Descartes Flashcards
1
Q
Essay plan on the problem of other minds
A
- Intro
- Is the problem that we cannot know other minds exist
- Will explain how problem arises
- 2 solutions: Russell and Wittgenstein
- Russell fails but Wittgenstein is successful - The problem
- Problem for Cartesian Dualists
- Lots of versions: Absent qualia, inverted qualia
- Will be looking at absent qualia
- Explain qualia
- Experiences only accessible to us, can’t experience something from someone else’s point of view
- How can I know other people are conscious, or have minds at all? - Descartes
- Refers to problem in Meditations
- Quote - Illustration
2 scenarios: Belief about seeing men walking down the street, justification is sensory experience, one scenario my belief is true, other it is not true
- Can’t rely on sensory experience
- Can’t assume other people have minds
- Logical form
- Solution should look like ‘I know the sceptical hypothesis ‘other people don’t have minds’ is false - Russell
- Argument from analogy
- Explain an analogy
- A and B are analogous to C and D is A is to B what C is to D
- Eg ‘Night is to day what old age is to life’
- I am analogous to you, when we behave in the same way, can assume having the same mental states
- Eg stimulus: being punched, leads to inner mental state, leads to me crying out in pain
- You behave the same way to the same stimulus so can assume inner mental state is the same
- Conclusion not decisive: only probable - Problems
- Fails on a few levels
- Conclusion weak, weakens argument
- Argument just offers assumption, can’t know for sure this is true
- Wittgenstein’s ‘beetle in a box’
- Is irresponsible to assume we all have small black insects in our boxes
- Haven’t solved problem - Wittgenstein
- Tries to dissolve problem
- Argument in premise form - More on Wittgenstein
- Witt’s work is based around language, and its use in language games
- Explain language games
- Premise (3) - swimming pool example - Explain
- Argues for premise (1) with diary example (someone writing ‘S’ in diary when feeling type of pain
- No one else understands this, so private rule following is impossible
- We talk about minds in the same way, have made up the word, is different to every person, doesn’t refer to one object
- Cant say whether minds exist or not - Criticism
- Wittgenstein predicts this
- Hasn’t explained what a language game, or language is, so doesn’t have a successful argument - Response
- Explain family resemblance and logically closed
- Language is not a logical closed concept, so doesn’t have an essence as such - Conclusion
- Russell’s argument fails
- Wittgenstein defends his argument well
- Wittgenstein’s argument enough o convince me that problem of other minds is dissolved
2
Q
Wittgenstein’s argument for dissolving problem of other minds
A
(1) Private rule following is impossible
(2) Therefore, private language and private description is impossible
(3) The meaning of a word is how it is used in language
(4) There are various ways of using language known as language games
(5) Philosophical problems arise when language games are confused
(6) Sceptics confuse language games by casting doubt on inappropriate subject matter
(7) The term ‘mind’ is an inappropriate subject matter
(8) Therefore, scepticism concerning other minds contains an internal incoherence
(9) Therefore scepticism concerning other minds is dissolved
3
Q
Essay plan for assessing Dualism
A
- Intro
- Will describe Descartes’ position on mind and body
- 2 arguments for Dualism, both unsuccessful
- Explain question - Dualism
- Mind and body are 2 separate entities
- Body exists inside time, is specially extended, and physical, mind is non-physical and exists outside space and time
- Different forms:
- Parallelism, mind and body coexist harmoniously, but don’t interact
- Monism is opposite view of Dualism, that mind and body are same (2 sides of the same coin) - Leibniz’s law
- Descartes uses principle in a lot of his arguments
- If x and y have identical properties, x=y
- May seem obvious, but is crucial logical for Descartes - Argument from doubt
- Not expressed formally from Meditations, but can be implied from text
- If he were to form coherent argument from text would be:
(1) I cannot doubt that I have mental states
(2) I can doubt that I have physical states
Therefore, because of Leibniz’s law (3) Mental states are not physical states - Explain
- First 2 premises from method of doubt, can doubt I have a body but can’t doubt I have a mind
- Could be a brain in a vat, when parts of his mind are stimulated, he seems to be experiencing physical experiences - Masked Man Fallacy
- Can be applied to all of Descartes’ arguments for Dualism
- I am in a room with my father, someone I would ordinarily recognise, but he is wearing a mask, so I don’t recognise him
- Mistake in reasoning:
(1) I recognise my father
(2) I don’t recognise the masked man
