No way!Hi! I’m Antonio and I read a lot of philosophy.NO WAY! Hi! I’m Amanda and I don’t like to read philosophy except for the existence of God debates.NO WAY! Hi! I’m Michael and I like the God debates. Out of everything in this class I like Plato the best.NO WAY! I’m Neil and I’m in a platonic relationship which sucks.

Rene Descartes1596-1650

AGENDA:•Life•Meditations•Dualism•Doubt•Existence of god•Open Discussion

His importance French philosopher, mathematician

and physical scientist (optics, physics, physiology)

Father of Modern Rationalist Philosophy Initiates intellectual break with ancient

and medieval thinking Appeals to analytical reason and logic to

investigate the nature of both mind and nature in the context of developing science

Descartes Contemporaries Copernicus (Polish; 1473-1543)Astronomy: Heliocentric solar system;

Challenge to Church-endorsed Geocentric universe Francis Bacon (English; 1561-1626)Development of the scientific method Galileo (Italian; 1564-1642) Mathematician, Physicist & Astronomer;

Copernican; challenge to Church Thomas Hobbes (English; 1588 - 1679) Kepler (German; 1571-1630)Discovered laws of planetary motion Blaise Pascal (French; 1623 - 1662) philosopher, mathematician Baruch “Benedict” Spinoza (Dutch; 1623 - 1677) philosopher Boyle (Irish; 1627-1691)Developed experimental chemistry; worked in

mechanics, medicine, hydrodynamics John Locke (1632 - 1704) Newton (English; 1642-1727) Fundamental laws of physics; classical

mechanics Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (German; 1646-1716) philosopher,

mathematician, &scientist.

Life

• 1596-1650, born at La Haye, a small town in Touraine, France.

• Educated at a Jesuit college of La Fleche. He was dissatisfied with the course of

instruction because it chiefly consisted of the transmission of the received opinions.

• 1619 in a series of dreams Descartes was convinced that he was favored by God,

destined to be a philosopher.

• These dreams motivated him to invent a method of formal reasoning that would

unite both mathematics and the physical sciences.

• 1637 he published Discourse on Method.

• 1640 he grievously experienced the death of his 5 yr. old illegitimate daughter

Francine.

Life

• 1641 he published Meditations on The First Philosophy with six sets of

objections from various distinguished persons (including Hobbes and

Gassendi), &Descartes’ Replies to the Objections.

• 1644 Descartes published Principles of Philosophy.

• 1649 he became (with much hesitation) an instructor to Queen “King”

Christina of Sweden.

• 1649 He published The Passions of the Soul.

• Feb. 11th, 1650 he died of pneumonia as a result of the

Swedish climate and demands made upon him by the Queen.

Major works

• 1618. Compendium Musicae.

• 1628. Rules for the Direction of the Mind.

• 1637. Discourse on the Method ("Discours de la Methode").

• 1637. La Géométrie.

• 1641. Meditations on First Philosophy.

• 1644. Principles of Philosophy.

• 1647. Comments on a Certain Broadsheet.

• 1647. The Description of the Human Body.

• 1648. Conversation with Burman.

• 1649. Passions of the Soul.

Meditations

• Doubt/certainty (I)– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTezdMLJoyE

• Dualism (II)• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEr8hnvzeHU

• Existence of God (III)– Vs the evil demon/genius

Rationalism• In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief

source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification." More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive." Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience." Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals.

Brain in a VatCan I be a mind/brain without a body?

“But what then am I? A thing which thinks. Whaat is a thing which doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also images and feels” - Descartes?

Substance

“Thingness” or “identity” Two Kinds of Substance

Material Substance Essence = to be in space without thinking Ex: A flag

Mental Substance Essence = to think without being in space Ex: The colors of a flag

Wax• 11. Let us now accordingly consider the objects that are commonly thought to be [the

most easily, and likewise] the most distinctly known, viz, the bodies we touch and see; not, indeed, bodies in general, for these general notions are usually somewhat more confused, but one body in particular. Take, for example, this piece of wax; it is quite fresh, having been but recently taken from the beehive; it has not yet lost the sweetness of the honey it contained; it still retains somewhat of the odor of the flowers from which it was gathered; its color, figure, size, are apparent ( to the sight ); it is hard, cold, easily handled; and sounds when struck upon with the finger. In fine, all that contributes to make a body as distinctly known as possible, is found in the one before us. But, while I am speaking, let it be placed near the fire--what remained of the taste exhales, the smell evaporates, the color changes, its figure is destroyed, its size increases, it becomes liquid, it grows hot, it can hardly be handled, and, although struck upon, it emits no sound. Does the same wax still remain after this change ? It must be admitted that it does remain; no one doubts it, or judges otherwise. What, then, was it I knew with so much distinctness in the piece of wax? Assuredly, it could be nothing of all that I observed by means of the senses, since all the things that fell under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing are changed, and yet the same wax remains. [ L][ F]

ConceivabilityI can conceive of my mind

as existing only if I also conceive it as thinking

So, thought is an essential attribute of my mind

But I can conceive of my mind as existing without an extended body

Arguments for Dualism

Meditation IA. The dream argument:1. I often have perceptions very much like the ones I usually have in sensation while I am dreaming.2. There are no definite signs to distinguish dream experience from waking experience.therefore,3. It is possible that I am dreaming right now and that all of my perceptions are falseDescartes realizes that someone may not accept that all of the elements of our dreams may be illusory, so he introduces another mechanism to increase the scope of our doubt.

B. The deceiving God argument:1. We believe that there is an all powerful God who has created us and who is all powerful.2. He has it in his power to make us be deceived even about matters of mathematical knowledge which we seem to see clearly.therefore, 3. It is possible that we are deceived even in our mathematical knowledge of the basic structure of the world.For those who would hold (as Descartes himself will later) that God would not deceive us, Descartes introduces an evil demon instead.

C. The evil demon argument:1. Instead of assuming that God is the source of our deceptions, we will assume that there exists an evil demon, who is capable of deceiving us in the same way we supposed God to be able.Therefore, I have reason to doubt the totality of what my senses tell me as well as the mathematical knowledge that it seems I have.Since the source of our knowledge cannot lie in the sense, Descartes must find a way to rebuild the edifice of knowledge upon material he can find within the contents of his own mind. The first thing he can be sure of on the basis of this alone is his own existence.

The dream argument

How do you know which is Real?

Meditation II. The argument for his existence (The "Cogito" argument)

1. Even if we assume that there is a deceiver, from the very fact that I am deceived it follows that I exist.

2. In general it will follow from any state of thinking (e.g., imagining, sensing, feeling, reasoning) that I exist. While I can be deceived about the objective content of any thought, I cannot be deceived about the fact that I exist and that I seem to perceive objects with certain characteristics. (The famous statement of this from D.'s Discourse on Method is "Cogito ergo sum." or "I think, therefore I am.")

3. Since I only can be certain of the existence of myself insofar as I am thinking, I have knowledge of my existence only as a thinking thing (res cogitans).This shows that the contents of the mind are more easily known than the body:

Cont’dThe Argument that the Mind is More Certainly known than the Body:It is possible that all knowledge of external objects, including my body, could be false as the result of the actions of an evil demon. It is not, however, possible that I could be deceived about my existence or my nature as a thinking thing.

Therefore, our mind is much more clearly and distinctly known to us than our body.

Descartes still has no knowledge of anything outside of his mind. He still has to make the crucial leap to the existence of an object outside of his mind. He must do this, however, strictly on the basis of the contents of his own mind. It is the idea of God that he finds in his mind that allows him to make this leap, and which forms the basis for his knowledge of all other external objects.

Discussion/questions