Philos 100C - Midterm Review

What is Descartes’s skeptical method?

Descartes’s skeptical method is the use of radical doubt to reject any belief that isn’t completely certain; especially as he uses this method to doubt the senses, the external world, & even basic truths through the dream argument & evil demon hypothesis; the first belief that survives doubt is: if I am a thinking or being deceived, then I must exist as a thinking thing.

What are some levels of Descartes’ descent into doubt in Meditation 1, and how does he pull himself out of it in Meditation 2?

Descartes first doubts the senses, then, waking life, the external world, math, and finally everything through the evil demon hypothesis:

• senses → senses sometimes deceive us, so they cannot fully be trusted

• dream → cannot find a certain sign that proves he is awake rather than dreaming, so even the body + external world are doubtful

• math → truths like 2 + 3 = 5 become questionable, as maybe an all-powerful deceiver could make me wrong

• evil demon hypothesis → Descartes imagines a malicious demon deceiving him about everything, including the world, his body, and even basic beliefs

How does Descartes understand the nature of the mind?

Descartes views the mind as a thinking substance whose nature is thought; the body itself can be doubted, but the mind cannot, because doubting itself proves that a thing exists. For Descartes, thinking includes doubting, understanding, and willing, imagining, and perceiving.

• to think is too:

  • doubt, understand, affirm, deny, will, refuse, imagine, & perceive

• essence of mind = thought

What objections can be made to Descarte’s view on the mind?

A big issue that is brought up by Descartes’s prior assertion is the mind-body problem, brought up by Elisabeth, because, if the mind is immaterial (whose essence is thought) and the body is physical, how are they able to interact? Especially as the mind is a thinking substance.

How does Descartes attempt to prove God’s existence in the Meditations 3?

• Meditation 3 → Causal Proof

  • Descartes has an idea of God as infinite + perfect substance → every idea must have a cause + this cause must have as much reality as the cause itself → Descartes is finite + imperfect, he can’t be the source of an idea of infinite perfection → therefore, only an infinite being (God) could have caused these ideas

How does Descartes attempt to prove God’s existence in the Meditations 5?

• Meditations 5 → Ontological Proof

  • God’s essence includes existence → similar to how an idea of a triangle embodies necessary properties, an idea of God as a supremely perfect being includes necessary existence → as existence is a perfection, a supremely perfect being cannot lack existence → therefore, God exists

What assumptions does Descartes make about the nature of ideas, the nature of essences, and the nature of causality in his Causal Proof in Meditations 3?

Descartes relies on the following assumptions:

• ideas represent things and have different levels of objective reality

• assumes something cannot come from nothing and that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect

What assumptions does Descartes make about the nature of ideas, the nature of essences, and the nature of causality in his Ontological Proof in Meditations 5?

Descartes relies on the following assumptions:

• that God is a true and immutable nature, not merely an idea

• also assumes that whatever belongs to a thing’s essence cannot be separated from it

• God’s essence includes necessary existence, rather than possible existence

What are the objections one would make to Descartes’ Causal proof?

Objections:

• 1) The idea of infinity may be formed by negating finitude, or negating our own limits

• 2) The idea of God may be built by exaggerating human qualities like power + knowledge

• 3) That Descartes’s causal principle may not apply to ideas because we can imagine things that don’t exist

• 4) We cannot reason clearly about the infinite if we cannot comprehend it + God’s perfections might come from potential growth in ourselves or from combining many partial causes

What are the objections one would make to Descartes’ Ontological proof?

Objections:

• 1) Descartes is just defining God into existence

  • Descartes, to some, moves from the meaning of the word “God” to the claim that God actually exists

  • Just because the concept of God includes existence does not automatically mean something corresponding to the concept exists in reality

• 2) What if the idea of God is invented?

  • The idea of God can merely be constructed by the mind, similar to the idea of a perfect unicorn, a perfect island, or a perfect physical body

  • If the idea is invented, then its features do not prove that anything real exists outside the mind

• 3) Is existence really a property of perfection?

  • A critic could question whether existence belongs in a list of perfections similar to power, goodness, or knowledge

  • Maybe existence is not a feature of what something is, but only tells us whether that thing is real

• 4) Can essence & existence be seperated?

