Jesse Hughes Philosophy 101 NOTES: Descartes I.many

8/14/2019 Jesse Hughes Philosophy 101 NOTES: Descartes I.many

1/14

Jesse Hughes Philosophy 101

NOTES:

Descartes

I.Many things turn to be false, once to avoid falsity in the future. He want to came up witha method, so the method would help him prevent

I. Motivated by TWO principles:

1. We want no false beliefs

a. Say to believe everything, then no falsity

b. Skeptical principle

c. Meditation began in this principle:

i. Examine my beliefs, to prove if it is false (whatis wrong with this?)

1. We do not have time to check each belief is true or not.

2. Other issue: it is not simplify to say certain beliefs are true or not.

3. Remove all doubtable beliefs

1. Not sure , or certain true, then assume it is false.

2. Four arguments for beliefs

1. Senses

1. An acknowledgement that may lead to falsity .Doubt everything that senses is telling.

1. Ex: seeing things that mistakenlyseen.

2. Mad mon

1. If a person is mad, then the person is incapableto reach to reality. (professor doesnt think this fit

with the arguments)

3. Dreaming (p251)

1. Most of our dreams, not aware. Believe thedream, but at that point could not prove if theincident happens or not. If you could not tell thedifference of last night dreaming compare to thereality, then you can not prove whether it is truethat you are dreaming and waking.

2. This argument proves sometimes when you aredreaming, you do not know it.

3. What if I am dreaming, should I doubteverything I am believing it:

1. Because dreaming has imagination, andimagination has LIMIT, does not createwholly new idea, rather it combines idea.

2. Dreaming creates something that youhave seen, not a wholly new idea, theimagination must have seen in reality.

3. Dreaming does not allow us to doubt.

4. Evil demon


2/14

1. Every perception, beliefs, and etc have been putby an evil demon. IF there is a such demon, thenthere is no reason for a person to believeeverything, because the evil demon can mess upwhat a person seen.

2. DESCARTES is arguing if there is possible a

demon, then everything he sees should doubt. Aslong as he can not prove there is a evil demon, thenDESCARTES's skeptical things are not true.

3. His arguments allow him to doubt every beliefhe has.

4. He is not certain that everything he seen.

2. We want as many true beliefs as possible

a. Easy to satisfy, say: I believe everything, and then there is nothingto be false.

b. Multiple principle (I want to believe)

c. he grab all his true beliefs.

d. Even there is a evil devil, then one belief is undoubleful

i. DESCARTES exist : He is thinking.

ii. He experiences thought, he is a thinkingthing. (p 53)

DESCARTES one thing he is sure is he is a thinking thing, and he exist. BELIEVETHE UNIVERSE ALL HAS HIMSELF.

Iii. The only thing he knows he exist is he is thinking, and then he brought up the idea ofWAX.

e. Let's think wax exist: the wax causes certain sensation, taste, smell, feel, etc. All of these ideas aregot from his physical body.

a.The wax melt:

i. Every perception of a wax change, then hisphysical senses are giving him a different sensation. Then his thinking must telling himhe did not getting the same idea while the wax didnt melt.

ii. But, he understands the idea of melting. He didnot get the senses about the melting wax is wax, rather it is thought, from mental activity.

II. Knowing mind exist:

a. Knowing the mind exist is harder but most fundamental knowledge to understand.(we sees chair and table, but before knowing that, we must know that mind exist. )

III. Meditation 3: what sort of stuff is in our mind?

1. Ideas (his ideas means image, include things like blue, white, and a bit of red in it) The perceptionof the carpet. Any thought that is like an image. Ideas seem to be like a likeness. Ideas just an image,you can not judge whether it is true or false.

a. IDEAS can be produce:

i. Innate

ii. Produced by me (Outside of me) = taught bynature? Light of nature, something he says thing reveals to him as light of nature.

iii. Caused by me


3/14

2. Volitions/ emotions : images that thinking of coffee. But something of desire and passion growwithin in your mind. Emotions are similar, may be happy by listening to certain things, and some otherfeelings. No true or falsity involve.

3. Judgment: sort of thought that can be true or false. You can not ask about the sensation whetherthe red blue or white is a carpet, but you do can judge whether the blue white red is causing byCARPET?!

a. Particular judgment causing by external things.

b. Principle of frequent errs, judge the idea that is in me to certainthings that are outside me.

Notes:

1. Descartes: two goals He wants to avoid falsity and gain true belief

2. He wants to move everything that is doubted, because there are too many doubtful beliefs.

3. More perfect the thing, greater the reality

Formal reality Objective reality of idea

The reality of the thing itself

formal reality of an idea

Presentational reality

Ex: formal reality of itscontentif it exists!

only think of what itcontains, what does it present.

4. No effect can be greater than its cause. Where the effect come from if it is not from thecause.

5. The objective reality of an idea cannot be greater than the formal reality of its cause.

a. If there are some ideas in me, then we have to look outside of the causes for theideas.

b. There is one idea that is so perfect: the idea of God

i.

Unlimited and perfect being

ii. Only aperfect being has enough formal reality toCAUSE a perfect being > God exists

6. Second argument for the existence of God

a. Establishing Descartes and God: Who ultimately is the cause of Descartes ownexistence?


4/14

i.

Descartes can not cause his own exist.Creating something of nothingness isharder to prove something exist.

ii. If hecapable to create himself, he will createhimself as all knowing thing. Heconcluded he didnt create himself, if hedid, he would do a better job of it.

iii. Did hisparents create himself?

1. Exist over time?

a.Create and destroy in every moment.

IV: Since God is perfect, then why He Suck?

