In the Descartes meditations, he argues that the only thing we can know for sure is that we exist, because we think. One of the comments that I had for this reading was how the human mind and consciousness is so limited, even though it is expansive at the same time. There is hard proof for little, besides what Descartes outlined and much of our existence is speculation. A question from the reading was that in the first meditation, he is talking about reality and madman who experiences it differently from most people such as believing they are a pumpkin, but he points out that we experience such things when we're dreaming. So my question is, what can dreams tell us about reality and/ or consciousness?
1. The example of wax was one thing that I found particularly interesting in Descartes' second meditation. More specifically, when Descartes said of the wax "we say that we see it, not that we judge it to be there from its color or shape; and this might make think that knowledge of the was comes from what the eye sees rather than from the perception of the mind alone" (7). Descartes skepticism here reminded me of Plato's allegory of the cave, where that what appears to be perceived of our bodily senses is revealed to be mere a shadow of what a thing really is -- namely the form of the thing itself. It seems like Descartes is similarly reducing things to a perception of them in the mind, and not the corporeal shapes in the world.
2. One thing I question is what Descartes gains from his extreme skepticism. If, like he said at the outset, his skepticism was aimed to reveal more of what he can know from the sciences, doesn't his conclusion severely limit him in this aspect?
1.) In Descartes' First Meditation, I enjoyed his endeavor of questioning his basic principles in order to attain some form of clarity. This is important for individuals to perform because it challenges our fundamental beliefs and allows for intellectual growth. However, one must be cautious on being excessively skeptical since no level of knowledge will be reached or obtained.
2.) In Descartes' Second Meditation, he contemplates his existence and discovers that thought is what makes us real. I believe the phrase "a thinking thing" was a correct use by Descartes because it establishes that our intellect provides understanding and is superior to our senses and imaginations since these may cause deception.
1.- I find it fascinating how Descartes questions both what he knows yet seeks for an understanding that is not linked to the human’s knowledge and also the prejudice that we obtain from our environment. We think we know what is “real” and many times we have no real or deep facts about certain issues and/or topics because "it's common knowledge”. Descartes has become skeptical yet tries to obtain answers without using the information he is supposed to “already know” with what was already "taught" to him. Nevertheless, it’s completely understandable how his thoughts perhaps might take a known path or safe path based on his belief’s system since we as humans, prefer to be comfortable in most if not all situations or environments. Humans naturally seek familiarity. 2.- Descartes concludes that he is a “thinking thing”. After having read his meditation and having an open mind, his terminology or way of thinking makes sense to me. However, it is hard for him to articulate what else he is. He knows that he exists and that he is a “thinking thing”, but that statement leads me to question, what “thing” is he? He does not want to accept that that “thing” is a body that has organs, limbs, etc., because that statement would be based on something he knows and yet he wants to deny that idea. What characteristics does this “thinking thing” have? According to Descartes, the thing doubts, understands, affirms, etc., but he is only saying the actions that the thing does, yet vaguely defining what the “thinking thing” is.
1). I find this reading very interesting. I am someone who is always questioning what I am just like Rene Descartes. Descartes describes what he is when he states, "I am simply a thing that thinks- a mind, or soul, or intellect, or reason, these being words whose meaning I have only come to know." (Descartes page 5). This quote really stood out to me because it is something I to have thought myself. It reminds me of a book I read called The Untethered Soul, this book separates your body from your soul and makes you think about who we really are. Since we are able to recognize our thoughts, we are not our thoughts but a thing that thinks (the soul); I believe Descartes would agree with many of the theories written in this book.
2). I am a very religious person and like to connect many of my philosophical thoughts to my spiritual thoughts. I see that Descartes questioned, "Isn't there a God (call him what you will) who gives me the thoughts I am now having?" (Descartes page 4) I would agree and disagree with this statement. I believe God has given us free will to think what we want but in some occasions may give us a divine thought for guidance. I would like to ask Descartes to further explain/connect his theories and spiritual beliefs. I find this subject very interesting and like to hear other peoples' ideas/opinions on who they think God is and the role he plays in our lives.
