Philosophy of Mind
What If 'Beliefs' and 'Desires' Are As Fictional As Phlogiston?
Eliminative materialism doesn't just challenge how you think about the mind — it challenges whether 'thinking about' anything is even a real thing you do.
The Idea
Most philosophy of mind tries to explain how mental states — beliefs, desires, memories, feelings — fit into a physical world. Eliminative materialism, developed most forcefully by philosophers Paul and Patricia Churchland, takes a more radical position: they don't fit, because they don't exist. Not in any scientifically respectable sense. The folk psychology we use every day — 'she believed he was lying,' 'he acted out of jealousy,' 'I wanted to leave but felt guilty' — is, on this view, a pre-scientific theory of human behaviour. Like phlogiston (the 18th-century 'element' once thought to cause combustion) or the idea that disease is caused by bad air, it's a useful approximation that will eventually be replaced by something better: a mature neuroscience that describes brain states, firing patterns, and physical processes directly. This isn't the same as saying the mind is 'just' the brain in a reductive way — eliminativists aren't trying to translate beliefs into neurons. They're saying the whole vocabulary of beliefs, desires, and intentions will be abandoned, the way we abandoned 'vital spirits' to explain why living things move. The categories themselves are wrong. What makes this genuinely unsettling is the self-referential problem it creates: if beliefs don't exist, what is Paul Churchland doing when he believes eliminative materialism is true? The theory seems to saw off the branch it's sitting on — and that tension is exactly why it remains one of the most electrifying and contested positions in contemporary philosophy.
In the World
In 1986, Patricia Churchland published Neurophilosophy, a book that argued, with meticulous care, that neuroscience and philosophy of mind needed to stop talking past each other — and that when they finally converged, the folk-psychological framework we all rely on would not survive the meeting. It was not a popular position at faculty dinners. Critics pointed out that she was using beliefs and arguments to argue that beliefs don't exist — a performative contradiction, they said. She replied that this objection assumes the folk-psychological categories are the only game in town; of course we use the old vocabulary while the new one is still being built, in the same way that an 18th-century chemist might still say 'fire' while working toward the concept of rapid oxidation. The Churchlands' household became a kind of living experiment. They reportedly tried to replace folk-psychological language with neuroscientific alternatives at home — saying things like 'my serotonin levels feel low today' rather than 'I'm sad.' This sounds absurd, and perhaps it was. But it was also a genuine philosophical practice: testing whether the language shapes the experience, or merely describes it. Decades later, advances in brain scanning and computational neuroscience have given the position new energy. Researchers can now predict certain decisions from neural activity before the subject is consciously aware of choosing — which doesn't prove eliminativism, but does quietly loosen the grip of the common-sense picture that a belief causes an action in any simple, clean way.
Why It Matters
You don't need to be a convinced eliminativist for this idea to do something useful to you. Sitting with it — even uncomfortably — loosens the assumption that the mental furniture you navigate daily is simply given, obvious, and permanent. When you say 'I believe I'm not creative' or 'I desire stability more than adventure,' you're using a framework that is ancient, intuitive, and possibly quite imprecise. Those categories shape what you notice, what you blame yourself for, and what you think can change. If they're not the final word on what's happening inside you, that's actually liberating: the story you tell about your inner life is not the territory. This doesn't mean you should stop using the language of beliefs and desires — you'd grind to a conversational halt. But holding it a little more lightly, knowing it's one map rather than the landscape itself, is exactly what both good philosophy and good mindfulness practice ask of us. The examined life, it turns out, includes examining the very tools you're using to examine it.
A Question to Ponder
If the way you describe your inner life is just a theory — inherited, improvised, possibly wrong — which part of that description have you been treating as the most certain, and what might you notice if you held it more loosely today?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable