Descartes

NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CURRICULUM SUPPORT

Philosophy

Descartes

[HIGHER]

The Scottish Qualifications Authority regularly reviews the arrangements for National Qualifications. Users of all NQ support materials, whether published by

Learning and Teaching Scotland or others, are reminded that it is their responsibility to check that the support materials correspond to the requirements of the current arrangements.

Acknowledgement

Learning and Teaching Scotland gratefully acknowledges this contribution to the National

Qualifications support programme for Philosophy.

© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010

This resource may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational purposes by educational establishments in Scotland provided that no profit accrues at any stage.

2 DESCARTES (H, PHILOSOPHY)


Contents

Teacher’s notes

Introduction: René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy

Historical context

The Meditations on First Philosophy (published 1641)

Meditation 1: Searching for a reliable foundation of knowledge

Descartes’ aim

Descartes’ method

Rejection of a posteriori knowledge claims

Rejection of a priori knowledge claims

Summary: Meditation 1

Meditation 2: Reason as the foundation of knowl edge

Diabolic doubt

The Cogito


Meditation 3: God as the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions

The clear and distinct rule

The role of God

The trademark argument


Meditation 6: Refuting the sceptical arguments

God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists

Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected

Refuting the dream argument


5

7

11

23

24

28

29

31

34

37

12

13

15

20

22

38

41

44

47


DESCARTES (H, PHILOSOPHY) 3

CONTENTS

Evaluation of Descartes

Evaluation of Descartes’ method

Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ method

Evaluation of the cogito

Summary: Evaluation of the cogito

Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God

Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God

Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Summary: Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Course summary (self-evaluation)

Glossary

Bibliography

Prescribed text

References

48

52

52

56

57

61

62

64

65

67

69



TEACHER’S NOTES

Teacher’s notes

These notes are designed to provide teachers/lecturers with acc urate and detailed course content for the 30-mark optional unit Descartes’ Rationalism.

Hopefully, given the lack of student textbooks for philosophy, these notes will help teachers/lecturers to provide their students with materials that cover the course requirements. However, they should not be used as the sole resource for students. Students will benefit from a variety of reading resources and so it is advised that these notes are used in conjunction with other resources.

In order to prepare students for the required summative assessments, centres will need to plan their courses carefully, incorporating suitable formative assessment tasks. The activities in these notes are largely discussion based and are designed to encourage students to actively partici pate in philosophical enquiry. It should not be assumed that they are currently presented in such a way that they will be immediately suitable for students.

Teachers/lecturers are encouraged to use them as a basis for developing their own tasks. Some of the questions might be useful for thinking - and discussion-based exercises. Others could be adapted into a form that requires the students to present their own written reflections. Schools/colleges will also need to add further written tasks and activities t hat deliberately build towards the unit and final assessments.

It could also be a useful exercise to go through the activities and identify the skills that students will develop in each activity. This has been done in a very limited way in these notes, eg specifying comprehension activities. This may help students to engage better in the activities by helping them recognise the importance of the skills that they are developing.

These notes have been designed to include a significant amount of direct reference to the Meditations . Hopefully the inclusion of this amount of primary source material will help students engage personally with the

Meditations . However, care should be taken with some of the sections chosen for inclusion as some students will find reading the primary source difficult.

Therefore, schools/colleges should use their own professional judgement when deciding whether the inclusion of so much text will help or hinder their own particular students. All references are taken directly from the s pecified translation by Donald Cress. The notes progress from Meditations 1 –3 and



TEACHER’S NOTES then to 6. So, any reference included will be found within the particular

Meditation that is being explained.

The evaluation section of the Descartes notes includes a num ber of discussion questions. Hopefully this will help students to engage in proper evaluation themselves rather than simply learning criticisms. More confident students should be able to engage with the criticisms at a fairly high level. Many of the questions included will appear quite complex to some Higher students so care should be taken with these questions. However, the need for students to engage in proper evaluation should be encouraged.

The notes also include a reflective summary of the course tha t is designed to enable students to refer to this summary as they work through the unit. The aim is to encourage students to participate in the process of self -evaluation. It should be noted that this summary is the writer’s own attempt to interpret the

SQA Arrangement documents so schools/colleges should take care to ensure that they are satisfied with this particular interpretation.

Many students benefit from materials that contain interesting images and graphics. Although some are included in this pack , centres are encouraged to take time to add their own graphics to the resource to make them as appealing as possible for students.

The glossary at the end of these notes is based on the recently published revised Arrangements document.



INTRODUCTION

Introduction: René Descartes’ Meditations on First

Philosophy

Historical context

René Descartes was born in the Loire region of France in 1596. His influence was so significant that he is often referred to as the ‘father of modern philosophy’.

From early on in life Descartes was considered to be extremely intelligent. By the time he reached the age of 40 his friends and the rest of the intellectual world had decided he was a man of quite incredible genius.

Amongst other things he was the founder of analytical geometry (including the Cartesian coordinates that every student of maths is taught at school); he made a considerable contribution to the science of optics; he wrote one of the first treatises on meteorology; he even has a claim to have been the first to discover the true nature of rainbows!

Descartes is often referred to as the father of modern philosophy because his writings signalled an important moment of change. Below is a short summary of some of the changes that were taking place in Western philosophy : 1

Medieval period

(approx. 4th to 15th century)

Modern era

(Descartes onwards, up to the 18th century)

Philosophy was written entirely in

Latin

All the major philosophers were

‘professionals’ and were based in educational establishments

Philosophy was written more and more in national languages

Individual philosophers came from a variety of backgrounds and wrote in a style that was much more accessible to the general reader (Kant being one notable exception)

1 Kenny (2000), pp 114–117.



INTRODUCTION

All major philosophers were ‘clerics’

(people with professional religious occupations like bishops, priests or monks)

With the exception of Bishop George

Berkeley, all ‘modern’ philosophers were lay people

The philosophers carried out their work within the context of a

Christian world view

The teachings of the Catholic Church were no longer accepted as an unquestionable authority (although the vast majority of philosophers, except for David Hume, still based their ideas around their belief in God)

After the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works in the 10th century he became the unquestioned scientific authority in the West

Descartes signals the end of this

‘Aristotelian tradition’

The book that you are going to study, Meditations on First Philosophy , was published in 1641. As with most books, the historical context in which it was written played a very significant role in the formation of Descartes’ ideas and his motivation to write it.

Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle was regarded as the unquestioned philosophical authority of the Middle Ages.

His writings were a response to the earlier

Greek philosopher Plato. Plato was a rationalist. He argued that our senses could only ever give us knowledge of how things

‘appeared’. They couldn’t lead us to ‘reality’ itself. Reality was found only in what he called the world of ‘Forms’. This was thought by

Plato to be a reality that exists beyond the physical world. Plato also believed that the human mind contained innate ideas that allow us access to this knowledge. He believed that our sense experience could only ever give us imperfect knowledge of the world of appearance. True knowledge could only be attained through thought alone.



INTRODUCTION

Aristotle preferred a much more practical approach to philosophy. He rejected Plato’s idea that reality lay beyond the physi cal world in the realm of the ‘Forms’. For Aristotle all knowledge claims were sourced in our sense experience of the world.

By the time of Descartes, Aristotle’s epistemological approach had become the accepted orthodoxy, particularly in the scientific world. The Catholic

Church was also heavily influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy after he was championed by St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

Religious and scientific changes

Descartes was writing during a period of huge changes. The Reformation ha d caused the western Christian Church to split into two camps, the Roman

Catholics and the new Protestant movement. Political fears and power struggles meant that the Wars of Religion would soon follow. These changes meant that the Catholic Church was begi nning to lose its authoritative status.

Scientific certainties were also being questioned. Fundamental questions about the Earth and its place in the universe lay at the heart of scientific enquiry.

Before Copernicus and Galileo, scientists, philosophers and the Catholic Church all assumed that the Earth was the stationary centre of the universe.

The strongly held religious conviction that humans played a central role in creation meant that for many it naturally followed that the Earth was also at the centre of the created universe. The political and religious pressures being exerted on the Catholic

Church meant that Galileo’s ideas were seen to be a real threat to their authority and traditions. Sense experience also seemed to back up this view. The Su n does appear to move slowly round the Earth and it certainly doesn’t feel like the Earth is spinning on its axis at around 1000 miles per hour and travelling through space at 67,000 miles an hour.

Sense experience and Catholic traditions all seemed to p oint towards the

Earth-centred model of the universe. However, these traditions were soon to be undermined by new evidence. Given that so much of what people thought they knew was now open to doubt, the quest for certain knowledge became more important.



INTRODUCTION

Because of all this uncertainty, the questions you studied in the introduction to epistemology dominated the minds of Descartes and his contemporaries :

1.

What is knowledge?

2.

How is knowledge acquired?

3.

Can knowledge claims be justified?

Descartes’ Meditations take us on a journey in which he demands that we examine and test rigorously all our knowledge claims.

Activity

Use the web to investigate the historical context of the Meditations and the early part of Descartes’ life.

Suggestion:

Students could be organised into groups of four. Each member of the group is given a different short source to read. They should summarise what they have read and take turns to share the information with the other members of the group. The group should then put together a joint summary of all they have learned.

Things to look for include:

 the influence of Aristotle

 the New Sciences (Copernicus, Galileo etc)

 beliefs about the solar system

 religious history (Reformation and Wars of Religion)

 Descartes’ educational experiences

 Descartes’ mathematical legacy

 Descartes’ prophetic dream and ambition (1619).



INTRODUCTION

The Meditations on First Philosophy (published 1641)

Descartes’

Meditations is widely recognised as one of the most important books in the history of Western philosophy. In it he discusses, amongst other things, the nature of the human mind, the vulnerability of trusting in human sense experience, the existence of

God and the foundation of our knowledge claims. The

Meditations takes the appearance of being written over a 6-day period as Descartes slowly thinks his way through questions and ideas.

Descartes is determined to overcome the confusion that was dominating science, philosophy and theology by presenting a clear foundation for knowledge.

Descartes hoped that, if he were successful, science could progress on a sure footing and avoid the errors that had occurred in the past.

It is unlikely that you will agree with everything Descartes says in the

Meditations . However, the questions raised and his initial answers have stimulated philosophical discussions for centuries.



MEDITATION 1

Meditation 1: Searching for a reliable foundation of knowledge

Descartes’ aim

Descartes opens Meditation 1 with a clear statement of intention.

He sets out his project: his reason for writing the book and what he hopes to achieve :

Several years have now passed since I first realised how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realised 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.

Most of us at some point in our lives will look back and be sur prised at some of the things we once believed were true. This may prompt you to consider whether some of your current beliefs may also turn out to be false. When

Descartes reflected on the mistakes of his youth he also realised that it was likely that some of his current beliefs were built on potentially shaky foundations.

Activity

Think back over your life so far.

Write down some beliefs that you used to have that you now know are not true.

