PHIL 101 Student Name A Summary of Descartes’ Meditations I&II In his mediations, Descartes examines some of the fundamental principles behind our existence, addresses the possibility that what we, as humans, are being deceived, and presents the idea that our perception of our world is distorted. Descartes first challenges his own beliefs, in order to build a new foundation on which his new view of the world will rest. In Meditation II, Descartes reaffirms some of his conclusions from Meditation I, and delves into ontological questions such as the true nature of being, and speculates about the essence of what makes something what it is. Descartes states, “Several years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true…” (Descartes, 1) Descartes admits that his view of the world is potentially flawed, and decides analyze what he was been taught, which he declares is no small or easy task, and thus has decided to wait to start it until “[he] had attained an age so mature as to leave [him] no hope that at any stage of life more advanced [he] should be better able to execute [his] design.” (Descartes, 1) Now with the free time garnered from retirement, the lack of other passions, and without preoccupation of the mind on other topics Descartes begins analyzing the foundations of his old view of the world. The human senses are not infallible. This fact, which Descartes recognizes, and admits to leads him to discredit any information that he has declared to be unconditionally true; “it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.” (Descartes, 1) Descartes struggles with this concept, and his thought process is apparent in the next sentences; “there are yet many other of their presentations, of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt.” He then draws a comparison; were he to deny that his own hands and body did not exist he would be no less insane than a madman who, while poor, thinks himself a king. Descartes settles and declares that while this is true, he must for the moment consider himself a man, with hands, eyes, a head, and a body. In the next paragraph, however, he makes a powerful argument that will help define the rest of Meditation 1. Descartes realizes that as a human being, his mind is subject to the illusions of dreams, which feel very real while we are in them. He notes too, that on more than one occasion he has dreamt himself sitting in his chair by the fire, while he was, of course, asleep in bed. While he consciously moves his eyes, and hands while awake, he also states “I perceive so clearly that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep.” (Descartes, 1) This idea forms the basis for Descartes next thought experiment. He assumes then, for the sake of argument that he is sleeping, and that the movements of his hands and body, and everything he sees around him is an illusion. However he notes; although strange, the things we see in dreams are based upon more general or basic versions of the same objects and events, and those basic versions must exist somewhere. In Descarte’s words; “we are nevertheless absolutely necessitated to admit the reality at least of some other objects still more simple and universal than these, of which … all those images of things, whether true and real, or false and fantastic, that are found in our consciousness, are formed.” (Descartes, 1) He continues to define these objects in the next paragraph as corporeal objects, which have shape and volume, occupy a unique position in space, can be quantified, and exist in a certain and definite place or time. At this point in his meditations Descartes believes that there are certain truths, like the number of sides on a square; four, and the addition of the numbers two and three resulting in five, are undeniable truths because they remain so even in dreams. These ideas remain independent of the physical sciences which are based on empirical data taken from the world around us, and are, according to this new worldview; accurate in their understanding of the world they describe, but do not accurately denote what truly is. In the next lines Descartes ponders his belief in a creating God, and the possibility that everything he sees around him does not actually exist and the God which he believes created it has actually only created his perception of his world, and that this perceived world does not actually exist. He wonders further whether he is being deceived in his most basic assumption that two and three make five. However for Descartes this constructive being is supremely good, and thus supposes that it would be undesirable to deceive his creations, however Descartes knows the he is at least sometimes deceived, and is curious why this is allowed. At this point Descartes admits, “[I] am constrained at last to avow that there is nothing of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible to doubt.” (Descartes, 1) This statement represents a fundamental reevaluation of Descartes’ beliefs. Further he declares that these conclusions have not been reached on a whim, but through careful reason and logic, and anything he learns from this point onward cannot be distrusted or examine thoroughly enough. Descartes summarizes his first Meditation by stating; “I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these.” (Descartes, 1) Essentially he states that nothing that we see around us can be believed, and everything we think we know, we do not know for certain. The only thing that is certain, however, is that we exist, in part because we have been deceived. Descartes opens Meditation II with an admission of how overwhelming the ideas from Mediation I are. He says; it is as if “I had fallen all of a sudden into very deep water, I am so greatly disconcerted as to be unable either to plant my feet firmly on the bottom or sustain myself by swimming on the surface.” (Descartes, 2) However he also affirms that he will continue with the same train of thought he initiated in Meditation 1; “and I will continue always in this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.” (Descartes, 2) As such, Descartes restates many of the principle ideas attained in Meditation 1; events from his past are fallaciously represented by his memory and never existed, he possesses no senses, the quality of having a body which takes up space, has shape, and can move is illusory. Finally he states that nothing he knows he knows for certain. In paragraph three Descartes solidifies the notion of a deceptive and very powerful being whose act of deception provides the foundation for Descartes’ existence. He exists because he is deceived, as the act of trickery requires someone, or something to trick. “Let him [the evil demon] deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something.” (Descartes, 2) However he remains confused as to what this something is; “I do not yet know with sufficient clearness what I am.” (Descartes, 2) As in the past, when confronted with confusion Descartes defenestrates all preconceived notions of himself and begins anew, first by examining his previous beliefs and finding their flaws. “What then did I formerly think I was? Undoubtedly I judged that I was a man. But what is a man?” (Descartes, 2) Descartes notes that a man is a rational animal, but as the discussion to define rational would be exhaustive, he