  • We can say we distinguish between a thing’s essence and its existence

    • i.e. we can understand what a triangle, unicorn, or perfect being is without knowing whether it actually exists

How would Descartes respond to the objects for the Ontological proof?

Descartes’s response:

• 1) Descartes asserts he isn’t arguing from the meaning of the word “God” to the existence of God

  • rather, he establishes that he argues from a clear & distinct grasp of God’s true and immutable essence

  • His point: if we clearly understand what God truly is, we see that existence belongs to God’s essence

  • So, he isn’t inventing God into existence; he’s recognizing what necessarily belongs to God’s nature

• 2) Descartes responds that the idea of God is different from invented ideas because we can’t equally affirm or deny the existence of God

  • with a perfect unicorn, perfect island, or perfect body, we can imagine it existing or not existing

  • that shows those ideas are invented or at most, only capable of existing

  • but with God, Descartes thinks existence cannot be denied without contradiction, because God is a supremely perfect being

• 3) Descartes says yes, existence is a perfection/property

  • God is supposed to have all perfections, and lacking existence would be a lack or imperfection

  • So if God lacked existence, God would not be supremely perfect

  • Therefore, existence must belong to God’s nature

• 4) For ordinary things, we can distinguish, yes, we can distinguish essence from existence

  • For instance, we can understand what a triangle or body is without knowing whether one exists in the world

  • But God is different because necessary existence belongs to God’s essence

  • Descartes compares this to how a mountain cannot be separated from a valley, or how a triangle cannot be separated from its necessary properties

How would Descartes respond to the objects for the Causal proof?

• 1) Descartes would say this gets the order backward, as we don’t first understand ourselves as finite and then invite infinity

  • instead, we recognize ourselves as finite only because we already have an idea of the infinite/perfect

  • The infinite is conceptually prior to the finite, like space is prior to a region of space

• 2) Descartes would say that exaggerating finite traits cannot produce the idea of true infinity

  • making human power or knowledge “bigger” still gives us something finite

  • God is not just a stronger or smarter version of a human

  • God is an actually infinite, perfect substance

• 3) Descartes would agree that we can imagine nonexistent things, like unicorns.

  • But he would say those ideas are made from finite parts we already have, like horses and horns.

  • The idea of God is different because it contains infinite objective reality.

  • A finite mind cannot cause an idea with infinite objective reality; only God can.

• 4) Descartes would distinguish understanding from comprehending.

  • We cannot fully comprehend the infinite, but we can understand enough to know it is infinite and more perfect than us.

  • He would also say potential growth cannot explain actual infinite perfection.

  • Combining many finite perfections also cannot produce the unified idea of an infinite, perfect God.

What is the so-called Cartesian Circle problem?

The Cartesian problem is the worry that Descartes argues in a circle: he uses clear and distinct perceptions to prove God exists, but then uses God’s existence to prove that clear and distinct perceptions are reliable. This creates a justifiable priority problem because each side seems to depend on the other

How does Descartes attempt to get himself out of the Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes escapes the Cartesian Circle by saying present clear and distinct perceptions are self-evident while we attend to them; He uses those to prove God. Then, once God is proven, God guarantees the truth of clear and distinct perceptions even when we only remember them later; essentially, bootstrapping our knowledge

How does Descartes account for erroneous judgments in Meditation 4?

Error, according to Descartes, is the result of the will extending beyond the intellect; the intellect is limited, but the will is broad and can judge things we don’t clearly understand. When we affirm or deny something without clear and distinct perception, we make mistakes; to avoid error, Descartes says we must restrain the will and only judge what the intellect clearly and distinctly understands

How does Descartes then exonerate God from responsibility for human errors?

Descartes exonerate God by arguing that human error comes from the misuse of free will, not from God’s deception or bad design; the intellect is limited because humans are finite, but limitation is not the same as defect; the will is also not defective because it is naturally broad and indivisible; error happens when humans extend the will beyond what the intellect clearly understands; so, God is not responsible for error; humans are responsible because they choose to judge without clear and distinct perception

How does Descartes argue for the existence of the external/physical world?

