Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
René Descartes
(1596-1650 AD)
Descartes’ Problem
The problem of skepticism (D concentrates
on 2 types of skepticism)
Superstructural
Beliefs
(also false?)
A major dispute running through the entire history of philosophy has to do with the
source(s) of human knowledge. There are two major schools: rationalism and
empiricism. The empiricists hold that knowledge is derived from sense perception
and experience. The rationalists (such as Descartes) hold that knowledge is derived
from clear logical thinking, from the intellect (i.e., from "reason").
In the "wax" section, which is a kind of detour from his main argument, Descartes
is showing his support of rationalism. He argues that we know - through the
intellect - that the wax is and remains what it is as it passes through time and
change. Sense perception does not show the "substance" of the wax but only its
various appearances. If we relied on sense experience rather than on "reason," then
we would "know" that the wax is all of the following: cold and hard, warm and
soft, hot and liquid. However, "reason" (not the senses) tells us that the substance
(reality) of the wax is something more fundamental than its sensual appearances.
Back to the mind-body problem….
So…
in Descartes’ view,
Thus,
Descartes’ mind-body dualism
leads to . . . .
Meditation III,
which deals with
It's because he's looking for a guarantee that the "external world"
(the world outside of his mind) is really real and not just an illusion.
How does a proof of the existence of God help him with that problem?
The point is that God (who is no deceiver) guarantees that the world I
perceive through my senses is really there. God authenticates my
sensory experiences, thus making sensation generally reliable, not in
and of itself, but because God (being perfectly good) will not allow me
to be systematically deluded and deceived.
By the way, if Descartes trusted his senses, this "external world" issue
would not be a problem for him. But Descartes, a "Rationalist"
rather than an "Empiricist," does not trust sense experience. He
needs something more than sense experience to convince him that the
"external world" is real. He needs God.
Descartes’ standard of
certainty
What does it take for a belief to be
certainly (indubitably) true?
The belief must be “clear and
distinct.” (But what does this mean?)
Descartes’ general rule: “Everything
that I can clearly and distinctly grasp
is true.”
Are the following beliefs
“clear & distinct”
(indubitable)?
That there are things outside myself (such
as physical objects).
That these external things cause my ideas of
those things in my mind.
That my ideas of external things perfectly
“resemble” the things themselves.
That 3 + 2 = 5 ?
Reasons for believing (1) that there
are things outside myself, (2) that
these external things cause my ideas
of those things in my mind, and (3)
that my ideas of external things
“resemble” (accurately represent) the
things themselves*:
of physical objects.
However,
I do not have what it takes
Furthermore . . . ,
this necessarily existing First Cause,
Slides on Meditation IV under construction – but see next slide for a brief summary….
The Basic Thrust of Meditation IV:
If God is no deceiver, how is human error with respect to truth and falsity possible,
and how is that error to be explained?
Human nature is equipped with an intellect (faculty of knowing) and a free will
(faculty of choosing), which interact in the pursuit of truth. The intellect is capable
of forming beliefs that can't be doubted and therefore are certainly true. However,
the intellect can also consider claims that are subject to doubt and that therefore
may be false. The human will is free to affirm or deny propositions proposed to it
by the intellect. Error results when the will (1) denies the truth, or (2) affirms
claims that are false, or (3) asserts knowledge where there is doubt.
Error is avoidable where a person limits her his affirmations and denials to "those
matters that are clearly and distinctly [indubitably] shown to . . . [the will] by the
intellect . . . . " and remains (more or less) neutral with respect to all claims that are
subject to doubt.
Why does God permit human error? If human nature were created both free and
incapable of error, it would be more perfect than it now is; but it may be that the
apparent imperfection of human nature in this respect is necessary to "a greater
perfection of the universe as a whole."
God & the removal of doubt as to