Epistemology : Descartes

Question 1

causal principle

Answer 1

things have to come from somewhere

Question 2

causal adequacy principle

Answer 2

the source be the same level of reality or even more real

Question 3

external world

Answer 3

objects that exist independent of the mediator’s mind

the furnitures of the world that exist independent to our minds

Question 4

existence of God

Answer 4

proves the existence of clear & distinct ideas

Question 5

D’s theory of ‘rational intuition’

proof of clear & distinct ideas

Answer 5

cogito : ‘ in this 1st item of knowledge there is simply a clear and distinct perception of what I am asserting ‘
if clarity & distinctness do >< guarantee truth -> then I can >< know that I exist
I do know that I exist
therefore general rule = whatever I perceive v clearly & distinctly is true

Question 6

clear idea

Answer 6

’ open and present to the attending mind ‘

Question 7

distinct idea

Answer 7

clear AND precise and separated from other ideas

‘ plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear ‘

Question 8

D’s proof of an external world

Answer 8

reductio ad absurdum
strong intuition does >< count
we need a stronger proof than just 2ndary qualities
if it is based on the senses -> too superficial a grounding
proof concerned with => primary qualities of objects
conc. ‘ and accordingly one must confess that corporeal things exist’

Question 9

how is self generation ruled out in D’s proof of an external world?

Answer 9

’ those ideas are frequently produced in my mind without my contributing to it in any way, and even frequently contrary to my will ‘

Question 10

how is God deceiver ruled out in D’s proof of an external world?

Answer 10

God would >< deceive me and would >< let me be deceived by the “ agency of any other creature “
this includes the archdemon as well
maybe archdemons are not embodied but just deceive us?

Question 11

type of argument :
ontological argument
D’s proof of an external world

Answer 11

both the ontological argument & D’s proof of an external world are reductio ad absurdum

Question 12

ontological argument

Answer 12

example of an a priori k
akin to maths, cogito
since you do >< need to do any experiments

Question 13

// formal structure //
reductio ad absurdum

Answer 13

(reduced to absurdity)
either X, Y or Z 
not X 
not Y 
(because it would result in being reduced to absurdity)
so it is Z

Question 14

OBJ : we have an idea of God which is of a maximally great being

Answer 14

God’s definition is circular & not fleshed out :
what is a maximally perfect being? God
who is God? a maximally perfect being
[Zagzebski] : definitions should >< be circular

Question 15

most critical CRIT : ontological argument

Answer 15

> < because it applies to islands
but what do we exactly mean by a maximally great being?
most problems in philosophy boil down to the language used and the meanings behind it
D draws a parallel between religion & maths too often

Question 16

// formal structure // 
D's proof of an external world 
meditation 6

Answer 16

reductio ad absurdum
1. either our idea of an external world comes from a deceiver God (i), ourselves (ii) or from an external world (iii)
2. not (i)
3. not (ii) as all of this is too complex for me to imagine
we are imperfect beings and so we are >< capable of imagining everything
4. so our idea of an external world must come from (iii)
5. so an external world must exist

Question 17

why does D need God?

Answer 17

to guarantee clear & distinct ideas ( that I am not mis perceiving them )

Question 18

what type of an argument is the cogito?

Answer 18

it is >< a syllogism / inference / deduction

it is based on the rational induction thesis

Question 19

syllogism

Answer 19

numbers lead to a final conclusion 
eg. 
P1
P2
P3
C

Question 20

dilemma in logic

Answer 20

2 options where both are problematic

Question 21

[ Nietzche ]’s CRIT : cogito

Answer 21

[ beyond good and evil section 16 & 17 ]
contingent feature of language that lends itself to believe in things that don’t exist
D is assuming that there is an I that is thinking & an I that is existing
similar to the error -> it is sunny implies that there is an it that has a speparate metaphysical existence

Question 22

empircism CRIT : cogito

Answer 22

analyse + bewitchment of language
similar to N -> most I could know is that there is a process of thinking that happens to be going on
similar to tummies rumbling
nothing about the cogito proves the metaphysical existence
thinking might be another physical action that just happens to be happening

Question 23

what is D’s turning point and why?

Answer 23

cogito
I am thinking therfore I exist
to be decieved, there needs to be an intellect that is being deceived
i.e. there needs to be thoughts with content and these thoughts need a thinker
* escapes the 3 waves of doubt *
‘ myself, then, at least am I not something?’
‘ there is >< doubt … so long as I think I am something ‘

Question 24

CRIT 1 : cogito

- not a good foundation -

Answer 24

we can >< build upon it as we can >< infer anything from it
RESP 1 : >< a fair CRIT as it does >< meet the cogito squarely
the implication are unclear
parallel problem in moral philosophy w/ justifying other good things

Question 25

CRIT 2 : cogito

- applies to any action -

Answer 25

this move applies to any action
‘ I am walking therefore I am ‘ -> still prone to the 3 waves
cogito = >< an inference but a case of rational intuition
think about it to know that it is true
the contents of the thought do >< matter as much as the actual action of thinking