Therefore, (3) The masked man is not my father - Explain
- Masked man is my father, so reasoning isn’t sound
- What my father is wearing is a trivial property, as is being doubted
- Argument from doubt fails - Reply
- Descartes tries to defend his argument
- Disanalogous: Mind and body can’t be compared the way my father and the masked man can
- Masked man and father are both physical, mind and body are physical and non-physical - Question begging
- Descartes assumes what he is trying to prove
- Mind and body are independent and one is physical, one is non-physical
- Argument from doubt fails - Argument from introspection
- Same line of reasoning as argument from doubt
- Tries to show mind and body have different properties
- Difference is how we learn about mental and physical states: introspection and cat scan
- So mental states are not physical states - Masked Man Fallacy
- Also applies to this argument
- How I learn about something is not a substantial property, it is dependent on me, as is doubting something - Hobbes
- Even is Descartes could get round MMF
- He is question begging again
- Assumes mental states have to be non-physical
- Our mental states could be the same as our physical states
- Argument from introspection fails - Next
- No good reason to believe in Dualism
- Want to look at major problem, to show Cartesian Dualism is false - Mind-body interaction
- Mind and body are separate, but still interact
- Consistent with our intuition, e.g. if we are stressed, a mental state, this causes the physical state of a headache
- How can physical interact with non-physical?
- Descartes had no answer to this, caused him problems - Conclusion
- Argument from doubt fails because of MMF
- Argument from introspection fails because of question begging
- Problem of mind-body interaction shows Dualism to be a weak and unsuccessful philosophical position to take
4
Q
Essay plan on the cogito
A
- Intro
- Will be arguing the cogito is not a logical certainty
- Only establishes thinking is going on - Method of doubt
- Explain logical certainty
- Applies method of doubt to all previous knowledge to establish certainty - First wave
- Illusion
- Fire paper example
- Building example - Second wave
- Dreaming
- Fire example
- Senses have deceived us before, so can’t trust them - Criticism and response
- Know the different between waking and dreaming experience
- Our waking experience could be a dream
- Could be another reality - Third wave
- Deception
- Can’t be sure of a priori knowledge
- Maths example
- Cogito comes out of 3 waves
- Must be something doing the doubting - Cogito applied to 3 waves
- Survives first and second waves
- Hasn’t used experience to justify it
- Can doubt body, but not mind - Criticism and reply
- Not direct criticism (weakens argument)
- Can’t infer anything from the cogito
- Reply: Descartes goes on to infer God’s existence
- Criticism fails - Criticism 2 and reply
- Descartes has missed out a premise
- Should have (2) All thinking things exists
- Reply: in objections and replies, Descartes says he doesn’t need an argument, is true by reflection
- Quote - Nietzsche
- Criticised philosophers that made assumptions
- Descartes assumes: he knows what thinking is, it must be I doing the thinking - Main assumption
- Must be something doing the thinking
- Rain example
- Only said that thinking is going on
- Contignent - Reply
- Descartes says it’s not contingent, there must be something doing the thinking
- Can’t use verb or adjective alone - Assessment
- Descartes is using a logical truth
- This is subject to the third wave of doubt - Conclusion
- Cogito isn’t a logical certainty
- Either contingent or subject to third wave of doubt
- Only shown that thinking is going on
5
Q
Essay plan on God’ existence
A
- Intro
- Will be arguing Descartes’ doesn’t prove God’s existence
- Will focus on ontological argument - Certainty
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- Not an inductive argument - Anselm’s ontological argument
- Premise form
- Explain (4) - Descartes’ ontological argument
- Similar reasoning but simpler
- Premise form - Perfect island
- Guanilo’s argument
- Perfect islands must also exist
- This seems ridiculous, so ontological argument must be flawed - Problems
- Not valid, just an opinion
- Attacks Anselm’s, not Descartes’
- Descartes predicts and replies:
- Mistake in reasoning: mountains are to valleys what existence is to God - Next
- Can reply to Guanilo’s criticism
- Will discuss Kant’s - Kant’s criticism
- Premise form - Explain
- Existence isn’t a property
- ‘X exists’ is not a claim about our concept of X, but a claim that something exists in the world that corresponds to my concept of X
- ‘X exists’ is a synthetic statement - Response
- Descartes is talking about necessary existence, not contingent
- To say otherwise would be a contradiction
- Triangle example - Evaluation
- Not a good reply
- What is necessary existence?
