Philosophy 201

It seems as if descartes returns to this idea of their being a god.

He is absolutely correct when he says he would be called insane for doubting the exsistence of such obviously real objects.

It is contradictory to suppose there is a powerful being “..who’s whole endeavours are directed toward decieving me,” when we are also given the consious ability to question our being and existence, as well as the ability to question the so- called “malignant being.”

To be clear, Descartes is saying that he has, “up to this moment” accepted as truth that which he received “from or through the senses.” But in this work of re-evaluation and “building a superstructure,” he is going to discard the senses as reliable.

MGoff poses an intriguing question. Ought we to trust a manner of acquiring information that has deceived us in the past? Asked a bit differently, have either experience (5 senses) or reason been infallible?

Like several of you, I find that Descartes’ first sentence articulates an experience that I have had a number of times in my life. It rings true every time I read it. Notice how his entire enterprise begins with reason, with the occasion of doubt–something that is NOT derived from the 5 senses.

Melissa asks a very important question, one that foreshadows the rationalists’ notions of human nature. Hold onto that thought!

Corrine’s historical note is an important reminder that while much of what Descartes says may seem self-evident to contemporary readers, that “self-evidence” testifies to Descartes’ continuing influence. The WAY that he approaches the philosophical task is, indeed, brave; it also causes/reifies/demonstrates (take your pick; it’s a philosophical decision) a fundamental shift in Western thought, and will define modernity.

So, corporeal means relating to the physical, not spiritual.
Composite means “made up of distinct parts (both definitions according to webster).”
I used to think I had a good vocaublary.

This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water…everythin decieves us, even our own eyes, our memories, etc.

Superstructure…I take it to mean the beliefs that we have, above the material structure of a society, or the sciences as dude is saying.

This was very brave for his time to even question the “right” way of thinking. The 1600’s was a time when any one who thought outside the box was often deemed as a heretic.

I completely relate to the resistance to come back from a life changing experience for fear of losing the ground you just gained. I’ve experienced this more than a few times on my way home from interactions that changed my viewpoints and myself forever.

I had to look up viz…. Viz (also “viz.”, with a period) and videlicet are adverbs used today as synonyms of “namely, precisely, that is to say”. Videlicet is Latin for “one may see; clearly, evidently”, while viz is a corrupted abbreviation of the former.

I had to look up viz…. Viz (also “viz.”, with a period) and videlicet are adverbs used today as synonyms of “namely, precisely, that is to say”. Videlicet is Latin for “one may see; clearly, evidently”, while viz is a corrupted abbreviation of the former. They introduce a specification or a more detailed description of something stated before; often, as with a syntactical-descriptive colon, this is a list.[1] Though both forms survive in many modern languages, viz is far more common in English than videlicet. Viz is traditionally read aloud as “namely” or “to wit”, not phonetically as [v?z].[2] In writing, it is now usually followed by an unnecessary period (see below).

knowledge can be faulty – wisdom is worthy of some praise.

So do we by our perception – construct our own world I believe I am

so there is an absolute after all?

are the colors real? to whom? what about the color blind. Color is an illusion too.

are the insane in a state anywhere near happiness? Does bringing them to their “senses” solve their problems or just let them realize different ones.

or are we asleep dreaming were awake wondering if we’re dreaming.

There are so many theories that contradict each other, the only one thing that he knows for certain is that “nothing is certain” With that one bare bone of truth, he can build upon.

I disagree that 100 percent that it is only the intellect that perceives bodies correctly.

yes, the candle exists, just in an altered state of being.

so, he separates thinking from sensing.

for some reason, when i read this paragraph this question came to mind (much like the question of the tree and sound): if there is no-one around to see me, do i truly exist?
(i know my answer to that. i just felt like that was what he was asking.)

i disagree that perceiving is properly called thinking.

okay, here, i’m a bit confused: “…and although he who gave me being employed all his ingenuity to deceive me?”
i thought he believed in two separate beings: one wholly good and one malignant. Did i miss his change of mind?

“I am now awake, and perceive something real; but because my perception is not sufficiently clear…”
is he saying that dreams, like meditation, can help us view Truth more clearly?

Why does he think he is being deceived by a “malignant being?” I feel as though i have been deceived by humans in regards to my previous faith, but i do not feel as though i am being deceived by a “being.”

At the risk of sounding daft i am going to ask this question: in the last 6 or seven lines of this paragraph, is he stating that he thinks he is moved by another being? or is he saying he thinks it is his soul propelling him?

“…I am so greatly disconcerted as to be made unable…”
I know this feeling all too well. I feel like anytime our core beliefs, which tend to be ingrained and taken for granted, are challenged so, we feel as though our world has cracked open.

I certainly know what it feels like to not want to wake from my dreams. And, know what it feels like to have found my version of Truth and be shoved back down to suffer the difficulties that ensue when one finds it.

Sounds like he believes in God and the Devil to me…

for this paragraph, i wonder if he is saying that he believes in God , but wonders if it’s possible that what he thinks is real is maybe just another form of reality created by his God?

“I perceive so clearly that there exist no…”
Maybe this is true. But how is it then, that more often than not, i know that i am dreaming?

I don’t agree that it is prudent to not place confidence in that which we have once been deceived. I think this is fear.

How is it possible to free one’s mind of all cares and passions?

When the five senses (experience) are taken out of the equation, all that is left to use is the mind (reason) and this brings about the truth.

Here, he seems to be saying that even though he may find doubt in his beliefs, often “it is more reasonable to believe than deny.”

Who among us hasn’t woken up from a wild dream and thought we must be crazy?

So, Descartes’ truth is rooted in experience, whereas Plato believed that truth only existed in the world above that was inhabited by forms and was beyond human experience.

Time machine – 1641 and 2007! I have had the same thoughts and feeling recently myself.

Ok, Descartes is a little long-winded to say the least. Although, once I was able to decode most of it I think I get it. The fact that we see/hear/touch/taste/smell is not the final determination. The human mind is the filter that takes in inputs and processes them to form a picture of what is reality. Without the ability to rationalize and comprehend, we would not be able to form reality. We’d be more like an ant that can react to our environment but never really form a picture of what is really there. I need to think about this a little more.

Robots? How can he tell actual humans from robots? I wonder how many Sci-fi films arose from this paragraph alone? Bladerunner? Terminator?

This reading is a little tough to follow. It’s like reading somebody’s diary. However, I sort of see where it’s leading.

Prediction: Somebody is going to take real issue with this paragraph. I think what is saying is that as we are obviously imperfect beings and subject to being wrong…that Descartes doubts the existence of a God.

Let me now duck and cover.

Is he saying that because he can be assured that things that have volume and take up space are obviously real, that he cannot simply assume/deduce that something that exists in concept only (physics, math, etc.) is no less real?

Here’s a thought. If we can only conceive of those things composed of at least components that are familiar to us through our ability to be aware of them then it is probable that reality (even today) is composed of far more than we can know. Just think of all the things we are not able to obeserve directly and require special instruments. Of course, Descartes is most likely smarter than I and will probably elude to this point if I keep reading.

Good point when dealing with people too.

To sum up this paragraph, I understand that Descartes is saying that it is not necessary to disprove a belief point by point but rather find one reason for doubt and you can essentially toss the idea. Truth from the ground up.

This first sentence is beautiful! That sums up almost exactly the feeling that I have been developing over the past couple years. I have never really tried to articulate it but now I don’t need to, there it is.

Ok, diving in…