Meditations on First Philosophy

Meditations 1-6

Ren Descartes
Lived 1596-1650
Often described as the father of modern
philosophy. Modern philosophy is distinguished
by its focus on reason, rather than religion or
tradition, as the primary mechanism for
understanding the world.
Well known as a mathematician Descartes is
credited with the invention of analytic geometry,
and is the namesake of the Cartesian coordinate
system.

The Rationalist

A combination of factors, including Luthers Protestant Reformation

and Copernicus advances in scientific understanding and technique,
led to the erosion of the hierarchical, authoritarian medical
worldview and weakened the authority of Scholastic philosophy,
which relied heavily on Aristotle.

Rene Descartes scientific and mathematical interests demanded

observable, provable evidence of a nature lacking in cumbersome
reliance on authority of Scholasticism, and resulted in a radical
proposal:

Start fresh; throw out everything we think we know

and build a system based entirely on ideas whose truth
can be clearly and distinctly known to us firsthand.

Rationalist vs Empiricism

Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in

which our concepts and knowledge are gained
independently of sense experience.

Descartes

Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate

source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Locke, Hume and Berkeley

General
(Med. I)

Cogito (existence of the I )

(Med. II)
Mind-Body Dualism

Skepticism
God (no deceiver)
External

1. My idea of God (III)

World

2. My contingent

(Meds. III-VI)

existence (III)
3. The ontological
argument (again) (V)

The Meditations as a Whole

An Unsatisfactory
World of Uncertainties

A better world
World of truths

truth
finding
for
procedure
A

The
descent
into
doubt

Finding a bedrock
(Something one cannot doubt)

Methodic doubt

Methodic doubt is a form of

skepticism that rejects any
idea that could possibly be
false, no matter how remote
that possibility.

Descartes Meditations

Descartes notices that many of his beliefs are unjustified

and/or uncertain.

These include beliefs about the external world and the

mind

Hes interested in determining which, if any of his

beliefs, are certain. By doing this, he thinks, he can
establish a foundation for the rest of his beliefs.

This approach to knowledge is called foundationalism.

Descartes Meditations

Foundational pieces of knowledge are distinct from other kinds

of knowledge.

They require no justification.

You might call them the end of the chain of explanation.

The foundationalist thinks that once foundational pieces of

knowledge are discovered, the rest of what we know can be
inferred from these foundational pieces of knowledge.

Why would anyone think that there are pieces of knowledge

that require no justification?

Descartes Meditations

How might we discover the foundations of our

knowledge?

I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to [the]

general demolition of my opinions.

Descartes proposes to withhold belief from (i.e. doubt)

any claim about which he is not absolutely certain.

What does it mean to be certain?

Cartesian Certainty

Descartes has a strong criterion for certainty.

A belief is not certain merely when it is unreasonable to

doubt, but when it is impossible to doubt.

He aims, then, to undermine the certainty of most of his

beliefs by asking if it is possible to doubt them.

He doesnt have to examine each of his beliefs

individually; he goes after the foundations of his
Beliefs.

FIRST VICTIM
Beliefs acquired by the senses

Are we sure about the things we see when were far

away from them?

Are we sure about the things we see and touch when

were close to them? Am I sure, for example, that Im
really seeing my own hands in front of my face?

No! Were often deceived about this when we sleep

Descartes Response
Dream Argument

I have dreamed that x when x was false.

If I cannot distinguish an experience from a non-truthful

experience, then I am not justified in regarding it as truthful.

Waking experience that x is truth only if I can distinguish it from

my dream experience.

I cannot find any such distinguishing mark.

I am not justified in regarding my present waking experience x is

truth.

SECOND VICTIM
Beliefs about mathematical/logical relationships

Dream skepticism isnt enough to undermine these

beliefs, because even when were dreaming, 2+2=4.

To undermine these beliefs, wed need a deeper kind of

skepticism

The Evil Demon

P1: If I cannot be certain that Im not being deceived by

the an Evil Demon (or the matrix), then I cant be certain
that 2+2=4 (or that I have hands!)

P2: I cannot be certain that Im not being deceived by an

Evil Demon (or the matrix).

C: I cannot be certain that 2+2=4 (or that I have hands!)

DOES ANYTHING SURVIVE?

Second Mediation

The Cogito
Cogito, ergo sum

After everything has been most carefully weighed, it

must finally be established that this pronouncement I
am, I exist is necessarily true every time I utter it or
conceive it in my mind.

The one thing I cannot doubt is my very existence.

After all, Im doubting, right?

An evil demon may

be making me believe
things that are false.

But when I say I am;

I exist, I cannot be wrong
about this.

There is nothing
of which I can
be certain.
An evil demon could
try to make me believe this
only if I really do exist.

I am thinking,
therefore I exist.

What is the I that does exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGjiSbEp9c

Wax Argument

What are the essential properties of

an ordinary physical object, say, a
piece of wax?

Descartes wants to say that we

cannot know what wax is through
our senses.

The argument was created in

order to analyze what properties
are essential for bodies, show how
uncertain our knowledge of the
world is compared to our
knowledge of our minds, and
argue for rationalism.

When the wax is exposed to heat,

the characteristics change.
The wax Initially
perceived:

The wax as later

perceived:

Sense:

sweetness of honey

tasteless

taste

odor of flowers

odorless

smell

colored

altered Color

sight

has definite figure

not the same figure

sight/touch

has definite size

bigger

sight/touch

hard

liquid

touch

cold

warm

touch

easily handled

not easily handled

touch

emits sound when hit

no sound when hit

hearing

The senses tell us that the wax is yellow, that it is cool to the
touch, that it has a certain shape, that it smells like flowers and
tastes like honey.

However, when we bring the wax close to a fire, all these

sensuous properties change: it becomes clear, hot and loses its
shape, smell, and taste.

So, Descartes concludes that none of these sensory properties

belong essentially to that piece of wax. instead, the only arise as it
interacts with our sensory organs.

What belongs to the wax itself?

Descartes concludes that what must belong to a material

object like the wax is simply that it persists in time and
space (that it is extended).

Descartes thinks that weve arrived at these conclusions

by stripping the wax of all the properties we perceived
it to have.

What is left is what we grasp of the wax, not through

the senses, but rather through our intellectual faculties.

Problem
The Cogito doesnt really help us all that much

How do I get from the knowledge that I exist to any

kind of knowledge about what kind of a thing I am?

Descartes answer: God

Why does Descartes say this?

I must, as soon as possible, try to determine
(1) whether or not God exists and (2) whether
or not He can be a deceiver. Until I know these
two things, I will never be certain of anything
else

I have an idea of a being that is perfect (this being is all-powerful, allknowing, all-good.

This idea is perfect in my mind.

But nothing that is greater could have come from anything that is lesser.

So this idea must have come from an actually existing perfect being.

Ideas can come from oneself (innate), other ideas or experience.

I am not sufficiently perfect.

None of my other ideas are sufficiently perfect.

So this idea must have come to me from some being, who is allpowerful, all-knowing, all-good.

Conclusion of the 3rd Meditation

"From the simple fact that I exist and that I have in my
mind the idea of a supremely perfect being, that is,
God, it necessarily follows that God exists . . . . The
whole argument rests on my realization that it would
be impossible for me to exist as I do -- namely, with
the idea of God in my mind -- if God didnt exist. It
also follows that [since God is perfect] God cannot be
a deceiver [because fraud and deception are caused by
defects] . . . ."

Meditation IV

And why does Descartes think it necessary

to prove the existence of God?

It's because he's looking for a guarantee that the "external world" (the world
outside of his mind) is really real and not just an illusion.

How does a proof of the existence of God help him with that problem?

The point is that God (who is no deceiver) guarantees that the world I perceive
through my senses is really there. God authenticates my sensory experiences,
thus making sensation generally reliable, not in and of itself, but because God
(being perfectly good) will not allow me to be systematically deluded and
deceived.

By the way, if Descartes trusted his senses, this "external world" issue would
not be a problem for him. But Descartes, a "Rationalist" rather than an
"Empiricist," does not trust sense experience. He needs something more than
sense experience to convince him that the "external world" is real. He needs
God.

The Basic Thrust of Meditation IV:

If God is no deceiver, how is human error with respect to truth and falsity possible, and
how is that error to be explained?

Human nature is equipped with an intellect (faculty of knowing) and a free will (faculty of
choosing), which interact in the pursuit of truth. The intellect is capable of forming beliefs
that can't be doubted and therefore are certainly true. However, the intellect can also
consider claims that are subject to doubt and that therefore may be false. The human will
is free to affirm or deny propositions proposed to it by the intellect. Error results when
the will (1) denies the truth, or (2) affirms claims that are false, or (3) asserts knowledge
where there is doubt.

Error is avoidable where a person limits her his affirmations and denials to "those matters
that are clearly and distinctly [indubitably] shown to . . . [the will] by the intellect . . . . "
and remains (more or less) neutral with respect to all claims that are subject to doubt.

Why does God permit human error? If human nature were created both free and
incapable of error, it would be more perfect than it now is; but it may be that the apparent
imperfection of human nature in this respect is necessary to "a greater perfection of the
universe as a whole."

Meditation 4
What then, is the source of my errors?
They are owing simply to the fact that, since
the will extends further than the intellect, I
do not contain the will within the same boundaries;
rather I also extend it to things I do not understand.

Intellect

Will

If I hold off from making judgement when I

do not perceive what is true with sufficient
clarity and distinctness, it is clear that I am
acting properly and i am not committing an error.
But if I instead were to make an assertion or a denial,
then I am not using my freedom properly.

Clear and
distinct ideas

Error

Intellect

Will

The content of Meditation V

Mathematical thinking & its (physical & non-physical)

objects: clarity & distinctness again -- what is clear &
distinct must be true

Descartes ontological argument for the existence of

God

God and certainty

Descartes third argument

for the existence of God

1. If the nonexistence of God (an infinitely perfect being) were

possible, then existence would not be part of Gods essence (that is,
existence would not be a property of the divine nature).

2. If existence were not part of Gods essence (that is, a property of

the divine nature), then God would be a contingent (rather than
necessary) being.

3. The idea of God as a contingent being (that is, the idea of an

infinitely perfect being with contingent rather than necessary
existence) is self-contradictory.

4. It is impossible to think of God as not existing.

5. The nonexistence of God is impossible.

A God that lacks existence would

not be a perfect being.

A more perfect being is

conceivable, namely one that has
all the same attributes, as well as
the attribute of existence.

God without existence is like a

triangle without internal angles
equally 180 degree and three sided.
A God that lacks existence is less
perfect, than one that does exist.

What do the internal

angles of this triangle equal?
How many sides does
this triangle have?

Our idea of God is that of

all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.

Perfect
Which would you consider to be more perfect?

To exist

Not to exist

Meditation VI
Removal of doubt as to the existence of the external world

Since God exists

And is no deceiver,

it follows necessarily

that the external world can be known to exist.

WHY?

Something must cause the idea of a triangle.

Descartes was inclined to believe that things,

which resemble those perceptions,
created the sensory perceptions.

Something must cause the idea of a triangle.

Descartes would be deceived if the

perceptions were caused by some other means.
Since, God is not a deceiver,
God would not have misled Descartes
into thinking there are material objects if
there were not.
So, he concludes that material objects exist.

Descartes was inclined to believe that things,

which resemble those perceptions,
created the sensory perceptions.