- Only example is God
- Can’t prove that anything necessarily exists, so can’t base an argument on it - Conclusion
- Descartes can’t respond to Kant’s criticism
- Ontological argument fails
6
Q
Anselm’s ontological argument
A
(1) We have an idea of God
(2) Our idea of God is of a being than which no greater can be thought
(3) Either our idea of God refers to something which actually exists or this idea is just an idea in our mind (self-generated idea)
(4) If our idea of God is just an idea in our mind then it cannot be the idea of a being than which no greater can be thought
(5) Therefore our idea of God refers to something which actually exists
(6) Therefore God exists
7
Q
Kant’s argument against the ontological argument
A
(1) If ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction, then ‘God exists’ must be an analytic truth
(2) If ‘God exists’ is an analytic truth, then existence is part of the concept of God
(3) Existence is not a predicate
(4) Therefore, ‘God exists’ is not an analytic truth
(5) Therefore, ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction
(6) Therefore, we cannot deduce that the existence of God from the concept of God
(7) Therefore, ontological arguments cannot prove that God exists
8
Q
Descartes’ quote about the cogito
A
I do not mean to deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but to recognise it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind
9
Q
Explain and illustrate Descartes’ ontological argument
A
- The argument
- Ontological argument in premise form - PQ and SQ
- Primary qualities are essential for existence, secondary qualities aren’t
- Eg space, quantity, size
- Eg Colour, taste smell
- Perfections are primary qualities - Necessary existence
- Triangle example
- Mountains and valleys example
- Can’t imagine a mountain without a valley, like can’t imagine God without existence - Criticism and reply
- Can imagine lots of things into existence e.g. winged horse
- Existence isn’t to valleys what existence is to God
- Mountains are to valleys what existence is to God - Anselm’s
- Premise form - Contrast
- Descartes’ is simpler (intuition of the mind)
- Descartes’ is like seeing greatest angle is opposite to greatest side
- Anselm’s is like a^2 + b^2 = c^2
- Both equally true - Descartes’ epistemology
- God’s existence very important
- Establishes existence of clear and distinct ideas
- God wouldn’t deceive us
10
Q
Explain and illustrate Descartes’ method of doubt and its purpose
A
- Intro
- Method of doubt consists of three waves
- Cannot know sceptical hypotheses are false - First wave
- Illusion
- Assumes there is a world but we’re seeing it wrong
- Fire paper example
- Building example
- Our senses could always be deceiving us - Second wave (first part)
- Dreaming
- Could be dreaming everything we experience
- The world we experience might not exist
- Could wake up to true reality
- Fire example
- Drugs example - Second wave (second part)
- Examples from fiction
- Sirens and satyrs made of constituent parts
- Even our most basic concepts can be doubted - Third wave
- Deception
- Mathematical statements can also be doubted
- External force could’ve put idea in our heads
- 3 possibilites: God, demon, evolution - Purpose 1
- To establish foundations for knowledge
- Find certain things (that can’t be doubted)
- Build all other knowledge on this - Purpose 2
- Expose weakness of empiricism
- All waves apply to a posteriori knowledge
- Lots of sceptical arguments against empiricism
11
Q
Outline and illustrate Descartes’ wax example and two of its purposes
A
- Intro
- In The Meditations
- Descartes sits by the fire looking at a piece of wax
- Describes its properties: hard, makes a sound when tapped, easy to handle, has a smell, golden colour - Describe
- Holds wax in front of fire
- Has different properties
- If used senses, would think it was a different piece of wax
- Has some of the same properties: extension, malleable,, flexible
- These are primary qualities - Understanding
- Can understand PQs on a molecular level, can explain what has happened to the wax
- Descartes understands ‘by the sole power of judgement which resides in my mind’
- Reason overrides sense data - Purpose 1