Where did you get these beliefs from? Are they important beli efs? Do you remember being annoyed when you realised that they were not true?

From an early age Descartes was convinced that problems existed in the generally accepted theories of knowledge. These problems had led to serious errors in scientific enquiry, eg the belief that the Sun revolved around the

Earth. The problems appeared to lie in questionable foundations . If something is wrong with the foundations of a house then any builder will tell you that the house will soon have major problems.



MEDITATION 1

Descartes’ aim was not restricted to science alone. He was dreaming about finding a foundation in which all knowledge could be rooted. He hoped, therefore, that fields as diverse as politics, mathematics and even religion could base their specific knowledge claims on his foundation. Descartes was attempting to unify all knowledge claims.

The generally accepted foundations of knowledge were rooted in the work of

Aristotle and the ‘revealed truths’ of the Bible. Aristotle’s approach to epistemology was rooted in the belief that knowledge claims should be based around sense experience. The Catholic Church believed that God was the ultimate source of all knowledge claims. But why should we assume that either of these authorities should be foundational?

Descartes’ aim was to establish a foundation for knowledge that couldn’t lead to mistakes. Without this foundation, Descartes believed it would be impossible to establish something that is ‘firm and lasting in the sciences’.

He wanted to ensure that a new foundation for all knowledge would successfully replace the old faulty Aristotelian one. The Meditations is his attempt to make clear where those foundations should lie.

Descartes’ method

In order to find certainty in science and in fact all disciplines, Descartes realised that he must ‘raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations’. To do this he realised that he couldn’t assume that any of his beliefs were true. He must begin by assuming that all his beliefs were false and then only adopt those that he could say were beyond doubt.

At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of my opinions.

Yet to bring this about I will not need to show that all my opinions are false, which is perhaps something I c ould 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 than I would from those that are patently false. For this reason, it will suffice for the rejection of all of these opinions, if I find in each of them some reason for doubt. Nor therefore need I survey each opinion individually, a 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.



MEDITATION 1

A rigorous approach

Descartes basically said that he would refuse to accept as true anything unless it was certain to the point of bei ng beyond doubt. If there was even the slightest doubt then Descartes would assume that the belief was no more a knowledge claim than something that was obviously false.

Descartes’ rigorous approach asked the simple question: does there exist even the slightest doubt about any of my beliefs? If the answer was ‘yes’, no matter how unlikely the situation was, Descartes said that he must ‘withhold his assent’ from this belief.

A shortcut

Descartes knew that it was impossible to check all of his beliefs in dividually.

His desire to be fully rigorous left him with a problem. Even though he was writing the Meditations in his leisurely retirement, there would still not be enough time to carefully think through everything that he believed. Descartes needed a shortcut. His solution was to focus his attention on categories of knowledge claims. If it was possible to undermine the foundations of a category of knowledge then he said that all beliefs that are justified via this foundation should be doubted. By undermin ing the foundations, then whatever has been built upon them will ‘crumble of its own accord’.

Descartes’ shortcut then was to attack the principles upon which his former beliefs rested – the foundations.

If Descartes identified a foundational belief which was not entirely certain and indubitable (meaning something that cannot be doubted) then he suggested that it should be called an uncertain belief. Uncertain beliefs must then be treated as a false belief. If the principle/category itself was uncertain,

Descartes then would reject all beliefs sourced from the category.

Was Descartes a sceptic?

The method of doubt was a deliberate attempt to overcome a school of philosophy known as scepticism. A growing number of philosophers were arguing that knowledge gained via human enquiry was actually impossible.

Even solipsism (the view that all that can be known is the content of your own mind) was being taken seriously. Although Descartes appears to doubt everything in his first Meditation , his book as a whole is firmly anti-sceptical.

His rigorous and, as you will see later, extreme doubts were designed to prove that no matter what the sceptic could suggest, certain knowledge could still be found.



MEDITATION 1

Descartes’ sceptical method of doubt, then, has two basic require ments:

1.

rigour – Descartes’ sceptical method demands that he must ensure that there is not the slightest degree of doubt about anything that can be called knowledge

2.

a shortcut – by focusing on foundational beliefs, Descartes can show clearly and quickly which beliefs should be dropped and which could be called knowledge).

Activity

‘At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of my opinions.’

What do you think Descartes means when he says that he is going to demolis h all his opinions?

Who is the most opinionated person in the class?!

Who is the most open-minded person in the class?!

What cherished beliefs would you find hardest to get rid of?

Can you identify the sources of your own beliefs and knowledge claim s?

Rejection of a posteriori knowledge claims

Mistrust of the senses

Descartes began his search by considering the widely accepted Aristotelian reliance on sense experience as the key foundation of knowledge.

Whatever I had admitted until now as most true I took in either from the senses or through the senses.

Descartes immediately noted that there had been times when his senses had deceived him. His rigorous method demanded that: it is a mark of prudence never to trust wholly in those who have dece ived us even once.



MEDITATION 1

Activity

Look carefully around the room and write down two sense -based things you know with certainty.

Discuss these with your neighbour. Can you think of any possible way that you could be mistaken?

Try to think of a possible extreme scenario that, although unlikely, does leave open the smallest possibility of doubting these simple sense observations.

Is there any way you can know for sure that your extreme scenario isn’t true?

Descartes’ method demanded that if he found reason to doubt a foundation then all knowledge based on that foundation should be rejected. So, should all knowledge based on sense experience be rejected? Descartes quickly pointed out that it is only a particular type of sense experience that appears to regularly cause error, eg when observing very small and distant things. So maybe it is only this type of sense experience that should be thrown out.

But perhaps, even though the senses do sometimes deceive us when it is a question of very small and distant thi ngs, still there are many other matters concerning which one simply cannot doubt, even though they are derived from the very same senses: for example, that I am sitting here next to the fire, wearing my winter dressing gown, that I am holding this sheet of paper in my hands, and the like.

Activity

Descartes points out that the senses deceive us with regard to objects in the distance which appear to be smaller than they really are.

Can you think of other occasions when the senses misreport the world?

In groups make a list of ten occasions when this has happened.

How did you know that on these occasions your senses had misreported the world?



MEDITATION 1

Madness

In the quote above, Descartes mentions some examples of the kinds of sense experience that one simply cannot doubt. However, he quickly goes on to suggest two reasons for beginning to question the certainty of even these simple sense experiences.

First, he suggests that it’s quite possible that he’s mad. The insane, after all, are not aware of their madness.

But on what grounds could one deny that these hands and this entire body are mine? Unless perhaps I were to liken myself to the insane, whose brains are impaired by such an unrelenting vapour of black bile that they steadfastly insist that they are kings when they are utter paupers, or that they are arrayed in purple robes when they are naked, or that they have heads made of clay, or that they are gourds, or that they are made of glass. But such people are mad, and I would appear no less mad, were I t o take their behaviour as an example for myself.

Activity

How can you know for sure that you’re not insane?

The dream hypothesis

Descartes’ second worry is intensified by the realisation that when he is dreaming, his grasp of what is real is no more c ertain at that moment than if he were awake and insane. Is it possible that he is currently ‘sleeping between the blankets’? Is it possible that his experience of the sheet of paper and the dressing gown is not real, that it is just a dream? Is it possible that everything that his senses confirm to him is, in fact, simply part of a dream?

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, as these insane people do when they are awake. 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 fireplace – when in fact I am lying undressed i n bed! …

As I consider these matters more carefully, I see so plainly that there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep.

As a result, I am becoming quite dizzy, and this dizziness nearly convinces me that I am asleep.



MEDITATION 1

This is sometimes referred to as the dream hypothesis or argument. Descartes cannot present a strong argument that will prove that he is asleep and dreaming. However, for the sake of argument he suggested that it is a possibility. Descartes was looking for certainty. He was looking for a foundation that could not be disputed. He must, therefore, allow this unlikely but still possible scenario. By presenting the dream argument Descartes was suggesting to his readers that sense experience can easily be do ubted. If this is the case then the senses, the most common foundation of our knowledge claims, should not be called a foundation at all. Descartes’ radical suggestion that he may be dreaming is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Aristotelian emphasis on sense experience.

Is the dream argument the final nail in the coffin of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy?

Activity

In pairs make a short list of the main differences between dreaming and waking life.

How can you know for sure that you’re not sleeping in your comfortable bed, having a nightmare that you’re in a philosophy class?

Suppose for a moment you are in fact dreaming, what current knowledge claims would become open to doubt?

Try to identify things that cannot be doubted, even if you’ re not sure whether you’re awake or dreaming.

Knowledge that survives the dream argument

Although this radical suggestion appears to undermine much of what can be called knowledge, Descartes suggested that some beliefs survive.

Let us assume then, for the sake of argument, that we are dreaming and that such particulars as these are not true: that we are opening our eyes, moving our head, and extending our hands. Perhaps we do not even have such hands, or any such body at all. Nevertheless, it surely mus t be admitted that the things seen during slumber are, as it were, like painted images, which could only have been produced in the likeness of true things, and that therefore at least these general things – eyes, head, hands, and the whole body – are not imaginary things, but are true and exist …



MEDITATION 1

This class of things appears to include corporeal nature in general, together with its extension; the shape of extended things; their quantity, that is, their size and number; as well as the place where they exi st; the time through which they endure, and the like.

Thus it is not improper to conclude from this that physics, astronomy, medicine, and all the other disciplines that are dependent upon the consideration of composite things are doubtful, and that, on the other hand, arithmetic, geometry, and other such disciplines, which treat of nothing but the simplest and most general things and which are indifferent as to whether these things do or do not in fact exist, contain something certain and indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three make five, and a square does not have more than four sides. It does not seem possible that such obvious truths should be subject to the suspicion of being false.

Comprehension activity

Read the quotes above carefully. What two things does Descartes say survive even the dream argument?

Hint: a posteriori truths haven’t survived the dream argument. Are there any other truths that survive?

Descartes’ first point is simply that an outside world must exist. H e based his argument on the thought that there must be something on which our dreams are based. The painter observes the physical world and draws a representation of what he sees onto canvas. In a similar way our dreams are a representation of the reality of a physical world. If there were no physical world then the painter would have nothing to paint and we would have nothing to dream about.

Second, even if I am fast asleep, the truths preserved in mathematics cannot be doubted. A square does not have mor e than four sides and 2 + 3 still equals 5. The dream argument can’t really challenge these simple mathematical truths. They are true whether I am awake or whether I am fast asleep.

Descartes has come to these two conclusions using his mind alone. He has not needed to make reference to his senses to show us that even if he’s dreaming there must exist an outside world and mathematical truths are still certain.

Although the dream argument appears to have destroyed reliance on a posteriori truths, it has not destroyed reliance on a priori truths.



