In Meditations III & V Descartes proved that God exists. Now, in Meditation VI, he attempts to build on this to support his ideas derived from sense experience, his knowledge of the material world.
In the process, he will sharply distinguish between the mind and the body. In Meditation II, he discovered what he really is: not a physical body or a brain, but a thinking thing, a mind or a soul. This thinking thing is sometimes called a Cartesian Ego ("Cartesian" instead of "Descartian"). Descartes believe that this Soul or Cartesian Ego is of a wholly different nature than things in the world. According to Descartes, two different types of things exist: things outside my mind in the material world: tables and chairs and pieces of wax and things within my mind which are immaterial: doubts, imaginations, thoughts.
Here's a link to Meditation VI: http://philos.wright.edu/DesCartes/Meditation6.html
Don't forget that this is intended to be a mutual learning experience. Here are the \"Rules of Etiquette\" that we should keep in mind.
Edited by - eSnowman on July 07 2001 5:22:23 PM
Edited by - eSnowman on Jul 03 2002 11:56:35 AM
Full Version: Reading 4: Descartes, Meditation VI
1) What does Descartes say is more fundamental to his nature: mind or body? Why does Descartes claim that he "can exist without" his body?
2) Descartes says he is endowed with the ability to form images (imagination), but he could exist as a thinking thing without it. Why is this important? Why must this faculty of imagining belong to a corporeal substance?
3) Does Descartes use any of his own mental abilities to prove the existence of the external world? If so, what are they and how do they prove external things?
4) One of the main purposes of the Meditations was to prove that mind and body exist separately. What is Descartes' argument for his? Is it convincing?
5) Descartes says that his mind has no parts. Is this consistent with his claims that he can discover faculties of the mind?
6) Has Descartes adequately resolved all of his reasons for doubt from the first Meditation? Are all of his beliefs now certain? Are any?
General Questions:
1) Are there any properties of the wax (from earlier meds) that are shared by triangles, pentagons & chiliagons (a chiliagon is a 1,000 sided figure)? If so, what properties & why are they important to Descartes' conception of mathematics?
2) What would Descartes think of the claim that some computers can think? Would he have grounds for denying it? How about the claim that other people think?
3) Why do you think Descartes is still read in the 21st Century? Should he be?
2) Descartes says he is endowed with the ability to form images (imagination), but he could exist as a thinking thing without it. Why is this important? Why must this faculty of imagining belong to a corporeal substance?
3) Does Descartes use any of his own mental abilities to prove the existence of the external world? If so, what are they and how do they prove external things?
4) One of the main purposes of the Meditations was to prove that mind and body exist separately. What is Descartes' argument for his? Is it convincing?
5) Descartes says that his mind has no parts. Is this consistent with his claims that he can discover faculties of the mind?
6) Has Descartes adequately resolved all of his reasons for doubt from the first Meditation? Are all of his beliefs now certain? Are any?
General Questions:
1) Are there any properties of the wax (from earlier meds) that are shared by triangles, pentagons & chiliagons (a chiliagon is a 1,000 sided figure)? If so, what properties & why are they important to Descartes' conception of mathematics?
2) What would Descartes think of the claim that some computers can think? Would he have grounds for denying it? How about the claim that other people think?
3) Why do you think Descartes is still read in the 21st Century? Should he be?
Please correct me if I'm wrong in certain readings. I'm pretty new to philosophy despite my 20+ age. 
a) The mind.
The body needs sustenance, the mind does not? Whatever feelings he gets from his body are nature's 'judgements', not from the mind.
Because imagination is not fundamental to the mind. And because imagination can conjure up images of corporeal or likely-corporeal things, as opposed 'intellectualism' which turns inwards and not out.
I don't think he really does. He mentions the probabilities though.
I don't claim to understand everything he says, but it doesn't seem convincing to me because while he claims they are distinct and can be separated, that the body sends 'signals' a disembodied mind; he also claims they are conjoined and united in such a way it can apply perceptions and imagination.
Well, I started with him because he pioneered a new way of thinking after centuries of neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, so it is an important lesson in learning to question beliefs and established systems.
Ok, I hope I haven't made myself sound like a rambling fool....
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
quote:
1) What does Descartes say is more fundamental to his nature: mind or body? Why does Descartes claim that he "can exist without" his body?
a) The mind.
The body needs sustenance, the mind does not? Whatever feelings he gets from his body are nature's 'judgements', not from the mind.
quote:
2) Descartes says he is endowed with the ability to form images (imagination), but he could exist as a thinking thing without it. Why is this important? Why must this faculty of imagining belong to a corporeal substance?
Because imagination is not fundamental to the mind. And because imagination can conjure up images of corporeal or likely-corporeal things, as opposed 'intellectualism' which turns inwards and not out.
quote:
3) Does Descartes use any of his own mental abilities to prove the existence of the external world? If so, what are they and how do they prove external things?
I don't think he really does. He mentions the probabilities though.
quote:
4) One of the main purposes of the Meditations was to prove that mind and body exist separately. What is Descartes' argument for his? Is it convincing?
I don't claim to understand everything he says, but it doesn't seem convincing to me because while he claims they are distinct and can be separated, that the body sends 'signals' a disembodied mind; he also claims they are conjoined and united in such a way it can apply perceptions and imagination.
quote:
General Questions:
quote:
1) Are there any properties of the wax (from earlier meds) that are shared by triangles, pentagons & chiliagons (a chiliagon is a 1,000 sided figure)? If so, what properties & why are they important to Descartes' conception of mathematics?quote:
They have a certain prescribed shape, size, weight and can be manipulated and its properties measured in a tangible way.
