Definitions from phl210 week 1-4

Axioms

statements of truth that are not deduced from a higher principle, but are instead gradually built up from specific, verified observations through a process of inductive reasoning.

Different idols

• 1. idols of the tribe

• 2. idols of the cave

• 3. idols of the marketplace

• 4. iodlf ot the theatre

induction

the scientific method of starting with systematic, particular observations to build towards broader, general truths or axioms

sophism

is a false argument that appears to be true, especially one used deliberately to deceive.

idols - Bacon

biases and errors in human thinking that obstruct clear reasoning, not the traditional meaning of images for worship.

idols of the tribe 

• innate human tendencies 

idols of the cave

• personal biases 

idols of the market place

misunderstandings from language

idols of the thatre

• errors from established systems of thought

a priori

• knowledge or justification that doesnt depend on experience 

• from the earlier 

• independent of empirical knowledge 

A posteriori

• knowledge that does depend on experience 

Meditation 1

• Radical doubt

Purpose of meditation 1

• produce the greatest amount of doubt as possible

The method of hyperbolic doubt

• putting things into question- exaggerated doubt on in the most radical way possible in order to discover those things that are certain

Archimedian point

• -              is the thing that after doubting everything is the point that is indubitable, allowing to reconstruct certain knowledge that was previously radically uncertain

• - cogito argument 

Apple barrel metaphor

• bag of apples, one or multiple could be rotten 

• need to examine each apple carefully to find the rotten ones and the good ones - hyperbolic doubt 

• keep only the good apples - absolutely certain beliefs 

First argument to produce radical doubt

Madman:

• -              Mentally ill people trully believe radical ideas of their existence and truly believe this is true ex: my head is a glass jar

  o   How do I know I am correct that their head is not a glass jar

Why Arguemnt 1 is not strong enough?

• -              Those people are insane and I would be insane if I took them as a model

  o   I can determine the difference between insane and not insane w/ reflection.

  o   If I could not do this then there would be a high level of doubt

2nd argument to produce radical doubt

• -              We have vivd experience in a dream and in real life

  -              Sometimes when we dream we believe we are awake because everything seems real

  -              How do we know what is real?

  o   When awake you cannot do what you where doing when you were sleeping – what is real when your awake?

  §  No definitive signs to distinguish and determine true from false

  §  Sleeping is real or being awake is real

Zhungzis Butterfly dream

• Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly

• Then he woke up and was himself as human agaun

• But he didn’t know: was Zhungahzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly or a buterfly dreamt he was zhunzai?

WHy dream argument not strong enough?

• o   This knowledge does not depend on being awake or asleep like 2+2=4 is always true

  o   Since this is true for either, this argument not strong enough to doubt everything

Particular things - Descartes

• philosophy, medicine astronomy

• may not be true 

General things - universal things - descartes

• gemoetry, arithematic \

• must be true 

• 2+2 = 4 true when asleep or awake 

Argument 3 - descartes - claling everthing into doubt

•  

  -              God could have created a world  since he is omnipotent – that the laws of mathematics are wrong, while he ensures that all these things appear to me to exist just as they do now

  -              Argue that he would not do this since he is good

  -              But one could imagine god allows an evil demon to ecist that deceives us about everything including my ability to reason

Brain VAt example

• -              Think you have a body, but u are actually a brain in a vat(glass) and a supercomputer sends you these deceptions that you have a body and are sitting in classroom but none of this is actually real

  o   Supercomputer is the evil deceiver

Argument 3rd arugment - comments

--              Could be deceiving you from math too

-              Could be calling into doubt the ability to reason therefore everything is called inot doubt with the evil demon argument.

Metaphysical

relating to the most fundamental nature of reality — what exists, what it means for something to exist, and what the world is ultimately made of.

Epistemeology 

• theory of knowledge 

2nd Meditation

The cogito argument

Purpose of 2nd Meditation?

