The Enduring Self and the Case for Substance Dualism

Soul Searching: The History and Motivations of Substance Dualism

 Charles Taliaferro, Pat Flynn, and Stewart Goetz

Guest host Pat Flynn welcomes Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro to discuss substance dualism as an explanation for the nature of the human soul. The conversation draws from their contributions to the recent volume Minding the Brain. After a brief history of how the concept of the soul has been understood, Goetz and Taliaferro explain the main motivations for substance dualism: the common sense intuition that we are more than just our physical bodies, as well as the view that we have a sense of self-awareness and subjective experience that cannot be reduced to physical processes. The trio also review some of the objections against substance dualism.

Here is a full transcript of the podcast.

The following is, as I understand it, a textual overview of the podcast episode:

The Enduring Self and the Case for Substance Dualism

by "News"

Pat Flynn introduces the work of philosopher Alex Rosenberg as a case study in eliminative materialism. Rosenberg accepts every bizarre consequence of his view, including the claim that there is no enduring self, no meaning, and no reason for his own writings. While intellectually consistent, this position is existentially bankrupt. Goetz appreciates Rosenberg’s honesty, arguing that such thinkers inadvertently help dualists by illustrating the extreme costs of rejecting the mind.

...The assumption of causal closure is a methodological tool in experimental settings, not a universal metaphysical truth. You can believe in local causal closure for scientific purposes while denying that the physical world is causally closed in every respect.

Moreover, science itself presupposes mental causation. Scientists form hypotheses, interpret data, and act with purpose. These activities cannot be reduced to neural firings without undermining science itself...

The philosophers ended the discussion on a note of cautious appreciation for thinkers like Rosenberg and Dennett. While their conclusions are troubling, at least they are consistent. Taliaferro and Goetz argue that the enduring self, mental causation, and moral responsibility are not optional philosophical add-ons — they are foundational. Without them, science, ethics, and even our ordinary experience unravel.