[quote]2) What would Descartes think of the claim that some computers can think? Would he have grounds for denying it? How about the claim that other people think?
He'd probably say it's impossible because we'd then become gods who endowed the machines with a thinking mind. In any case, a machine that cannot doubt its own existence cannot be a 'thinking' being in Descartes sense of the word "think".
[quote]3) Why do you think Descartes is still read in the 21st Century? Should he be?
Well, I started with him because he pioneered a new way of thinking after centuries of neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, so it is an important lesson in learning to question beliefs and established systems.
Ok, I hope I haven't made myself sound like a rambling fool....
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
quote from Ice:
I don't claim to understand everything he says
neither do I!
quote from Ice:
I hope I haven't made myself sound like a rambling fool
Not at all!!!!
I'll wait to see if anyone else will put up some answers so we can have a discussion.
quote from Carpy:
1) What does Descartes say is more fundamental to his nature: mind or body? Why does Descartes claim that he "can exist without" his body?
Mind. He can exist without his body because of the fact that they are different, the mind being unextended and thinking and the body being extended and nonthinking, along with the fact that he established that he(his mind) existed without having to conclude immediately after that that the body exists.
I would like to know what he would say causes his mind to exist if he had no body.
quote:
2) Descartes says he is endowed with the ability to form images (imagination), but he could exist as a thinking thing without it. Why is this important? Why must this faculty of imagining belong to a corporeal substance?
It's important to show that these images come externally and not from the mind itself. He says that it must either be caused by a god, another being, or the object itself, and because of the fact that god is not a deceiver and creating images via a middle man is deception as well, it must be from corporeal objects. Look in the objections to the text for my counterargument for this.
quote:
3) Does Descartes use any of his own mental abilities to prove the existence of the external world? If so, what are they and how do they prove external things?
I'm not sure what you mean by that but I'm going to guess that you're trying to hint to the explanation of imagination, the ability for a mind to realize and visualize certain corporeal objects, the power of imagination does not come with all objections and according to him must be caused externally.
quote:
4) One of the main purposes of the Meditations was to prove that mind and body exist separately. What is Descartes' argument for his? Is it convincing?
I think I misinterpreted this but I think his argument is: the body is divisible and the mind is not, and that all sensations come through the same point, the brain before entering the mind, although I don't see how this proves that the two are separate.
quote:
5) Descartes says that his mind has no parts. Is this consistent with his claims that he can discover faculties of the mind?
He claims that it is consistent because the same mind or thinking thing creates all these faculties.
quote:
6) Has Descartes adequately resolved all of his reasons for doubt from the first Meditation? Are all of his beliefs now certain? Are any?
No, he hasn't answered to the madman method of doubt as related to sense perceptions and images, and his argument against the dreaming method of doubt is inadequate, look at objections in text for details for this.
quote:
1) Are there any properties of the wax (from earlier meds) that are shared by triangles, pentagons & chiliagons (a chiliagon is a 1,000 sided figure)? If so, what properties & why are they important to Descartes' conception of mathematics?
Sense perception intellectuation(that is is yellow or the figures have several sides) and the imagination of them, the imagining of the triangle and the imagining of the wax even when it evaporates. He seems to believe that mathematics is no different from physical reality.
quote:
Now for the objections to the text itself:
quote:
And to render this quite clear, I remark in the first place the difference that exists between the imagination and pure intellection [or conception23 ]. For example, when I imagine a triangle, I do not conceive it only as a figure comprehended by three lines, but I also apprehend24 these three lines as present by the power and inward vision of my mind,25 and this is what I call imagining. But if I desire to think of a chiliagon, I certainly conceive truly that it is a figure composed of a thousand sides, just as easily as I conceive of a triangle that it is a figure of three sides only; but I cannot in any way imagine the thousand sides of a chiliagon [as I do the three sides of a triangle], nor do I, so to speak, regard them as present [with the eyes of my mind]. And although in accordance with the habit I have formed of always employing the aid of my imagination when I think of corporeal things, it may happen that in imagining a chiliagon I confusedly represent to myself some figure, yet it is very evident that this figure is not a chiliagon, since it in no way differs from that which I represent to myself when I think of a myriagon or any other many-sided figure; nor does it serve my purpose in discovering the properties which go to form the distinction between a chiliagon and other polygons. But if the question turns upon a pentagon, it is quite true that I can conceive its figure as well as that of a chiliagon without the help of my imagination; but I can also imagine it by applying the attention of my mind to each of its five sides, and at the same time to the space which they enclose. And thus I clearly recognise that I have need of a particular effort of mind in order to effect the act of imagination, such as I do not require in order to understand, and this particular effort of mind clearly manifests the difference which exists between imagination and pure intellection.26
This coming from our Rationalist friend?
He defines two terms completely based on observation on how the mind treats various objects, without realizing the cause of an absence of imagination of an object.
quote:
I remark besides that this power of imagination which is in one, inasmuch as it differs from the power of understanding, is in no wise a necessary element in my nature, or in [my essence, that is to say, in] the essence of my mind; for although I did not possess it I should doubtless ever remain the same as I now am, from which it appears that we might conclude that it depends on something which differs from me.
