Meditations Flashcards
FIRST MEDITATION 1: Developing foundationalism, which is: ________________________
he will not completely prove the previous beliefs false, or doubt each belief one by one because _______________________
He first doubts ___________ then gives the naive ‘madman’ criticism _____________ then argues from dreams _____________________
yet dreams are made up of _____________________
- leading to the ideas/corporeal objects distinction ____________________ and the sciences/mathematics distinction ___________________
The school of thought in which knowledge is only as strong/reliable as its foundation
Because all he needs is the slightest possible doubt to completely reject a belief, and testing all of them would be too time-consuming, he will instead doubt the foundation of all his beliefs
First doubts his senses - the main foundation of his beliefs
Some would argue that doubting something as clear asthe senses makes him like a madman, yet sane or not he is still able to argue he can’t distinguish sense-based beliefs from those in his dreams
Dreams are composed of real objects, or at least real shapes and colours
So such shapes, colours and all ideas exist indubitably, unlike physical things
The same distinction is thus made between knowledge from maths compared to science
FIRST MEDITATION 2: How his belief in God relates to certainty in these a priori beliefs ____________________________
the similar problem for non-believers ____________________
how he balances against his current bias ______________________________
God’s benevolence - so Descartes’ alternative source of deception - ______________________
The problem with doubting everything/every sense (illustrated) __________________________
He believes in a God, whose omnipotence means he could deceive Descartes about a priori belief
Even atheists may be deceieved e.g. by hallucination
The doubt of God balances against his reliance on God
So instead of a God deceiving him (benevolent - would not) so Descartes uses the example of an evil Demon deceiving him instead to remove his bias
Doubting everything or at least every sense perception he has makes the doubt meaningless - there is no lack of doubt to contrast this with - a fake counterfeit 2-pound coin is only recognised by comparison with real coins, so if every coin were counterfeit none of them could be recognised as such
SECOND MEDITATION 1:
Descartes doubts every belief, then finds something indubitable (cogito, 3 stages of argument) __________________________
What he knows at this point about mind/body and ‘I’ and their certainty _____________________
Problem with knowledge of the body _____________
What is involved in being a thinking thing ___________________________ - why these things are indubitable ___________
What the wax example shows (changes, intuitions, how we know of ‘I’) ________________________
1 The evil demon may be tricking me into THINKING I exist
2 In order to THINK, ‘I’ (as a thinking thing) must exist
3 I must be thinking if I am deceived, therefore I must exist
The mind, according to cogito, is the only thing that is certainly part of ‘I’ - the body remains uncertain, so may or may not be part of ‘I’
The body is still as prone to doubt as a dream
Being a thinking thing also means Descartes is a thing that ‘doubts, perceives, affirms, denies, wills’ - it is obviously indubitable that these TYPES OF THINKING exist even if the THINGS that are being doubted, perceived etc. do not exist
A piece of wax changes in properties like colour, shape, solidity when held to a flame, so these properties aren’t what makes the wax the wax.
What remains is some physical extension and this is what is known, by an INTUITION OF THE MIND, to be what comprises the wax.
Likewise, we know ‘I’ via an intuition of the mind, and this makes it more indubitable than sense-based knowledge
SECOND MEDITATION 2: Criticisms of the cogito: Reflexive \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 'one minute rock' \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Circularity \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
It is about itself, which is how it guarantees the existence of ‘I’ (what is being thought about it this case)
It is only guaranteed whilst being thought about, so ceases to be guaranteed unless we thing about it constantly
The first premise ‘You can only think if you exist’ is extracted from the conclusion ‘I exist’, making the argument circular.
THIRD MEDITATION 1:
Descartes distinguishes ideas, volitions/affections and judgments - explain each, which can be true/false and why _______________________________________________________________
Judgements can come from innate ideas, fictions (e.g. chimera) or be adventitious (explain each) __________________________________
Define formal and objective reality ______________________________
Explain CAP ________________________
Ideas: just what they are, like mental pictures
Volitions and affections: desires and emotions
Judgements: our beliefs - so only judgements
can be true or false. Ideas, volitions and affections cannot be true or false in themselves.
Innate judgements are those that come from within him e.g. knowledge of numbers
Fictions are those we actively invent
Adventitious judgements are those caused
by the external world gained via senses
Formal reality is what all ideas have - their existence as ideas.
Objective reality is the degree of reality in the thing the idea represents.
