In late 17th-century a relatively unknown French thinker Rene Descartes wrote, “It is some years now since I realized how many false opinions I had accepted as true from childhood onwards, and that, whatever I had since built on such shaky foundation, could only be highly doubtful” (13). The opening statement to Meditations is seemingly bland, for Descartes’ statement is attuned to beliefs in non-physical existence shared by other cultural religions, namely, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Descartes attempts to “make sense” of the illusionary world through a logical argument. He vows that he “shall straight away attack the very principles that form the basis of all my former beliefs” (17). Meditations is a monumental work. It changed philosophical
What if the onlooker trapped in watchtower signals another onlooker in a nearby tower to let her know of his dilemma? Then, there is a possibility that she does not possess a ladder, but she can signal another onlooker in another tower. Onlooker after onlooker passes the message until everyone realizes that there is no way down. No one can search sufficiently deeply in his consciousness for the way down, or the construction of the world aside from jumping to possibly grave injury, or a rejection of the landscape visible from the tower. No, this is not the correct method; I am once again falling into Descartes’ “continuous reasoning” dilemma. Should I consider the environment? Imagine the towers are surrounded by mountains and rivers; he who is in the valley that receives a signal from her atop a mountain may feel that she is already “at sea level.” Perspective is complex,
He postulates that the mind alone creates distinct identities, not God: “But why should I think that, when perhaps I myself could be the source of these thoughts” (18)? But here is another problem: if humans indeed dominate the center, what living being had dominated the center of the universe before humans? Do the earliest humans or infants constitute Descartes definition of “being human”? Is it quite possible that “truth” is the absence of realization? Descartes writes, “If I conceived the ideas themselves purely and simply as modifications of my thinking, and did not connect them with anything else, they could scarcely give me any occasion to err”
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
Our mind and our body are undoubtedly separate from each other. A mind can survive without a body, and, likewise, a body is just house for the mind. In The Meditations, Descartes describes this concept in his dualist theory in the second of multiple Meditations. We can reach this conclusion by first understanding that the mind can survive any destruction of the body, and then realizing that you are identical to your mind and not your body. In other words, you are your thoughts and experiences – not your physical body. Finally, you cannot doubt your own existence, because the act of doubting is, itself, and act of thinking, and to think is to exist as a “thinking thing,” or Res Cogitans.
In conclusion, I agree with Descartes meditative theory that the innate ideas in our minds. Clearly it’s apparent with him, he used to establish his existence as well as the existence of God, and the world around him. It is through these innate ideas that we are able to adjust to these spontaneous situations. Innate ideas are a gift give to that is present and active from the beginning to the end of life.
In constructing his argument for God's existence, Descartes analyzes several aspects of the nature of human thought. He begins by outlining the various types of thoughts we have, which include ideas, thoughts, volitions and judgments. Ideas, or images of ideas can only exist within the mind and are certain of existence. Volitions, or choices are firmly within the mind and are also certain. Emotions, such as love, fear, hate, all exist in the mind and are certain as well. Judgments involve reference to effects outside the mind and are subject to doubt. Therefore, judgments are not certain and distinct. Descartes believes that images, volitions, and emotions are never false but it is our judg...
First and foremost, Descartes is eager to show the distinction between the mind and the body. In the process of discovering what he is, Descartes starts by concluding that although he can conceive the possibility that his perception of his own body could in fact be false, he cannot conceive the possibility that he is without a mind. Thus, Descartes argues that he has no doubt that he exists by means of thinking and having thoughts. “ I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing, that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding , or reason words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant”(Descartes, Meditation Two, 27). The idea “Cogito ergo sum” is focused on in this meditation the idea of I think, therefore I am. Thus Descartes knows he is something without a doubt which is a thing tha...
Descartes, Rene. “Meditation I & Meditation II”. Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Yale University Press., 1996.
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
. Its most famous defender is Descartes, who argues that as a subject of conscious thought and experience, he cannot consist simply of spatially extended matter. His essential nature must be non-m...
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
Rene Descartes is recognized as an influential abstract thinker. Although there have been objections to his idea's, he continues to invoke thinking among huge numbers of people. In the first meditation, Descartes does an excellent job of convincing the reader that all the information received from the senses can be called into doubt. He uses concrete arguments to show how humans often have the tendency to assume things they don't really know about, espically when this information is based on the senses. This work is a classic because of the originality of Descartes ideas, and the matter-of-fact way that he presents them. These are just some of the ingredients that compose a classic philosophy masterpiece.
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
Unlike one of empiricism’s major tenets, Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, Descartes believed that the mind was not a blank slate, but actually came pre-loaded, if you will, with ideas, which are part of our rational nature and that our rational nature allows us to grasp . Descartes begins his journey deep within his own mind by claiming that all truths can be conceived by thinking about them. He calls his method cogito or pure reasoning. His famous words “I think, therefore I am,” describes the way that he thinks the mind is the true reality with the rest of reality being an extension. His example to prove thi...
Meditation on First Philosophy. His position on the body being a strictly physical entity while
Eastern enlightenment religions have been gaining popularity throughout the western world for the past few decades, with many people attracted to a "different" way of experiencing religion. As with many other enlightenment religions, Buddhism requires disciples to understand concepts that are not readily explainable: one such concept is that of no-self. In this essay I shall discuss the no-self from a number of modern perspectives; however, as no-self is difficult to describe I shall focus on both the self and no-self. Beginning with psychological aspects, and neurophysiological research on transcendental meditation, I shall discuss the impact of modern brain science on our understanding of the self and transcendence. Next I will outline the relationship between quantum physics and non-locality, as this gives a western scientific explanation for no-self. Returning to the original source of Buddhism, I will briefly outline the discussion between Siddhartha and Vaccha regarding atman, then discuss the mind and no-self and their relationship to liberation. Finally I will summarize a few issues that the western mindset may face approaching this topic.