Another empiricist comment. He is saying that something is not part of his mind because of observation, which as he explained earlier, could be faulty.
quote:
And I easily conceive that if some body exists with which my mind is conjoined and united in such a way that it can apply itself to consider it when it pleases, it may be that by this means it can imagine corporeal objects; so that this mode of thinking differs from pure intellection only inasmuch as mind in its intellectual activity in some manner turns on itself, and considers some of the ideas which it possesses in itself; while in imagining it turns towards the body, and there beholds in it something conformable to the idea which it has either conceived of itself or perceived by the senses. I easily understand, I say, that the imagination could be thus constituted if it is true that body exists; and because I can discover no other convenient mode of explaining it
Has he forgotten his 3 instruments of doubt?
quote:
And this substance is either a body, that is, a corporeal nature in which there is contained formally [and really] all that which is objectively [and by representation] in those ideas, or it is God Himself, or some other creature more noble than body in which that same is contained eminently.
What about the subconscious/unconscious?
quote:
But, since God is no deceiver
Where'd he prove that?
quote:
nor yet by the intervention of some creature in which their reality is not formally, but only eminently, contained
Why can't the creature himself create these?
Also by his logic the existence the madman and the dreamer experience is based on corporeal objects as well, which is certainly not the case.
quote:
In order to begin this examination, then, I here say, in the first place, that there is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch as body is by nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely indivisible. For, as a matter of fact, when I consider the mind, that is to say, myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking thing, I cannot distinguish in myself any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one and entire; and although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet if a foot, or an arm, or some other part, is separated from my body, I am aware that nothing has been taken away from my mind. And the faculties of willing, feeling, conceiving, etc. cannot be properly speaking said to be its parts, for it is one and the same mind which employs itself in willing and in feeling and understanding. But it is quite otherwise with corporeal or extended objects, for there is not one of these imaginable by me which my mind cannot easily divide into parts, and which consequently I do not recognise as being divisible; this would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body, if I had not already learned it from other sources.
What does this have to do with connectedness? Why can't the mind be a part of the body, like a finger, etc.? And all the parts of the body share certain attributes and connect to eachother and is based upon the same "body" just like the mind.
quote:
But because these nerves must pass through the tibia, the thigh, the loins, the back and the neck, in order to reach from the leg to the brain, it may happen that although their extremities which are in the foot are not affected, but only certain ones of their intervening parts [which pass by the loins or the neck], this action will excite the same movement in the brain that might have been excited there by a hurt received in the foot, in consequence of which the mind will necessarily feel in the foot the same pain as if it had received a hurt.
This is certainly not the case. The action potentials vary in frequency depending on the location hurt, and at times a location in the body sends signals through a different collection of nerves than one next to it.
quote:
Similarly, when we desire to drink, a certain dryness of the throat is produced which moves its nerves, and by their means the internal portions of the brain; and this movement causes in the mind the sensation of thirst, because in this case there is nothing more useful to us than to become aware that we have need to drink for the conservation o our health; and the same holds good in other instances.
If the mind is part of the body it would make no difference.
quote:
particularly that very common uncertainty respecting sleep, which I could not distinguish from the waking state; for at present I find a very notable difference between the two, inasmuch as our memory can never connect our dreams one with the other, or with the whole course of our lives, as it unites events which happen to us while we are awake
What does that do to prove this existence? The same could be applied to if this was a dream.
quote:
2) What would Descartes think of the claim that some computers can think? Would he have grounds for denying it? How about the claim that other people think?
He would probably deny the computer part, claiming we are incapable of creating a mind. He hasn't addressed whether other people have minds though directly, but from his absolute rejection of the methods of doubt in the end, I think he would agree that others do think.
[quote]3) Why do you think Descartes is still read in the 21st Century? Should he be?
I think he is read because of the fact that he starts with no bias, denying everything, and hence supposedly not a mere philosophical creation of the times.
I think he should be studied despite my countless disagreements with him because few philosophers tackle the issue of basic existence directly like this.
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Ice,
Carpy has suggested that I respond to you to enliven the topic, sounds like a great idea.
quote:
a) The mind.
That seems to me to be part of it. The paragraph where he argues this is such:
quote:
And first of all, because I know that all things which I apprehend clearly and distinctly can be created by God as I apprehend them, it suffices that I am able to apprehend one thing apart from another clearly and distinctly in order to be certain that the one is different from the other, since they may be made to exist in separation at least by the omnipotence of God; and it does not signify by what power this separation is made in order to compel me to judge them to be different: and, therefore, just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thin [or a substance whose whole essence or nature is to think]. And although possibly (or rather certainly, as I shall say in a moment) I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined, yet because, on the one side, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other, I possess a distinct idea of body, inasmuch as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it.
It seems as though the fact that he perceives his mind and body differently is the argument for this.
quote:
I don't claim to understand everything he says, but it doesn't seem convincing to me because while he claims they are distinct and can be separated, that the body sends 'signals' a disembodied mind; he also claims they are conjoined and united in such a way it can apply perceptions and imagination.
I don't like being a devil's advocate, but does interaction mean that things are united?
quote:
Well, I started with him because he pioneered a new way of thinking after centuries of neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, so it is an important lesson in learning to question beliefs and established systems.
Do you think Descartes should then only be studied because of his methods of doubt? Or do you find his progress after this worthwhile at all?
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
Ice,
Carpy has suggested that I respond to you to enliven the topic, sounds like a great idea.
Good idea.
Though I hope I can enliven it, seeing how I don't really have a 'philosophical' mind. (Carpy, please don't carp on me! '))
quote:
That seems to me to be part of it. The paragraph where he argues this is such:
It's sorta like saying the mind can 'imagine' the body but not vice versa, right?
quote:
It seems as though the fact that he perceives his mind and body differently is the argument for this.
quote:
I don't like being a devil's advocate, but does interaction mean that things are united?