MEDITATION 1

Rejections of a priori knowledge claims

The Evil Genius hypothesis

After the dream argument Descartes essentially concluded that he could find anything ‘firm and lasting in the sciences’ by relying on the senses. However, he did note that a priori truths survived. Maybe the foundation for knowledge then should be arrived at just by thinking , without the use of the senses. The examples Descartes referred to appear to be ‘necessary truths’. The outside world needs to exist and 2 + 3 necessarily makes 5.

Descartes was on a quest in which he aimed to doubt everything that he once thought was true. Is it possible to doubt even these necessary truths?

Immediately after his discussion about dreaming he mentions that the re is one belief that he has had confidence in throughout his life. He is sure that God exists. Descartes’ method demanded that he questioned what he had previously known. Maybe, he says, God brought it about that there is ‘no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing. Maybe I am deceived every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square ’. However, Descartes did not just believe in God, he also had strong beliefs about God. A significant belief that he held was that God is supremely good . This should make it clear that

God would not deceive him into thinking that there is a world outside his mind or that God would deliberately make him think that 2 + 3 = 5 is a necessary truth when in fact it is not. He decided, though, that in order to find the certainty that he was searching for he must carefully withhold his assent from all things, not just those things that are obviously false.

Descartes actively chose to consider even the most unlikely of possibilities :

Thus I will suppose not a supremely good God, the source of truth, but rather an evil genius, as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me. I will regard the heavens, the air, the Earth, colours, shapes, sounds, and all extended things as no thing but the deceptive games of my dreams, with which he lays snares for my credulity.

I will remain resolutely fixed in this meditation and, even if it be out of my power to know anything true, certainty is within my power to take care resolutely to withhold my assent to what is false, lest this deceiver, powerful and clever as he is, have an effect on me.

Descartes did not just believe that God was good, he was also taught from childhood that God was omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). If God has these two attributes but is evil instead of good then suddenly even a priori truths are open to doubt. If God is an evil deceiver then he could will at any time to make us think that we are grasping with our



MEDITATION 1 minds a necessary a priori truth when in fact we are not. Certainty now seems to be an almost impossible task. Even the things that survived the dream argument (the apparently certain a priori truth that there is an outside world and the certainties of mathematics) can now also be doub ted. Maybe the images in human dreams have been put there by the deceiver? Likewise 2 + 3 appears to equal 5. But what if the deceiver is constantly tricking us about the meaning of these symbols? What if the deceiver is constantly tricking us about the logical processes involved in any mathematical equation?

Descartes was aware that the chance of there actually being an evil deceiver is not high. He was presenting the evil deceiver as another hypothesis.

Descartes’ method demanded that if there is even t he slightest doubt then all must be thrown out. Now, after the introduction of this extreme hypothetical radical doubt, Descartes had to accept that even a priori truths could not be his desired foundation. In fact, if there is a deceiver then nothing is c ertain.


Read pages 21 and 22 carefully.

Analyse the evil deceiver hypothesis:

(a) Identify eight separate things you could say about the evil deceiver.

(b) Use the information gathered to write an extended piece of writing on the evil deceiver.



MEDITATION 1

Summary: Meditation 1

 Descartes’ aim was to find certain knowledge.



The method of doubt demands that every belief must be scrutinised rigorously.



To make his task possible, Descartes focused his attention on previously cherished foundations of knowledge.



The dream argument challenges all a posteriori knowledge claims.



A priori truths such as 2 + 3 = 5 survive the dream argument.



The evil genius hypothesis challenges everything, particularly a priori knowledge claims.



The extreme doubts expressed in Meditation 1 appear to have undermined

2500 years of Western philosophy.



MEDITATION 2

Meditation 2: Reason as the foundation of knowledge

Diabolic doubt

Yesterday's meditation filled my mind with so many doubts that I can no longer forget about them – nor yet do I see how they are to be resolved.

But, as if I had suddenly fallen into a deep whirlpool, I am so disturbed that I can neither touch my foot to the bottom, nor swim up to the top.

Nevertheless I will work my way up, and I will fo llow the same path I took yesterday, putting aside everything which admits of the least doubt, as if I had discovered it to be absolutely false. I will go forward until I know something certain – or, if nothing else, until I at least know for certain that nothing is certain.

Descartes began his second Meditation with a statement of what has been called diabolic doubt . Now nothing was certain. There appeared to be no foundation that could give him the certainty that he desired. The sceptics appeared to have won.

By the end of Meditation 1 Descartes had managed to undermine Aristotle’s sense-based tradition and Plato’s reason-based tradition. He had at the same time subtly questioned all the traditional avenues for certainty that dominated

Medieval scholastic philosophy:

1.

authority

2.

sense experience

3.

reason

4.

God.

In fact, in his short first Meditation Descartes had essentially undermined the whole of Western philosophy.

However, although Descartes appears to have gone on a path that had led him to a point of despair he nevertheless decided to move forward in the same direction, determined to discover just one piece of certain knowledge.



MEDITATION 2

The Cogito

In order to establish something firm and lasting in the sciences, Descartes had chosen to push scepticism to its limits. He had chosen to present the most extreme argument available to him, by presenting the possibility that God is an evil deceiver. This is the final stage in Descartes’ ultimate infinite regress argument. The reason he did this is not because he actually thought that he was constantly being deceived by the evil genius. He presented this extreme argument in order to find out if he could defeat it. If he could find something that survived the evil genius then he certainly found something firm and lasting .

Archimedes sought only a firm and immovable point in order to move the entire Earth from one place to another. Surely great things are to be hoped for if I am lucky enough to find at least one thing that is certain and indubitable. Therefore I will suppose that all I see is false. I will believe that none of those things that my deceitful memory brings before my eyes ever existed. I thus have no senses: body, shape, extension, movement, and place are all figments of my imagination. What then will c ount as true?

Perhaps only this one thing: that nothing is certain.

Archimedes is credited as saying, ‘Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the Earth.’

2

The principle of leverage suggests that if we have a long enough plank then huge objects can be moved. But, so far, all he knew was that he knew nothing.

Can anything survive the evil genius? This is the crucial point in the

Meditations . The hypothetical possibility of the evil genius argument and

Descartes’ determination to put aside everything which admits of the least doubt had left him stating that he did not even know whether the physical world even existed:

But I have persuaded myself that there is nothing at all in the world: no heaven, no earth, no minds, no bodies.

But it is at this point that Descartes identified something that at last he calls certain knowledge.

But there is a deceiver (I know not who he is) powerful and sly in the highest degree, who is always purposely deceiving me. Then there is no doubt that I exist, if he deceives me. And deceive me as he will, he can

2

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, London,

1953, p. 14.



MEDITATION 2 never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I shall think that I am something. Thus it must be granted that, after weighing everything carefully and sufficiently, one must come to the consider ed judgement that the statement ‘I am, I exist’ is necessarily true every time it is uttered by me or conceived in my mind.

Descartes’ foundation of knowledge is the simple observation that he was conscious of the fact that he existed. It’s not just that Descartes proved theoretically that he existed. Descartes knew that he existed.


The extract above is the key turning point in the Meditations . Read it carefully on your own.

Take time to explain what Descartes is saying in your own words.

The phrase ‘I am: I exist’ is often described as a necessary truth . It led

Descartes on to reflect in some depth about the nature of the ‘I’. Descartes still insisted on the hypothetical possibility of an evil deceiver so he could not ‘know’ anything about his physical body. All he could know was that he was thinking.

But I do not yet understand well enough who I am – I, who now necessarily exist … But what is a man? Might I not say a rational animal? No, because then one would have to inquire what an ‘animal’ is and what ‘rational’ means.

I now admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore precisely only a thing that thinks; that is, a mind, or soul, or intellect, or reason – words the meaning of which I was ignorant before. No w, I am a true thing, and truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thing that thinks.

But what then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagine s and senses. It is truly no small matter if all of these things pertain to me. But why should they not pertain to me? Is it not I who now doubt almost everything, I who nevertheless understand something, I who affirm that this one thing is true, I who deny other things, I who desire to know more things, I who wish not to be deceived, I who imagine many things against my will, I who take note of many things as if coming from the senses? Is there anything in all of this which is not just as true as it is tha t I am, even



MEDITATION 2 if I am always dreaming or even if the one who created me tries as hard as possible to delude me? Are any of these attributes distinct from my thought? What can be said to be separate from myself? For it is so obvious that it is I who doubt, I who understand …

Discussion activity

Possibly the most important theme in the Meditations concerns Descartes’ understanding of the nature of the human mind. Let us take some time to discuss what it is to be human.

In your groups consider the followi ng questions:



What is a human?



What makes you different from other animals?



Is your mind separate from the rest of your body?



Are you just a physical thing or do you have a non -physical dimension?

Once you have spent 10 minutes discussing these questions try to come up with your own definition of what a human is. Your answer should be no more than 100 words long.

Descartes’ reflections on the nature of ‘man’ all end up coming back to the mind. For Descartes, the central mark of a human is that he/s he is a conscious, thinking thing. These reflections in Meditation 2 are all part of

Descartes’ desire to replace Aristotle’s sense-based philosophy with his rationalistic agenda. ‘I am: I exist’ survived the evil genius. Descartes’ conscious mind alone allowed him to overcome the most sceptical of arguments. For Descartes, then, rationalism and not empiricism should be the foundation of knowledge. The senses were easily defeated. Reason, although appearing initially to succumb also to the genius, survived in the end.

In an earlier text, the Discourse on Method (1637) Descartes had made a similar point. In it he used a phrase that has become possibly the most memorable phrase in philosophy:

Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)

The cogito is Descartes’ first principle of philosophy. It appears beyond dispute because it is a self-authenticating statement. It is clearly selfcontradictory to say ‘I don’t exist’. Earlier in the course you should have



MEDITATION 2 looked at knowledge claims that were ‘self-evident’ statements. These statements defeated the infinite regress argument because to ask for further justification is a meaningless exercise. For example, it is ridiculous to ask,

‘How do you know that a cat is a feline creature?’. In the same way, it is clearly ‘self-evident’ that ‘I am: I exist’ is a self -evident truth or that

‘thinking requires a thinker’. Descartes presented his readers with the ultimate infinite regress argument which culminates with the question ‘ How do you know that you are not being decei ved by an evil deceiver?’. He then cleverly used the most powerful question any sceptic could ever ask as the very trigger for his own certain foundation of knowledge. Descartes ended the infinite regress by finding a truth that is beyond dispute.

Descartes’ belief that he existed, a belief which is absolutely ‘certain and assured’, would be the foundation for his ‘firm and permanent structure in the sciences’. The key point here for Descartes is that his foundation was found through the process of ‘thinking alone’. Descartes hadn’t based his foundation on sense experience. For Descartes, the cogito showed that reason must take priority over experience. He tried (possibly successfully?) to show that a priori truths are more certain that a posteriori truths. For Descartes, there was clearly something special about ‘thinking’.

