Modern Philosophy Exam 1

One fixed point in Descartes' method of doubt its...

"I am, I exist" "I think, therefore I am" = the fact that I am thinking means I exist cogito ergo sum

Descartes: Meditation Four: Concerning the True and the False

- The conclusions of the previous Meditations that "I" and "God" both exist lead to another problem: If God is perfectly good and the source of all that is, how is there room for error or falsehood? -If I've got everything in me from God and He hasn't given me the ability to make errors, it doesn't seem possible for me ever to be in error. -The framework of his arguments center on the great chain of being, in which God's perfect goodness is relative to His perfect being. On the extreme opposite end of the scale is complete nothingness, which is also the most evil state possible. Thus, humans are an intermediary between these two extremes, being less "real" or "good" than God, but more "real" and "good" than nothingness. Thus, error (as a part of evil) is not a positive reality, it is only the absence of what is correct. In this way, its existence is allowed within the context of a perfectly inerrant God. -I find that I am "intermediate" between God and nothingness, between the supreme entity and nonentity. Insofar as I am the creation of the supreme entity, there's nothing in me to account for my being deceived or led into error, but, inasmuch as I somehow participate in nothing or nonentity — that is, insofar as I am distinct from the supreme entity itself and lack many things — it's not surprising that I go wrong. I thus understand that, in itself, error is a lack, rather than a real thing dependent on God. Hence, I understand that I can err without God's having given me a special ability to do so. Rather, I fall into error because my God-given ability to judge the truth is not infinite. -Descartes also concedes two points that might allow for the possibility of his ability to make errors. First, he notes that it is very possible that his limited knowledge prevents him from understanding why God chose to create him so he could make mistakes. If he could see the things that God could see, with a complete and infinite scope, perhaps he would judge his ability to err as the best option. He uses this point to attack the Aristotelian structure of causes. The final cause described by Aristotle are the "what for" of an object, but Descartes claims that because he is unable to comprehend completely the mind of God, it is impossible to understand completely the "why" through science—only the "how." -I realize that I shouldn't be surprised at God's doing things that I can't explain. I shouldn't doubt His existence just because I find that I sometimes can't understand why or how He has made something. I know that my nature is weak and limited and that God's is limitless, incomprehensible, and infinite, and, from this, I can infer that He can do innumerable things whose reasons are unknown to me. On this ground alone, I regard the common practice of explaining things in terms of their purposes to be useless in physics: it would be foolhardy of me to think that I can discover God's purposes. -Secondly, he considers the possibility that an apparent error at the individual level could be understood within the totality of creation as error free. -When asking whether God's works are perfect, I ought to look at all of them together, not at one isolation. For something that seems imperfect when viewed alone might seem completely perfect when regarded as having a place in the world. Of course, since calling everything into doubt, I haven't established that anything exists besides me and God. But, when I consider God's immense power, I can't deny that He has made — or, in any case, that He could have made — many other things, and I must therefore view myself as having a place in a universe. -Lastly, Meditation IV attributes the source of error to a discrepancy between two divine gifts: understanding and free will. Understanding is given in an incomplete form, while will (by nature) can only be either completely given or not given at all. When he is presented with a certain amount of understanding and then chooses to act outside of that, he is in error. Thus, the gifts of God (understanding and will) both remain good and only the incorrect usage by him remains as error.[11] -If I suspend judgement when I don't clearly and distinctly grasp what is true, I obviously do right and am not deceived. But, if I either affirm or deny in a case of this sort, I misuse my freedom of choice. If I affirm what is false, I clearly err, and, if I stumble onto the truth, I'm still blameworthy since the light of nature reveals that a perception of the understanding should always precede a decision of the will. In these misuses of freedom of choice lies the deprivation that accounts for error. And this deprivation, I maintain, lies in the working of the will insofar as it comes from me — not in my God-given ability to will, or even in the will's operation insofar as it derives from Him.

Descartes: Method of Doubt

-Consider all beliefs that are not certainly true to be false. Either we are dreaming or being attacked by a malicious demon. -Searching for certainty by eliminating any belief that we can possibly doubt. -doubt the truth of all his beliefs in order to determine which beliefs he could be certain were true.

Leibniz: The Cosmological Argument

-Principle of Sufficient Reason -is a posteriori and is based on the existence of contingent things. -must be a reason for every contingent fact and event -Even if each event can be adequately explained by previous events and so on ad infinitum, questions remain about how to explain the series of events as a whole. -These questions must have answers, because of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. -Leibniz says there answers must be found outside the series of events as a whole, in the existence of a necessary being. - The system of nature as a whole depends on the existence of God. Because contingent things do exist, there must also exist a necessary being.

Leibniz: The Ontological Argument

-is a priori and based solely on the nature of the concept of God. - two formulations: 1. follows that of Descartes and Anselm, according to which God is defined as a being that contains all perfections. (existence is a perfection and, therefore, God must exist. 2. derived from Spinoza, begins with the definition of a "necessary being" as one whose essence includes existence. By such definition such a being must exist, and God is such a being -Leibniz said Descartes' ontological argument was incomplete and does not prove that God exists and so Leibniz tries to show that the concept of God does not contain a contradiction or does not contain incompatible predicates. -pg. 101 -...

