I'm doing some revision for my exam (3 hours, 3 questions) this Saturday and since i'm learning something, you all might as well learn with me. We can both benefit.
The course title is Descartes to Kant: Knowledge and Metaphysics. It deals with the major philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries (englightment) including Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant.
The first question is:
Can you doubt that there are such things as material objects? If you can, how can you resolve this doubt? (Answer in reference to Locke).
Descartes is most famous for writing the Meditations in which his aim (at first - in Meditation 1) was to sweep away all that he knew and accepted to be true by systematically doubting all material objets until he could start the foundations of what he could accept as really existing. He acknowledged that everything known to be true has come from or through the senses and that they are not always accurate and have been known to deceive, notably in dreams, illusions and mirages. He concluded that there may be some evil demon deceiving him into believing that the world actually existed where it may not.
Moving on to the Second Meditation, he came across a fundamental question. If the material world does not exist, does it mean that he exist? No. The evil demon cannot make him not exist as long as he thinks he exists as a thinking non-extended substance. This is where one of the most famous phrases in philosophy was used; "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). So as long as he thinks, he exists. Next Descartes demonstrates this by using the example of a piece of wax. When hard wax is put next to fire it changes its qualities in that it becomes softer, has different colours, smells differently, is hot etc. His senses do not recogise this piece of wax as being the same piece of wax but the mind does. Hence, the mind is a better 'knower than the body'. He may not be perceiving at all but when he is perceiving the wax, he ecannot doubt that he is perceiving nor that he is judging what he perceives to be a piece of wax and that implies he exists. Descartes invokes the metaphor of perceiving something 'by the natural light' (Clearly and distinction principle) and it means that all clear and distinct perceptions come by means of the intellect and whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true.
In Meditation 3, Descartes invokes the 'trademark argument' by introducing God into the picture. He proposes that God exists because (1)We clearly and distincly have the idea of God (and his perfection) in our mind, just like we can be sure that all triangles in the world have three sides without having to see every triangle, and; (2) That idea was put there by God. He tried to bridge the gap between the physical world and his 'Godly ideas'. Also, since nothing can come from nothing and the idea has to have a cause (the idea of God cannot come from nowhere), the original cause of that idea must be God. Next he differentiated between objective and formal reality; formal reality being reality intrinsic to themselves (the object in itself), while objective reality is reality of the things as they represent to us. One example would be a child who thinks he believes in Santa Claus (objective reality). In reality there is no Santa Claus (formal reality). Hopefully the logic will make sense in proving that God exists: (1) The cause of an idea must contain at least as much FORMAL reality as the idea has OBJECTIVE reality. (2) My idea of God has infinite OBJECTIVE reality.
(3) The cause of my idea of God has infinite FORMAL reality. (4) But the only thing that has infinite FORMAL reality is God. No effect can have a greater amount of reality than its cause. Also, existence is a prerequisit eto perfection and logic implies that it is better to exist than not to exist. Therefore, God must exist. One major objection to this is that if 1 and 2 are true then Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning (Cartesian Circle). Furthermore, to describe something as imperfect, one has to have an idea of perfection in the first place. One can say that X is better than Y but cannot say that X is better than perfection. Lastly, it is perfectly plausable to have an idea of God without God existing.
Moving on, Mediation 4 is crucial in that Descartes concludes that if God is perfect, omnipotent, good and so on, then he would not deceive because deceit is a sign of weakness and malice. Therefore material objects must exist. If God is so perfect why does he allow humans to err? The reason is the fundamental concept of free will; we misuse our judgement and God is not to blame. We can also not know God's true intentions because they are beyond our understanding.
In Meditation 4 he further enforces the idea that God exists by arguing that one can think of shapes that have never been seen and derive their properties clearly and distinctly as the idea of God (going back to the earlier example of a triangle). One ojection would be envision a 1000 sided figure.
Last comes arguably the crucial Meditation 6 which is known as the 'Ontological Argument'. In this argument Descartes envokes the concept of dualism in which the mind is distinct from the body and can live without it. The reason he comes to this conclusion is that the body is divisible and the mind is not. The mind and body being distinct but interlinked is expressed in the 'argument from doubt': Principle that if A and B are identical then whatever properties are possessed by A are possessed by B. In other words, can one think of Demi Moore's beauty without Demi Moore existing physically. To think otherwise would be prone to an intentional fallacy. The mind and the boy are distinct because theya re capable of being separated by God. Some objections to the 'Ontological Argument' are that brain damage impairs mental functions and there have been cases of 'split brain' where only one side of the 'mind' is active. Furthermore, Arnold proposed that someone ignorant of pythagoras theoram may well doubt it but the theory is an essential feature of all right-angled triangles. Lastly, how can we know if free will is really free?
All in all, Descartes does doubt that material objects may exist but resolves the doubt by invoking the concept of God and His goodness. So long as God exists, then he cannot deceive. However, the existence of God has been derived by reason alone and no experience so it may be prone to doubt and Descartes' whole argument would fall apart.