The cogito also opened the way for Descartes to present his belief in mind/body dualism. This is the idea that the mind and the body are completely separate substances. He later argued that the fact that he is more certain of the existence of himself as a thinking thing than as a physical body is evidence that there is a division between the mind and the body. ‘The mind is the real Descartes (or whoever), whose body may or may not exist.’

Descartes also believed that the mind can outlive the body. The idea of there being a sharp separation between that mind and body has come to be known as Cartesian Dualism.

Activity

The cogito is the turning point in the Meditation .

Try to identify eight different things you can say about the cogito .



MEDITATION 2




The cogito has been used to defeat the most extreme sceptical arguments.



The statement of diabolic doubt at the beginning of Meditation 2 has been overcome.



The cogito has provided the key foundation for Descartes’ future knowledge claims.

 ‘I am: I exist’ is a unique example of a self-authenticating, necessary truth.

 ‘I am: I exist’ is the starting point of Descartes’ argument that reason should take priority over empiricism.



The cogito has defined something unique about the nature of what it is to be human.



MEDITATION 3

Meditation 3: God as the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions

I will now shut my eyes, stop up my ears, and withdraw all my senses. I will also blot out from my thoughts all images of corporeal things, or rather, since the latter is hardly possible, I will regard these images as empty, false and worthless. And as I converse with myself alone and look more deeply into myself, I will attempt to render myself gr adually better known and more familiar to myself. I am a thing that thinks, that is to say, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing, and also imagines and senses.

The clear and distinct rule

So far Descartes has found just one piece of certain knowledge. He has proved that he exists. However, in order for this to be a useful foundation he needed to be able to build something on it. This was not going to be easy. He was determined to ‘admit nothing that is not necessarily true’ . All he knew necessarily was that he was ‘a thing that thinks’ .

In order to proceed further in his search for knowledge Descartes spent some time analysing the cogito in order to identify what was special about it. Why can he know with certainty that he exists and is a thinking thing but he doesn’t know with certainty that physical bodies exist? The answer is that the cogito has a distinguishing feature. What makes the cogito certain is that

Descartes claimed to have a ‘clear and distinct’ perception of it. It is logically possible to doubt the existence of physical bodies, but logically impossible to doubt his own existence as a thinking thing. Descartes then argued that whatever else he understood clearly and distinctly must also be true.

But do I not therefore also know what is required for me to be certain of anything? Surely in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm. Yet thi s would hardly be enough to render me certain of the truth of a thing, if it could ever happen that something that I perceived so clearly and distinctly were false. And thus I now seem able to posit as a general rule that everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true.



MEDITATION 3

Before going any further with this idea it’s important to understand that when

Descartes talked about ‘perception’ he did not mean sensory perception.

‘Perception’ was Descartes’ term for what the mind does when it becomes aware of simple truths. In other words, it is when we ‘see things’ with our mind’s eye.

In another of his texts, the Principles of Philosophy , he stated:

I call an idea ‘clear’ when it is present and fully revealed to the mind attending to it, just as we say we see something clearly when it is present to the observing eye, and affects it strongly and fully enough. I call an idea ‘distinct’ when, as well as being clear, it is so separated and demarcated from all other ideas, that it contains in itself absolute ly nothing which is not clear.

In the Meditations he gave other examples of clear and distinct perceptions.

For example, he had a clear and distinct idea that ‘I exist, insofar as I am a certain thinking thing’, or that ‘what is done cannot be undone’. T here are perceptions that Descartes said we cannot think about without at the same time knowing they must be true.

Clear and distinct ideas are essentially knowledge that can be grasped by intuition. This is knowledge that can be understood by intellect or can by the illuminating light of reason. An intuition is a truth that is known a priori .

Knowledge that is clear and distinct is knowledge acquired just by thinking without any reference to experience. They are self -justifying and self-evident truths upon which Descartes hoped to build ‘something firm and lasting in the sciences’.



Clear = present to the attentive mind



Distinct = not confused with anything that is not clear

Later in Meditation 3 Descartes contrasted things that can be perceived clearly and distinctly with other examples of things that can’t.

I notice that there are only a very few things in them that I perceive clearly and distinctly: namely, size, or extension in length, breadth, and depth; shape, which arises from the limits of this extension; position, which various things possessing shape have in relation to one another; and motion, or alteration in position. To these can be added substance, duration, and number. But as for the remaining items, such as light and colours, sounds, odours, tastes, heat and cold and other tactile qualities, I think of these only in a very confused and obscure manner, to the extent



MEDITATION 3 that I do not even know whether they are true or false, that is, whether the ideas I have of them are ideas of things or id eas of non-things.

The clear and distinct rule becomes a kind of test, a truth -rule, that should be used to help find other pieces of certain knowledge. Descartes wished to say that the most important mark of any knowledge claim is that it must be founded on a clear and distinct perception. If the cogito can be considered

Descartes’ foundation of knowledge, the clear and distinct rule is going to be the thing that allowed him to build upon this foundation.

But still, before Descartes could move on he rem inded his readers that in the past he had, what he thought at least, were clear and distinct perceptions of the existence of an outside world and the certainties of maths. The evil deceiver had made him doubt these earlier clear and distinct perceptions. I n order for Descartes to establish this new truth -rule and be able to build on his certain foundation he must first attempt to remove the evil deceiver from his own mind, and ours.


Descartes needs the ‘clear and distinct rule’ to help him find more knowledge than the simple fact that he exists.

Take time to carefully read the section above on your own.

When you have finished, explain what Descartes means when he talks about

‘clear and distinct’ perceptions (try to refer directly t o the primary source when you are doing so).

The role of God

In order to deal with the problems raised by the hypothetical possibility of an evil deceiver, Descartes’ strategy was to prove that a perfect God exists.

Given that perfection includes goodne ss rather than deception, this is not a

God that would deliberately deceive you.

And certainly, because I have no reason for thinking that there is a God who is a deceiver (and of course I do not yet sufficiently know whether there even is a God), the basis for doubting, depending as it does merely on the above hypothesis, is very tenuous and, so to speak, metaphysical.

But in order to remove even this basis for doubt, I should at the first opportunity inquire whether there is a God, and, if there is, whe ther or not



MEDITATION 3 he can be a deceiver. For if l am ignorant of this, it appears I am never capable of being completely certain about anything else.

Descartes was interested in certainty. This means that he cannot be satisfied with a strongly held belief in God. Descartes could not just say that God might exist, or that it’s highly likely that God exists. Rather, he must be able to say with certainty that God must exist. As you might expect, Descartes’ strategy for proving the existence of God would be one th at was done using the mind alone. He wanted to find out whether he could know God exists a priori .


In groups of four try to explain how Descartes proves that God exists.

The text on the next two pages is split into four sections.



Each member of the group should read one section.



He/she should then attempt to explain it to other members of the group.



To teach the other members he/she should try to identify key sentences and if possible use some visual images to help explain wh at Descartes is trying to say.

( Warning: Some of the sections are not easy to read so don’t be surprised if you need to read your section two or three times to help you grasp what

Descartes means.)

Once you have all attempted to explain your sections the group should then try to summarise Descartes’ argument into premises and a conclusion.

Extract 1

Now it is indeed evident by the light of nature that there must be at least as much [reality] in the efficient and total cause as there is in the effect o f that same cause. For whence, I ask, could an effect get its reality, if not from its cause? And how could the cause give that reality to the effect, unless it also possessed that reality? Hence it follows that something cannot come into being out of nothing, and also that what is more perfect

(that is, what contains in itself more reality) cannot come into being from what is less perfect.



MEDITATION 3

Extract 2

Thus there remains only the idea of God. I must consider whether there is anything in this idea that could not have originated from me. I understand by the name ‘God’ a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and that created me along with everything else that exists – if anything else exists. Indeed all these are such, that the more carefully I focus my attention on them, the less possible it seems they could have arisen from myself alone. Thus, from what has been said, I must conclude that God necessarily exists.

…For how would I understand that I doubt and that I desire, that is, that I lack something and that I am not wholly perfect, unless there were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I might recognize my defects?

Extract 3

Indeed I have no choice but to conclude th at the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.

All that remains for me is to ask how I received this idea of God. For I did not draw it from the senses; it never came upon me unexpectedly, as is usually the case with the ideas of sensible things when these things present themselves (or seem to present themselves) to the external sense organs.

Nor was it made by me, for I plainly can neither subtract a nything from it nor add anything to it. Thus the only option remaining is that this idea is innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.

To be sure, it is not astonishing that in creating me, God should have endowed me with this idea, so that it would be like the mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work, although this mark need not be something distinct from the work itself.

Extract 4

The whole force of the argument rests on the fact that I recogni se that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am

(namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist. God,

I say, that same being the idea of whom is in me: a being having all those perfections that I cannot comprehend, but can somehow touch with m y thought, and a being subject to no defects whatever. From these considerations it is quite obvious that he cannot be a deceiver, for it is



MEDITATION 3 manifest by the light of nature that all fraud and deception depend on some defect.

The trademark argument

Descartes’ argument, although appearing confusing when first read, is really quite straightforward. It can be summarised in a variety of ways. Here is one possible interpretation:

P1 I have an idea of God.

P2 Everything which exists must have a cause.

C1 Therefore, there is a cause of my idea of God.

P3 The cause of an effect must contain at least as much reality as the effect

(the causal adequacy principle).

C2 Therefore, the cause of my idea of God must contain at least as much reality as my idea of God.

P4 I am aware that I am imperfect.

P5 My awareness of imperfection is only possible because I understand what perfection is.

C3 I cannot be a sufficient cause of my understanding of perfection because I am imperfect (see P3 above).

P6 My understanding of perfection must have been put there by a perfect being.

P7 Only God, the perfect being, could be the cause of this idea (see P3 above).

C4 Therefore, God necessarily exists.

P8 Fraud and deception depend on some defect.

C5 God, the perfect being, cannot be a deceiver.



MEDITATION 3

Activity

Think through carefully each of the stages of the trademark argument above.

Can you find flaws in Descartes’ argument?



Does everything that exists have a cause?



Is the causal adequacy principle correct?



Is your awareness of imperfection only possible because you have an innate idea of perfection?



Is deception inconsistent with goodness?

Descartes argued that the only possible explanation for why he understood the idea of perfection was because God has left hi s mark in his mind. And, given that perfection cannot include deception, this God must be good. Also, this perfect being must be all powerful (omnipotent) and all knowing

(omniscient) so, therefore, able to control the evil deceiver (if there is one, which he has already suggested is not likely!).

The proof is completely carried out in Descartes’ mind . It is, therefore, a priori in nature. For Descartes, this proof of God is a significant example of a clear and distinct perception .

Another way of presenting Descartes’ argument is as follows:

Step 1

When Descartes looks into his mind he sees that he has an idea of a perfect being. At the same time he knows that he is imperfect. The logic here is that

Descartes believes that in order for humans to underst and our own imperfection, we must first have an idea of a perfect being.

