Certainity Flashcards
Mediations 1: doubt. On everything Descartes will doubt
foundationalism:
1st his senses, the reality (doesn’t matter if he doesn’t specifically doubt his dreams because they’re based one reality.) Then he attempts to doubt God, however this proves to be difficult as he cannot see why God would fool him so he introduces the evil demon.
Meditations 1: doubt. How will Descartes doubt his senses
Highlights how he can doubt his sense-the bent stick argument
However the problem that arises from doubting everything that his senses tell him is that there is no meaningful distinction, you need both certainty and doubt to have meaningful distinction, and therefore Descartes is back to square 1.
use forged £2 coin example.
Meditations 1: doubt. Dreaming
the same need for a meaningful distinction can be said for dreaming-between normal and illusionary situations. This means normal must sometimes be the case. However it is hard to tell whether a particular example is veridical or not-so we can doubt because it it hard to tell.
But, this isn’t at the moment that bigger of a deal because: same certain a priori truth eg artist example
Meditations 1: doubt. Hyperbolic doubt
many of Descartes contemporaries would have argued that our a priori truths (space, time, numbers etc) were all certain. But Descartes as a voluntarist, this means he believes that God does not have to operate within these “eternal truths”. Therefore it is not logically impossible (indoubtable) for the eternal truths of mathematics and logic to be otherwise.
so God could be deceiving us-however that would go against who God is-balance it out-evil demon.
Meditations 1: doubt. Cognitive limits
Descartes didn’t come up with this argument.
we assume that because we cannot perceive of a priori truths being any other way they must be true across the universe. Yet they might just be facts about us and an alien world way be based on entirely different ones.
Meditations 2: what we can be certain in-the cogito. What is the cogito and what assumptions are made?
I think therefore I am
- about making oneself exist, that by thinking I make myself exist: No, By thinking you only grantee that you already exist. You can only have been brought into existence by the evil demon/god.
- about the mind body distinction, that this is Descartes arguing for Dualism: He doesn’t know fore sure that the body exists, he isn’t arguing for dualism right now, too complex.
- What does the cogito mean? It is not possible for me to not exist if I am aware that I am thinking therefore my existence is undoubtiable because I am thinking.
Meditations 2: what we can be certain in-the cogito. Where the idea came from
St Augustine
Descartes was trying to build on this idea of the cogito into a new foundation on which science and religion could be combined.
Meditations 2: what we can be certain in: the cogito. why is it limited?
- the cogito is reflexive-it is about itself, which is how it guarantees the existence of what it is bringing about (I). Because it is about itself it is indoubtable doesn’t make any sense if it isn’t reflexive: the cogito would not work to secure the existence of anything else. Eg I think therefore the orange exists. Could lead to solipsism?
- Simon Blackburn: One minute rock-it is only self-guaranteeing only whilst it is being believed/thought about. Meaning you would have to be constantly thinking about the cogito to know you exists and therefore wouldn’t be able to think of anything else. Cannot trust memory.
Meditations 2: what we can be certain in: the cogito. Validity and circularity
a valid argument is one where if its premise is true its conclusion must be true eg All bachelors are male, jo is a bachelor therefore Joe is male.
What happens if we do this to the cogito?
In order to think you must exist
I think
Therefore I exist
Descartes premise can be found in the conclusion of his argument-the argument is therefore circular.
and as we have already seen the cogito cannot grantee itself in any other way.
not a deductive argument
Meditations 2: what we can be certain in: the cogito. The wax example.
g
Meditations 3: Clear and distinct ideas-a mark of certainty
clear and distinct ideas are necessarily true-this is never explained any further. -in the 4th goes onto say that God is no deceiver so clear and distinct ideas must be true.
Meditations 5: certain truths of external objects. What is the essence of material things?
- that they have necessary a prior truths eg a triangle has to have 3 sides, 3 angles which add up to 180. However we cannot draw/the perfect triangle does not physically exist due to human error
- all things have the essence of extension even if they don’t exist.
- what is the essence of God-perfection
Meditations 6: in conclusion. They key question
about everything? It would mean everything I “know” apart from the cogito could be false including a priori truths such as 3+2=5
how does Descartes deal with this problem?
God has the power to but he doesn’t because he is benevolent
Mediations 6: in conclusion. Cartesian Circle
God can’t be a deceiver-so we can trust our clear and distinct ideas.
but we need to reply upon our clear and distinct ideas in order to prove God exists.
How does Descartes address this problem?
“I have already proven that God exists I can rely upon my memory to show that I already know this”
“I can use this to trust my other clear and distinct ideas”
Problem-how can he trust his memory
Meditations 6: in conclusion. Biting the Bullet
for our cognitive system is to reliable our best by way of judgement must be foundationally reliable-it is the point where the system is grounded in certainty. This means our best by way of judgement must be veridical and self-guaranteeing. Like the cogito something we cannot doubt but unlike the cogito not a reflexive truth.
Descartes spells out the argument:
my best by way of judgement (clear and distinct ideas) show me that God is a perfect being
such as God would not allow me to be radically misled
I should be radically misled if my best by way of judgement (clear and distinct) were not veridical.
i know that is not the case: it is veridical.
my invoking God he made the argument circular
should have said:
my best by was of judgement is veridical