Locke is known as an empiricist in that he argues that all knowledge comes from experience alone and not from reason. He famously introduced the phrase 'tabula rasa' (blank slate) to invoke that as soon as babies are born they are like blank slates and experience is cast upon them. This was of course way before genetics and DNA was discovered. Therefore, unlike Descartes in the beginning, he rejects the notion that we can doubt material objects.
Saying that the world is supported by an elephant, he was asked what the elephant rested on which the answer was a giant tortoise. Asked again he asnwered that it was impossible to know and this referes to the limit of knowledge. In the book, Locke on Human knowledge he first attacks rationalism in the Attack on Innate Ideas. Anything innate is that which comes from reason alone and not from experience. His argument goes a bit like this: (1) If there are innate principles, then everyone would assent to them and there are no principles everybody assents to. (2) Regarding the possibility of innate moral knowledge his response is that no man would conset to even the most obvious moral knowledge without a great deal of reasoning. (3) Children come into the world devoid of ideas. (4) "Existence" and "identity" are least likely to be innate because they are difficult concepts to grasp. (5)Regarding the innate idea of God his response is that there are cultures that recognise no God. Importantly, his main critique is that it is impossible for innate knowledge to be in the mind and us not be conscious of it.
Moving on, how then do we experience material objects and where do they objects exist? It is clear that Locke believed that objects we perceive generally exist independent of our experience of them. Futhermore, the only things of which we have immediate knowledge of are our own ideas (and we do not have direct access to the world around us).
Locke breaks down the ideas into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities (texture, number, size, shape and motion) resemble the object in question while secondary qualities (colour, sound, taste and odour etc). Next comes the tricky bit: Secondary qualities are not in the object themselves but are powers to cause sensations and ideas in normal perceptual conditions. There is a causal relationship between the brown table (for example) and my idea of the 'browness' in my mind as an idea. That idea of browness is a private entity. A clearer example would be a sharp blade. Pain is not located in the blade itself but has the power to cause pain as an idea. However, primary qualities are universal whereas secondary are private ideas. The majority of what we observe are secondary qualities; we still do not know why particles of matter opearting on our organs give rise to the sensations they do. Only God knows and we cannot have knowledge of the nature of things.
All in all, Locke accepted the world for it is but gave it a different definition. Instead of invoking a supremely good God to prove that material objects he invoked the concept of ideas to prove his point.
The course title is Descartes to Kant: Knowledge and Metaphysics. It deals with the major philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries (englightment) including Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant.
The first question is:
Can you doubt that there are such things as material objects? If you can, how can you resolve this doubt? (Answer in reference to Locke).
Descartes is most famous for writing the Meditations in which his aim (at first - in Meditation 1) was to sweep away all that he knew and accepted to be true by systematically doubting all material objets until he could start the foundations of what he could accept as really existing. He acknowledged that everything known to be true has come from or through the senses and that they are not always accurate and have been known to deceive, notably in dreams, illusions and mirages. He concluded that there may be some evil demon deceiving him into believing that the world actually existed where it may not.
Moving on to the Second Meditation, he came across a fundamental question. If the material world does not exist, does it mean that he exist? No. The evil demon cannot make him not exist as long as he thinks he exists as a thinking non-extended substance. This is where one of the most famous phrases in philosophy was used; "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). So as long as he thinks, he exists. Next Descartes demonstrates this by using the example of a piece of wax. When hard wax is put next to fire it changes its qualities in that it becomes softer, has different colours, smells differently, is hot etc. His senses do not recogise this piece of wax as being the same piece of wax but the mind does. Hence, the mind is a better 'knower than the body'. He may not be perceiving at all but when he is perceiving the wax, he ecannot doubt that he is perceiving nor that he is judging what he perceives to be a piece of wax and that implies he exists. Descartes invokes the metaphor of perceiving something 'by the natural light' (Clearly and distinction principle) and it means that all clear and distinct perceptions come by means of the intellect and whatever you perceive clearly and distinctly must be true.
In Meditation 3, Descartes invokes the 'trademark argument' by introducing God into the picture. He proposes that God exists because (1)We clearly and distincly have the idea of God (and his perfection) in our mind, just like we can be sure that all triangles in the world have three sides without having to see every triangle, and; (2) That idea was put there by God. He tried to bridge the gap between the physical world and his 'Godly ideas'. Also, since nothing can come from nothing and the idea has to have a cause (the idea of God cannot come from nowhere), the original cause of that idea must be God. Next he differentiated between objective and formal reality; formal reality being reality intrinsic to themselves (the object in itself), while objective reality is reality of the things as they represent to us. One example would be a child who thinks he believes in Santa Claus (objective reality). In reality there is no Santa Claus (formal reality). Hopefully the logic will make sense in proving that God exists: (1) The cause of an idea must contain at least as much FORMAL reality as the idea has OBJECTIVE reality. (2) My idea of God has infinite OBJECTIVE reality.
(3) The cause of my idea of God has infinite FORMAL reality. (4) But the only thing that has infinite FORMAL reality is God. No effect can have a greater amount of reality than its cause. Also, existence is a prerequisit eto perfection and logic implies that it is better to exist than not to exist. Therefore, God must exist. One major objection to this is that if 1 and 2 are true then Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning (Cartesian Circle). Furthermore, to describe something as imperfect, one has to have an idea of perfection in the first place. One can say that X is better than Y but cannot say that X is better than perfection. Lastly, it is perfectly plausable to have an idea of God without God existing.
Moving on, Mediation 4 is crucial in that Descartes concludes that if God is perfect, omnipotent, good and so on, then he would not deceive because deceit is a sign of weakness and malice. Therefore material objects must exist. If God is so perfect why does he allow humans to err? The reason is the fundamental concept of free will; we misuse our judgement and God is not to blame. We can also not know God's true intentions because they are beyond our understanding.
In Meditation 4 he further enforces the idea that God exists by arguing that one can think of shapes that have never been seen and derive their properties clearly and distinctly as the idea of God (going back to the earlier example of a triangle). One ojection would be envision a 1000 sided figure.
Last comes arguably the crucial Meditation 6 which is known as the 'Ontological Argument'. In this argument Descartes envokes the concept of dualism in which the mind is distinct from the body and can live without it. The reason he comes to this conclusion is that the body is divisible and the mind is not. The mind and body being distinct but interlinked is expressed in the 'argument from doubt': Principle that if A and B are identical then whatever properties are possessed by A are possessed by B. In other words, can one think of Demi Moore's beauty without Demi Moore existing physically. To think otherwise would be prone to an intentional fallacy. The mind and the boy are distinct because theya re capable of being separated by God. Some objections to the 'Ontological Argument' are that brain damage impairs mental functions and there have been cases of 'split brain' where only one side of the 'mind' is active. Furthermore, Arnold proposed that someone ignorant of pythagoras theoram may well doubt it but the theory is an essential feature of all right-angled triangles. Lastly, how can we know if free will is really free?
All in all, Descartes does doubt that material objects may exist but resolves the doubt by invoking the concept of God and His goodness. So long as God exists, then he cannot deceive. However, the existence of God has been derived by reason alone and no experience so it may be prone to doubt and Descartes' whole argument would fall apart.
Locke is known as an empiricist in that he argues that all knowledge comes from experience alone and not from reason. He famously introduced the phrase 'tabula rasa' (blank slate) to invoke that as soon as babies are born they are like blank slates and experience is cast upon them. This was of course way before genetics and DNA was discovered. Therefore, unlike Descartes in the beginning, he rejects the notion that we can doubt material objects.
Saying that the world is supported by an elephant, he was asked what the elephant rested on which the answer was a giant tortoise. Asked again he asnwered that it was impossible to know and this referes to the limit of knowledge. In the book, Locke on Human knowledge he first attacks rationalism in the Attack on Innate Ideas. Anything innate is that which comes from reason alone and not from experience. His argument goes a bit like this: (1) If there are innate principles, then everyone would assent to them and there are no principles everybody assents to. (2) Regarding the possibility of innate moral knowledge his response is that no man would conset to even the most obvious moral knowledge without a great deal of reasoning. (3) Children come into the world devoid of ideas. (4) "Existence" and "identity" are least likely to be innate because they are difficult concepts to grasp. (5)Regarding the innate idea of God his response is that there are cultures that recognise no God. Importantly, his main critique is that it is impossible for innate knowledge to be in the mind and us not be conscious of it.
Moving on, how then do we experience material objects and where do they objects exist? It is clear that Locke believed that objects we perceive generally exist independent of our experience of them. Futhermore, the only things of which we have immediate knowledge of are our own ideas (and we do not have direct access to the world around us).
Locke breaks down the ideas into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities (texture, number, size, shape and motion) resemble the object in question while secondary qualities (colour, sound, taste and odour etc). Next comes the tricky bit: Secondary qualities are not in the object themselves but are powers to cause sensations and ideas in normal perceptual conditions. There is a causal relationship between the brown table (for example) and my idea of the 'browness' in my mind as an idea. That idea of browness is a private entity. A clearer example would be a sharp blade. Pain is not located in the blade itself but has the power to cause pain as an idea. However, primary qualities are universal whereas secondary are private ideas. The majority of what we observe are secondary qualities; we still do not know why particles of matter opearting on our organs give rise to the sensations they do. Only God knows and we cannot have knowledge of the nature of things.
All in all, Locke accepted the world for it is but gave it a different definition. Instead of invoking a supremely good God to prove that material objects he invoked the concept of ideas to prove his point.