Descartes argues for the existence of the external world, claiming he has a passive sensory faculty that requires an active cause. This cause can't be himself, as sensory ideas arise involuntarily, often against his will. It also can't be God directly, because God is not a deceiver and made him inclined to believe these ideas come from bodies. Thus, sensory ideas must originate from corporeal things, thereby confirming the existence of the physical world.

What objections may arise against Descartes argument for the external/physical world?

Objections:

• 1) Sensory ideas might still come from Descartes’s own mind

  • Perhaps the mind has unconscious abilities that produce sensory ideas with one’s own awareness; So, just because one doesn’t choose the ideas does not prove they come from external bodies

• 2) God might not be proven yet, so the argument depends on other proofs

  • Descartes relies on a prior clam that God exists and is not a deceiver

  • But, if the proofs for God fail, then any proof of the external world is also weaker as per the Cartesian circle

• 3) Natural inclination might not guarantee truth

  • Why assume a natural inclination is always reliable? Humans are often naturally inclined to believe many things that turn out to be false

• 4) The cause of sensory ideas could be something external but not physical

  • Maybe sensory ideas come from some unknown non-physical source; This means that Descartes hasn’t fully proven a physical world, only some cause outside himself

• 5) The argument doesn’t prove the word is as the senses represent

  • even if physical things exist, the senses could represent them inaccurately, especially as Descartes admits sensory knowledge is often obscure + confused

  • So, at most, the argument proves that bodies exist, not that color, heat, taste, pain, etc. are really in bodies as we experience them

• 6) The Dream Problem

  • Descartes says waking experiences are connected with memory and the rest of life, unlike dreams, but one could object that dreams can also feel coherent while we are inside them.

  • So the line between dreaming and waking may still not be completely secure.

In what respects is our view of the external world at the end of the Meditations supposed to be different from the view with which we began?

• At the beginning, Descartes trusts the senses and assumes the external world exists.

• By the end, he proves the external world exists through God’s non-deceptiveness and the fact that sensory ideas must come from corporeal things.

• But he no longer thinks the senses reveal bodies exactly as they are.

• Sensory qualities like heat, color, taste, and pain are obscure/confused and mainly useful for survival.

• What we know clearly about bodies comes from the intellect/math: extension, shape, size, motion, and number.

• So the final view is not naïve realism or total skepticism, but a cautious view: bodies exist, but the senses represent them imperfectly.

How does Descartes argue for the real distinction of mind and body?

Descartes argues that the mind + body are really distinct because he can clearly and distinctly understand the mind as a thinking, non-extended thing & and the body as an extended, non-thinking thing. Since God can create things as Descartes clearly and distinctly conceives them, mind + body must be capable of existing apart; he also argues that body is divisible, while mind is indivisible, so they cannot be the same substance.

How does Descartes understand the ontology of a human being?

Descartes argues that the mind and body are distinct because he can clearly understand the mind as a thinking, non-extended thing, and the body as an extended, non-thinking thing. Since God is not a deceiver, clear perception is reliable. If they can be conceived apart, God would create them separately. He also claims that the body is divisible and the mind is indivisible, indicating they are different substances.

How are bodies divisble?

Bodies are divisible because: arms, legs, organs, and parts are capable of being seperated

Why are minds indivisible?

The mind is indivisible because the same single “I” thinks, wills, doubts, & understands

What objection does Elisabeth make to Descartes’s view of the mind-body distinction?

• Elisabeth asks → if the mind + body are really distinct, then how can the mind cause the body to move?

  • Descartes establishes that the mind is a thinking, non-extended substance while the body is an extended + physical substance

    • Yet, bodily motion requires physical contact, impact, + extension; if the mind has no extension & is not physical, then it is unclear how it can push or move the body

  • And Elisabeth understands that voluntary action seems to require the soul/mind to determine the movement of bodily spirits; and since motion occurs between two physicial things → there is no means that the mind + body can interact

How does Descartes respond to Elisabeth’s objection?

• Descartes establishes that the Meditations focused on providing the mind-body distinction, not fully explaining the mind-body union

  • Because of this, we shouldn’t treat the mind-body causation like a body-body causation

    • Boby-body causation → works through physical contact, pressure, & extension

    • Mind-body causation is different because the mind is not extended

  • The union of mind & body is known through experience, not pure intellectual explanation

    • Especially as we experience ourselves as one person with both though + body:

      • as the mind can move the body & the mind can sense what happens to the body

    • Therefore, the mind-body union is an obscure brute fact of lived experience

What is the proper use of the senses according to Descartes?

