Exam I 17th 18th cent. PHIL Flashcards
Explain, in your own words, the philosophical methodology explicated by Descartes in BOTH the
Discourse on Method AND Meditations on First Philosophy. How is the methodology used in the former
used in the latter? Evaluate his methodology. (Hint: there are two different methodologies to explain
here.)
Discourse on method; rely on indubitable truth, work through problems in order of difficulty after breaking them up, notate your steps
1st meditation; hyperbolic doubt.
Methodology: rely only on irrefutable truth, and not your senses
methodology of the first is used to form the other; By refusing everything besides absolute truth you get to hyperbolic doubt. The Discourse on method sets a very high bar for explaining reality
What does Descartes mean by “substance”? Describe the nature (essence) of substance and how we
know about the existence of substance. Evaluate his ontology. (Hint: there are multiple substances,
for Descartes.)
there are finite (things) and infinite (God) substances
nature of substance; something that doesn’t rely on other things for its existence
finite substances can be extended or not
(substance dualism)
how we know they exist; we have clear and distinct perceptions of mind and objects, and an idea of infinite substance. Therefore God exists because it is in his nature to, and things and minds exist following God.
Evaluate: weak against mind-body problem and over-reliance on God (which is a poor argument)
Descartes provides three arguments for the existence of God in the Meditations. Clearly explain and
evaluate two of those arguments. What role does God play in his system? In other words, why is
God necessary and important for Descartes metaphysical system?
5th meditation: god exists because he is Perfect, a God that doesn’t exist is imperfect
3rd: Our idea of God has to have a source: and it cannot be us because we are finite and imperfect
Role: proves the external world exists and that you can trust your senses, because God wouldn’t deceive you.
Problems: nothing besides existence is attributed to god (mb not benevolent)
circular: God exists because he exists.
What is the “Cartesian Circle”? Why is this argument problematic for Descartes? Provide at least two
ways that this argument has been reinterpreted in the contemporary literature to address the
objectionable argument?
Cartesian circle is an argument for god where; everything you clearly and distinctly perceive is true, and you perceive God in this way, and that is because he is benevolent.
problematic: makes assumptions about god (good, wouldn’t deceive, acts on us)
reinterpretations:
reinterpretations: it doesn’t imply that all ideas are distinct and clear
circularity only comes from when we turn away from clear and distinctive truth
What is the mind/body problem? (What is needed for the problem to arise?) How does Descartes
argue such that the problem arises? What is the best solution to the problem? Why? (Hint, see the 6th
Meditation)
problem: mind and body need to causally interact
arises: I can clearly and distinctly think of my mind and body as separate things
best solution: animal spirits; there is causal interaction between the extended body and not extended mind; in the pineal gland
What does Spinoza mean by substance? In your answer, be sure to explain both how Spinoza defends monism and how he argues for the existence of this substance. Evaluate his argument for substance monism.
Substance is something that can be explained on its own without need of anything else to exist.
If other substances were to exist they would need a cause (PSR) the cause of everything is God, everything we see is explainable by modes and by the underlying attributes laid out by god’s nature
evaluate: solves the mind body problem; they are of one substance, our perceptions may be too confused to properly make claims of what is, so not a ton of support for human ability to evaluate the world and how it works (following Spinoza may lead to saying humanity is too confused to answer the true questions)1
Spinoza is often understood to defend necessitarianism. What does this mean? Does freedom exist in Spinoza’s system? Evaluate necessitarianism. (make sure to define freedom, as it can have multiple definitions)
Necessitarianism; the idea that all future events are determined by preexisting conditions (the past). Free will, as in the ability to choose your path from a number of paths of fate, doesn’t exist to Spinoza because he is a hard determinist, and not a compatibilist. If freedom is understanding nature and acting in accordance with it to follow a goal, then there is freedom, importantly because you are not being acted upon by external forces.
This view of the world is very strong because it gives people agency in their lives, and quite a bit of freedom if you have enough knowledge of the world. May result in fatalism if misinterpreted
What is parallelism in the context of Spinoza’s philosophy? How does this notion help avoid the mind/body problem present in Descartes’ system? Evaluate parallelism as a response to the mind/body problem.
There is only one substance (God) and everything else is attributes of it. The body and mind are reflective of one another, but are different attributes; when something happens to one it happens to the other, but there is no causal interaction.
The mind and body aren’t substances to Spinoza, and minds and bodies don’t causally interact. Ergo, there isn’t an issue of interaction
evaluation: a great answer to mind body problem buuut, why do the two mimic each other and how? There isn’t an explanation for this that is very compelling
What is the difference between natura naturans and natura naturata? How does the understanding of
this distinction help us make sense of Spinoza’s alleged pantheism? How helpful is this distinction?
