# Francis Landey Patton on the folly of denying the mind’s existence



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 23, 2021)

And further, we might say to him who seeks to convince us that mind does not exist: It is folly for you to undertake any such task; for if your theory is true, I am not properly the subject of argument. You might as well expect a dead man to find comfort in his funeral sermon. Convincing me, were you to succeed, would only mean setting in motion certain nerve-currents in a material organism. And besides, you, in the act of arguing, are only a material organism, with a set of material forces at work which you call your philosophical opinions. One Leyden jar might as well be supposed to discuss chemistry with another Leyden jar as for you and me to talk metaphysics.

And yet again: If I am convinced that you are right, I am convinced that consciousness has played me false. But if in regard to this fundamental conviction I am deceived, how can I be sure of my eyes and my ears when they tell me that you are present and that you speak? To be convinced that consciousness is a false witness seems to be impossible, when I remember that my belief in the existence of my philosophical acquaintance is founded on a belief in the veracity of consciousness. I must trust my consciousness in order that I may be convinced that it is mendacious, which involves an absurdity akin to that of a man trying to take himself up in his arms.

For the reference, see Francis Landey Patton on the folly of denying the mind’s existence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 23, 2021)

The Leyden jar reference is funny.

On a more serious note, it is becoming fashionable to deny the traditional teaching of the soul in favor of some "Hebraic unity" or "goodness of the body."


----------

