Meditations One and Two PDF

Rene Descartes 1596-1650 The Explicit Aim of The Meditations In his “Letter of Dedication” Descartes writes: “I have always thought that two issues—namely God and the soul—are chief among those that ought to be demonstrated with the aid of philosophy rather than theology. For although it suffices fo...

Rene Descartes 1596-1650 The Explicit Aim of The Meditations In his “Letter of Dedication” Descartes writes: “I have always thought that two issues—namely God and the soul—are chief among those that ought to be demonstrated with the aid of philosophy rather than theology. For although it suffices for us believers to believe b faith that the human soul does not die with the body, and that God exists, certainly no unbelievers seem capable of being persuaded of any religion or even of almost any moral virtue, until these two are first proven to them by natural reason.” The Implicit Aim of the Meditations In a letter to his friend Marin Mersenne, Descartes writes: “I may tell you, between ourselves, that these six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But please do not tell people, for that might make it harder for supporters of Aristotle to approve of them. I hope that readers will gradually get used to my principles, and recognize their truth, before they notice that they destroy the principles of Aristotle.” Aristotle versus Descartes Aristotle’s Physics Mechanistic Physics All matter is essentially of the same kind. The There are four basic kinds of elements, or bodies: essence of matter or bodies is extension (i.e. size, Earth, Water, Air, Fire shape, and the arrangement of parts) ff ff Di erent kinds of matter have di erent inherent Matter at or rest or in motion will remain at rest or active forces, called their functions. A rock at rest in motion unless acted on by other external bits of in the solar system will move itself toward the matter in motion. center. What is ‘First Philosophy?’ First philosophy is the attempt to provide the conceptual and methodological foundations of the sciences. Descartes believes these foundations are innate or discoverable through careful reasoning. He denies that they discovered through the senses. That’s what makes him a rationalist. An Outline of The Meditations First Meditation: The narrator calls all his beliefs into doubt by undermining the idea that his senses provide him with knowledge of the world. In so doing, he calls into doubt the very existence of the external world. Second Meditation: The narrator discovers that he cannot doubt that he exists and is a ‘thinking thing,’ if nothing else. He appreciates this through reason, not the senses. Third Meditation: The narrator tries to prove that a) we can know as certain everything that we clearly and distinctly perceive and that b) we can clearly and distinctly perceive an all good, all powerful, all knowing God exists and would not deceive us. Fourth Meditation: Descartes explains how error is possible given that God would never deceive us. Fifth Meditation: Descartese explains what bodies would have to be like if they exist, but adds that God and the mind are the only things that we can clearly and distinctly recognize exist. Sixth Meditation: Descartes draws on his proof of God to argue that even though we do not clearly and distinctly perceive that anything besides ourselves and God exists, we can nonetheless know that bodies exist and have only those properties (i.e. extension and movability by outside forces) we clearly and distinctly perceive constitute their essence. This further involves thinking of the mind as immaterial and distinct from he body. Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt “Several years have now passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be sure, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences.” –Rene Descartes Foundationalism, or Knowledge as a Pyramid Beliefs Derived From the Basic Ones. Basic, Non-Inferential Beliefs The Method of Doubt ffi fi “Yet to bring this about [i.e. to call all his beliefs into doubt] I will not need to show that all my opinions are false, which is perhaps something I could never accomplish. But reason now persuades me that I should withhold my assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable. For this reason, it will su ce for the rejection of all of these opinions, if I nd in each of them some reason for doubt. Nor therefore need I survey each opinion individually, as task that would be endless. Rather, because undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to crumble of its own accord, I will attack straightaway those principles which supported everything I once believed.” What is the basis of all of the narrator’s beliefs at this stage of the text? “Surely whaeve I had admitted until now as most true I received either from the senses or through the senses.” Skeptical Argument 1 “Surely whatever I had admitted until now as most true I received either from the senses or through the senses. However, I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once. Putting the Argument into standard form: 1. My senses sometimes deceive me. 2. It is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once. 3. It is unwise to completely trust my senses; they are not completely certain and indubitable. 4. I should withhold assent from beliefs that are not completely certain and indubitable (paragraph 2). 5. If the foundations of my beliefs are not completely certain and indubitable, then neither are my beliefs (paragraph 2). 6. My senses are the foundations of my beliefs and are not completely certain and indubitable. 7. I should withhold assent from all of my beliefs Why does the narrator reject this argument? Skeptical Argument 2 fi fi “This would all be well and good, were I not a man who is accustomed to sleeping at night, and to experiencing in my dreams the very same things, or now and then even less plausible ones….How often does my evening slumber persuade me of such ordinary things as these: that I am here, clothed in my dressing gown, seated next to the replace— when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!….As I consider these matters more carefully, I see so plainly that there are no de nitive signs by which to distinguish being away from being asleep.” Questions Is Descartes right to say that there are no reliable grounds or signs by which we can reliably determine that we are awake when we are awake and thereby re-establish trust in our senses? What kinds of beliefs does the narrator think survives even the dream argument? Skeptical Argument 3 fi fi “Whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three makes ve….Be that as it may, there is xed in my mind a certain opinion of long standing, namely that there exists a God who is able to do anything and by whom I, such as I am, have been created. How do I know that he did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing it about that all these things appear to me to exist precisely as they do now? Moreover, since I judge that others sometimes make mistakes in matters that they believe they know most perfectly, may I not, in like fashion, be deceived every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or perform an even simpler operation, if that can be imagined?” Meditation Two: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That it is Better Known Than the Body Can anything not be doubted? An evil demon can trick you into thinking that bodies, colors, textures, motions, etc. and exist and that two plus two equals four. But can an evil demon trick you into thinking you exist when you do not exist? Cogito Ergo Sum “‘I am, I exist’ is necessarily true every time that I utter or conceive it in my mind” What does the Cogito Prove? It doesn’t prove that you have a body, or parents, or a community, or a brain, or lungs, etc. Nor does it prove that you don’t have these things. These remain dubitable. All it purports to prove is that you are a thinking thing, “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses Question So long as we think, is our own existence indubitable? In order to doubt the external world (e.g. the existence of bodies in space), how must we conceive of the self doing the doubting? The Cogito and Rationalism Rationalism: An epistemological theory that says that certain beliefs can be recognized as true or certain through the faculty of reason alone, independently of any sense experiences. Descartes says that knowledge of the self as a thinking thing is not based on the senses or your imagination, but is instead something that you can grasp using your intellect or reason alone. The Cogito is thus supposed to be proof of rationalism, if only to a very limited extent. Does the Cogito prove, at least to a limited extent, that rationalism is true, that we can know things through reason alone? Question What is the point of the wax example? Summary By imagining that there may be an evil demon constantly deceiving him, the narrator has called into doubt the existence of the external world and his knowledge of mathematics. He has found though that he cannot doubt that he himself exists, at least not so long as he is thinking. That though is not a very robust foundation for the rest of our knowledge. How will the narrator strengthen the foundation so that it holds all scientific knowledge?