Not the interaction per se, but it's a large factor in the mind-body dualism he idealises. Eg, the body is hungry and thus signals the brain, which the mind then interprets as 'need to eat'. If they were not conjoined, then the signals need only reach the brain without requiring the mind to interpret as a need/desire. That is, the body can go about its own business to eat or not eat according to its 'instincts' without the mind having to perceive or knowing anything at all.
[quote]Do you think Descartes should then only be studied because of his methods of doubt? Or do you find his progress after this worthwhile at all?
Not entirely. His system of doubting to the minimum level (the mind) was a new thing at that time, and shows us how and why it's important to evaluate beliefs, since almost everyone then hued to the scholastic stance. Also how his Cartesian methods of scientific methods and measurements is tied intricately to his philosophical beliefs; how one led to the other and helped reinforce each other. His progress in terms of defining what is and what isn't is not important IMO, but how he did it is. However, I take note against his arguments towards proving a creator-god. Essentially, his journey's end was not as interesting (since in the end it didn't detract from the church's main teachings) as the unique way he travelled, and the unique way he arrived at it.
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
quote:
Good idea. Though I hope I can enliven it, seeing how I don't really have a 'philosophical' mind.
Neither do I.
quote:
It's sorta like saying the mind can 'imagine' the body but not vice versa, right?
I don't think he mentions it. Judging by the last sentences his conclusion is that they are separated because the mind is thinking and unextended and the body is the opposite. But I'm not completely confident that it is his conclusion, if you see something different in it, please cite the text and explain it.
quote:
Not the interaction per se, but it's a large factor in the mind-body dualism he idealises. Eg, the body is hungry and thus signals the brain, which the mind then interprets as 'need to eat'. If they were not conjoined, then the signals need only reach the brain without requiring the mind to interpret as a need/desire. That is, the body can go about its own business to eat or not eat according to its 'instincts' without the mind having to perceive or knowing anything at all.
How can the brain think by itself?
Why does it matter that the body can act on its own?
quote:
Not entirely. His system of doubting to the minimum level (the mind) was a new thing at that time, and shows us how and why it's important to evaluate beliefs, since almost everyone then hued to the scholastic stance. Also how his Cartesian methods of scientific methods and measurements is tied intricately to his philosophical beliefs; how one led to the other and helped reinforce each other. His progress in terms of defining what is and what isn't is not important IMO, but how he did it is. However, I take note against his arguments towards proving a creator-god. Essentially, his journey's end was not as interesting (since in the end it didn't detract from the church's main teachings) as the unique way he travelled, and the unique way he arrived at it.
Do you think cogito ergo sum and his proof of material existence has much worth? Or does his method stand alone?
About his belief in god, his arguments for him were far weaker than usual; it could very well be that he merely included them to not be accused of heresy by the entire populace and have his work get a chance to get out to everyone. Notwithstanding this, the absence of complete christian dogma(only the basics exist) through the advocation of faith in his writings is great progress as compared to the slaves of the church like St. Augustine and to a lesser extent Aquinas. He may not be a revolutionary, but he's a step in the right direction for philosophy.
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
How can the brain think by itself?
Why does it matter that the body can act on its own?
You don't need a mind for the brain to act instinctually. I think in his 'disembodiness' thesis, the mind is also separate from the brain. The brain might be necessary for a mind to exist, but not vice versa. Similarly, the body does not need a mind per se to exist and act; the mind is the 'perception' and questioning centre.
quote:
Do you think cogito ergo sum and his proof of material existence has much worth? Or does his method stand alone?
Less the fact that he proved it, but the way he proved it. Of course it's worthwhile because it makes others think about their existence other than that God willed it into existence. But the way he did it is more important IMO, since not many questioned the church or their existence in those days.
quote:
About his belief in god, his arguments for him were far weaker than usual; it could very well be that he merely included them to not be accused of heresy by the entire populace and have his work get a chance to get out to everyone. Notwithstanding this, the absence of complete christian dogma(only the basics exist) through the advocation of faith in his writings is great progress as compared to the slaves of the church like St. Augustine and to a lesser extent Aquinas. He may not be a revolutionary, but he's a step in the right direction for philosophy.
I agree. After all, he did believe in God and did not wish to antagonise the church and risk death like the others. And it is this step that eventually led (directly or indirectly) to the later great thinkers like Kant, Hume, et al.
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
quote:
You don't need a mind for the brain to act instinctually. I think in his 'disembodiness' thesis, the mind is also separate from the brain. The brain might be necessary for a mind to exist, but not vice versa. Similarly, the body does not need a mind per se to exist and act; the mind is the 'perception' and questioning centre.
You said that the fact that the body can exist separately somehow disproves dualism. Why is that?
quote:
Less the fact that he proved it, but the way he proved it. Of course it's worthwhile because it makes others think about their existence other than that God willed it into existence. But the way he did it is more important IMO, since not many questioned the church or their existence in those days.
There are many philosophers that rejected a complete faith on god as the universal cause for everything. Is Descartes in any way unique? Or is it just the fact that he was the first one(at least after Christianity came along that did this)?
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
You said that the fact that the body can exist separately somehow disproves dualism. Why is that?
I don't think I said it disproves dualism, just that D does not seem to make a good case for it. He writes about the separateness of mind and body, and then does not really clarify what he means by dualism and how it occurs.
quote:
There are many philosophers that rejected a complete faith on god as the universal cause for everything. Is Descartes in any way unique? Or is it just the fact that he was the first one(at least after Christianity came along that did this)?
I guess D is unique in the sense of how he got to it. He didn't need to repudiate his faith to get where he wanted, and founded a new way of thinking that spawned intellectual greats including Kant and Hume. I don't think he started by deliberately doubting his faith, but was probably influenced by his Christianity when he leapt from doubt to proving the existence of God.
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
Blade & Ice: excellent job! I have been checking on you every now & then to see how you're doing and you seem to be having a very useful & enlightening conversation.
Are there any topics you would like me or eSnowman to jump in on?
Are there any topics you would like me or eSnowman to jump in on?
quote:
I don't think I said it disproves dualism, just that D does not seem to make a good case for it. He writes about the separateness of mind and body, and then does not really clarify what he means by dualism and how it occurs.
I think his implicit conclusion from his statement that the mind is unextended and thinking and the body extended and unthinking is that they are composed of different material.
quote:
I guess D is unique in the sense of how he got to it. He didn't need to repudiate his faith to get where he wanted, and founded a new way of thinking that spawned intellectual greats including Kant and Hume. I don't think he started by deliberately doubting his faith, but was probably influenced by his Christianity when he leapt from doubt to proving the existence of God.
Judging at his somewhat contradictory use of revolutionary thought to conservative thought, how do you think he would answer if you asked whether he believed 100% in a divine Jesus or any events in the Bible?
Something that would complicate this is the existence of a double edged sword, either he angers the Christian community via rejecting Jesus or he angers the pro-Aquinas pro-faith community by saying that Jesus can be proved rationally.
quote:
Are there any topics you would like me or eSnowman to jump in on?
If you see any mistake, need for clarification or anything of the like, please do so. Also we wouldn't mind further questions about this meditation or Descartes in general.
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
quote:
I think his implicit conclusion from his statement that the mind is unextended and thinking and the body extended and unthinking is that they are composed of different material.
But how does this explain the mind-body dualism? IMO, he doesn't do a good job of explaining it.
quote:
Judging at his somewhat contradictory use of revolutionary thought to conservative thought, how do you think he would answer if you asked whether he believed 100% in a divine Jesus or any events in the Bible?
Something that would complicate this is the existence of a double edged sword, either he angers the Christian community via rejecting Jesus or he angers the pro-Aquinas pro-faith community by saying that Jesus can be proved rationally.
I would say he would reply "I don't know". He doesn't seem like one who would interpret the bible literally, so he might see it more as an 'inspired' story/historical book than words from the mouth of God to the ears of Man. He might reserve judgement on most of the events due to lack of empirical evidence at that time, but not give them up entirely due to whatever small measure of faith he has. He proves the existence of God to himself, but notice that he steers away from its application to his/others' lives.
I don't know how he'd argue the for divinity or existence of Jesus, since he seems anxious not to antagonise the church of the time, but my guess is that in the end, he might just prove it 'unprovable' from lack of knowledge.
Liverpool Football Club - 18 League Championships, 6 FA Cups, 6 League Cups, 4 European Championships, 3 EUFA Cups, 1 European Super Cup - simply the greatest team in the world!
Walk on....and you'll never walk alone.
quote from Ice:quote:
2) What would Descartes think of the claim that some computers can think? Would he have grounds for denying it? How about the claim that other people think?
a machine that cannot doubt its own existence cannot be a 'thinking' being in Descartes sense of the word "think".
Why assume the computer would not be able to doubt its existence? If it could think, couldn't it also doubt? Maybe it depends on our definition of "doubt". Sometimes we think of it as a feeling or psychological state. I think D means it differently. He means the thought that something is not certain.
quote from Ice:quote:
Why do you think Descartes is still read in the 21st Century? Should he be?
so it is an important lesson in learning to question beliefs and established systems.
I thoroughly agree!
quote from Blade:quote:Where'd he prove that?
But, since God is no deceiver
Med 4 -- the one we skipped. No one thinks the argument is all that good or interesting, so we skipped over it.
quote from Blade:quote:
1) What does Descartes say is more fundamental to his nature: mind or body? Why does Descartes claim that he "can exist without" his body?
Mind. He can exist without his body because of the fact that they are different, the mind being unextended and thinking and the body being extended and nonthinking, along with the fact that he established that he(his mind) existed without having to conclude immediately after that that the body exists.
GOOD. He establishes his existence & that existence does not show or seem to require his bodily existence.
quote from Blade:
I would like to know what he would say causes his mind to exist if he had no body.
Excellent question. He never says, does he. I think he would say God.
quote from Blade:quote:
1) Are there any properties of the wax (from earlier meds) that are shared by triangles, pentagons & chiliagons (a chiliagon is a 1,000 sided figure)? If so, what properties & why are they important to Descartes' conception of mathematics?
Sense perception intellectuation(that is is yellow or the figures have several sides) and the imagination of them, the imagining of the triangle and the imagining of the wax even when it evaporates. He seems to believe that mathematics is no different from physical reality.