I had to read some of this in my PHI 100 class - so I had an idea of what this would entail. This is also known as the "brain in the vat" theory which Descartes is describing when he talks about whether or not we are awake or asleep. It can also be referred back to the movie the Matrix where we are all just being used as cosmic batteries and our lives are really nothing more than a computer simulation. One thing that perplexes me about Descartes argument is when he talks about the wax. I understand it that we can't trust our senses but he kind of loses me when he talks about the body of wax and what not. I'd love it if we could go into more detail about this in class. There is a theory known as the "blank slate" theory which questions whether or not we are born with some preset knowledge or if we are just blank slates. If we are blank slates then I believe Descartes argument that we can't trust our senses is interesting because he talks about how sometimes our senses lie to us. However, if we are born with some preset knowledge then what does that mean? Like how to breath and our heart beating kind of stuff not the stuff that we would be born knowing an apple is and apple. Like how do we know what it feels like to be hungry or to be sleepy?
Having read Descartes meditations multiple times before, I feel very familiar with them, and even knowing the limitations to his “indubitable” skepticism I still cannot help but be sympathetic to his position. Despite the solipsistic conclusion, I respect Descartes (likely unreasonable) standard for knowledge. Spinoza’s analysis of Descartes meditations was entirely new to me, and I’m grateful for my familiarity with Descartes because I feel it was helpful in picking up the finer points of Spinoza’s arguments. The most interesting part for me was Spinoza’s alternative explanation to come to the conclusion of God’s existence. Descartes explanation always troubled me and was not satisfying (As Spinoza say some people feel.) While I am not sure how one would attain a “clear and distinct” idea of God the same way one attains that of a triangle, but supposing that one could, I find his reasoning very compelling.
I find the First Meditation, and Descartes’ argument or doubt to be very rational. He does not just randomly doubt everything around him without providing solid reasons for his doubt at every specific state. Him denying that he could possibly be mad which undercutting his own rationality this motivating all donut he ought to have. Him explaining every argument he makes and really breaking everything down is refreshing. The Second Mediation and the concept of “contigo ergo sum” meaning “I think therefore, I am,” where one doubts their own really existence. What is “I” and how do the “I” the mind exist and if it does. Yet there is so much doubt and inference that Descartes mentions makes me question if the speaker/ narrator knows what the contigo is? Like contigo would only work for thought. We cannot say “I swim, therefore I am,” since I can doubt I am swimming. The reasoning as to why I cannot doubt that I am thinking is that the initial doubt itself is a form of thought.
1. I have read Descartes' Meditations on several occasions and every time, I get a better understanding of his mindset while he is having these thoughts near the fire in his nightgown. What I always thought was amusing when Descartes blaming the evil demon for deceiving him. On page 3 "So I shall suppose that some malicious, powerful, cunning demon has done all he can to deceive me - rather than this being done by God, who is supremely good and the source of truth". He goes on and on but I believe he has been awake for too long and has slowly lost his mind.
2. It seems that Spinoza was trying to solve the questions Descartes was trying to answer. Descartes' most famous quote "I doubt, I think; therefore I am", Spinoza argues this quote means in simple terms, "I am thinking". I agree with Spinoza when he clarifies this because this can be confusing. It does not make any sense to believe that your thoughts are not your thoughts. If that is the question, then who are we?
1. Decsartes questions, how does he know if the world around him truly exists and is not God deceiving him by making it appear true. I would ask Descarte if you believe that God created you for a fact, then He must of had truly created other human beings. So why would God make everyone experience the same false world. Why would God make it so, that you have perception of a world at all?
2. I believe that Descartes meditation on mind in body is very in debth. I believe his examples show a good representation on how we mainly rely on our mental faculties more to understand and view the world around us. The example of looking at men through and window and know that they are truly men, instead of human like robots.