Descartes believes that this is true for all humans. All of us recognise our imperfection only because we understand perfection.

Step 2

Descartes believes that it is self-evident that nothing will come from nothing.

In other words, the idea of a perfect being must have a cause. So, where did the idea of perfection come from? What is its cause?



MEDITATION 3

Step 3

The causal principle states that the cause of something must be sufficient t o produce its effect. So, an imperfect mind is clearly not sufficient to produce the idea of perfection.

Step 4

I can’t be the cause of this idea of perfection because I am imperfect. So there must exist a perfect being, who placed this idea in my mind. This perfect being has left his/her trademark in my mind.

Activity

Are you perfect or imperfect?

What does the word ‘perfection’ mean?

Is ‘perfection’ an innate idea?

Do you agree with Descartes that God has left his trademark on your mind?

The diabolic doubt, the feeling of being sucked down by a whirlpool, has now left Descartes. When he contemplates the beauty of God he sees an ‘immense light’ that illuminates all things. If God exists then ‘reason is reliable’. If

God doesn’t exist then, Descartes believes, neither does the possibility of any knowledge claim beyond ‘I am: I exist’. God acts as a ‘guarantor’ of all the clear and distinct perceptions that humans can have. Descartes’ Rationalism is fundamentally based on his proof that God exists and that this God is good

(benevolent).

But before examining this idea more closely and at the same time inquiring into other truths that can be gathered from it, at this point I want to spend some time contemplating this God, to ponder his attributes a nd, so far as the eye of my darkened mind can take me, to gaze upon, to admire, and to adore the beauty of this immense light. For just as we believe by faith that the greatest felicity of the next life consists solely in this contemplation of the divine majesty, so too we now experience that from the same contemplation, although it is much less perfect, the greatest pleasure of which we are capable in this life can be perceived.



MEDITATION 3




The defining feature of the cogito is that it is clear and distinct in

Descartes’ mind.



Descartes believes that anything that is clear and distinct can also then be called knowledge.



Something is clear and distinct if it is certain beyond doubt, based on an intuition of the mind and is a self -evident truth.



Mathematical certainties are further examples of clear and distinct perceptions.



Descartes believes that he has a clear and distinct perception of a perfect being.



The only possible explanation for the idea of perfection is that the perfect being must have left his trademark on us.



God is essential to any possibility of knowledge beyond the cogito.



MEDITATION 6

Meditation 6: Refuting the sceptical arguments

In Meditation 1 , Descartes appeared to demolish all knowledge claims. As we have seen he then went on to establish the cogito as the first principle of philosophy and from that self-authenticating statement he was able to build knowledge upon this foundational truth. In Meditation 6 Descartes was now keen to revisit the sceptical arguments that he used in Meditation 1 and show that with a careful use of reason even these most extreme arguments can be refuted. In Mediation 6 Descartes showed that he could know with certainty that there is an outside world; that with careful use of reason we can trust our senses; that we can ‘know’ that we aren’t in fact dreaming.

You may remember the term ‘solipsism’ from the earlier part of the course.

This was raised as a criticism of empiricism. Strictly speaking, if knowledge claims can only be rooted in sense experienc e then all we can actually know for sure are the experiences of our own minds. When Descartes attempted to refute the sceptical arguments in Meditation 6 he was attempting to show clearly that reason alone could lead us beyond solipsism. If he was successf ul then he would have overcome the tradition of radical scepticism and show that rationalism is superior to empiricism.

Descartes’ lengthy discussions about proving that there is an outside world were an attempt to show that he can overcome this well -known philosophical tradition.

There are three sceptical arguments that Descartes attempted to refute.

God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists

Descartes’ strategy to show that he could know with certainty that the material world is a reality relies on the clear and distinct rule and his proof that God exists and is good.

Commonsense tells us that the source of our sensations of the world around us must surely originate in the physical objects themselves. But could

Descartes successfully prove this simple piece of common sense knowledge?



MEDITATION 6

An argument for the existence of material things

‘It remains for me to examine whether material things exist. ’

Descartes’ argument can be split into two simple steps. The argument is based around the simple sensation that we all have of the world around us. At this moment you are reading a philosophy document. You are seeing paper, text, your hands and possibly a desk in the background. Descartes asks a very simple question; where do these sensations come from? His mind tells him that there are only three possible answers to this question. The sensations of the world outside his mind can only possibly originate from either his own mind, from the actual outside world or from God choosing to put these sensations into our mind.

Step 1: The sensations we have of materials things come from outside the mind.

First Descartes wishes to make clear that the sensations he has in his mind of materials things do not originate from within his own mind. To justify his conclusion he presents two simple arguments.

First of all he points out simply that these sensations are not subject to his will . He cannot control their appearance or their smell. His mind then cannot have willed these sensations. They must, therefore, h ave come from outside his mind.

Second, he points out that his sensations of material things give him the idea that they are extended things . In other words they appear to represent things which have size and shape. His mind, however, is unextended, it has no size or shape. Descartes argues that an unextended thing (the mind) cannot create or cause the idea of an extended thing. Therefore the sensations that we have of material things must come from outside his mind.

Step 2: The sensations we have of materials things must originate in physical matter itself.

If the sensations that we have of material things don’t originate in our minds, where do they come from? There are, according to Descartes, only two possibilities. Either they come from the material world itself or they come from God. Descartes simply points out that he has a strong inclination to believe that there is a physical world. He has already shown that God must



MEDITATION 6 exist and that this God must be good (perfection cannot include any idea of deception). Therefore, God would not give us ideas about an outside world (a world beyond our mind) if it wasn’t in fact true. God is no deceiver; therefore the sensations of the physical world could not come from God. The only possibility left is that they must originate in the material objects themselves.

Activity

Try to present Descartes’ argument for the existence of an outside world in standard form. There will be an intermediate and a final conclusion.

Before you do so, read carefully the extract fr om Meditation 6 below.

Try to find useful quotes also that you could use to help explain Descartes’ argument.

Now there clearly is in me a passive faculty of sensing, that is, a faculty for receiving and knowing the ideas of sensible things;

3

but I could not use it unless there also existed, either in me or in something else, a certain active faculty of producing or bringing about these ideas. But this faculty surely cannot be in me, since it clearly presupposes no act of understanding, and these ideas are produced without my cooperation and often even against my will. Therefore the only alternative is that it is in some substance different from me, containing either formally or eminently all the reality that exists objectively in the ideas produced by t hat faculty, as I have just noted above. Hence this substance is either a body, that is, a corporeal nature 4 , which contains formally all that is contained objectively in the ideas, or else it is God, or some other creature more noble than a body, which contains eminently all that is contained objectively in the ideas. But since God is not a deceiver, it is patently obvious that he does not send me these ideas either immediately by himself, or even through the mediation of some creature that contains the objective reality of these ideas not formally but only eminently. For since

God has given me no faculty whatsoever for making this determination, but instead has given me a great inclination to believe that these ideas issue from corporeal things, I fail to see how God could be understood not to be a deceiver, if these ideas were to issue from a source other than corporeal things. And consequently corporeal things exist.

3 Things perceptible by the senses or by the mind.

4 Things of a material nature.



MEDITATION 6

Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected

In Meditation 1 Descartes spent a considerable amount of time attempting to show us that our sense experience of the physical world should not be trusted.

If this is the end of the story and he doesn’t successfully refute the argument that our senses cannot be trusted then we may be able to know that there is a physical world but unfortunately our knowledge of it will be very limited.

Descartes was determined not only to show that the material world exists, but also that our senses can in fact be trusted to provide knowledge of what it is like.

How does Descartes achieve this?

Reason should have priority over the senses

First of all he makes the case for giving reason priority over the senses. He does this by proposing that the mind has two distinct parts, the imagination and the intellect. The imagination is the part of our mind that visualises the material things. The intellect is the part of our mind that understands the material things. To explain the distinction Descartes uses the example of a chiliagon. First he asks us to imagine a triangle, visualise it in your mind.

This, hopefully, you should be able to do. He then asks us to imagine a chiliagon. Can you visualise in your mind a 1000 -sided figure?! Descartes then points out that we can understand ‘clearly and distinctly’ what a chiliagon is whereas we cannot properly visualise it using our imagination.

This allows us, Descartes suggests, to conclude that the imagination is a distinct faculty from the intellect.

Descartes goes on to discuss in detail these two distinct fa culties of the mind by suggesting that our minds perceive the world in two specific ways.

The imagination

The imagination allows us to perceive, what John Locke would later call the secondary qualities of matter. These are qualities such as sounds, smell s, colours, textures etc. Descartes argues that these qualities can only be perceived in an obscure and confused fashion.

Descartes argues also that the physical matter perceived through the imagination is simply a sensation of the way matter appears to our particular perceiving minds. For example, matter itself is not actually coloured, rather there is something else within the particular object that causes us to perceive colours. In the same way that needles cause us to feel pain without having the quality of pain themselves. Descartes is subscribing to the theory of perception known as representative realism . According to this theory our



MEDITATION 6

‘obscure’ experiences of the objects are our private representations of what these objects actually are. Our experi ences of the secondary qualities may all in fact be individual and unique to our own minds. For example, my experience of a beautiful ‘blue’ sky may differ from your experience.

Descartes is warning us again to be careful about making judgements about the world based on the senses. This is because these experiences are dominated by our perceptions of the secondary qualities of the objects which can only ever be representations of reality.

The intellect

The intellect is the part of the mind that allows us to perceive the primary qualities of matter. These are qualities such as mass, shape, quantity etc.

Descartes suggests that these qualities can be understood clearly and distinctly. This allows Descartes to argue that these primary qualities 5 are inherent features of the objects. His justification for this conclusion is that

God would not allow us to be deceived about what we clearly and distinctly perceive about these objects. They must, therefore, be a part of the essence of the object itself.

These reflections on the nature of the mind are designed to show us that the imagination must play second fiddle to the intellect.

Should we trust our sensations of the outside world?

Descartes again argues that God would not deceive us and so we should be able to confidently say that the sensations we have of the outside world via the senses are a good representation of how the world actually is. However, we must not be lazy when we interpret the world via our sense experience. He remains adamant that our senses do often deceive us. However, he wishes to make clear that, with a careful use of reason, we are in fact able to have knowledge of these material objects. We know how they appear in our imagination. We can then check this sensation with our clear and dis tinct understanding of the object’s primary qualities. Our senses do at times lead us to make mistakes about the world. However, with a careful use of reason, we can recognise and correct the errors in sense perception.

5 It is important to emphasise that Descartes doesn’t use the terms primary and secondary qualities himself anywhere in the Meditations . These were terms used later extensively by the empiricist John Locke. However, Descartes’ discussion of the different qualities of matter does reflect the meaning that Locke gave to these terms.



MEDITATION 6

Descartes’ argument can be summarised as follows:

1.

Our intellect should take priority over our imagination.

2.