I think he distinguishes different sorts of properties of objects. He thinks the qualites that the senses (color, smell, taste) are subject to doubt, but
quote from Med I:
its extension, the figure of extended things, their quantity or magnitude and number, as also the place in which they are, the time which measures their duration, and so on.
quote from Med II:
We must then grant that I could not even understand through the imagination what this piece of wax is, and that it is my mind12 alone which perceives it. I say this piece of wax in particular, for as to wax in general it is yet clearer. But what is this piece of wax which cannot be understood excepting by the [understanding or] mind?
quote from Med III:
yesterday examined the idea of wax, I find that there is very little in them which I perceive clearly and distinctly. Magnitude or extension in length, breadth, or depth, I do so perceive; also figure which results from a termination of this extension, the situation which bodies of different figure preserve in relation to one another, and movement or change of situation; to which we may also add substance, duration and number. As to other things such as light, colours, sounds, scents, tastes, heat, cold and the other tactile qualities, they are thought by me with so much obscurity and confusion that I do not even know if they are true or false, i.e. whether the ideas which I form of these qualities are actually the ideas of real objects
quote from Med V:
they may possibly have no existence outside of my thought, and which are not framed by me, although it is within my power either to think or not to think them, but which possess natures which are true and immutable. For example, when I imagine a triangle, although there may nowhere in the world be such a figure outside my thought, or ever have been, there is nevertheless in this figure a certain determinate nature, form, or essence, which is immutable and eternal, which I have not invented, and which in no wise depends on my mind, as appears from the fact that diverse properties of that triangle can be demonstrated, viz. that its three angles are equal to two right angles, that the greatest side is subtended by the greatest angle, and the like, which now, whether I wish it or do not wish it, I recognise very clearly as pertaining to it
quote from Med VI:
when I imagine a triangle, I do not conceive it only as a figure comprehended by three lines, but I also apprehend these three lines as present by the power and inward vision of my mind, and this is what I call imagining. But if I desire to think of a chiliagon, I certainly conceive truly that it is a figure composed of a thousand sides, just as easily as I conceive of a triangle that it is a figure of three sides only; but I cannot in any way imagine the thousand sides of a chiliagon [as I do the three sides of a triangle], nor do I, so to speak, regard them as present [with the eyes of my mind]. … clearly manifests the difference which exists between imagination and pure intellection.
quote from Blade:
This coming from our Rationalist friend?
Yup. He thinks that some properties (color, smell) come to him through his senses, but shape he can understand without the aid of mental images. For example, the chiliagon has too many sides to form a good image, but he can still calculate the degree of the angles since he understands the shape.
I also keep harping on the wax because I think he is making a distinction among qualities of objects that will turn out to be very similar to Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities. So even though one is a rationalist and one is an empiricist they seem pretty similar on this issue. I also wanted you to see that a rationalist can think he can still do geometry since it is the science of shapes, even if there are no objects in the external world that have those shapes.
quote from Ice:
I don't think I said it disproves dualism, just that D does not seem to make a good case for it. He writes about the separateness of mind and body, and then does not really clarify what he means by dualism and how it occurs.
Descartes doesn't use the term "dualism". It has been applied to his theory by others. But he does seem to believe the mind could exist without the body so he must believe that there are immaterial things in the world. He also tries to prove in Med 6 that there is reason to believe in material objects (his own body and external objects). A dualist is someone who believes in the existence of both material and immaterial substances or things, so that would make him a dualist.
You are right that he does not say how these two different things can interact. In other writings he claims that the interaction of mind and body occurs in the pineal gland. Go ahead & laugh. We all do. Just wanted to point out that he does say how it occurs -- he's just wildly wrong about it.
quote from Ice:
But how does this explain the mind-body dualism? IMO, he doesn't do a good job of explaining it.
So we disagree on what we find false in his argument. You find the path to the conclusion false and I find the premises false interesting.
Doesn't showing that a mind and body are composed of a different substance and of a different reality via showing that the mind is unextended and thinking and the body is the opposite prove that they exist separately?
quote from Ice:
I would say he would reply "I don't know". He doesn't seem like one who would interpret the bible literally, so he might see it more as an 'inspired' story/historical book than words from the mouth of God to the ears of Man. He might reserve judgement on most of the events due to lack of empirical evidence at that time, but not give them up entirely due to whatever small measure of faith he has. He proves the existence of God to himself, but notice that he steers away from its application to his/others' lives.
I don't know how he'd argue the for divinity or existence of Jesus, since he seems anxious not to antagonise the church of the time, but my guess is that in the end, he might just prove it 'unprovable' from lack of knowledge.
So he wouldn't give up his disbelief in the trusting of faith and belief in his method if he was questioned? Even in the face of an angry Christian world? Do you think fear influenced his proof of god at all? If so, why wouldn't it influence this decision?
quote from Carpy:
Excellent question. He never says, does he. I think he would say God.
I didn't clarify the question too well, I was trying to show a contradiction, but it wasn't lucid enough, sorry. I disagree with your answer though.
After proving(at least in his mind) that his perceptions come from outside of him, he tries to judge what can cause this. He says there are 3 possibilities, that it is a real object, it is God, or it is someone else acting for God. He says it can't be the latter two, because God is no deceiver. If God caused the mind to exist alone, and no body existed, that would mean that God would deceive him giving the perceptions of his body.
And in another, more clear sense proving the material existence around you and saying that the mind can exist without a body when it is his mind that proves all this and this is all from the mind's perspective is contradictory.
quote:
Yup. He thinks that some properties (color, smell) come to him through his senses, but shape he can understand without the aid of mental images. For example, the chiliagon has too many sides to form a good image, but he can still calculate the degree of the angles since he understands the shape.
Don't you find it odd that he grounds his entire argument on an analysis on how the mind thinks of/imagines/intellectualizes the external world?
This seems quite empirical, or at best(in terms of least contradictory to rationalism), phenomenological.
quote:
I also keep harping on the wax because I think he is making a distinction among qualities of objects that will turn out to be very similar to Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
I don't know what those are. I think you probably told us but my memory fails me.
quote:
I also wanted you to see that a rationalist can think he can still do geometry since it is the science of shapes, even if there are no objects in the external world that have those shapes.
How would any rationalist not think he could do geometry, since geometry is the invention of the mind, related to math, which is related strongly(if not identical, I hope to read and analyze Russell's Principia Mathematica in the near future) to logic?
quote:
In other writings he claims that the interaction of mind and body occurs in the pineal gland.
I'd like to see his proof of that one!
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
quote from Blade:
And in another, more clear sense proving the material existence around you and saying that the mind can exist without a body when it is his mind that proves all this and this is all from the mind's perspective is contradictory.
Why? He proves he has a mind, he proves God exists & is no deceiver (or at least we'll grant it for the sake of analyzing Med 6), he finds that he has images of things that he could not have created from thought alone so they must come from the external world.
He distinguishes different abilities of his mind: ability to form images of objects, ability to form judgments. From the ability to judge & doubt he proved that he exists. But that ability of the mind does not explain the ability to form images. So you're right that he is proving the external world by starting from the contents of his mind, but I think you need to be careful to see which ability of the mind he is focusing on.
quote from Blade:
Don't you find it odd that he grounds his entire argument on an analysis on how the mind thinks of/imagines/intellectualizes the external world?
This seems quite empirical, or at best(in terms of least contradictory to rationalism), phenomenological.
What do you think rationalism is?
You might be right that this seems a bit phenomenological, but empiricists generally accept that the external world exists because of the evidence provided through the senses. Descartes certainly doesn't do that.
Here are two definitions that are interesting, there are from http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/isms.html.
quote:
Rationalism
Truth to be obtained through use of reason and rational thought.
The first philosophers who are usually called rationalists were Descartes (1596-1650), Leibniz (1646-1716), and Spinoza (1632-1677). While they claimed to be defending science against scholasticism, their arguments often showed little improvement over those of their opposition. For example, Descartes' defence of science consisted of a dualism from which philosophy is still recovering, and his arguments for dualism were models of rationalism: technical, deductive, and extremely abstract. Spinoza's Ethics (which often seems to have little to do with ethics) is the high point of rationalism in philosophy: it is totally deductive and modelled on the geometric system of Euclid's Elements. Rationalism, in its deductive and abstract way of reasoning, tends to prefer the "harder" branches of philosophy (such as epistemology) almost totally ignores ethical and political concerns. The word rationalism is often used to refer to such an overly deductive way of thinking and to the moulding of reality to fit one's theoretical understanding, but this isomer of a psychological characterization than a philosophical definition.
Empiricism
All knowledge comes from experience
Historically, empiricism was a reaction against the excesses of scholasticism and medieval rationalism. The classic empiricists were John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776), who, along with earlier thinkers like Francis Bacon (1561-1626), attempted to put science on a more solid footing by making knowledge inductive and reality-based instead of deductive and theoretical — the empiricists being inspired by the belief that experience is the only reliable source of knowledge. Unfortunately, Locke’s epistemological views tended towards representationalism, so that the empirical tradition went astray and ended up caught in the snares of Hume's skepticism and subjectivism. Popularly, empiricism is a positive term, connected as it is with science and with practical action (similar in this sense to pragmatism).
quote from Blade:
quote:
I also keep harping on the wax because I think he is making a distinction among qualities of objects that will turn out to be very similar to Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities.
I don't know what those are. I think you probably told us but my memory fails me.
No I haven't ever said. But look through the quotes I provided and see if you can discover them.
quote from Blade:
How would any rationalist not think he could do geometry, since geometry is the invention of the mind
I certainly didn't put that very well. Nevermind. I'll try to bring it up when we've done some empiricists.
quote from Blade:quote:
In other writings he claims that the interaction of mind and body occurs in the pineal gland.
I'd like to see his proof of that one!
No you don't. If you thought his arguments for God weren't up to D's usually high standards, you'd really hate this. I can only say that the pineal gland was frequently referred to as the "window of the soul" because of its connection to both the eyes and the brain. So D was not alone in the view that the pineal gland provided a pathway from the external world to the internal.
His presentation of this is in Part I of "The Passions of the Soul" (1649). I can't find a copy of that work online.
Edited by - carpy on July 14 2001 08:38:49 AM
quote:
Why? He proves he has a mind, he proves God exists & is no deceiver (or at least we'll grant it for the sake of analyzing Med 6), he finds that he has images of things that he could not have created from thought alone so they must come from the external world.
He distinguishes different abilities of his mind: ability to form images of objects, ability to form judgments. From the ability to judge & doubt he proved that he exists. But that ability of the mind does not explain the ability to form images. So you're right that he is proving the external world by starting from the contents of his mind, but I think you need to be careful to see which ability of the mind he is focusing on.
I agree with the interpretation here, but I still see a contradiction. He proves the external world from his mind, ie looking how the external world acts upon and imprints upon his mind, and then saying that he can exist without his body that he imagines, and then says that his body does feed him perceptions, but if his body didn't exist he would have no proof of the external world. In this sense, saying that his external world has a probability of 100% or so existing, and then saying that his body doesn't have to exist(less than 100) is contradictory since he would have a method of doubt, if the body existed, for the external world.
quote:
What do you think rationalism is?
