PHL105Y November 7, 2005

1
PHL105YNovember 7, 2005

• For Wednesday, read Descartes Sixth Meditation
  (we are skipping the Fifth in class)
• For Friday, write a page on one of the following
  questions (it will be collected).
• On p.53, Descartes comments that the soul is not
  just in the body in the way a sailor is in a
  ship, but is commingled with it. What does he
  mean by that?
• In the last paragraph of the Sixth Meditation,
  Descartes explains how we tell the difference
  between dreaming and waking life. How
  satisfactory do you find Descartes account of
  how we do this?

2
The first essay, final version

• The final version of your first essay is due on
  Wednesday (November 9). Upload your essay to
  turnitin.com by Wednesday morning instructions
  on doing this are available on the course
  website.
• Class ID 1395973
• Class password republic all lower-case

3
Descartes Third Meditation

• -The rule of clear and distinct ideas
• -The existence of God

4
The starting point

• The meditator knows that he exists.
• He is aware of various ideas.
• He is still supposing that he is dealing with the
  evil genius he cant trust his senses, and he
  cant trust his intellectual beliefs (other than
  the belief about his own existence, which is
  demon-proof).
• What can he know?

5
The project

• The meditator asks himself How did I come to
  know I exist?
• Surely in this first instance of knowledge,
  there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct
  perception of what I affirm. Yet this would
  hardly be enough to render me certain of the
  truth of a thing, if it could ever happen that
  something I perceived so clearly and distinctly
  could be false.

6
The rule Descartes wants to prove

• If its clear and distinct,
• then its true

7
Getting rid of doubtsabout my intellect

• If Descartes can prove that the origin of his
  nature is a perfect and trustworthy
  (non-deceiving) being, then he no longer has a
  reason to doubt his intellect.
• Descartes new goal to prove that he was created
  by a non-deceiving, perfect God.

8
Taking stock of my ideas

• I am aware that I have various ideas ideas of
  myself, chimeras, the sky, God, and so on
• There are three possible kinds of ideas
• 1. innate (built in to my nature)
• 2. adventitious (produced by external sources)
• 3. invented (produced by me)

9
Taking stock of ideas

• The ideas I am aware of are not all the same
• They all exist as modes of my thought
• But some represent greater, and some represent
  lesser objects

10
My idea of God

• Descartes basic move
• The only way a finite being like me could have
  the idea of an infinite being, is if an infinite
  being really exists.

11
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection could I have gained the idea of the
  infinite just by taking some idea of the finite
  (say, the idea of me) and negating it?
• No, because there is more reality in the idea of
  an infinite substance than a finite one.

12
A surprising claim

• the perception of the infinite is somehow prior
  in me to the perception of the finite, that is,
  my perception of God is prior to my perception of
  myself. For how would I understand that I doubt
  and that I desire, that is, that I lack something
  and that I am not wholly perfect, unless there
  were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by
  comparison with which I might recognize my
  defects?

13
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection What if I somehow had infinite powers
  without realizing it, and so could create the
  idea of an infinite being on my own?

14
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection What if I somehow had infinite powers
  without realizing it, and so could create the
  idea of an infinite being on my own?
• Reply I may have more power than I now
  recognize, e.g. I may gradually be increasing my
  knowledge, but God is entirely actual, rather
  than potential

15
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?

16
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• From me?
• From my parents?

17
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• Even if my parents did bring me into existence,
  they dont sustain me from one instant to the
  next the same force and action are needed to
  preserve anything at each individual moment that
  it lasts as would be required to create that same
  thing anew (AT49)

18
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• Could it be me, or some other finite cause, or
  some combination of finite causes?
• No because I have an idea of a unified perfect
  being within me, I could only have been created
  by such a being.

19
Where does the idea of God come from?

• Descartes thinks it is innate in us.
• It is not invented, because we cant add or
  subtract to it (contrast my idea of my dream
  home)
• It is not adventitious, because it doesnt come
  to me unexpectedly (contrast my idea of the
  oncoming car)

20
Free from deception?

• it is quite obvious that he cannot be a
  deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of
  nature that all fraud and deception depend on
  some defect. (AT52)

21
The Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes wants to prove that if its clear and
  distinct, then its true
• But how can he do this unless he already trusts
  his clear and distinct perceptions as true? What
  else could he have to go on?