The intellect can understand the primary qualities of objects clearly and distinctly .

3.

God is no deceiver and so we can have knowledge of the primary qualities of objects.

4.

If we can have knowledge of the primary qualities of objects, we can therefore have knowledge of the essence of the objects.

5.

God is no deceiver and so we can trust our senses to give us a good representation of the secondary qualities of the objects.

Conclusion: With a careful use of our God-given reason, errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected.

Activity

Try to produce a diagram that represents Descartes’ argument that errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected.

Your sketch should include reference to the following words … the imagination the intellect chiliagon God representative realism primary and secondary qualities (John Locke)

Read carefully the extracts from Meditation 6 below. Try to find useful quotes that you can add to your diagram to help explain Descartes’ argument.

To make this clear, I first examine the difference between imagination and pure intellection. So, for example, when I imagine a triangle, I not only understand that it is a figure bounded by three lines, but at the same time I also envisage with the mind’s eye those lines as if they were present; and this is what I call ‘imagining.’ On the other hand, if I want to think about a chiliagon, I certainly understand that it is a figure consisting of a thousand sides, just as well as I understand that a triangle is a figure consisting of three sides, yet I do not imagine those thousand sides in the same way, or envisage them as if they were present. And although in that case – because of force of habit I always imagine something whenever I think about a corporeal thing – I may perchance represent to myself some figure in a confused fashion, nevertheless this figure is obviously not a chiliagon. For this figure is really no different from the figure I could represent to myself, were I thinking of a myriagon or any other figure with



MEDITATION 6 a large number of sides. Nor is this figure of any help in knowing the properties that differentiate a chiliagon from other polygons. But if the figure in question is a pentagon, I surely can understand its figure, just as was the case with the chiliagon, without the help of my imagination. But I can also imagine a pentagon by turning the mind's eye both to its five sides and at the same time to the area bounded by those sides. A t this point I am manifestly aware that I am in need of a peculiar sort of effort on the part of the mind in order to imagine, one that I do not employ in order to understand. This new effort on the part of the mind clearly shows the difference between imagination and pure intellection …

Nevertheless, perhaps not all bodies exist exactly as I grasp them by sense, since this sensory grasp is in many cases very obscure and confused. But at least they do contain everything I clearly and distinctly understand – that is, everything, considered in a general sense, that is encompassed in the object of pure mathematics.

As far as the remaining matters are concerned, which are either merely particular (for example, that the sun is of such and such a size or shape, and so on) or less clearly understood (for example, light, sound, pain, and the like), even though these matters are very doubtful and uncertain, nevertheless the fact that God is no deceiver (and thus no falsity can be found in my opinions, unless there is also in me a faculty given me by God for the purpose of rectifying this falsity) offers me a definite hope of reaching the truth even in these matters. And surely there is no doubt that all that I am taught by nature has some truth to it; for by ‘nature ,’ taken generally, I understand nothing other than God himself or the ordered network of created things which was instituted by God. By my own particular nature I understand nothing other than the combination of all the things bestowed upon me by God.

Refuting the dream argument

Descartes presented the dream argument as the final nail in the coffin of reliance on the old Aristotelian idea that sense experience is the foundation of our knowledge claims. It should come as no surprise then that he revisit s this argument also at the end of the Meditations . The dream argument didn’t get rid of our knowledge of the material world, or the truths available in mathematics. However, it did leave us unable to trust our sense experience of even the most simple things. We have already looked at a number of reasons why Descartes believed that our experience of the world via our senses can in fact be trusted (as long as we are careful and we allow reason to take priority over experience). Descartes ended his Meditations with some simple



MEDITATION 6 observations designed to show how to distinguish between a waking and a dreaming state.

He presented two ways of working out whether or not you are awake at any given moment:

1. All normal life follows a coherent pattern of actions. These patterns are clearly recognised in our memory. Dreams, on the other hand , are all over the place! If at one moment you are enjoying listening to your philosophy teacher waffle on about the dream argument and then you suddenly find yourself having an argument with your mum in the kitchen then you can be sure that you are in fact dreaming. If the philosophy class takes a steady but slow 55 minutes and then you get up and head off to the next subject on your timetable then you can be sure that you are a wake.

2. Strange things can happen when you are asleep! If you find yourself floating over the school watching your friend working, then it’s likely that you’re asleep. If the laws of cause and effect are working normally then you can be sure that you are awake.

Reason can again be used to show whether or not you’re awake or dreaming.

God also isn’t likely to allow us to be deceived into thinking that we’re fast asleep. If we can know that we’re not dreaming then we can know that our sense experiences of simple realities are trustworthy.

Activity

Use the three phrases below to help you explain the way Descartes refutes the

Dream argument.

1.

All normal life follows a coherent pattern of actions.

2.

Mad things happen when you are asleep.

3.

God is no deceiver.



MEDITATION 6

Activity

Read carefully the extract from Meditation 6 below.



Underline any six sentences or phrases that you think are important to understanding Descartes’ argument.



Produce a diagram or a drawing for each sentence or phrase that will help you remember it.



Show your diagram or drawing to your neighbour and ask him/her to identify which sentences you have represented.

This consideration is most helpful, not only for my noticing all the errors to which my nature is liable, but also for enabling m e to correct or avoid them without difficulty. To be sure, I know that all the senses set forth what is true more frequently than what is false regarding what concerns the welfare of the body. Moreover, I can nearly always make use of several of them in order to examine the same thing. Furthermore, I can use my memory, which connects current happenings with past ones, and my intellect, which now has examined all the causes or error. Hence I should no longer fear that those things that are daily shown me by the senses are false. On the contrary, the hyperbolic doubts of the last few days ought to be rejected as ludicrous. This goes especially for the chief reason for doubting, which dealt with my failure to distinguish being asleep from being awake. For I now notice that there is a considerable difference between these two; dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake. For surely, if, while I am awake, someone were sudd enly to appear to me and then immediately disappear, as occurs in dreams, so that

I see neither where he came from nor where he went, it is not without reason that I would judge him to be a ghost or a phantom conjured up in my brain, rather than a true man. But when these things happen, and I notice distinctly where they come from, where they are now, and when they come to me, and when I connect my perception of them without interruption with the whole rest of my life, I am clearly certain that these perceptions have happened to me not while I was dreaming but while I was awake. Nor ought I have even the least doubt regarding the truth of these things, if, having mustered all the senses, in addition to my memory and my intellect, in order to examine them, no thing is passed on to me by one of these sources that conflicts with the others. For from the fact that God is no deceiver, it follows that I am in no way mistaken in these matters.



MEDITATION 6

But because the need to get things done does not always permit us the leisure for such a careful inquiry, we must confess that the life of man is apt to commit errors regarding particular things, and we must acknowledge the infirmity of our nature.




Descartes wants to refute the sceptical arguments so that he can show that reason should take priority over sense experience.



Descartes wants to be able to say with certainty that he can know things beyond his own mind.



His mind is unextended whereas he has perceptions of an extended world.

This suggests to Descartes that his mind cannot then be the source of his sensations of the outside world.



God cannot be the source of these perceptions either, because God would not deceive him therefore the material world itself must exist.



Descartes suggests that he can trust his sense perceptions because God would not deceive us. Because God is no deceiver the representations we have in our minds of the world can be trusted.



Our clear and distinct perceptions of the qualities of objects such as their size, location etc allows us to say that with a careful use of reason we can correct errors in our sense perceptions.



Descartes knows he cannot be dreaming because waking life follows a linear pattern of experiences that runs within the bounds of the rules of cause and effect.



EVALUATION OF DESCARTES

Evaluation of Descartes

As with all great works of philosophy people over the years have commented on the successes and failures of Descartes’ Meditations . In fact a sign of the greatness of somebody’s work might be the amount of discussio n it generates.

If people read a work of philosophy and then put it down and never think about it again then you can be sure that it was not very important. The view that the Meditations is one of philosophy’s classic books is backed up by the fact that philosophers have read and discussed it in huge detail.

All the criticisms you are going to read should be understood in the context of this discussion. You don’t need to agree with them all. In fact it would be very helpful if you didn’t. Rather, you should engage with them in the same way that you have probably engaged with the book itself.

Evaluation of Descartes’ method of doubt

Was Descartes sincere?

Descartes’ method encourages the use of hyperbolic doubt. In other words, he intends to reject beliefs if he has any grounds whatsoever for being suspicious of their truth. Some have challenged the sincerity of Descartes’ method. Could it be that the doubts he raises are just a sham, and that

Descartes had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to prove from the outset?

Maybe Descartes has presented some pretty serious doubts but in reality didn’t take them seriously himself? For his method to be effective then

Descartes needed to genuinely destroy all his opinions. It could be argued that he only ever pretended to doubt key beliefs like his conviction that God exists.

Was Descartes consistently rigorous?

Descartes’ method of doubt demands a rigorous approach. It can certainly be argued that Descartes was indeed very rigorous early in his Meditations .

Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his sincerity.

However, maybe he wasn’t quite so rigorous when he later tried to build upon his foundation. Maybe his building work was a little lacklustre. The criticisms that follow could certainly be used to back up this opinion.




Problems with the dream argument

Descartes suggests that he regularly mistakenly takes the experience of dreaming for reality. In other words he seems to be saying that when we are asleep we have no way of distinguishing sleep from reality. Most can understand these comments as most of us have experienced the sensation of waking up and for a moment or two not been quite sure whether or not we are still dreaming. However, it doesn’t take long for us to realise that we a re in fact awake. It does appear true that we mistake dreaming experience for conscious experience when we are asleep and dreaming. However, do we necessarily make the same mistake when we are awake?

When we’re asleep we can’t clearly distinguish wakefuln ess from sleep.

However, when we are awake we do seem to be able to check fairly easily.

For example, when we dream our sense of touch doesn’t appear strong.

Rather, dreams are very visual. Dreams also do not have the continuity of waking experience. They tend to be dominated by brief episodes that often contain strange occurrences. Descartes himself presented arguments in

Meditation 6 to show that with a careful use of reason he could distinguish whether or not he was dreaming.

It has been argued then that Descartes seems to have made a logical error in

Meditation 1 . He takes the apparently true proposition:

When I’m dreaming I regularly mistakenly assume that this experience is real.

And then moves to the apparently false proposition:

I cannot ever tell the difference between dreaming experience and conscious experience.

This means that his conclusion that he can’t tell whether or not he is asleep now isn’t necessarily the case. If he’s dreaming now he has a problem.

However, if he’s awake now then he can know this experience is true.

Descartes presented the dream hypothesis as a final nail in the coffin of reliance on sense experience. A priori truths survived it but a posteriori truths didn’t. Descartes was therefore using the dream argument to beg in his case for the superiority of rationalism as opposed to empiricism. If we can challenge Descartes’ presentation of the dream argument then maybe his argument against empiricism isn’t quite as strong as he had hoped.




However, some may argue in response that Descartes doesn’t really need to worry too much about any problems with the dream argument. After all, the evil deceiver argument, although initially raised to challenge a priori truths, clearly could also be used to challenge a posteriori truths. The point

Descartes is really going to make is that only his mind can overcome radical doubts like the dream argument or most importantly the evil genius. Even if the criticisms above are true they don’t really affect the principle that he is trying to establish.

Does Descartes’ method lead to a sceptical dead-end?

The addition of the evil deceiver is certainly the most rigorous of all arguments. However, this rigour led the famous Scottish philosopher David

Hume to argue in his Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) that once hyperbolic doubt is embarked upon then nothing can survive.

Theoretically all our beliefs can be doubted. Descartes’ method, therefore, according to Hume, leads to a sceptical dead end.

The question for us to ask is whethe r or not Descartes was successful in escaping the diabolic doubt he presents us with.

Evaluation activity

Read the views below and then think about, discuss and write your own thoughts in response to the questions that follow:

View 1: ‘Descartes’ sceptical method ensured that philosophical searching became more rigorous. It could also be argued that Descartes’ sceptical method helped to allow the new sciences to triumph. Maybe Descartes sowed the seeds of the modern scientific method that we take for granted today?’

Do you think science is far more rigorous now than it was 400 years ago?

Do you think Descartes’ method of doubt played an important part in this?




View 2: ‘We should use Descartes’ method as a safeguard to our own modern scientific insights. There is always a danger that the current philosophers and scientists assume they have got it right. Descartes’ method might even help show the faults in some of the current ideas that are accepted as truths today.

In his day his perspective on science was revolutionary and provided many who followed with an inspiration and direction that shaped their work.’

Has modern science now found all the answers?

Can you think of scientific views that are presented as fact that maybe should be open to doubt?

How do you know your science teachers are presenting you with the truth?

Do you think science graduates should be expected to study epistemology?

Do you think Descartes’ sceptical method should play an important role in philosophy’s search for truth?

View 3: ‘Descartes’ method of doubt reminds us that good philosophy demands that you try to think with an honest and open mind. The evil deceiver hypothesis is a clever ‘thought game’ that reminds us that we shouldn’t come to philosophy with deeply cherished beliefs that we refuse to consider false.’

How open-minded are you?

Was Descartes’ open-minded?

Are you willing to consider that your most deeply cherished beliefs could be false?

View 4: ‘Descartes was determined to find certainty. His method of doubt makes sure that only beliefs that are beyond doubt should be called knowledge.’

Do you think Descartes’ foundational approach to knowledge is good or would you prefer a different approach?

Is Descartes taking his search for certainty too far?




Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ method of doubt

 Were Descartes’ doubts sincere?



Was he rigorous throughout the Meditations ?



Did he make a logical error with his dream argument?



Does his method lead to a sceptical dead -end?



Did his method change the way scientists and philosophers approached their work?



Does his method of doubt challenge us to be more careful about our beliefs?



Is his search for certainty a realistic and necessary goal?

Evaluation of the cogito

Many of the criticisms directed against the cogito are based around

Descartes’ references to the evil deceiver.

The evil deceiver and reason

The cogito was Descartes’ first key foundation of knowledge. It is clear that it can only be called certain knowledge if we agree that logic itself is reliable.

However, the evil deceiver hypothesis means that we must doubt even the reliability of logic itself.

P1 If I’m thinking then I must exist.

P2 I am thinking.

C I must exist.

Although on the face of it the cogito does appear self-evidently true, there are clearly logical steps involved in Descartes’ argument. If there is an evil deceiver, then maybe we have to accept that some of these steps could be false. For example, maybe it’s logically possible that thinking doesn’t in fact need a thinker! Maybe the deceiver has tricked us into making this premise seem self-evident! If the reliability of reason is doubted then how can

Descartes hope to use reason to overcome his doubts?

However, unlike the classic argument, ‘I think therefore I am’, it could be argued that the version of the cogito expressed in the Meditations , ‘I am: I



EVALUATION OF DESCARTES exist’ is immune to this criticism. ‘I am: I exist’ is not an argument, rather it is meant to be understood as an undeniable self -evident proposition. There are no logical steps here for the demon to undermine. There is no hidden premise like ‘thoughts require a thinker’. Rather, ‘I am: I exist’ is presented by Descartes as a statement that you can know is true as soon as you express it.

The evil deceiver and language

The doubts raised by the evil deceiver were designed to throw into doubt not just all a posteriori knowledge but significantly all a priori knowledge claims. After the possibility of us being deceived by the evil deceiver, even simple mathematical concepts like 2 + 3 = 5 are open to doubt. Descartes’ cogito is supposed to be the self-evident truth that survives even the demon hypothesis. However, in order for the cogito to work it could be argued that

Descartes must have had at his disposal a list of fundamental language concepts. Descartes must have known what ‘thought’ is, what ‘doubt’ is, what

‘existence’ is, what ‘I’ is etc, before he was able to put together these ideas into the cogito . If we can’t be sure of the meaning of these concepts, then maybe we can’t be sure that ‘I am: I exist’ is a necessary concept after all.

Problems with Descartes’ assumptions about the self

As was mentioned earlier, the amount of comment given to the Meditations is a sign of its importance. The cogito is a great example of this as is clear by the number of famous philosophers who have commented on it.

Here is a short collection of some of these responses.

6 All of them relate to

Descartes’ assumptions about the nature of the ‘I’ referred to in the cogito .

David Hume (1711–1776) had earlier raised an objection to Descartes’ idea of the ‘self’. He argued that when he thought most intimately about what he called his self he only ever experienced ‘some particular perception or other, heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception.’ For Hume, experience and not reason should be the foundation of knowledge claims. Hume concludes that the concept o f ‘self’ merely refers to a bundle of perceptions. There is no independent self in which these perceptions occur. All we can know is that experiences of perceptions are happening.

6 Cardinal, Hayward and Jones (2006), pp 55–60.




Georg Lichtenberg (1742–1799), the eighteenth-century German physicist, also questioned Descartes’ basic assumption about what the ‘I’ in the cogito is. Lichtenberg argued that to say ‘I think’ contains more than we can be certain of. He argued that the most we can say is, ‘It thinks’.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued that Descartes’ foundation of knowledge includes a large assumption about what the ‘I’ actually is.

Descartes believed that the ‘I’ is a ‘thinking thing’ which led him to the conclusion that the mind (where the ‘I’ is housed) is distinct from the body.

Russell’s criticism is designed to point out that this fundamental idea is based on a less than secure assumption. He points out that when we look at a table we can’t say for sure ‘I am seeing a brown table’. The best we can say with certainty is ‘a brown colour is being seen’. For Russell, all that can be proved is the existence of the momentary perceptions.

A.J. Ayer (1910–1989) argued that Descartes was wrong to use the words ‘I think’. If he was to be really consistent with his sceptical approach then the most he should have said was ‘there are thoughts’. Descartes was making the assumption that if there are thoughts then there must be a thinker, however, maybe the evil deceiver hypothesis can challenge even this simple idea.

Activity

Read carefully the views of the four famous philosophers above.

Try to write a short summary of their views in the speech bubbles on the next page.

Do you agree with their views?



Activity: Criticism of the cogito

A.J. Ayer


Georg Lichtenberg

Bertrand Russell

David Hume





Read the views below and then think about, discuss and write your own thoughts in response to the questions that follow:

View 1: ‘Descartes is right when he says that the mind is somehow distinct from the body. Maybe Descartes is touching on something unique about the human, that we are in fact able to do what no other living thing can, to be uniquely conscious of ourselves.’

If ‘thinking is going on’ what kind of mind do you think humans have?

Is your brain completely different from the brain s of animals?

View 2: ‘Descartes is right when he implies that humans are not just physical things. My mind is not a physical thing.’

Is the ‘I’ actually only a bundle of perceptions as Hume and many modern scientists suggest?

Are we really just a bundle of perceptions?

Are our emotions and thoughts really explainable in purely physical terms?

Do you agree with Descartes that your physical body is made of different stuff than your mind?

Summary: Evaluation of the cogito



Could the deceiver trick us into believing that it is self -evident that thoughts require a thinker?



Could the deceiver trick us about the meaning of our language concepts?



Is Descartes right to assume that a human is primarily a thi nking thing?

 Maybe all Descartes can say with 100% certainty is that ‘there are thoughts’ or ‘it thinks’?




Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God

The role God plays in the Meditations has already been emphasised. If God can’t be shown to exist then Descartes can’t really get beyond the cogito . He may have established the truth that he exists. However, without God this is pretty much all he’s achieved. Many today aren’t nearly as convinced of the existence of God as Descartes was.

In the Meditations Descartes ignores the a posteriori proofs for the existence of God (eg the teleological and the cosmological proofs) , choosing to focus his attention as we would expect on a priori reasoning.

Problems with the trademark argument

The trademark argument relies on our innate idea of God, perfection etc.

However, maybe innate ideas don’t exist in the first place? Look back in your notes to the criticisms that John Locke presented in relation to innate ideas.

Maybe Descartes’ understanding of God isn’t an innate idea, maybe it’s simply something his mind has invented to suit his purposes. Maybe the evil deceiver put it there!? Many people also have different ideas about what God is. For example, not everyone agrees that God needs to be all powerful. If the idea of God is innate, why is it that there is often so much disagreement about what God actually is like?

A more complex response to the trademark argument concerns analysing the success of Descartes’ reliance on the causal adequacy principle.

Maybe this principle isn’t in fact true? Is it possible to find examples in the world that challenge this assumption? Look at the following two examples: 7

We light a bonfire with a match.

We can cause an avalanche with a whisper.

Here the cause appears to have less reality than what was produced.

The effects of a long process such as evolution could also be cited. Tiny, apparently insignificant changes taking place over a huge length of time can lead to the development of disorganised matter into complex life for ms. The final effect is clearly much greater than the original causes.

7 Cardinal, Hayward and Jones (2006), p. 100.




If these examples are true counter -examples to Descartes’ causal principle then the trademark argument is in real trouble. And remember, without God all Descartes really knows is that he exists. Everything else is open to doubt.

Here are a few other simple observations concerning God that may cast further doubt on Descartes’ success.

1.

Maybe God does exist but chooses to deceive us for His own mysterious purpose? Descartes has assumed that God wouldn’t deceive us because deception is a flaw that a perfect being could not have. However, maybe

God has perfect reasons for choosing to deceive us?!

2.

If we take seriously Descartes’ radical doubt then why should we not apply it to all our common understanding of the nature of God? Maybe the evil deceiver deceives us into thinking that God wouldn’t deceive us? Maybe the evil deceiver put the idea of ‘perfection’ in our minds?

3.