Descartes: Meditation Two: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That It Is Better Known Than the Body

1. At the end of the first Meditation it seemed that nothing was certain. -Knowledge acquired through the senses was called into doubt by the argument from dreaming. -Knowledge acquired through intellect was called into doubt by the evil demon argument. 2. But in the second Meditation, Descartes thinks that he has found one belief he can know with certainty: the belief in his own existence, "I think, I exist". -"I think, I exist", is also know as the 'cogito' (Latin for I think). -This belief in his own existence is the foundational belief Descartes was seeking. -The 'cogito' is Descartes' Archimedean point. -From this stage onwards Descartes hopes to be able to construct a series of known truths, indeed a complete metaphysics. 3. Why does "I think, I exist" survive skeptical attacks? -Descartes argues that even assuming there is an evil spirit who constantly deceives me, it is certain that my own self exists: for the very notion of an evil spirit assumes that the spirit deceives someone; namely me. -So even if I am constantly deceived, I can't doubt that exist. -Descartes holds that the sentence "I exist" must be true whenever I think it to myself. -I may be utterly deceived as to what I believe, but even the most radical doubt of all - doubting my own existence - implies that I exist. 4. There seems to be two versions of the 'cogito' argument. -In the Discourse on Method Descartes presents it as an inference. -Descartes said: "I noticed that while I was trying thus to think everything false , it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth "I am thinking, therefore I exist" was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics we incapable of shaking it. I decided that I could accept it without scruples the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking." -In the Discourse the argument is that my existence follows from my thinking: I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum). The 'ergo' or 'therefore' marks the drawing of conclusion. -In the second Meditation, the argument seems to be somewhat different: -Descartes said: "After considering everything very thoroughly I must finally conclude that this proposition, "I am, I exist" is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -Here there is no 'ergo' or therefore: the self's existence does not seem to be inferred but somehow immediately certain. 5. Why not, 'I walk, I exist'? -A similar question was asked by Pierre Gassendi (not important) -Pierre said: "You could have made the same inference from any one of your other actions, since it is known by natural light (reason) that whoever acts exists." -And Descartes Responded: "I may not, for example, make the inference 'I am walking, therefore I exist', except in so far as the awareness of walking is a thought. The inference is certain only if applied to this awareness, and not to the movement of the body which sometimes - in the case of dreams - is not occurring at all, despite the fact that I seem to myself to be walking." -Descartes argues that I can be sure that 'I think that I am walking, therefore I exist', because I know that I have a mind which thinks that I am walking. But I cannot be sure that, 'I am actually walking' because I cannot be sure that I have a body ( I might be dreaming or deceived by an evil demon). 6. A problem: Is this circular? Does 'I think' presuppose 'I exist'? -Maybe its not a problem if one remembers that skepticism is an essential part of the background to Descartes' whole enterprise. -That is, the skeptic provides the premise, 'I think' as the skeptic is doubting. And doubting is a variety of thinking. -Descartes is showing an internal contradiction in the position of the skeptic who asserts that by doubting everything (thinking about everything) he is uncommitted to all beliefs. But even a skeptic believes that he can think. 7. Another problem: 'I think' or just thinking? 1. We have access to only the world of our ideas; things in the world are accessed only indirectly. 2. These ideas are understood to include all of the contents of the mind, including perceptions, images, memories, concepts, beliefs, intentions, decisions, etc. 3. Ideas and the things they represent are separate from each other. 4.These represented things are many times "external" to the mind. 5. It is possible for these ideas to constitute either accurate or false representations. Descartes argues that this representational theory disconnects the world from the mind, leading to the need for some sort of bridge to span the separation and provide good reasons to believe that the ideas accurately represent the outside world. The first plan he uses in constructing this bridge can be found in the following excerpt: I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world — no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.