22
One reading of Descartes strategy

• Descartes never stops using his basic rational
  principles even throughout the First Meditation,
  the doubts he generates are rational doubts he
  gives arguments about why each kind of claim
  should be doubted
• He suspends judgments about specific deliverances
  of reason he does not quit the use of reason
  altogether

23
One reading of Descartes strategy

• At the end of the First Meditation, Descartes
  casts doubt on reason by seeming to show that
• 1. Reason leads us to affirm what is clear and
  distinct (if you think about it rationally, you
  want to affirm that squares are four-sided)
• 2. Reason itself also leads us to doubt those
  very claims (if you think about it rationally,
  you decide you could be intellectually defective)
• If reason leads to both X and not-X, theres a
  problem with reason. What Descartes wants to do
  is to show that (2) isnt true reason only seems
  to lead us to that kind of self-doubt. If you
  reason a bit more carefully, you see that a
  creature like you, with an idea of perfection,
  cannot be intellectually defective

24
What could Descartes be tryingto prove, anyway?

• Could you prove that reason is reliable to a
  person who wanted to refuse to engage in any
  reasoning?

25
What could Descartes be tryingto prove, anyway?

• Could you prove that reason is reliable to a
  person who wanted to refuse to engage in any
  reasoning?
• Could you prove that reason is reliable to
  someone who thinks she has rational evidence that
  it could lead you astray?

26
What could Descartes be tryingto prove, anyway?

• In order to prove anything at all, do you need to
  make some assumptions?
• Do you need to assume that certain beliefs of
  yours are true? Do you need to assume that
  certain rules can be followed, or that certain
  argumentative rules are OK?
• Note the First Meditation destroys all
  Descartes old beliefs it does not necessarily
  destroy his rationality, or the principles he
  follows (hes erasing all the files from his
  hard drive, not taking a sledghammer to the
  computer)

27
The Fourth Meditation

• God and the problem of error

28
If my rationality is reliable,why do I make
mistakes?

• Three claims Descartes is committed to
• God does not deceive me
• My faculty of judgment comes from God
• I do make mistakes sometimes

29
Where does error come from?

• God is perfect, but Im further down the scale.
• Could error come from the simple fact that Im a
  limited being?
• God gave me a faculty of judgment alright, but
  its a limited one

30
Where does error come from?

• Pointing to the fact that Im finite isnt enough
  to explain error, because
• error is not a pure negation but rather a
  privation or lack of some knowledge that somehow
  ought to be in me
• Whats the difference between a negation and a
  privation?

31
Where does error come from?

• Whats the difference between a negation and a
  privation?
• Negation something I happen to lack, but neednt
  have had anyway I dont have five arms or
  wheels Im not twelve feet tall (because God
  made me this way and not that and theres no
  fault there Im not falling short of a standard)
• Privation something I lack, but somehow should
  have had (I am falling short of a standard if
  God is responsible for a privation, hes somehow
  at fault)

32
An analysis of judgment

• Judgments always involve the joint work of
• The intellect, through which I perceive ideas
• The will, which affirms or denies (or suspends
  judgment upon) what I perceive

33
An analysis of judgment

• The intellect, taken on its own, is not the
  source of error (why not?)

34
An analysis of judgment

• The intellect, taken on its own, is not the
  source of error (why not?)
• -the intellect just presents ideas whether you
  contemplate an idea of yourself, a table, or the
  tooth fairy, you havent made an error until you
  judge it, until you say The tooth fairy exists.

35
An analysis of judgment

• The will, taken on its own, is not defective (why
  not?)

36
An analysis of judgment

• The will, taken on its own, is not defective (why
  not?)
• It is just the power to affirm or deny any
  particular idea its an unlimited power for me
  I am always free to decide what to think
• (what is freedom?)

37
What is freedom?

• In order to be free I need not be capable of
  being moved in each direction on the contrary,
  the more I am inclined in one direction the
  more freely do I choose that direction.
• AT57-8.

38
Where errors come from

• Not from the intellect, on its own, nor from the
  will, on its own, but from my failure to align
  them properly
• The intellect is fine as far as it goes, but it
  doesnt present me with a clear and distinct idea
  of everything (its finite)
• Errors arise when I make judgments about things
  that are not clear and distinct

39
Whos to blame?

• If I want to, I can avoid error entirely, all my
  life, by only judging what is clear and distinct
  to me
• Note that God could have given me a clear and
  distinct idea about everything Id ever think
  about. Since he didnt, is he to blame for my
  mistakes?

40
Error and God

• God could have made me free, finite, and
  infallible
• He didnt do so, but hes not responsible for my
  mistakes (why not?)

41
Error and God

• God could have made me free, finite, and
  infallible
• He didnt do so, but hes not responsible for my
  mistakes (why not?)
• Inescapable (built-in) human error would be a
  problem avoidable human error is not