If we are successful in casting doubt on the existence of God and his nature then Descartes’ reliance on reason should also be rejected. If the deceiver is a real possibility then I should give up the belief in argument itself as a means of acquiring the truth. The remainder of the

Meditations is full of various arguments, eg existence of God, clear and distinct rule, mind/body duality etc. If we honestly need to take seriously the possibility of the existence of an evil deceiver then we need to honestly accept that Descartes’ arguments may all be open to doubt. They can only work if a good God exists. The question remains though, has Descartes successfully argued that God mus t exist?

4.

Descartes’ conviction that God exists also allows him to say that the impressions he has of the material world provided by his senses gives us an accurate representation of what the outside world is actually like.

Descartes’ acceptance of the representative realist view is a modification of commonsense realism. It is the view that when we say

‘I see a dog’ we have to admit that we do not see it directly in the way that commonsense realism suggests. What we do have is only our mental representation of the animal. A major problem for this approach, however, is that it makes the real world unknowable. The world can only ever be known indirectly . Descartes assumes that his mental representations give him a good picture of reality because he assumes that a good God would give him good senses. However, if we can cast doubt on the existence of God then we will very quickly be able to point out that his argument that our mental representations of the world are accurate is now open to doubt also.




Activity

Write the word GOD in the middle of a page.

Try to produce a summary of all the criticisms relating to Descartes’ use of

God in the Meditations .

The suggested format on the next page may help you get started.




Criticism

Criticism

Criticism

GOD

Criticism



Criticism

Criticism



Read all the questions below and spend some time thinking about them.

Write short paragraphs on four questions of your choice.

1. Is it only humans that can think about God?

2. Is it possible to think about an imperfect God?

3. Is Descartes right when he says that our understanding of perfection must be innate in us?

4. Has Descartes defined God into existence?

5. If God doesn’t exist then does Descartes’ whole project fail?

6. Do you think that your mind gives you a good representation of the world? How can you be sure?

7. Do you think that the theory of evolution could be used to present an alternative argument that our minds give us a good representati on of the world?

8. Could the theory of evolution replace God in Descartes’ system?

Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God



Has God been defined into existence?



Can we be certain that there are innate ideas?



Can we find counter-examples to challenge the causal adequacy principle?



Maybe God chooses to deceive us for his own good purposes.



Maybe the evil deceiver put the idea of perfection into our heads.

 If God doesn’t exist then all Descartes knows is that he exists.




Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Is Descartes’ rule ‘invalid’?

Descartes argued that the success of the cogito was down to the fact that it can be grasped clearly and distinctly. He then generalised this principle and claimed that any belief he can conceive clearly and distinctly must also be true. A simple criticism can be levelled at Descartes here by asking whether or not this is a valid generalisation. If someone observed one pink pig and then generalised that all pigs were pink we would be justified in ass uming that this generalisation is unacceptable.

8 Maybe Descartes’ generalisation with regard to the clear and distinct rule is equally invalid.

What is special about the cogito is that it is ‘self-verifying’. Maybe the best general rule that the cogito can lead to is that all knowledge claims that are also ‘self-verifying’ can be called true, not that all beliefs that are recognised clearly and distinctly must be.

How can we know for sure whether something is clear and distinct?

Another obvious difficulty concerns our ability to recognise whether a belief we have is actually clear and distinct. It is surely possible to think that you’ve identified something clearly and distinctly when in fact you haven’t.

Descartes isn’t clear on how you can guarantee that you have indeed come to a clear and distinct knowledge claim. In Meditation 1 he took a great deal of time to show us how easy it is to be mistaken when making a knowledge claim. Surely then it’s possible to mistakenly call something clear and distinct when in fact it is not. Descartes, after all, made it clear on more than one occasion that he considered man to be ‘subject to error’.

In order to help guarantee that we can in fact have knowledge based on the clear and distinct rule, Descartes needs to make reference to God. His argument is simple:

P1 God exists and is good.

P2 A good God would not deceive us into thinking that something is clear and distinct when it is not.

C We can therefore trust our intuition about what beliefs are in fact clear and distinct.

This argument leads us into what is often presented as the most significant criticism of the Meditations . Descartes appears to use circular logic.

8 Cardinal, Hayward and Jones (2006), p. 83.




The Cartesian circle

We have already noted the difficulties that can be directed at the Meditations due to the role played by God. Whether or not we believe in a deity is not the issue; what we might have trouble with is the argument that Descartes used to

‘prove’ the existence of God. According to Descartes there are certain truths that are so clear, so self-evident that we simply know them to be true and one such truth concerns the existence of God. The problem for Descartes is that he needs God to establish the reliability of reason. To know that God exists in the first place he needs to know that his mind is reliable. This argument was first raised by a contemporary of Descartes, a theologian called Antoine

Arnauld. Although he was one of the first to adopt the philosophy of

Descartes, he did so after outlining this key reservation.

Descartes’ argument does appear to be circular, ie it presupposes what it sets out to prove. To prove that his clear and distinct judgements must be true he needs to rely on God. To know that God exists he needs to rely on the clear and distinct ideas required in both his trademark and his ontological proofs.

Q How do you know that God exists?

A Because I proved his existence using clear and distinct ideas.

Q How do you know that clear and distinct ideas are reliable?

A Because a non-deceiving God exists.

God exists

These enable me to know that

God’s existence means that the following are reliable

Clear and distinct ideas




Activity

Descartes’ reliance on the clear and distinct rule has been criticised heavily.

1. Explain in detail the three criticisms above.

2. Do you think they are strong criticisms? Explain your answer.


Ask yourself whether the following are ‘clear and distinct’ in your mind.

2 + 2 = 4

A triangle is a three-sided shape whose interior angles add up to 180 degrees.

Is Descartes right when he says that mathematical concepts are clear and distinct? Could they possibly ever be wrong?

Are scientists right to use mathematical models to prove their theories?

Do mathematical concepts need God in order for us to know that they are clear and distinct?

Summary: Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule



Is this rule invalid?



How can we be sure that something is a clear and distinct perception?



Does Descartes use circular logic?



COURSE SUMMARY (SELF EVALUATION)

Course summary (self-evaluation)

Unit title: Epistemology Part 2: Descartes’ Rationalism (Higher)

Student self-assessment summary

Number of marks available in exam: 30 marks

1. Topic: Searching for a reliable foundation of knowledge Dates: a. Historical context



Plato vs. Aristotle



The new sciences b. Descartes’ aim



The project (finding a foundation of knowledge)



The method (Cartesian doubt) c. Rejection of a posteriori knowledge claims



Mistrust of the senses



The dream argument d. Rejection of a priori knowledge claims



Evil Genius argument



Diabolic doubt

Self-assessment

I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very easy

Areas I found most difficult were:

‘I can confidently answer exam questions on this topic.’

2. Topic: Reason as the foundation of knowledge a. The cogito



Foundational, self-authenticating knowledge claim



Argument for rationalism b. God as the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions



The clear and distinct rule



The role of God (trademark argument/can God be a deceiver? )

Self-assessment


Date:

Dates



COURSE SUMMARY (SELF EVALUATION)



3. Refuting the sceptical arguments (Meditations 6) a. God is no deceiver, therefore material reality exists



An argument for the existence of mat erial things b. Errors in sense perception can be recogni sed and corrected



Reason should have priority over the senses



Representative realism



Should we trust these sensations of the outside world? c. Refuting the dream argument

Self-assessment




4. Evaluation of Descartes’ Meditations a. Evaluation of Descartes’ method b. Evaluation of the cogito c. Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God d. Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Self-assessment




Date:

Dates

Date:

Date:

Dates



GLOSSARY

Glossary

Key term

Cartesian

Cartesian circle

Cartesian doubt

Causal adequacy principle

Definition

(Try to add at least one other piece of information about the term in the space below each. This may be a further comment that defines the term in more detail, or it may be an example that helps explain it, or ideally both)

Tick box

( When fully confident that you know, understand and can use this term)

The adjective from ‘Descartes’. Used to describe philosophical and other ideas related to Descartes.

The name given to a particular objection to

Descartes’ argument. Descartes needs the notion of clear and distinct perception to move beyond the cogito but needs God to guarantee the reliability of clear and distinct percepti on.

The sceptical method used by Descartes in which any belief that is not certain is treated as false.

The principle that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself.



GLOSSARY

Clear and distinct perception

Cogito

Evil genius

Method of doubt

Trademark argument

In the Principles Descartes says that a ‘clear’ perception is one that is present and manifest to the attentive mind and that a ‘distinct’ perception is one that is so separated from all other perceptions that it contains absolutely nothing except what is clear.

Latin for ‘I think’. Used as a way of referring to Descartes’ argument that he cannot doubt his own existence.

A hypothetical entity used by Descartes to maintain the possibility that we are constantly being deceived.

Descartes’ attempt to arrive at certainty by systematically doubting everything until he discovered something that could not be doubted.

Descartes’ argument that God must exist because we have an idea of God and the idea must have been implanted there by God as a kind of trademark.



GLOSSARY

Bibliography

Lacewing, M and Pascal, J, Revise Philosophy for AS Level , Routledge, 2007.

Popkin, R and Stroll, A, Philosophy , 3rd edition, Made Simple Books, 1993.

Warburton, N, Philosophy: the basics , 4th edition , Routledge, 2004.

Warburton, N, Philosophy: the classics , Routledge, 1998.

Prescribed text

Meditations on First Philosophy , Rene Descartes, translated by Donald Cress,

Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana, 1993.

References

Cardinal, D, Hayward, J and Jones G, The Meditations Rene Descartes:

Philosophy in focus, Hodder Murray, 2006.

Kenny, A, The Oxford History of Western Philosophy , Oxford, 2000.



Descartes - Education Scotland

Philosophy

[HIGHER]

Contents

Teacher’s notes

Introduction: René Descartes’ Meditations on First

Philosophy

Historical context

The Meditations on First Philosophy (published 1641)

Meditation 1: Searching for a reliable foundation of knowledge

Descartes’ aim

Descartes’ method

Rejection of a posteriori knowledge claims

Rejections of a priori knowledge claims

Summary: Meditation 1

Meditation 2: Reason as the foundation of knowledge

Diabolic doubt

The Cogito

Summary: Meditation 2

Meditation 3: God as the guarantor of clear and distinct perceptions

The clear and distinct rule

The role of God

The trademark argument

Summary: Meditation 3

Meditation 6: Refuting the sceptical arguments

God is no deceiver therefore material reality exists

Errors in sense perception can be recognised and corrected

Refuting the dream argument

Summary: Meditation 6

Evaluation of Descartes

Evaluation of Descartes’ method of doubt

Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ method of doubt

Evaluation of the cogito

Summary: Evaluation of the cogito

Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God

Summary: Evaluation of Descartes’ reliance on God

Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Summary: Evaluation of the clear and distinct rule

Course summary (self-evaluation)

Glossary

Bibliography

Prescribed text

References

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

**The Meditations on First Philosophy (published 1641)**

**Rejection of a posteriori knowledge claims**

**Rejections of a priori knowledge claims**