CAP (Causal Adequacy Principle) states that an idea has to have a cause with at least as much formal reality as the idea contains objective reality
THIRD MEDITATION 2:
Explain the trademark argument (based on CAP) ____________________________
Criticisms:
Resemblance/representation difference (knight bravery analogy) __________________________
Descartes himself is imperfect, but his idea of God is perfect so he has less formal reality than the objective reality of this idea. If Descartes follows the Causal Adequacy Principle he cannot have caused his idea of God himself.
Only God (perfect) has sufficient formal reality to do so. Therefore God must exist.
Ideas don’t have to resemble what they represent e.g. if our idea of a bravery was a knight in armour, so Descartes idea of God may not resemble God.
As such the idea may not have the degree of perfection that guarantees God’s existence.
FOURTH MEDITATION:
Descartes argues that if we properly use our understanding _________________
Since God is non-deceiving, He allows us to _______ when we make mistakes and think _______ and ______ - He guarantees truth if we think this way
If we properly use our understanding we do not make errors.
God is not a deceiver so allows us a way of realising mistakes - we must think clearly and distinctly and God will guarantee us truth.
FIFTH MEDITATION 1:
What is claimed about the essence of material things ______________________
This demonstrated with triangles _______________________
This further demonstrated with mountains and valleys ____________________
This applied to God __________________
The ontological argument - three premises ___________________ which makes a false assumption?
All material things have in common extension (even if they do not necessarily exist)
The essence of a triangle is its 3 sides and 3 angles.
Mountains are in the essence of a valley.
Perfection is in the essence of God.
Ontological: 1) I have an idea of a perfect being 2) A perfect being must have all perfections 3) existence is a perfection
Therefore God exists.
Existence is not a perfection is not a perfection - this is a false assumption.
FIFTH MEDITATION 2:
Gaunilo’s objection to the onotological argument (the _______ island) ________________________
It may be unnecessary to claim there is a God at all,
however Descartes responds to this that it is necessary:
(ANY sovereign being, based on opposite idea) _____________________________
Kant’s objection (existence is not ________) ______________________
The Perfect island - Gaunilo argued that having an idea of a perfect island doesn’t mean that one exists, so therefore the same is true of God.
It has been argued that not considering God
at all would make the ontological argument
unnecessary, however Descartes responded that the argument is necessary
since the idea of ANY sovereign being is
for him necessary. It is necessary in that we have the opposite idea (of finite, imperfect beings).
Kant - existence is not a predicate:
The nature of an idea is such that existence cannot be a necessary property. Existence is something separate to something’s properties.
SIXTH MEDITATION 1:
Is it possible that God could trick Descartes about all things except the cogito (including a priori?) _________________________________
What Descartes hence claims about God _______________________________
Criticism: the Cartesian circle (C&D perceptions and God)
________________________________
Descartes’ response from memory _____________________________
Problem with this ___________________
Yes, Descartes could be fooled about all this knowledge but only if God chose to deceive.
Because God is benevolent, He wo.uld not
choose to deceive God in this way
Cartesian circle:
God, perceived as perfect, cannot deceive
So God will guarantee that clear and distinct perceptions are true.
Cartesian circle - God will only guarantee C&D perceptions if we already have a C&D perception of God as perfect - but this perception cannot be guaranteed without circularity
If he relies on memory, he can observe that he ONCE had a C&D perception, and based on this recall his knowledge of God
He has not reason to rely on memory in this way.
SIXTH MEDITATION 2:
My best by way of judgement (what this is ____________) shows me God is a perfect being. As such He would not radically mislead me because ______________
Therefore I would be radically misled if my best way of judgement was not veridical - but in fact _______________________
Which steps can be missed if not using Descartes’ method: __________________
The problem this use of God leads to _________________________
The real distinction between mind and body: the two ideas he has and their nature _____________________________
and why ‘I’ can’t be extended _________________________________
‘my best by way of judgement’ refers to clear and distinct ideas.
This shows me that God is a perfect being,
so would not radically mislead me because this would mean deceiving me.
My best by way of judgement IS veridical, because I am not misled
If we did not use such a form of argument we could simply skip the stages using God and claim ‘my best by way of judgement is veridical’.
The use of God in between makes this argument circular.
He has two separate clear and distinct ideas - one of an extended, non-thinking body, the other of a non-extended, thinking
mind.
‘I’ cannot be extended - if it were, it would have to be judged by the outside perspective of another ‘I’ - and so on
(infinite regress)