Natura Naturans; God as the necessary and only substance and his infinite attributes
Natura Naturata;all finite, determined things.
Spinoza is likely a Pantheist, but he may as well be a panentheism. Everything follows from God, and God doesn’t necessarily have a will, but that doesn’t limit God to our reality because he is infinite. God may surpass pantheism here
What is the ethics of the Ethics? That is, how do we attain the good life for Spinoza? How does a proper understanding of his metaphysics relate to his view of morality?
(Hint: relate the issues of necessity, freedom, power, and knowledge into your answer.)
The good life is achieved by increasing your knowledge, and therefore your power. When you have more knowledge of your nature and what you want in life and how to achieve it you are able to act in accordance with reason and not emotion, which is the trap of unhappiness. Rational and intuitive knowledge are the goal because they are associated with joy. His metaphysics relate to morality because his moral “code” is following rational order and thus happiness. The “punishment” of doing wrong would be not following your rational order and being unhappy
What does Leibniz mean by “substance”? Evaluate Leibniz’s account of substance. (Hint: In your
answer be sure to explain the complete individual concept, unity, and activity notions in his thought.)
Substances are infinite to Leibniz, and contain an infinite number of Monads that ground them. Each substance has its own complete indivisible concept, and each state that the monad has is contained and predetermined within its CIC.
Substances are unities as in they are grounded in an infinite amount of monads, where nonphysical minds have a single monad because the mind is indivisible.
Substances are not the source of activity, instead, all of the monads are and they are synchronizes as in their nature. SO while monads don’t causally interact with anything, they do move in a pre-programmed harmony
Leibniz is often considered to be an “idealist”. In your answer, be sure to explain what idealism is
and how Leibniz can make sense of the existence(?) of material objects. Evaluate Leibniz’s idealism.
(Hint: it might be helpful to explain his rainbow analogy and the doctrine of phenomena bene fundata.
Further, it might help to distinguish between the “kingdom of bodies” and the “kingdom of souls”.)
Idealism to Leibniz is the fact that we perceive the world through ours senses, and that is making sense of an immaterial world. The world itself is a collection of ideas, and the physical aspect is how our mind interprets reality.
In the rainbow example, Our mind convinces us the rainbow is a physical thing, but it is not, Just as our minds convince us physical objects are material, they are actually a collection of ideas.
The kingdom of souls references monads with heightened perception and the kingdom of bodies as containing monads with minimal perception. The physical world is an illusion for the kingdom of souls observing the kingdom of bodies
What is the Principle of Sufficient Reason? What is the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles?
How does the former idea entail the latter? What does the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles
imply about substances? Do you find these principles defensible? Why?
PSR: there is a reason for everything, something without reason for existing wouldn’t exist
PII: That two objects that share all attributes are identical
PII follows from PSR because if two objects are identical and somehow distinct, PSR makes you ask what exactly differentiates the two, and having no answer that would mean God made an arbitrary decision in the making of the world.
Substances must have unique identities so they are considered different from one another. The universe is very structured
i would say they are defensible, If you follow the principle of the best. I personally do not find the principle of the best all that compelling; all atoms and subatomic particles are essentially identical, and that would be arbitrary to have any one orientation of them be the same as any other.
What does Leibniz mean by a “world”? What does “compossibility” mean? How does an adequate
view of compossibility help Leibniz respond to Spinoza’s necessitarianism? Do you think
compossibility is an adequate answer to the necessitarian threat?
A world is a compossable collection of possible substances. Compossoble as in are able to coexist together in the same universe. Leibniz combats necessitarians by saying that there are different combinations of composites, and that some are better than others, so in turn there are other possible worlds. Since God has to weigh everything to make the best world, it could have been one from a great many composite worlds.
I don’t think its an adequate answer, we don’t know how many composites there are, and if there is just one that is necessitarianism. We don’t know what could make a substance lack composability, so we are stuck trying to imagine a world that is impossible.
What is the “Problem of Evil”? How does Leibniz respond to the problem? In your answer, be sure
to explain the “best of all possible worlds thesis” and how he argues for this conclusion. Evaluate
Leibniz’s response to the problem of evil.
Problem of evil; God is all knowing, loving, and powerful but there is still evil
Leibniz says this is the best possible world through principle of the best
With PSR and the nature of God established as all of the above and the creator of the world, the only reason for there to be evil is if this is the best world. There is a reason for this world to be made-because it is the best possible one
draw a table for each philosopher and their beliefs on; What things are made upp of and what made them that way, Mind/body, deterministic, necessitarian etc.