Purpose of Second meditation: Looking for Archimedean Point

Cogito argument

• -              God does not guarantee my thoughts as true because I myself might be the author of this thought

  o   Nothing exists except me then – denied body and senses

  -              Even if a evil demon deceives me this still does not bring into doubt that I exist

  o   Cannot rely on god for this because he could be the one putting the evil demon into my brain – evil demon could place any of these ideas in my head

  -              However the evil demon will never bring about that I am nothing so logng that I am something

  o   Even if everything else if false, since I think I must exist

  -              I am , I exist must be true so long as I think it in my mind – only thing to be sure of because cannot rely on god with my senses

  o   If I think god might exist proves that I am tinkning thing and therefore exist

  Thinking is one thing I cannot doubt

Inference

• 1.        a step in an argument” – going from premises to conclusion

  a.        Sylogism: major premise unstated(enthymeme)

  b.        Whatever thinks exists (Major premise) – hidden premise

  c.        I think (minor premise)

  d.        Therefore, I exist(Conclusion)

Problems with inference 1

-              Circular:

o   Circular because you need to assume thinking things exist in order to prove that you exist, conclusion needed to justify the premise

§  Premise needed to justify the conculsion

Problem 2 wiht inference

o   Since we cant trust our belief that 2+2=4 because of the evil demon why can we trust any other logical operation

o   Descartes is assuming we even have the ability to be logical in this cogito claim

Mersenne’s objection

o   Cannot be certain of any inference here:

§  Ex: wrote that it is necessary to prove the existence of god before you can distinctlu know you are a thinking thing

·      Need god to be true to know that you are not being deceived that you are a thinking thing

·      If god is true than the evil demon is not true

Descartes response to inference problem

• -              Not argument/syllogisms based on some logical formulation

  -              It is an evident fact based on intuition

  -              This makes it secure from the doubt of the evil demon removing logical reasoning

Intuition interpretation

• -              Known by the right of reason – direct rational insight

  o   Self evident truth known by reason to any rational being

  o   Avoid problem of circularity doesn’t on any inference to reach conclusion

  -              It so obvious that whatever thinks exists – doesn’t need argument

Modern version cogito - hintikka

• -              Hintikka thinks of it as a performance

  -              When you are thiubnkning you are performing thinking

  -              Cannot assert that I deny that I exist while thinkning

  -              Doesn’t apply to other mental states however

Metaphysics of cogito 

--              Descartes proved – a thinking thing exists

-              The existence of this thinking thing does not depend on the existence of any other thing , ex; body

HObbes objection - to cogito

-              Cogito proves that we cannot doubt that we think but doesn’t not justify the metaphysical conclusion – that we don’t need a body to exist

-              Hobbes is a materialist – only thing that exists is material

o   Body required to think

Wax example

-              We think we understand observation of the body ie touch and vision

-              Ex: wax see it as a solid, but when moved to heat it will become liquid

-              What looked like on thing of distinc colour shape and form is now something else distincet

-              Therefore the senses deceive – must be something more basic that can withstand the experiences w/ senses

What is responsible for making sense of wax

Imagination inadequate: - can imagine one shape at a time but wax can mold to infinite shapes

-              Only rational part of the mind lets yousee what the true nature of a ting is

-              Senses are incapable of arriving at essential qualities of body

-              If we cannot know the nature of a body adequality through our sense, then, a fortiori we cannot know the nature of our own mind through the body and its senses

o   Def cannot use the body to think and understand the nature of the mind (as Hobbes was saying) – cannot understand mind thorugh body

 

Only know things through the intellect or rational mind – not through the senses as these deceive

-              I know the wax is the same thing based on my intellect and not based on my observations

-              That the wax is a flexible changeable extended thing

Meditiation 3 

• If we have Cogito then why do we need God?

Answer to question of meditation 3 - metaphysical 

Metaphysical: God is the fundamental being
A creator who is responsible for the two created substance, mind and body

Answer to question of meditation 3 - epistemeology

Epistemological: God guarantees the truth of self-evident propositions such as "I think I exist"

A perfect being would not be a deceiver

what is an idea?

An idea is just the content of the mind or a thinking thing

As a thinking thing, your thoughts can be expressed as ideas An idea is a mode of attribute of thinking
The mind has an idea

Are mental states ideas?

Technically, no

A representation of something that can be said to be either true or false is an "idea"
Willing, emotions, and judgments are something other than representations of things, and so are not ideas

How do you know when an idea is true o false?