- Draws out difference between perception and understanding
- Other animals don’t have same rationality as us, would think the wax was a different piece
- Tells us a out human nature, we are thinking, rational beings
- We judge someone to be human with our understanding, not perception
- Even if they don’t look human, we can tell - Purpose 2
- Draws out distinction between primary and secondary qualities
- Primary qualities are essential to matter, secondary qualities aren’t
- Eg can imagine something not red but can’t imagine it not taking up space
- Primary qualities resemble their causes, secondary qualities don’t
- Cause of me seeing an object as rectangular, is that the object is rectangular
- Cause of me seeing an object as blue is electron configuration on surface of object which causes different wavelengths to be reflected and absorbed
12
Q
Explain and illustrate Descartes’ notion of clear and distinct ideas
A
- Define
- Definition of c and d ideas - Examples
- Number 3 is clear and distinct
- Can imagine it clearly in our minds and can distinguish it from other numbers
- Identical twin is not clear and distinct
- Can’t be distinguished easily - Cogito
- Finds a clear and distinct idea he is certain of
- Assumes all clear and distinct ideas are certain - Senses
- Thinks of clear and distinct ideas he has perceived with his senses
- Eg ‘the earth, the sky and the stars’
- Subject to first wave of doubt
- Might not have perceived them clearly and distinctly - Pure clear and distinct ideas
- If known a priori they are certain
- Eg maths
- Subject to third wave of doubt - Next
- Can’t assume all clear and distinct ideas are certain
- Needs more - God
- Argues for the existence of God
- God wouldn’t deceive us, or let an evil demon deceive us - Hallmark argument
- Premise form - Problem
- Cartesian circle
- Needs clear and distinct ideas to prove God’s existence, needs God’s existence to prove the certainty of clear and distinct ideas
13
Q
The Hallmark Argument
A
1) The cause of anything must be at least as perfect as its effect
2) My ideas must be caused by something
3) I am an imperfect being.
4) I have an idea of God, which is that of a perfect being.
So:
5) I cannot be the cause of my idea of God.
And:
6) Only a perfect being (God) can be the cause of my idea of God.
Therefore:
7) God must exist.
14
Q
Explain any 2 of the arguments Descartes considers in his attempt to prove the existence of material things
A
- Clear and distinct ideas
- Define clear and distinct ideas - Example
- Maths
- Number 3 (can imagine clearly in our minds and can distinguish from other numbers)
- Contrast identical twin - Testing ideas
- Concludes that all clear and distinct ideas are certain
- Tests ‘the earth, sky and stars’ using method of doubt, not certain
- Tests maths, subject to third wave of doubt, not certain - Arguments for God
- Ontological and Hallmark
- Briefly outline - Argument from involuntariness
- Descartes rejects
- Our idea of material things either come from us, God or external world - God
- God wouldn’t deceive us
- Ideas can’t have come from God - Us
- Can’t choose what we see
- Often experience things independent of and sometimes against our will
- So ideas can’t have come from us - Reject
- Descartes rejects argument
- We see things we don’t want to that come from us
- Eg hallucinations
15
Q
Explain Descartes’ intermingling thesis
A
- Intro
- The way Descartes believes mind and body interact
- Believes mind and body do interact - Problem
- Mind and body are separate and distinct
- How do they interact?
- Descartes tries to answer with intermingling thesis - Quote
- In sixth meditation
- Quote - Pilot ship disanalogy
- Analogous in that there are two separate things
- Pilot has to look to see if ship is broken
- Mind knows when body is in pain - Words
- Uses ‘compound’, ‘intermingling’, ‘union’
- In one translation ‘confused’
- Not clear and distinct, can’t be separated
- Very different to Dualist view - Examples
- Examples are carefully selected
- Pian, hunger thirst
- Emphasises the physical - Contrast
- Leads to contrast between clear and distinct ideas (just mental), confused ideas are mental and physical
