- In an empty room, a person can overcome irrationality such as desire, sustain, and the process of being compelled through long enough introspection.
("long enough" meaning immortality if needed)
Are there any philosophies on this idea?
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
You have constructed a theory by your use of the word "can". No philosophy can help you with this, "could" would be answerable by philosophical investigation, "can" requires a scientific one. Secondly, you would need to resolve the conflict in your a priori belief that there is such a thing as human duality and that it is an illusion capable of being overcome. Most philosophies proposing duality do so as a statement of necessity to allow free will, for example, or other intuitive states, it cannot therefore be "overcome".
For arguments in favour of dualism you could look at Thomas Nagel, Frank Jackson or David Chalmers (if you must). For arguments against, I would look to people like Bruce Hood, V. S. Ramachandran or David Eagleman and the work they've done towards identifying the features we associate with 'mind' in the brain.
Edits in the light of the re-phrasing of the question -
In actual fact the answer doen't change much, you cannot derive a "can" answer from philosophical investigation alone, that requires the scientific method. You still have a priori beliefs which need establishing first, this time that desires and compulsion are a) separate types of thought capable of being removed and b) irrational. It is still true to say that most philosophies which have a duality of desire and physical action consider the existence of desire a necessity. Those that do not consider it to be a part of the brain. Either way your question as is stands can only really be answered by neuroscience.
In term of philosophers, however, if you're more interested in desire rather than classical duality, you would be better off reading Hume, G.E Moore or John Stuart Mill. The neuroscientists I mentioned are still relevant to the other side of the argument.