Nin themselves, ideas cannot be considered false

Eg. Drunken pink elephant
It is judgments that are either true or false

We judge whether an image corresponds to the object it represents Elephant exists on the screen but not in real life

Ideas - formal reality

• The intrinsic reality of a thing The reality of a thing in itself

  If the elephant actually existed in the room it would have formal

  reality

Ideas - objective reality

The representative reality of an idea (the blueprint)
Objective reality is a function of the degree to which it represents the formal reality of something

Idea of elephant exists in my head as an objective reality
This means reality has degrees - formal reality is greater than objective reality

Formal definition

If an idea A represents some Object X which is F, then F-ness will be contained 'formally' in X but 'objectively' in A

Objective realisty
The elephant is pink as an idea

Formal reality
The pink elephant itself

The causal relation

Reason/intution makes causal relationship clear The fire can be started only by something that is hot Th pink in the elephant caused the idea of pinkness

The ideas of other things 

• Ideas can be adventitious, invented or innate
  

adventitious ideas

-Adventitous ideas are caused by finite things outside of ourselves

I have an idea of an elephant or a person I just met

invented ideas

• Invented ideas are new combintion of other ideas whose origin is adventitious

  I combine pink and elephant and I invent the idea of a pink elephant

innate ideas

Innate ideas are those in us from birth

Argument 1 for existence of god

The idea of God in me must have been produced by something that is

formally real
a. Aposteriori

i. It starts from some fact of experience. Ie. The idea of God b. And seeks to discover the cause of that effect

i. Ie. What could have caused me to have this idea of God? Only God could have caused the idea of God

Defintion of god

1. God is a substance that is infinte, independent, supremly intelligent, supremly

powerful, and which created myself and everything else

powerful, and which created myself and everything else

What caused me to have this idea?

Assumption: Something caused me to have this idea that has at least as much formal reality in itself as the representation of that reality in my idea

I have the idea of God but something must have caused it

What the idea could not have been from of god

• This Idea could not be adventitous

  1. The ideas of things that I experience adventiously are all finite things

     and they have less reality than the idea of the infinite contained in the

     idea of God

  2. Human is not infitine, independent, supremly intelligent, supremely

     powerful, and don’t create themselves

• Idea couldn’t have been invented by me

  a. It is unlely that unless I were infitne that I could produce an idea of the infinite

idea of god must be?

1. Idea must be innate (came from something formally infinite) a. It was stamped in me by the Creator
   b. The only thing wose reality is infinte is god,

Conclusion of existence of god

• Only god could have caused me to have the idea of God 2. Therefore, since I have this idea, God exists

God is not a deceiver

• God is not a Deceiver
  The idea of God, subject of all perfections, cannot be subject to any defects and, as is manifest by the natural light all deception and fraud depends upon some defect

  You cant get what you want by being truthful so you lie, therefore it is a weakness

Conclusion of evil deceiver and god

An omnipotent evil deceiver could not be defeated
If God is not a deceiver then the idea of an omnipotent evil deceiver is incoherent
If there is an evil genius, cannot be omnipotent
God must be wholly good and cant involve any deception

Cartesian circle 

The problem is that the argument for the existence of God depends on the very thing that we have called into question, namely, the trustworthiness of reason and the ability to make logical inferences.

1. We cannot rely on our conclusion, i.e., that which we are supposed to prove—the reliability of reason—in order to argue for it.

1. Therefore, we have a vicious circle in which the conclusion is assumed in the premises in order to prove it

Descartes response to cartesian circle

Descartes believes we've overcome circularity simply by the cogito argument since we can trust our reason

If we can prove the existence of god then it cant undermine reason so we can overcome circularity

The evil demon cannot undermine our cogito or the existence of God so it defies circularity

Problem of the 4th meditation

• In me a faculty of judgement - god must have given this to me 

• since god is perfect he would not given me a fauclty that makes mistakes if i use it properly 

• If god did not give me a faculty for making mistakes then i should never make mistakes in jusgement 

• Yet this is not true as i know with my many error 

• What is the cause of this error?

• Ifit is god then it would not be the case that he is perfect and we cannot be sure that he is not a deceiver - which would invalidate foundation of judgement 

• So descartes must show that the cause of error is not god but me 

What kind of being am I?

• intermedidate between non-being and being, between god and nothing

• because i am partly nothingness, and not perfect like god that i can make an error 

What is error itself

• is nothing positive but only a defect in being, a privation. If it were something, then it could be said that it depends on God in some sense, i.e., that he created it.
  - Error, therefore, results from the fact that my faculty of judgment is not infinite.

Privation

absence of something that could be present

What does error result from?

Error, therefore, results from the fact that my faculty of judgment is not infinite.

why couldn't God, who after all is perfect and omnipotent, have created me in such a way that I never make errors?

• Descartes responds and says he doesnt understand reasons for some of god actions 

• it is useless to look for final causes in nature - an ultimate purpose twoard which all physical things tend(Leibniz does believe this)

• It might very well be the case that my error has a place in a universal scheme that in fact makes the world more perfect...
  But we don’t really know that.

What is the useless for finding final cause in nature a critique of?

• This is a critique of a doctrine of medieval Aristotelianism, which took Aristotle's final cause and extended it to nature as such. See, for instance, Aquinas's argument from design [governanc
  

Where is erro from?

• from me not form god 

Problem of theodicy?

That is, how can there be evil (i.e., sin) in the world if God is supremely good?

Augustininan model - temptation

There was a pear tree that Augustine stole as a child and he mentions it to try to understand what the cause of evil is
Augustine knows it is illegal to jump over the fence and steal the pears and yet he still does it

Two faculties of the soul

• when we reflect on the nature of the mind 

• Intellect 

• the will 

The intellect

All the intellect does is to enable me to perceive the ideas which are subjects for possible judgments”
The intellect strictly speaking does not in itself contain error.
It is finite.

The will

• “The will simply consists in our ability to do or not to do something (that is, to affirm or deny, to pursue or avoid); or rather, it consists simply in the fact that when something is put forward for our consideration by the intellect, we are moved to affirm or deny it, or pursue or avoid it, in such a way that we feel we are not determined by any external force.”
  When I pursue or avoid something it implies I have a body to do it

  Moral Judgment

  Pursue the orange juice or the whiskey - mind is interacting with the body through the will to pursue or avoid something (in this case the the whiskey or the orange)

  The will is unlimited.
  In this power of the will, which involves the absolute freedom of choice, we bear some likeness to God himself, though God's will is incomparable to ours.

Moral judgement

• intellect has a tempting idea

• the will judges wheteher to pursue or avoid this course of action 

• the will moves the body to action and steal ie the pai 

• `have sinned

Intellectual judgement

• intellect has an idea - 2+2=4

• the will judges whether to assent or deny this idea 

• the will denies this idea and assert that it is false 

  • we have mad an error 

What is “indifference” for Descartes?

Being pulled equally between options because I lack clear knowledge of what is true or good.

Is indifference the highest form of freedom?

No — it is the lowest grade of freedom and signals a defect in knowledge.

When am I most free, according to Descartes?

When my will naturally inclines toward what is true and good.

Why is inclining toward truth an expression of higher freedom?

Because true freedom comes from understanding clearly, not choosing blindly.

WHy can will not be the source of error?

• because it is perfect in itself

Why does error occur, according to Descartes?

Because the will extends further than the intellect — we choose or judge things we do not fully understand.

What does it mean for the will to “overstep the bounds” of the intellect?

The will makes judgments beyond what the finite intellect can clearly grasp.

How does the difference in scope between will and intellect cause mistakes?

We have more power to decide than to know, so we often affirm or deny things our intellect has not actually grasped, leading to error.

What is the “ethics of belief” for Descartes?

I should only assent to a belief when I perceive it clearly and distinctly; otherwise, I must withhold judgment.

Why must Descartes suspend judgment about the body early in the Meditations?

Because he does not yet know whether his judgments about the body come from clear and distinct ideas.

Are probable reasons enough for belief when facing radical doubt?

No. Probable reasons are insufficient; belief requires clarity and distinctness.

When do we fall into error, according to Descartes?

When the will judges in cases where the intellect does not provide a clear and distinct perception.

What is Descartes’ main rule for avoiding error?

The perception of the intellect should always precede the determination of the will.”

Does God concur in our acts of judgment?

Yes. Acts of judgment depend on God and are, insofar as they come from Him, true and good.

Does God concur in our errors?

No. Error involves a privation (a lack), which is not a real thing and therefore does not depend on God.

Why doesn’t God create us with free will and infallible judgment?

Descartes says we cannot know God's purposes; greater perfection might result from a world where human error exists.

How can we avoid error despite our limited knowledge?

By following the proper “ethics of belief”—only assenting to what is perceived clearly and distinctly.

What is the purpose of the Meditations in relation to error?

To discover the foundations of knowledge so that we can learn how to avoid error.