Descartes establishes that sensory knowledge is useful for survival or practical bodily preservation, but it shouldn’t be used to properly reflect true reality; they allow us to see what is helpful or harmful to our body.

In what ways do we acquire knowledge about the nature of things?

Since the senses are unreliable, we say that knowledge of bodies comes from the intellect, through properties such as extension, shape, motion, & number. We gain knowledge of the nature of things through clear & distinct perception, mental inspection, innate ideas, and mathematical reasoning.

How does the beeswax example serve to show the unreliability of senses compared to the intellect?

Descartes uses the scenario of beeswax to demonstrate how even when the wax’s sensory qualities change, like smell, color, shape, texture, + temperature, when heated, we intellectually know that it is the same wax; so, relying on our senses would only show changing appearance, rather than the wax’s true nature of being the same wax. Therefore, the wax is known by the intellect through mental inspection as changeable

What are the main steps in Spinoza’s argument for monoism?

Spinoza argues for monoism by first claiming that no two substances can chare an attribute, because substances are distinguished by attributes, nit by modes; He then argues that substance is independent, indivisible, & infinite in its own kind; since God is defined as a substance with infinite attributes and substance necessarily exists, God exists; Because God has all attributes, no other substance can exist without sharing an attribute with God; Therefore, God is the only substance, and everything else is a mode of God/Nature

What are the weakest moves in the proof for monoism?

• The main weakness in Spinoza’s argument is his assertion that no two substances can have an attribute in common. Critics might argue that two substances could share a single attribute while differing in others; for instance, one could possess A + B, and another B + C. If this is possible, sharing an attribute would not imply they are identical. This issue is important because Spinoza relies on this claim to establish monism: since God possesses all attributes and no substance can share an attribute with God, it follows that only God exists.

  The argument mainly relies on the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, which states that if A and B have all the same features—meaning nothing qualitatively sets them apart—then A and B are the same. Nevertheless, it is possible for two objects to be qualitatively identical but numerically different, like two identical coins that share the same qualities but are still regarded as two separate entities.

What is the best defense of monism? (from me)

The best defense of Spinoza’s monism is that substance must be completely independent and conceived through itself. Since modes depend on substance, they cannot distinguish one substance from another. Only attributes can distinguish substances, but no two substances can share an attribute because an attribute expresses the essence of a substance. Since God has infinite attributes, any other substance would have to share an attribute with God, which is impossible. Therefore, God is the only substance, and everything else is a mode of God/Nature.

Why does Spinoza think that everything that happens is necessitated by God’s nature?

• Spinoza sees everything as necessitated by God’s nature, as God is the only substance, and everything that exists is “in God” and depends on God

  • Since God’s nature itself is necessary, everything that follows from God’s nature also follows necessarily

  • For things to have happened differently, God’s nature would have had to be different, which would require something outside God to determine that difference; But nothing exists outside God; Therefore, the actual order of nature is the only possible order, & contingency only reflects our ignorance of the causes

Why is it absurd to suppose that things could have happended in another way? (To Spinoza)

It’s absurd as everything follows necessarily from God/Nature, so for the order itself ot change, then God’s nature would have to change; Yet, God's nature cannot be changed or determined by anything besides God, as nothing exists outside of God; so, the actual order of nature is the only possibility, making things necessary rather than contingent

If everything is necessitated, can it ever make sense to speak of contingency or possibility?

Spinoza argues that there are no possibilities because everything is part of God, and nothing exists outside of God. Since there are no two possible arrangements of things, it's inaccurate to say multiple possibilities exist. The notion of possibilities only exists because of our limited knowledge. Reality is what happens—the only way it could happen—and the concept of possibilities stems from ignorance.

What are Spinoza’s arguments for substance having thought and extension?

Spinoza argues that substance has Thought because particular ideas/thoughts exist, and since they are modes, they must be modes of God under the attribute of thought; he also argues that substance has extension because bodies exist, and bodies are modes of god understood through extension; so thought + extension are not seperate substance, but two attributes of God/nature