1. Descartes brings up an idea that I myself have thought a lot about but never really got to analyze so deeply. This idea is about our own understanding of what truly is or isn’t—what exists or what doesn’t exist—and how exactly we know that we know things. He brings up an interesting point when he says that what cannot be doubted (most of the time) is information we receive from the senses. This made me think of our class discussion where we talked about how, in fact, the senses are simply psychological experiences and, in this case at least, limited to the human perspective. So, although what the senses tell us seem to be what is true, that’s not to say that what we experience is all of what is true. Considering the idea that we are simply a product of evolution and not a creation of a higher power with intended purpose, our beliefs, as Descartes’ seems to agree, really mean nothing at all.
2. So, if we only have five senses that can only receive information in specific forms than how are we to know if there is more in the universe that is simply unreachable or unobtainable through our human lens? What else could be out there? Other sensory experiences? Other existences? Elements? Concepts that we couldn’t even conceptualize due to our own limitations?
1.) There has always been a part of me that has admired the dedication that Descartes displays in his plunge into radical doubt. Every time I read this piece something new sticks out to me. This time I couldn't help but notice Descartes struggle with himself as he makes the plunge into doubt. It almost seemed as if he was experiencing pain as he began the project. In my own life I have always noticed pain to accompany doubting the things we believe in regardless of the context.
2. While I have immense respect for Descartes I cant help but think that the bar he sets for knowledge is so high that it almost becomes impractical. Descartes himself knows this and references the insanity of actually walking around being that radical of a skeptic in daily life. Dispute this I love the departure from metaphysics and towards epistemology.
1. I find Descartes almost irrefutable notion of affirming the self as readily existent illuminating, especially from a thinker who lacked the tools of modern neuroscience. But this "I" we so instinctually use can be said to be illusory, as Descartes seems to confidently posit that thinking is occurring, but created by the thinker.
2.Following that point, and perhaps despite it, I think the rationality behind having existed, or existing, is what makes Descartes Meditations so interesting to read. The building blocks actual existence are there, but after that the details become elusive.
In the Descartes meditations, he argues that the only thing we can know for sure is that we exist, because we think. One of the comments that I had for this reading was how the human mind and consciousness is so limited, even though it is expansive at the same time. There is hard proof for little, besides what Descartes outlined and much of our existence is speculation.
ReplyDeleteA question from the reading was that in the first meditation, he is talking about reality and madman who experiences it differently from most people such as believing they are a pumpkin, but he points out that we experience such things when we're dreaming. So my question is, what can dreams tell us about reality and/ or consciousness?
1. The example of wax was one thing that I found particularly interesting in Descartes' second meditation. More specifically, when Descartes said of the wax "we say that we see it, not that we judge it to be there from its color or shape; and this might make think that knowledge of the was comes from what the eye sees rather than from the perception of the mind alone" (7). Descartes skepticism here reminded me of Plato's allegory of the cave, where that what appears to be perceived of our bodily senses is revealed to be mere a shadow of what a thing really is -- namely the form of the thing itself. It seems like Descartes is similarly reducing things to a perception of them in the mind, and not the corporeal shapes in the world.
ReplyDelete2. One thing I question is what Descartes gains from his extreme skepticism. If, like he said at the outset, his skepticism was aimed to reveal more of what he can know from the sciences, doesn't his conclusion severely limit him in this aspect?
1.) In Descartes' First Meditation, I enjoyed his endeavor of questioning his basic principles in order to attain some form of clarity. This is important for individuals to perform because it challenges our fundamental beliefs and allows for intellectual growth. However, one must be cautious on being excessively skeptical since no level of knowledge will be reached or obtained.
ReplyDelete2.) In Descartes' Second Meditation, he contemplates his existence and discovers that thought is what makes us real. I believe the phrase "a thinking thing" was a correct use by Descartes because it establishes that our intellect provides understanding and is superior to our senses and imaginations since these may cause deception.
1.- I find it fascinating how Descartes questions both what he knows yet seeks for an understanding that is not linked to the human’s knowledge and also the prejudice that we obtain from our environment. We think we know what is “real” and many times we have no real or deep facts about certain issues and/or topics because "it's common knowledge”. Descartes has become skeptical yet tries to obtain answers without using the information he is supposed to “already know” with what was already "taught" to him. Nevertheless, it’s completely understandable how his thoughts perhaps might take a known path or safe path based on his belief’s system since we as humans, prefer to be comfortable in most if not all situations or environments. Humans naturally seek familiarity.
ReplyDelete2.- Descartes concludes that he is a “thinking thing”. After having read his meditation and having an open mind, his terminology or way of thinking makes sense to me. However, it is hard for him to articulate what else he is. He knows that he exists and that he is a “thinking thing”, but that statement leads me to question, what “thing” is he? He does not want to accept that that “thing” is a body that has organs, limbs, etc., because that statement would be based on something he knows and yet he wants to deny that idea. What characteristics does this “thinking thing” have? According to Descartes, the thing doubts, understands, affirms, etc., but he is only saying the actions that the thing does, yet vaguely defining what the “thinking thing” is.
1). I find this reading very interesting. I am someone who is always questioning what I am just like Rene Descartes. Descartes describes what he is when he states, "I am simply a thing that thinks- a mind, or soul, or intellect, or reason, these being words whose meaning I have only come to know." (Descartes page 5). This quote really stood out to me because it is something I to have thought myself. It reminds me of a book I read called The Untethered Soul, this book separates your body from your soul and makes you think about who we really are. Since we are able to recognize our thoughts, we are not our thoughts but a thing that thinks (the soul); I believe Descartes would agree with many of the theories written in this book.
ReplyDelete2). I am a very religious person and like to connect many of my philosophical thoughts to my spiritual thoughts. I see that Descartes questioned, "Isn't there a God (call him what you will) who gives me the thoughts I am now having?" (Descartes page 4) I would agree and disagree with this statement. I believe God has given us free will to think what we want but in some occasions may give us a divine thought for guidance. I would like to ask Descartes to further explain/connect his theories and spiritual beliefs. I find this subject very interesting and like to hear other peoples' ideas/opinions on who they think God is and the role he plays in our lives.
I had to read some of this in my PHI 100 class - so I had an idea of what this would entail. This is also known as the "brain in the vat" theory which Descartes is describing when he talks about whether or not we are awake or asleep. It can also be referred back to the movie the Matrix where we are all just being used as cosmic batteries and our lives are really nothing more than a computer simulation. One thing that perplexes me about Descartes argument is when he talks about the wax. I understand it that we can't trust our senses but he kind of loses me when he talks about the body of wax and what not. I'd love it if we could go into more detail about this in class.
ReplyDeleteThere is a theory known as the "blank slate" theory which questions whether or not we are born with some preset knowledge or if we are just blank slates. If we are blank slates then I believe Descartes argument that we can't trust our senses is interesting because he talks about how sometimes our senses lie to us. However, if we are born with some preset knowledge then what does that mean? Like how to breath and our heart beating kind of stuff not the stuff that we would be born knowing an apple is and apple. Like how do we know what it feels like to be hungry or to be sleepy?
Having read Descartes meditations multiple times before, I feel very familiar with them, and even knowing the limitations to his “indubitable” skepticism I still cannot help but be sympathetic to his position. Despite the solipsistic conclusion, I respect Descartes (likely unreasonable) standard for knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSpinoza’s analysis of Descartes meditations was entirely new to me, and I’m grateful for my familiarity with Descartes because I feel it was helpful in picking up the finer points of Spinoza’s arguments. The most interesting part for me was Spinoza’s alternative explanation to come to the conclusion of God’s existence. Descartes explanation always troubled me and was not satisfying (As Spinoza say some people feel.) While I am not sure how one would attain a “clear and distinct” idea of God the same way one attains that of a triangle, but supposing that one could, I find his reasoning very compelling.
I find the First Meditation, and Descartes’ argument or doubt to be very rational. He does not just randomly doubt everything around him without providing solid reasons for his doubt at every specific state. Him denying that he could possibly be mad which undercutting his own rationality this motivating all donut he ought to have. Him explaining every argument he makes and really breaking everything down is refreshing.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Mediation and the concept of “contigo ergo sum” meaning “I think therefore, I am,” where one doubts their own really existence. What is “I” and how do the “I” the mind exist and if it does. Yet there is so much doubt and inference that Descartes mentions makes me question if the speaker/ narrator knows what the contigo is? Like contigo would only work for thought. We cannot say “I swim, therefore I am,” since I can doubt I am swimming. The reasoning as to why I cannot doubt that I am thinking is that the initial doubt itself is a form of thought.
1. I have read Descartes' Meditations on several occasions and every time, I get a better understanding of his mindset while he is having these thoughts near the fire in his nightgown. What I always thought was amusing when Descartes blaming the evil demon for deceiving him. On page 3 "So I shall suppose that some malicious, powerful, cunning demon has done all he can to deceive me - rather than this being done by God, who is supremely good and the source of truth". He goes on and on but I believe he has been awake for too long and has slowly lost his mind.
ReplyDelete2. It seems that Spinoza was trying to solve the questions Descartes was trying to answer. Descartes' most famous quote "I doubt, I think; therefore I am", Spinoza argues this quote means in simple terms, "I am thinking". I agree with Spinoza when he clarifies this because this can be confusing. It does not make any sense to believe that your thoughts are not your thoughts. If that is the question, then who are we?
1. Decsartes questions, how does he know if the world around him truly exists and is not God deceiving him by making it appear true. I would ask Descarte if you believe that God created you for a fact, then He must of had truly created other human beings. So why would God make everyone experience the same false world. Why would God make it so, that you have perception of a world at all?
ReplyDelete2. I believe that Descartes meditation on mind in body is very in debth. I believe his examples show a good representation on how we mainly rely on our mental faculties more to understand and view the world around us. The example of looking at men through and window and know that they are truly men, instead of human like robots.
1. Descartes brings up an idea that I myself have thought a lot about but never really got to analyze so deeply. This idea is about our own understanding of what truly is or isn’t—what exists or what doesn’t exist—and how exactly we know that we know things. He brings up an interesting point when he says that what cannot be doubted (most of the time) is information we receive from the senses. This made me think of our class discussion where we talked about how, in fact, the senses are simply psychological experiences and, in this case at least, limited to the human perspective. So, although what the senses tell us seem to be what is true, that’s not to say that what we experience is all of what is true. Considering the idea that we are simply a product of evolution and not a creation of a higher power with intended purpose, our beliefs, as Descartes’ seems to agree, really mean nothing at all.
ReplyDelete2. So, if we only have five senses that can only receive information in specific forms than how are we to know if there is more in the universe that is simply unreachable or unobtainable through our human lens? What else could be out there? Other sensory experiences? Other existences? Elements? Concepts that we couldn’t even conceptualize due to our own limitations?
1.) There has always been a part of me that has admired the dedication that Descartes displays in his plunge into radical doubt. Every time I read this piece something new sticks out to me. This time I couldn't help but notice Descartes struggle with himself as he makes the plunge into doubt. It almost seemed as if he was experiencing pain as he began the project. In my own life I have always noticed pain to accompany doubting the things we believe in regardless of the context.
ReplyDelete2. While I have immense respect for Descartes I cant help but think that the bar he sets for knowledge is so high that it almost becomes impractical. Descartes himself knows this and references the insanity of actually walking around being that radical of a skeptic in daily life. Dispute this I love the departure from metaphysics and towards epistemology.
1. I find Descartes almost irrefutable notion of affirming the self as readily existent illuminating, especially from a thinker who lacked the tools of modern neuroscience. But this "I" we so instinctually use can be said to be illusory, as Descartes seems to confidently posit that thinking is occurring, but created by the thinker.
ReplyDelete2.Following that point, and perhaps despite it, I think the rationality behind having existed, or existing, is what makes Descartes Meditations so interesting to read. The building blocks actual existence are there, but after that the details become elusive.