. P. 127–148.Lowe E. Why my Body is not Me: The Unity Argument for Emergentist Self-body Dualism. In Emergence in Science and Philosophy / Eds. A. Corradini, T. O’Connor. London: Routledge, 2010. P. 127–148.Swinburne R. The Evolution of the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 360 p.Swinburne R. The Evolution of the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 360 p.Taliaferro C. Substance Dualism: A Defense. The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism / Eds. J. J. Loose, A. J. Louis Menuge, J. P. Moreland. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 2018. P. 41–60.Taliaferro C. Substance Dualism: A Defense. The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism / Eds. J. J. Loose, A. J. Louis Menuge, J. P. Moreland. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 2018. P. 41–60.Cottingham J. Cartesian Trialism. Mind. 1985. Vol. 94, no. 374. P. 218–230. DOI: 10.1093/mind/xciv.374.218.Cottingham J. Cartesian Trialism. Mind. 1985. Vol. 94, no. 374. P. 218–230. DOI: 10.1093/mind/xciv.374.218.Hoffman P. The Unity of Descartes’s Man. The Philosophical Review. 1986. Vol. 95, no. 3. P. 339–370. DOI: 10.2307/2185464.Hoffman P. The Unity of Descartes’s Man. The Philosophical Review. 1986. Vol. 95, no. 3. P. 339–370. DOI: 10.2307/2185464.Rozemond M. Descartes on Mind-Body Interaction: What’s the Problem? Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1999. Vol. 37, no 3. P. 435–467. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2008.0799.Rozemond M. Descartes on Mind-Body Interaction: What’s the Problem? Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1999. Vol. 37, no 3. P. 435–467. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2008.0799.Richardson R. S. The ‘Scandal’ of Cartesian Interacnonism. Mind. 1982. Vol. 92, no. 361. P. 20–37. DOI: 10.1093/mind/xci.361.20.Richardson R. S. The ‘Scandal’ of Cartesian Interacnonism. Mind. 1982. Vol. 92, no. 361. P. 20–37. DOI: 10.1093/mind/xci.361.20.Williams B. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Hassocks: Routledge, 1978. 320 p.Williams B. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Hassocks: Routledge, 1978. 320 p.Декарт Р. Из переписки 1643–1649 // Сочинения. В 2 т. Москва: Мысль, 1994. Т. 2. С. 489–588.Descartes R. Iz perepiski 1643–1649 [From the Correspondence of 1643–1649] // Sochineniya. V 2 t. [Works in 2 vols.]. Moscow, 1994. Vol. 2. P. 489–588. (In Russ.).Garber D. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. 404 p.Garber D. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. 404 p.Foster J. The Immaterial Self: A Defence of the Cartesian Dualist Conception of the Mind. London: Routledge, 1991. 312 p.Foster J. The Immaterial Self: A Defence of the Cartesian Dualist Conception of the Mind. London: Routledge, 1991. 312 p.De Rosa R. Descartes’ Causal Principle and the Case of Body-to-Mind Causation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2013. Vol. 43, no. 4. P. 438–459. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.2013.847347.De Rosa R. Descartes’ Causal Principle and the Case of Body-to-Mind Causation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2013. Vol. 43, no. 4. P. 438–459. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.2013.847347.Декарт Р. Мир, или Трактат о свете // Сочинения. В 2 т. Москва: Мысль, 1994. Т. 1. С. 179–249.Descartes R. Mir, ili traktat o svete [The World, or Treatise on Light] // Sochineniya. V 2 t. [Works in 2 vols.]. Moscow, 1994. Vol. 1. P. 179–249. (In Russ.).Walker R. C. S. On What We Must Think. Contemporary Dualism: A Defense / Eds. A. Lavazza, H. Robinson. New York: Routledge, 2014. P. 171–190.Walker R. C. S. On What We Must Think. Contemporary Dualism: A Defense / Eds. A. Lavazza, H. Robinson. New York: Routledge, 2014. P. 171–190.Watson R. The Downfall of Cartesianism, 1673–1712: A Study of Epistemological Issues in Late 17th Century Cartesianism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966. 159 p.Watson R. The Downfall of Cartesianism, 1673–1712: A Study of Epistemological Issues in Late 17th Century Cartesianism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966. 159 p.O’Neill E. Mind-Body Interaction and Metaphysical Consistency: A Defense of Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1987. Vol. 25, no. 2. P. 227–245. DOI: 10.1353/hph.1987.0026.O’Neill E. Mind-Body Interaction and Metaphysical Consistency: A Defense of Descartes. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1987. Vol. 25, no. 2. P. 227–245. DOI: 10.1353/hph.1987.0026.Radner D. Is There a Problem of Cartesian Interaction? Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1985. Vol. 23, no. 1. P. 35–49. DOI: 10.1353/hph.1985.0012.Radner D. Is There a Problem of Cartesian Interaction? Journal of the History of Philosophy. 1985. Vol. 23, no. 1. P. 35–49. DOI: 10.1353/hph.1985.0012.Chávez Arvizo E. Descartes’s Interactionism and His Principle of Causality. The European Legacy. 1997. Vol. 2, no. 6. P. 959–976. DOI: 10.1080/10848779708579829.Chávez Arvizo E. Descartes’s Interactionism and His Principle of Causality. The European Legacy. 1997. Vol. 2, no. 6. P. 959–976. DOI: 10.1080/10848779708579829.Vinci T. Mind-Body Causation, Mind-Body Union and the ‘Special Mode of Thinking’ in Descartes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 2008. Vol. 16, no. 3. P. 461–488. DOI: 10.1080/09608780802200414.Vinci T. Mind-Body Causation, Mind-Body Union and the ‘Special Mode of Thinking’ in Descartes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 2008. Vol. 16, no. 3. P. 461–488. DOI: 10.1080/09608780802200414.Yandell D. What Descartes Really Told Elisabeth: Mind-Body Union as a Primitive Notion. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 1997. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 249–273. DOI: 10.1080/09608789708570966.Yandell D. What Descartes Really Told Elisabeth: Mind-Body Union as a Primitive Notion. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 1997. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 249–273. DOI: 10.1080/09608789708570966.Alanen L. Reconsidering Descartes’s Notion of the MindBody Union. Synthese. 1996. Vol. 106, no. 1. P. 3–20. DOI: 10.1007/BF00413611.Alanen L. Reconsidering Descartes’s Notion of the MindBody Union. Synthese. 1996. Vol. 106, no. 1. P. 3–20. DOI: 10.1007/BF00413611.Павлов А. С. Субстанциальный дуализм Ричарда Суинбёрна: современное состояние и критика // Философский журнал. 2020. Т. 13, no. 3. С. 175–188. DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2020-13-3-175-188. EDN: TRORJB.Pavlov A. S. Substantsial’nyy dualizm Richarda Suinbërna: sovremennoye sostoyaniye i kritika [The Substance Dualism of Richard Swinburne: Current State and Criticism]. Philosophical Journal. 2020. Vol. 13, no. 3. P. 175–188. DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2020-13-3-175-188. EDN: TRORJB. (In Russ.).Мальбранш Н. Разыскания истины. Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 1997. 650 с.Malebranche N. Razyskaniya istiny [The Search after Truth]. Saint Petersburg, 1997. 650 p. (In Russ.).Козырева О. А. Субстанциальный дуализм и приватность ментального в философии Р. Декарта: критика поверхностной интерпретации // Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2020. №. 452. С. 79–87. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/452/9. EDN: OYJGPT.Kozyreva O. A. Substantsial’nyy dualizm i privatnost’ mental’nogo v filosofii R. Dekarta: kritika poverkhnostnoy interpretatsii [Substance Dualism and the Privacy of Mind in Rene Descartes’s Philosophy: A Critique of the Superficial Interpretation]. Tomsk State University Journal. 2020. No. 452. P. 79–87. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/452/9. EDN: OYJGPT. (In Russ.)Garber D. Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy Through Cartesian Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 337 p.Garber D. Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy Through Cartesian Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 337 p.Broughton J. Adequate Causes and Natural Change in Descartes’ Philosophy. Human Nature and Natural Knowledge / Eds. R. S. Cohen, M. W. Wartofsky. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986. P. 107–127.Broughton J. Adequate Causes and Natural Change in Descartes’ Philosophy. Human Nature and Natural Knowledge / Eds. R. S. Cohen, M. W. Wartofsky. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986. P. 107–127.Platt A. One True Cause: Causal Powers, Divine Concurrence, and the Seventeenth-Century Revival of Occasionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 420 p.Platt A. One True Cause: Causal Powers, Divine Concurrence, and the Seventeenth-Century Revival of Occasionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 420 p.Nadler S. Descartes and Occasional Causation. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 1994. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 35–54. DOI: 10.1080/09608789408570891.Nadler S. Descartes and Occasional Causation. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 1994. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 35–54. DOI: 10.1080/09608789408570891.Scott D. Occasionalism and Occasional Causation in Descartes’ Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2000. Vol. 38, no. 4. P. 503–528. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2005.0041.Scott D. Occasionalism and Occasional Causation in Descartes’ Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2000. Vol. 38, no. 4. P. 503–528. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2005.0041.Gorham J. Cartesian Causation: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2004. Vol. 42, no. 4. P. 389–423. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2004.0066.Gorham J. Cartesian Causation: Continuous, Instantaneous, Overdetermined. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2004. Vol. 42, no. 4. P. 389–423. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2004.0066.Pessin A. Descartes’s Nomic Concurrentism: Finite Causation and Divine Concurrence. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2003. Vol. 41, no. 1. P. 25–49. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2002.0104.Pessin A. Descartes’s Nomic Concurrentism: Finite Causation and Divine Concurrence. Journal of the History of Philosophy. 2003. Vol. 41, no. 1. P. 25–49. DOI: 10.1353/hph.2002.0104.Schmaltz T. Descartes on Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 237 p.Schmaltz T. Descartes on Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 237 p.Leftow B. Time and Eternity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. 392 p.Leftow B. Time and Eternity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. 392 p.Wagner S. Descartes’s Arguments for Mind-Body Distinctness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1983. Vol. 43, no. 4. P. 499–517. DOI: 10.2307/2107644.Wagner S. Descartes’s Arguments for Mind-Body Distinctness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1983. Vol. 43, no. 4. P. 499–517. DOI: 10.2307/2107644.Sprigge T. The Importance of Subjectivity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2011. 355 p.Sprigge T. The Importance of Subjectivity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2011. 355 p.Plantinga A. God and Other Minds. London: Cornell University Press, 2000. 288 p.Plantinga A. God and Other Minds. London: Cornell University Press, 2000. 288 p.Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. London: Routledge, 2009. 377 p.Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. London: Routledge, 2009. 377 p.Techio J. Seeing Souls: Wittgenstein and Cavell on the «Problem of Other Minds». Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies. 2013. No. 1. P.63–84. DOI: 10.18192/cjcs.v0i1.953.Techio J. Seeing Souls: Wittgenstein and Cavell on the «Problem of Other Minds». Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies. 2013. No. 1. P.63–84. DOI: 10.18192/cjcs.v0i1.953.Manning G. Descartes, Other Minds and Impossible Human Bodies. Philosophers’ Imprint. 2012. Vol. 12, no. 16. P. 1–24.Manning G. Descartes, Other Minds and Impossible Human Bodies. Philosophers’ Imprint. 2012. Vol. 12, no. 16. P. 1–24.Lagerspetz O. Was Descartes Responsible for the Problem of Other Minds? Philosophical Investigations. 2025. Vol. 48, no. 3. P. 249–268. DOI: 10.1111/phin.12458.Lagerspetz O. Was Descartes Responsible for the Problem of Other Minds? Philosophical Investigations. 2025. Vol. 48, no. 3. P. 249–268. DOI: 10.1111/phin.12458.Mill J. S. An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2004. 694 p.Mill J. S. An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2004. 694 p.Campbell K. Body and Mind. 2nd. ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984. 168 p.Campbell K. Body and Mind. 2nd. ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984. 168 p.Rosenberg G. A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 325 p.Rosenberg G. A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 325 p.Campbell K. Comments on: Mark Woodhouse, ‘A New Epiphenomenalism’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 1974. Vol. 52, no. 2. P. 170–173. DOI: 10.1080/00048407412341171.Campbell K. Comments on: Mark Woodhouse, ‘A New Epiphenomenalism’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 1974. Vol. 52, no. 2. P. 170–173. DOI: 10.1080/00048407412341171.Kim J. Lonely Souls: Causality and Substance Dualism. Philosophy of Mind: Contemporary Readings / Eds. T. O’Connor, D. Robb, London: Routledge, 2003. P. 65–78.Kim J. Lonely Souls: Causality and Substance Dualism. Philosophy of Mind: Contemporary Readings / Eds. T. O’Connor, D. Robb, London: Routledge, 2003. P. 65–78.Cucu A. C., Pitts J. B. How Dualists Should (Not) Respond to the Objection from Energy Conservation. Mind and Matter. 2019. Vol. 17, no. 1. P. 95–121. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.13643.Cucu A. C., Pitts J. B. How Dualists Should (Not) Respond to the Objection from Energy Conservation. Mind and Matter. 2019. Vol. 17, no. 1. P. 95–121. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.13643.Brenner A. Personal Ontology: Mystery and its Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. 241 p.Brenner A. Personal Ontology: Mystery and its Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. 241 p.Bailey A. M., Rasmussen J., Horn L. No Pairing Problem. Philosophical Studies. 2011. Vol. 154, no. 3. P. 349–360. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-010-9555-7.Bailey A. M., Rasmussen J., Horn L. No Pairing Problem. Philosophical Studies. 2011. Vol. 154, no. 3. P. 349–360. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-010-9555-7.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.