Descartes: Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt

1. Employs the method of Doubt - Descartes wants to find a foundation of knowledge that is so secure it can stand up against the doubts of the strongest skepticism. -Sweep away all he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge once more on more certain grounds. 2. Descartes presents what is, in effect, a dialogue between a person employing common sense and a skeptic -the person relying on common sense believes that there are various reliable sources of knowledge, while the skeptic claims there is no secure foundation for knowledge. 3. The skeptic in this debate acts in the same way as an ancient (historical) skeptic. -That is the skeptical procedure is to isolate internal contradictions in the position of those who claim that they know things -NOTE: that Descartes position is neither that of the skeptic nor the common sense position 4. Descartes discusses two sources of knowledge: the senses and the intellect. 5. Are the senses a reliable source of knowledge? -Common sense: "sense-perception is reliable". -Skeptic: "But perception of obscure and distant objects is unreliable - for example a straight stick looks bent when half immersed in water. Sense experience is not error proof." -Common sense: "But the sense perception about close up objects is reliable - for example, that I hold this piece of paper in my hand." -Skeptic: "But you might be mad." -Common sense: "I reject that possibility" -Skeptic: "Okay, but suppose you are dreaming." 6. The argument from dreaming -Compare your dreaming state with your waking state. When we are dreaming we are not aware that we are dreaming. Things later that strike us as fuzzy, incoherent, far-fetched, or impossible, don't seem so from within the dream. So, how can we be certain (know) that the experiences we are having right now are reliable?" -NOTE: this is not Descartes' own position. In the sixth Meditation Descartes suggests that there are marks present in one's waking experience which distinguish waking from sleeping. 7. Progress check: So far we have seen that the senses are not a reliable source of knowledge, but what about intellect? 8. Is the intellect a reliable source of knowledge? -Common sense: "Surely, the (a priori) truths of mathematics are certain; whether I dream that '2+2=4' or perceive it when awake, is irrelevant. I cannot possibly be mistaken about this. These truths are self evident." -Skeptic: "But what if there is an evil demon? An all powerful demon that could deceive us even about '2+2=4'?" 9. The Evil Demon Argument -An evil demon has the will, power, and knowledge to make me the constant victim of deception. Even when I think something is self-evidently true, it is not. -NOTE: this is an argumentative device. What the skeptic invokes here is the possibility of the existence of an evil spirit who is very powerful and who tricks us into believing is true that which is actually false. -NOTE: Descartes does not actually believe in the existence of an evil demon. -Here Descartes goes beyond historical skepticism and engages in exaggerated or 'hyperbolic' doubt. -The ancient skeptics had always considered that only the dubitable (belief open to doubt) might be false. But Descartes is considering the possibility that a proposition might be certain, i.e. indubitable, and still not true. 10. Summary: At the end of the First Meditation -In the first Meditation Descartes ejects as if false any belief that is open to doubt. -He pushes skepticism to its limits by introducing the notion of an 'evil demon': a being which always tricks us into believing as true what is actually false. -Since I cannot be sure that there is no such evil spirit, I cannot rightly claim to know anything about which such a spirit might be deceiving me. -At the end of the first Meditation, it seems that the only certainty Descartes can find is that nothing is certain.

Descartes: The First Proof of the Existence of God

Argument 1 1. Something cannot come from nothing. 2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality. 3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality. 4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea. 5. So God—a being with infinite formal reality—must exist (and be the source of my idea of God). 6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being. 7. So God is benevolent... 8. So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors.

Descartes: The Second Argument for the Existence of God

Argument 2 1. I exist. 2. My existence must have a cause. 3. The only possible ultimate causes are: a. myself b. my always having existed c. my parents d. something less perfect than God e. God 4. Not a.: If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect. 5. Not b.: This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another. 6. Not c.: This leads to an infinite regress. 7. Not d.: The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being. 8. Therefore, e. God exists.

Aristotle was a nominalist

Nominalism: the doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality, and that only particular objects exist; properties, numbers, and sets are thought of as merely features of the way of considering the things that exist.

philosophy has been known to be called

The great conversation

Leibniz's Law

The identity of indiscernibles -if two things are identical (the very same thing), they share the same properties and fail to share none

whats wrong with using our senses to determine certainty?

because our senses can deceive us

A priori means

before experience a prior experience, learn through reflection analysis of concepts

Aristotle believed

forms are just how matter is arranged

A postpriori means

learn through experience after experience

what is concept containment?

predicate contained in the concept of the subject Ex: a dog is a canine

Descartes said that we are most confident in our __________ ?

senses

What is Descartes' argument of, your not just a body?

I can doubt my body but I cannot doubt my mind

Descartes: Meditation Three: Concerning God, That He exists

Descartes proposed that there are three types of ideas: 1. Innate: ideas that are, and have always been, within us; 2. Fictitious (or Invented): ideas that come from our imagination; and 3. Adventitious: ideas that come from experiences of the world. Descartes argues that the idea of God is innate and placed in us by God, and rejects the possibility of such being invented or adventitious. Argument 1 1. Something cannot come from nothing. 2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality. 3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality. 4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea. 5. So God—a being with infinite formal reality—must exist (and be the source of my idea of God). 6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being. 7. So God is benevolent... 8. So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without giving me a way to correct my errors. Argument 2 1. I exist. 2. My existence must have a cause. 3. The only possible ultimate causes are: a. myself b. my always having existed c. my parents d. something less perfect than God e. God 4. Not a.: If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect. 5. Not b.: This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another. 6. Not c.: This leads to an infinite regress. 7. Not d.: The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being. 8. Therefore, e. God exists. Descartes argued that he had a clear and distinct idea of God. In the same way that the cogito was self-evident, so too is the existence of God, as his perfect idea of a perfect being could not have been caused by anything less than a perfect being

who explains objects in terms of their perceptions or ideas?

Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume