DESCARTES

HOW TO STRUCTURE

10 marker - short intro where in meditations, how contributes more widely

3 paras w key quotes

Concluding para w point forward and impact

Remeber for 15 to give strengths aswell as weaknesses

M1- explain Descartes Three Waves of Doubt (10)/ explain the method of doubt (10)

Seeking indubitability - recognised the large number of falsehoods wants something stable and likely to last so demolishes opinions

WAVE1 - sensory fallibility argument from illusion/ perceptual error eg something far away seems small it is not, our senses are foundational to other beliefs yet there are fallible, if they have failed us before how can we completely trust them - however sitting by the fire in a robe therefore needs a stornger doubt that occasional sensory error

WAVE 2 - dream argument

P1 in order to know about the nature of the external world we must not be dream

P2 in order to be certain we are not dreaming, our dreams would have to subjectively distinguishable from veridical experience

P3 however subjectively indistinguishable → must question/doubt the nature of the external world

However, objects must exist to cause our ideas so cannot question general material objects/Mathematical truths only those disciplines which rely on the ‘study of composite things cannot be certain that not dreaming therefore sufficient to doubt

In dreams maths preserved therefore can you doubt reason itself

WAVE 3 evil demon

God may give us false thoughts meaning we are radically and permenantly deceived, however god is supremely good and would not decieve, therefore defective design hypothesis made our faculties imperfect, error stems from limitations of the will and intellect

NOT DETSROYING INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS COLLAPSING PRINCIPLES SO THAT THE REST FALLS

M1 EVALUATE DESCARTES METHOD OF DOUBT (15)

IS DESCARTES DOUBT SINCERE?

Knew what he wanted to prove from the start therefore prejudices might insert themselves new system at the end appears nearly identical to the one he sought to destroy

STRONGER CRITCISM - Purely a theoretical doubt cant actually doubt all beliefs, he would have to abandon the belief that he had beliefs previous to doubt

RESPONSE - very silly basic principles of logic must sustain there are limits to how sceptical one can and ought to be must retain basic - all of these consequences ‘assumptions’ are necessary for doubt

LOGICAL LEAP?

Although senses sometimes deceive does not logically entail that they are always or even generally unreliable, inference from occasionally deception to whole methodological rejection may be invalid or too strong → more modest probablistic account fits experince ebetter

H in order to achieve truly indubitable knowledge system has to have true epistemic infallibility therefore not a Jump

H indubitability too high of a bar for knowledge eg suppose in a court a lawyer asked to find all evidence HUME hyperbolic scepticism cannot be escaped once embarked upon

H not a lawyer not endorsing a permanent stance but rather a temporary tool to locate the infalible foundation (the cogito)

H G.E MOORE argument from CS - I know i have hands common sense truths are more epistemically secure than premises from sceptical arguments

H exactly is establishing foundation thats the point

Evil demon silly argument schorndingers cat - cannot be falsesified

H conceptual tool allow us to doubt so only indubitable beliefs can stay

M2 - explain the wax argument (10)

10. Seeks to overcome the idea that we know physical thinsg better than our minds + establish that senses and imagination are not essential in ALL knowledge even the nature of a body or what it is not known through images

Assume for a moment that all bodies are known better (more distinctly) than mind because we have images of them,

P1 I can grasp that this melted wax is flexible/changeable so as to be capable of innumerable changes of shape (what i think of as the wax is not its sensory qualities but that it is extendable and changeable)

P2 Imagination could allow me to grasp this fact only representing these changes by an image of each possible shape (even if the physical properties change we know it is the same wax)

P3 my imagination cannot represent the innumerable shapes required

C1 it is not my imagination that allows me to grasp this capability

P4 but i do grasp this capability

C2 so it must be by some otehr faculty other than senses + imagination that i can - the mind (argument of elimination)

Same as looking at people dressed up in the street we cannot actually tell yet we assume same way mind percueves not our eyes kind of intellectual vision - intuition of the mind

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS IMPLIED -

1. All perception requires judgement of the intellect

2. The act of perceiving shows I exist

ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS ARE MOST C+D KNOWN BY THOUGHT NOT SENSES/IMAGINATION

STEPS 1. ASSUME WE KNWO 2. CHANGE 3. IMAGINATION 4. NO MIND

M2 evaluate the wax argument (15)

SENSES NOT REASON TELL US ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WAX

A complete understanding of the essential nature of the wax requires experimentation - simply contemplating the wax not going to give us any intresting knowledge of what it is made from at best an analysis of its appearance in the human mind we know through science that eg beeswax

R - Descartes not yet attempting to discover the objective essence of the wax merely laying groundwork so later claim that essence of matter is extension in space - aware atm can just analyse no knowledge of MIOs yet

SENSES STILL REQUIRED - what perceives wax is not only an intuition of the mind we wouldn’t even suppose them is we didnt have sense experience even if mind nec not sufficient

R- c+d a priori idea of the essence of the wax however not NO role for the senses sensation has a role in determining details in framework established by reason

R- knowledge of extension/change ability not solely by reason - could be our senses that tell us of colour shape smell ect and from this we conclude that they are extendable/changeable hence not a priori c+d idea

IS DESCARTES DRAWING PRIMARY/SECONDARY QUALITY DITSINTCION

Qualities of the object independent of perception vs how our mind perceives them

R - surely retains some colour and smell throughout cannot be entirely distinct

R - underplays role fo the imagination - part of cognition .

IS THE SELF REALLY SEPERABLE FROM THE CHANGING PROPERTIES OF THE BODY

Perhaps body essential this I is mind and body embodiment + mind emergent property of physical properties?

R- Descartes not yet seeking to do this

M2 explain the Cogito

Archimedes point by establishing this certain adn secure foundation he can then gain the rest of the knowledge, he is thinking therefore has concept of demon in the first place - he cannot be able to deceive us that we are nothing we have to be something in order to be deceived

I exist → i exits as a thinking thing → a thinking thing that doubts understands affirms ect → intellect as an essential features as mind/mental activities seperate from the body

Rejecting trad def eg Aristotle rational animal needs rat + animal to be understood necessarily firther subtleties so must reject all that if left is cogito begins to establish Cartesian concept of soul/mind existence preceeds essence like Sartre

Imagination is lit a faculty of images we cannot gain knowledge of the I from ts must be from reason - unity shows a single mind availability of conciousness provides grounds for considering all the various types of thought to be activities of one and the same thinking thing

M2 evaluate the cogito (15)

1. CAN THERE EVEN BE A FIRST PRINCIPLE OF PHILOSOPHY however if not infinite regress need sto escape someone - foundational belief knows to be cortina

R - being foundation of knowledge but k presupposes the concept of being - cogito may not be logically valid w out the addition of whatever thinking does exist which may not be granted - syllogism + begs the question

R - Denial of cogito is existentially rather than logical coherent - we cannot doubt that we exist as by doubting there must be something to doubt

DO WE NEED ALL OF RGUS MECGANISM SURELY OTHER GROUNDS FO RBEING SURE - this is the only way to establish certainty

LICHTENBERG - i think or it thinks → jumps to produce self we have thoughts not we exist → I think must imply something we need a substance → Immediatly aware of the self which is a subject of all experiences

BERTRAND RUSSELL - what necessitates the continuity of a self - what if just a bundle of fleeting moments

R - misinterprets the role of the Cogito not a full identity theory but rather a starting point serves instead to infer the existence of a mind from which to later develope persistence due to gods non deceptiveness

R - leads to further questioning abt the existence and veracity upon which this fragile foundation cannot stand

Priveledges thought over other modes of being

Modern understanding of conciousness perhaps most basic essential feature of existence is I feel

R - not denying existence of feelings rather establishing a ground point against radical scpeticism as doubting itself form of thinking he cannot doubt thinking

R - however this thinking may be a product of prereflective conlusions meaning that thinking is not the foundational activity

M3 explain c+d ideas

Clear: the content is immeditaly acessible and indubitable self evident self justifying and non inferentially justified

Distinct: sharply separates from other ideas and known through a priori reasoning

KNOWN TO THE ATTENTIVE MIND by the natural light - implanted conciousness

Distinguish between beliefs that arise from a spontaneous impulse and ‘by some natural light’

Known intuitively (an a priori intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a proposition directly and without inference so we inwardly looking upon an intellectual object and instantly seeing true features - this is the natural light)

Eg cogito

P1 I know iwth certainty that I am a thinking thing

P2 this knowledge is achieved only by means of clear and distinct perception

P3 c+d p would not be sufficient to yeild such knowledge if it were in any way fallible

C therefore c+d p provides sufficient ground for knowledge whatever I perceive is true

Reasons to doubt c+d

The resemblance thesis→ we have a habitual believe that there are things oustide of me which ideas proceeded from and which they fully resemble - if this is c+d we could doubt c+d

Deceiving God hypothesis - some cannot but affirm truth, when considering decieving god can doubt anything so is there really a decieving god → TRADEMARK ARGUMENT

m3 evaluate c+d ideas

CARTESIAN CIRCLE - can trust c+d because God exists and doesnt decieve proof that god exists relies on trusting c+d

R - doenst depend on God when I perceive something c+d i cant doubt so gods role is to ensure you can continue to rely on these even when not focusing on them

R - if reliability about c+d + natural light still comes from God surely you need yo prove him

Not actually a circle it is closed once youve been round the process once yk

How would we recognise c+d Mackie queerness

R - appears to attentive mind

R - this is elitist

R - no its not ur not meditating hard enough

Gilbert Ryle - descartes only using internal criteria to establish the truth of a belief → going against most theories of truth

R- still assume cognitive faculties + uses a reliable method not just focusing on belief

M3 Explain Descartes causal principle/trademark argument (10)

step 1 - the causal principle (allegedly revealed by natural light → cd) the reality of the cause must be equal or greater than the degree of reality of the effect, you cnat get something from nothing

Step 2 applies to objective reality of ideas - even content eg drawing of the plan for a digital computer would require a more powerful cause than the plan for a light switch - cause must be sufficiently powerful to produce the idea

Step 3 - we have an idea of god - we all have the idea of God - we cannot cause that idea ourselves of god requires an infinite cause cannot originate in humans only a perfect being god can be the cause of my idea of god

Consequently the idea of God is innate -

From senses - no bc doesnt come unexpectedly

Invented - no bc we cannot change the idea of god we have

Also means god cannot have any defects

M3 Evaluate Descartes causal principle/trademark argument (15)

VALID NOT SOUND

Eg, atomic bomb → not necessarily true

R - still cant create energy from nothing

R - ideas as composites or negation - could the idea of perfection not come from imagination of a lack of imperfection HOBBES - this would suggest not a priori → empirical also if acc a priori surely inconceivabe that effect contains more than cause yet we can conceive + also if the idea of god is a priori surely should be universal but dif religions have dif ideas

HUMES FORM - synthetic a priori NO not a thing is it a matter of fact as our idea of god is created by augmenting our experince of virtues of people from experince and extension we can create a ‘complex idea’

R - sensory experince cannot account for true infinity only indeterminate extension

RELIES ON PRINCIPLES THAT DEPEND ON GOD EXISTENCE - relies on c+d which he claims are trustworthy because god exists

So internally coherent w rationalist system but it un bouncing to empirircts

M3 Explain Descartes ontological argument (10)M

P1 god is the greatest possible being

P2 to be such he must exists both in intellect and reality

P3 god exists in both reality and mind

Descartes’ ontological argument is an a priori argument for the existence of God, meaning it is based on reason rather than experience.

Descartes begins with the idea of God as a supremely perfect being. He argues that this idea is clear and distinct, and that all perfections belong to God. A perfection is a quality that makes something better or more complete.

He then claims that existence is a perfection. Just as it belongs to the nature of a triangle to have three sides and interior angles adding up to 180°, it belongs to the nature of a supremely perfect being to exist. God’s existence cannot be separated from the concept of God, in the same way that a mountain cannot be separated from a valley.

Therefore, if we understand the concept of God properly, we must accept that God exists. To deny God’s existence would be like denying that a triangle has three sides, which would be a contradiction.

In conclusion, Descartes argues that because existence is a necessary part of God’s essence, God necessarily exists.

M3 Evaluate descartes ontological argument (15)

LOGICAL DEDUCTIVE STURCTURE

R - nothing new learnt + David Hume a priori concepts dont exist w e must identify them

Cannot define into existence - gaunillo

Island most perfect → will exist

R- god is necessary island is not

R- existence isnt a predicate Kant - imagine 100 pounds that doesnt exist and 100 that does exist- there if not a difference - for something to be a defining predicate as claimed by Descartes it is a description something has for it to be itself - LIMITS OF RATIONALISM

R - must be a thing still

BASED ON FAITH NOT REASON Antoine Arnold

Assumes god already not truly deductive as Kierkegaard suggests faith begins where reason ends

CARTESIAN CIRCULAIRTY - Arnauld

God exists → gods existence means that cd reliable → these enable us to know that god exists, presupposes cd to demonstrate cd

R- Descartes trust cd they are foundational from cogito

R - no he uses cogito to prove them

R - not viscously circular after proof once we know

M4 Explain Descartes fw argument (10)

Fw = compatibism: not forced/determined to do so by any external force

Incompatibilism: freedom of indifference - lowest grade of freedom

If we understand what god wants us to do and cd ideas we will be compelled to follow Not about choosing about being inclined in a dire ruin

We are naturally determine to affirm the truth and cannot help but do so when we see it cd

escartes argues that human beings have free will because the will is independent of the intellect and is not determined by external causes. In Meditation Four, he explains free will through his account of judgement, error, and the nature of the will.

Descartes claims that the will is unlimited. Unlike the intellect, which is finite and only understands a limited number of ideas clearly and distinctly, the will can affirm or deny anything whatsoever. This unlimited scope of the will is what makes humans free. When we choose, nothing external forces our decisions; instead, the will determines itself.

He also argues that freedom does not require indifference. The highest form of freedom occurs when the intellect clearly perceives what is true or good and the will follows it. For example, when we clearly understand a mathematical truth, we freely assent to it, even though we could not rationally deny it. This is still freedom because the choice flows from our rational nature, not from external compulsion.

Descartes explains error as arising when the will goes beyond what the intellect clearly understands. Since God created humans with a perfect will but a limited intellect, mistakes occur when we freely choose to judge without sufficient understanding. This shows that humans are morally responsible for their actions, which would not be possible without free will.

Therefore, Descartes concludes that humans possess libertarian free will, grounded in the self-determining power of the will and its independence from physical causation.

M4 evaluate descartes free will argument (15)

Do later

a) Explain Descartes’ distinction between the intellect and the imagination (10 marks)

• Descartes distinguishes the intellect and the imagination in Meditation Six.

• The intellect is the faculty of pure understanding:

  • It allows us to grasp ideas clearly and distinctly.

  • It does not rely on images or sensory experience.

  • For example, Descartes can understand what a thousand-sided shape (chiliagon) is without picturing it.

• The imagination is the faculty of mental imagery:

  • It involves forming pictures in the mind.

  • It is closely linked to the body and senses.

  • When imagining a triangle, we picture its shape visually.

• Descartes argues that imagination requires extra effort compared to the intellect:

  • Imagining complex shapes is difficult or impossible.

  • Understanding them intellectually is still easy.

• This shows that the imagination is not essential to the mind, whereas the intellect is.

• Since imagination depends on the body but the intellect does not, Descartes concludes that the mind can exist without the body.

• This distinction supports Descartes’ substance dualism: the mind is a thinking, non-physical substance.

Evaluate Descartes’ distinction between intellect and imagination (15 marks)

• Strength: supports substance dualism

  • The argument convincingly shows that intellectual understanding does not rely on mental images.

  • This suggests that thinking is not essentially physical.

• Strength: matches everyday experience

  • We often understand abstract ideas (e.g. infinity, justice) without imagining them.

  • This supports Descartes’ claim that the intellect is separate from imagination.

• Weakness: imagination may still be mental

  • Critics argue that imagination is still a mental process, even if it uses imagery.

  • This weakens the claim that imagination proves dependence on the body.

• Neuroscience objection

  • Brain scans show that imagination and reasoning both involve brain activity.

  • This suggests both intellect and imagination depend on the brain, undermining dualism.

• Empiricist criticism (Hume)

  • Hume argues that all ideas originate from sense impressions.

  • If this is true, then the intellect cannot operate independently of imagination or experience.

• Questioning the conclusion

  • Even if intellect and imagination are different faculties, this does not prove the mind is non-physical.

  • The distinction may only show different types of cognitive processes, not separate substances.

• Evaluation

  • Descartes successfully highlights a real difference between understanding and imagining.

  • However, he overextends this difference to support substance dualism.

  • The argument is insightful but ultimately not conclusive.

Explain Descartes claim that essence of matter is extension? (10)

P1 I have perceptual experiences as if of physical objects

P2 the cause of these experiences must be either my own mind, god or external objects

P3 if the cause were my own minds those perceptual experiences would be under my control - they are not

P4 if god caused them it would be deceptive (becuase i have a strong tendency to believe they exist) - god is not deceptive

Therefore must be external so external world

Evaluate Descartes proof of an external world of objects?

Origins of sensations - dreams are not subject to our will any more than sensations are yet they come from within us, not everything not subject to will must come from outside - so perhaps sensations come from a part of me of which i am not concious

Why could an unextended thing not create extended ideas

I can be a thinking thing w out imagination, i cant be a thinking things w out intellect/understanding so imagination must depend on some object other than itself but why

R- sensations cannot come from within as they are representations of extended things but a mind is unextended

R - appeal to causal principle

R - if true how can an unextended thing have perceptions of extended things at all

Couldn’t god be the origin of sensation

George Berkeley idealism

R - grave deception to make us think there was. Material worl when there wasn’t one

R - could be a deception in our own interests actually for the best

R STORNGER - we are already deceived about secondary qualities so why not primary - he is using god to prove the reliability of senses yet deceived so often ‘

R- god Allows us to escape from deception via use of our intellect by relying on cd - in illusion and sense deception we are able to detect error however we have no means of discovering the universe as a grand illusion therefore inescapable deception not compatible w god

R - reliant on God’s existence - any failure to prove his existence pays the price of solipsism

R - but w out god we cannot es-cae the vail of perception

NO LAW OF CUASE AND EFFECT - why would perceptual experiences have a cuase -

Explain Descartes mind body argument (10)

Essence must be a thinking thing This is cd he can now know that he is nothing more than a thinking thing

I can conceive of my mind w out a body yet i cannot conceived of my body w out my mind

Like a sailor in a ship degree of separation but also interaction

then argues that the mind and body have different essential properties. The mind is non-physical, indivisible, and capable of thinking, doubting, and willing. In contrast, the body is physical, divisible, and extended in space (res extensa). Because they have different properties, Descartes concludes that they cannot be the same substance.

Descartes also uses the conceivability argument. He claims that he can clearly and distinctly conceive of his mind existing without his body (for example, existing as a thinking thing without a physical form), but he cannot conceive of a body thinking. Therefore, if it is possible to conceive of them separately, God could create them separately, meaning they are distinct.

Despite being distinct, Descartes believes the mind and body interact, particularly through the pineal gland, allowing mental decisions (like choosing to move) to cause physical actions, and physical sensations to affect the mind.

In conclusion, Descartes’ mind–body argument claims that the mind and body are separate substances with different properties, supporting his theory of dualism.

Evaluate Descartes mind body argument (15)?

INTERACTION

Is the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance how can it affect the bodily spirits in order to bring voluntary actions

P1 physical things only move if they are pushed, only something that is extended can move it mind not extended so cant move body

R - we dont say on object that falls is pushed gravity is a force of attraction that operates without needing contact between 2 objects, weight is not some quality that causally interacts w the rock

R - still need to explain the physical force - if the mind is just thought it has no physical force of any kind, the mind is also not in space how can there be a spatial relationship then

R - Hume we cannot work out by reasoning alone what causal powers an object has- we cannot make a priori judgements about what can or cannot be causally related Theres nothing in principle that prevents us from thinking that mental events cause physical events - only by experince w e know - tahts how mind causes events

R - peneal gland/animal spirts

R - label not solve

Criticism:
Descartes claims the mind is indivisible, while the body is divisible. However, modern neuroscience shows that mental abilities can be divided and altered through brain damage.

Explanation:
Damage to specific brain areas affects memory, personality, or decision-making, suggesting the mind depends on the brain.

Dualist Counter:
A dualist may argue that brain damage affects how the mind expresses itself, not the mind itself — like a pianist limited by a damaged piano.

Evaluation of Counter:
This analogy is weak because changes in the brain seem to change mental content itself, not just expression. Severe damage can eliminate consciousness entirely.

Judgement:
Empirical evidence strongly favours a closer connection between mind and brain than Descartes allows.

Criticism:
Descartes argues that because he can conceive of the mind existing without the body, they must be distinct. Critics argue that conceivability does not guarantee reality.

Explanation:
We can conceive of water without H₂O, but in reality they are the same substance. Conceivability reflects ignorance, not metaphysical possibility.

Dualist Reply:
Descartes claims that clear and distinct ideas, guaranteed by God, ensure truth.

Evaluation of Reply:
This relies heavily on the existence of a non-deceptive God, which many philosophers reject. Without God, the argument collapses.

Judgement:
The conceivability argument is logically weak and unconvincing.

Philosophy vs theology (10)

Descartes argues that questions about God and the soul should be settled by philosophy (reason) rather than theology (faith or revelation) because philosophy provides certainty that is universal, rational, and non-circular.

First, theology depends on religious authority (such as Scripture or Church teaching), which already presupposes God’s existence. Descartes sees this as philosophically weak: you cannot use God to prove God without begging the question. Philosophy, by contrast, begins from radical doubt and only accepts what can be known with clear and distinct certainty.

Second, Descartes believes reason is available to all rational thinkers, regardless of religious background. Philosophical arguments—such as the cogito (“I think, therefore I am”) and the trademark argument for God—do not rely on faith, but on logic and introspection. This makes philosophy more reliable and less culturally dependent than theology.

Third, Descartes thinks philosophy provides stronger foundations for theology itself. If God’s existence and the soul’s immaterial nature can be proven rationally, then theological beliefs gain intellectual credibility rather than resting on blind faith.

Finally, Descartes is motivated by the intellectual climate of the Scientific Revolution, where knowledge was increasingly grounded in method, reason, and proof. For him, philosophy is not anti-religious; it is the proper tool for answering metaphysical questions rigorously.

Theology vs philosophy (15)

intellectual autonomy. By grounding belief in rational inquiry, Descartes avoids fideism (belief without reason) and allows religious claims to be critically examined rather than passively accepted. This aligns well with modern expectations of rational justification + in his pursuit for certainty means he doesnt just accept things randomly

R - fails to do this eg cd ideas which serve as the entire foundation he uses god to prove them and them to prove god - MEANS EVERYTHING ULTIMATELY RELIES ON GOD AURNAULD

R - CD IDEAS ARE NOT CIRCULAR once you have managed to prove it you do not need to go round again so even if it a circle it is not viciously circular

R - too fragile of a system if cd ideas are the foundation of absolutely all he claims to know philosophically cannot be like that

However, the view is not without serious weaknesses. Descartes claims philosophy gives certainty, yet his arguments for God are highly contested.

R - TRADEMARK ARG IS deductive arguments means conclusion logically follows from premises eg ontological argument - proves gods necessary existence

R - the trademark argument relies on the assumption that an effect cannot have more reality than its cause—an assumption many philosophers reject TALK ABOUT PERFECTION HERE. If the philosophical proofs fail, theology is left worse off, not better.

R - there is another proof - more philosophical the ontological argument

R - however poses existence as a predicate KANT it is not - conveys the limits of rationalism + Limits of rationalism is conveyed when he considers the wax argument - he underplays the role of teh senses.

ALSO enforced further KIERKEGAARD - faith is the leap beyond reason - therefore you cannot prove faith by reason because by defenition it is when you go beyond this reason

R - however this only applies to god what about discussions of the soul

R- inexorably intertwined

R - Additionally, critics argue that Descartes underestimates OR MISINTEPRTES theology. Theological approaches do not always aim at philosophical proof; they often focus on revelation, lived experience, and tradition, which philosophy may be unable to capture. By prioritising reason alone, Descartes risks reducing religion to an abstract intellectual exercise. NOT ONLY LEAP BEYOND REASON ALSO LIVED EXPEIRNCE

In terms of the soul - conceivability argument arguably philosophy - provides a solid ‘proof’ for the soil as immaterial which religion assumes but does not prove

If it were really philosophical it would take into account thought experiments that show a strong mind body interaction and furiously counter this monsit/physicalist idea- it does not

Also surely we can conceive of the mind w out the body

Also worth noting adressed to the Sorbonne originally - would hv needed to be religiously aligned - was it ever really philosophy