discards this idea and chooses instead to list the characteristics of a man, in the simplest terms he can. “I thought that I possessed a countenance, hands, arms and all the fabric of members that appears in a corpse, and which I called by the name of body.” (Descartes, 2) He then moves on to the soul, which he spends no time explaining or considering even outside his meditations, but states, “I did not even doubt of its nature, but thought I distinctly knew it.” (Descartes, 2) Descartes then analyzes the possibility that perception is linked to the soul, and decides that none of the characteristics of a corporeal body can decidedly belong to the being that is Descartes. In his opinion his thoughts are the truest defining characteristic of himself; “Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself” and “I am, however, a real thing, and really existent; but what thing? … A thinking thing.” (Descartes, 2) In paragraph 7, he attempts to show that he is more than a thinking thing, or a mind without physical form. Descartes finds this view to be in error because the act of imagining a physical form requires an image based on his perceptions, and he has already determined that he is being deceived in everything he perceives. He brings up the dream example, in which everything one sees is based on a more basic, natural or real version of the dream construction, however in this case there isn’t anything more real or truthful to base his imagined form on. The same idea is presented in his words as follows; “therefore, I know that nothing of all that I can embrace in imagination belongs to the knowledge which I have of myself, and that there is need to recall with the utmost care the mind from this mode of thinking, that it may be able to know its own nature with perfect distinctness.” (Descartes, 2) In the next paragraph Descartes outlines the qualities of a thinking thing, as being able to doubt, understand, conceive, affirm, deny, wish, refute, imagine, and also perceive. He then applies this definition to himself; “Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything; who, for all that, understands and conceives certain things … as if through the medium of the senses.” (Descartes, 2) All of this culminates in the supposition that perception cannot be doubted, and while the source of the perception may be false, the actual act of experiencing it is undoubtedly true. This idea will go a long way towards disproving the Evil Demon hypothesis in Meditation Three. In paragraph eleven, Descartes analyzes the ontological characteristics of corporeal objects, examining a piece of wax which retains the traits of its component parts, sweetness from the honey it contained, the scent of flowers from which it was made, as well as its size, shape and color. However once heated many of these elements are lost, the shape changes as it melts, its sweet taste is gone, as is the smell of flower pollen. At this point Descartes asks whether the wax is the same, even though the “distinctness” of it has changed; “What, then was it I knew with so much distinctness in the piece of wax? Assuredly, it could be nothing of all that I observed by means of the senses, since all the things that fell under taste, sight, touch, and hearing are changed, and yet the same wax remains.” (Descartes, 2) The next paragraph contains an exhaustive examination of what determines what the wax is. Eventually Descartes decides that he cannot comprehend by imagination what the wax is, but that his mind alone is what perceives it. This idea stems from the Platonic universal vs. particular argument in which it is debated whether we perceive objects based on specific examples, or by a series of characteristics that are intrinsically known. Descartes has settled on the latter, being that the mind is the thing perceiving and understanding what the wax is. “I must therefore admit that I cannot even comprehend by imagination what the piece of wax is, and that it is the mind alone which perceives it.” (Descartes, 2) In paragraph thirteen Descartes shows that the mind is a powerful tool in analyzing our perceptions. He presents another example in which a hypothetical situation in which there is no way to discern whether the people walking on the sidewalk outside a window are in fact real humans, or machines. Descartes determines that they are human because his mind is familiar with their human‐ness; “I judge that there are human beings from these appearances, and thus I comprehend by the faculty of judgment alone which is in the mind, what I believed I saw with my eyes.” (Descartes, 2) This concept combines what Descartes knows to exist; his mind, with sensation to determine that what we know via the senses is corroborated by the mind and therefore is lent more credence than if it were solely perceived without being understood. “I judge that the wax exists because I see it, it assuredly follows, much more evidently, that I myself am or exist, for the same reason… if I judge that the wax exists because I touch it, it will still also follow that I am.” (Descartes, 2) Descartes final argument seems to undeniably prove that anything we know is best understood through thought, when understood by the mind, not cluttered or clouded by the senses. Anything we perceive requires the mind to make sense of it, which proves the mind exists, though not the object perceived. As stated before, the act of perception is unarguable, it occurs and is dependent on the mind, even though the thing perceived may not be real. Meditation one takes away our ability to know anything from the senses alone, while Meditation two argues that this is not a hindrance, but a strengthening of a powerful analytical tool, which allows us to make sense of our perceptions. Grading Rubrics 65% of points are earned by presenting the major conclusions given in the essay. This can best be accomplished by a paragraph by paragraph (or section by section) treatment of the essay. 25% points are earned by giving details about the major conclusions. This means providing premises (both explicitly given ones, and ones gleaned by a careful reading of the text), or noting that no real premises/reasons are given to support a specific conclusion (this is not a loop hole – if you claim no premises/reasons are given, then this claim must be accurate!) Inclusion of stipulative definitions, or making note of special use of terminology, and all other details which would be important to include in an academic summary of an essay intended to explain the contents of the essay to fellow philosophy students, or the public at large. 10% of the remaining points are earned by providing a clear opening paragraph with thesis statement together with all the normal elements of academic writing at the college level. Specifically, your paper should be free of typological errors, spelling errors, show organization and be written in an academic tone. (hint: let your paper set several hours before you submit it, and then do a careful proof read before submission!) Finally, your paper must be saved using a naming criteria that includes your last name, the assignment type and number (for example, John_Doe_Summary2.doc) Please note : If your paper contains any obvious errors, then your grade will be deduced 10% automatically – so take time to proof read!