You might be right that this seems a bit phenomenological, but empiricists generally accept that the external world exists because of the evidence provided through the senses. Descartes certainly doesn't do that.
I agree that Descartes is predominately a rationalist basing things on reason and rejecting trust on perceptions.
However, he doesn't do anything with much difference than empiricists here. He bases his proof on how the external world deals with the mind, similar to empiricists' trust of perceptions but only with a phenomenological spin to it.
quote:
No I haven't ever said. But look through the quotes I provided and see if you can discover them.
Bah I know there was a quote from Locke that you said that was related to the wax but I can't find it. The only quotes of Locke I found were one in the discussion on meditation III and V about he can add on to produce infinity.
quote:
No you don't. If you thought his arguments for God weren't up to D's usually high standards, you'd really hate this. I can only say that the pineal gland was frequently referred to as the "window of the soul" because of its connection to both the eyes and the brain. So D was not alone in the view that the pineal gland provided a pathway from the external world to the internal.
Still I'd like to see what specious tricks he'll try to pull for that. I admire Descartes' clever writing style.
All human actions are equivalent … and … all are on principle doomed to failure. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Man is a useless passion - Jean-Paul Sartre
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Blade:
We'll get to a very clear exposition of primary and secondary qualities in Locke and an attack on the distinction in Berkeley, so don't worry about understanding it in Descartes. It isn't very obvious in the Meditations, but we'll return to it and make it clear.
The definitions of Rationalism and Empiricism Carpy posted are very helpful. Keep in mind that Descartes was a mathemetician, as well as a scientist. He invented Analytic Geometry, and based most of his philosophy on a "Geometric Method": i.e. foundationalism he saw as a way of basing his entire understanding of the world on first principles, in a way similar to how Geometry derives all of its theorums from simple, self-evident axioms.
Many people tend to think of Geometry as given through the senses. You look out into the world and see tables and houses and beach balls, and all these things give you an idea of shapes. Then you build up Geometry from there. When we get to Locke, we'll explore this idea further, but many of people today have a distinctly Empiricist bent and view this as "common sense", mostly due to the success of Locke and the science he was defending (Newton's and Boyle's). But Descartes and many of his predecessors believed that the ideas of geometry could not be gained through the senses because there are no perfect shapes in the world. The circles you see when looking at a beach ball are not perfect circles; they have some flaws such that they are more like chiliagons (thousand-sided figures) rather than perfectly round. (Remember the Principle of Adequate Reality? It seems to have an application here.) Thus, a beach ball's area is not equal to the square of its hypoteneus. The same is true of triangles, squares, and all other shapes found in nature. Thus, according to Descartes, geometric principles are gained through reason, not through the senses.
Simliar conclusions are derived from the example of the piece of wax which is why we keep harking back to it. There he shows that the idea of extension is understood through reason alone, not derived from experience. Extension is what Descartes thinks underlies all material things (and is thus its true "substance" from the Latin 'substantia' or "that which stands under" and "upholds" the properties or "modes" of something). And this idea of extension ultimately grounds his idea of science. (Ever hear of Cartesian coordinates? Well this is where the Cartsian part comes from.)
We'll return to this debate in Locke as well and the debate will become much clearer when we have something to contrast Descartes with. (I'm going to try and post Locke this weekend, maybe later today if I can get everything together.)
Edited by - eSnowman on July 14 2001 3:20:02 PM
We'll get to a very clear exposition of primary and secondary qualities in Locke and an attack on the distinction in Berkeley, so don't worry about understanding it in Descartes. It isn't very obvious in the Meditations, but we'll return to it and make it clear.
The definitions of Rationalism and Empiricism Carpy posted are very helpful. Keep in mind that Descartes was a mathemetician, as well as a scientist. He invented Analytic Geometry, and based most of his philosophy on a "Geometric Method": i.e. foundationalism he saw as a way of basing his entire understanding of the world on first principles, in a way similar to how Geometry derives all of its theorums from simple, self-evident axioms.
Many people tend to think of Geometry as given through the senses. You look out into the world and see tables and houses and beach balls, and all these things give you an idea of shapes. Then you build up Geometry from there. When we get to Locke, we'll explore this idea further, but many of people today have a distinctly Empiricist bent and view this as "common sense", mostly due to the success of Locke and the science he was defending (Newton's and Boyle's). But Descartes and many of his predecessors believed that the ideas of geometry could not be gained through the senses because there are no perfect shapes in the world. The circles you see when looking at a beach ball are not perfect circles; they have some flaws such that they are more like chiliagons (thousand-sided figures) rather than perfectly round. (Remember the Principle of Adequate Reality? It seems to have an application here.) Thus, a beach ball's area is not equal to the square of its hypoteneus. The same is true of triangles, squares, and all other shapes found in nature. Thus, according to Descartes, geometric principles are gained through reason, not through the senses.
Simliar conclusions are derived from the example of the piece of wax which is why we keep harking back to it. There he shows that the idea of extension is understood through reason alone, not derived from experience. Extension is what Descartes thinks underlies all material things (and is thus its true "substance" from the Latin 'substantia' or "that which stands under" and "upholds" the properties or "modes" of something). And this idea of extension ultimately grounds his idea of science. (Ever hear of Cartesian coordinates? Well this is where the Cartsian part comes from.)
We'll return to this debate in Locke as well and the debate will become much clearer when we have something to contrast Descartes with. (I'm going to try and post Locke this weekend, maybe later today if I can get everything together.)
Edited by - eSnowman on July 14 2001 3:20:02 PM
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.