1. Two central faculty in mind.

Intellect/understanding Will

Limited not faulty Unlimited: there is no difference betweenDescartes and God in this WILL.

-How to avoid error?

If I understandclearly andunderstanding, thenit must be true.Simply God createshim, and God wontdeceive him.

Will is limited, but the ability is limited.

You can swing your arm , pretendyou are flying, but you cannot fly!

Choices is freewill

Judgments are acts of will: involve withunderstanding. You need to affirm ordeny. Error comes in when a person ischoose to believe or not to believe,understanding is limited, but not faulty.


5/14

2. IV meditation: error is possible only is because unique combination will beyond our understanding,when we choose to affirm or deny. Understanding is limited but we can simply understand truth.Understanding is given by God, therefore our understanding is not faulty.

3. V meditation:

i. It begins with a discussion of mathematic: a^2+b^2=c 2

ii. Descartes proved it is possible that the material things can be solve by math.

iii. No contradiction in math.

1. I have no trouble that the essence of triangle has this kind of feature, except for God

iv. He proves that God exist (AGAIN)

1. Nevertheless that the existence of substance = God's essence.

2. God is a supremely perfect being, God possesses every perfection. Existence is aperfection.

3. A thing exist always better than the thing that does not exist

4. So, God possesses existence. < God exists.

5. Necessary existence = contingent existence.

a. Each of us exist but you could imagine without contradiction that the world and usdont exist.

b. For God, it is impossible for him not to exist.

v. He does not require to understand, as long as he remember one, then he wouldassume he understands it.

Imagination

o Allows him to view certain obj.

o Seems to depend something outside Descartes.

o Imagination is not part of his essence.

o Mind can not move, they are not in a place. (only physical stuff. Motion requires extension.

o Faculty of receiving and knowing the sensible things

SENSING?

Me?

Physical stuff?

God or some other beings?

Ex: I have a capacity of sensing, but there must be something that produces thesesensing. (me?) it is not in me, because I only have two faculties, and these sensation doesnot come with my consent. Therefore it is not produce by his understanding or his will,

therefore it is from outside of him. There must be a substance that is outside of him, that isreal enough to produce this kind of sensation.

Sensation must produce by physical stuff

God or some other being.

o I was created with a strong tendency to believe that physical stuff causes these ideas.

o I have no means for determining this belief is false.


6/14

IF IT IS FALSE, IMAGINE God creates me, there no physical stuff. Conclude

corporeal stuff exist.

Primary qualities

Extension

Shape

Motion

number

Secondary qualities

Color

Smell

Texture

o Mind and body are connected.

Because he can feels pain and hungry sense through the body.

Primary senses are to maintain the health

Natural helps us to prefer pleasure and to avoid painful.

Fire has the quality that make us to feel the pain, but not because the fire represents thepain.

Feeling of heat does not resemble the fire.

Color within an object only can create a sensation within a person, but not because it hasthe color. But the shape itself has its shape.

We should focus on the primary qualities, the things they are, but primary qualities leadus to secondary qualities. Second qualities are not the real qualities of the material things.

Nerves system

The divisible body after it is been chopped, the missing part of the body parts seem tocause pain, but the body part is no longer on the body. The pain is sending from the nerve

system. Body is constructed that different causes can cause the same effect.

Special point of body

Mind causes effect in your body.

A priori A posteriori

Knowledge gain withoutreference to experience

DESCARTES is a Methodist,his own existence has contradicthis belief of a priori knowledge.

"Light of nature"Descartes simply knows.

Effect can not be greater thanthe cause

Knowledge dependent onexperience


7/14

Descartes doubt all hisexperience, he is not skepticalenough

Rationalism Descartes has a belief of achair, this is a sensation, not aphysical chair in front of him.

Skeptical conclusion, peopleget things through physicalexperience.

Hume:

Most cause and effect is apriori knowledge. They believe

they have the knowledge beforethe experience.

5+7=12 (no need to check)we know this is true.

Empiricism (Locke) doubt a priori because all prioriknowledge is analytic.

o Example: all bachelor areunmarried.

o However analytic do not helpyou gain any new knowledge

Synthetic: we may gain someknowledge in priori knowledge

Synthetic example: (it is possible)

Kant said nothing 5+7=12, you cannot analyze 5 makes the equation =

12 nor any other symbol in 5+7=12 But how we know the answerwithout knowing some clues?

o A priori knowledge is mostlyabout personal contribution.

o Psychological claim: we cannot get or experience thingsitself, only we can is theperception, feature of rationality.

I can be certain 5+7=12?

According to Kant, why he saidthat?

Because necessarycondition, we experience us,that is a priori syntheticknowledge.

Every rational being are


8/14

nicely constructed.

1. Problems for priori knowledge, CRITICISM:

1.

Assumes our nature is unchanging: "Why this is a rational thing? What if it changes the next day?"The best we can claim, up to now, this is our rationality

o Kant thinks it just part of our rationality

2. Too narrow

o Make claims in itself

o Even you dont experience the object, we know 2+2=4

2. Law of thought

1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.

2. We dont have to check the answer, we know this is correct.

3. Kant does not think it is law of thought

3. Russell

1. Agrees 5+7=12 is a priori synthetic

2. Criticism to Kant, a priori synthetic is possible

If there is a criterion of truth, then this criterion should satisfy three conditions

1. Internal

i. No reason or rule of truth that is provided by an external authority canserve as an ultimate criterion

ii. The mind cannot attain to certainty until it has found within itself asufficient reason for adhering to the testimony of such an authority.

2. Objective

i. Ultimate reason for believing cannot be a merely subjective state ofthe thinking subject.

3. Immediate

i. To be sure, a certain conviction may rest upon many different reasonssome of which are subordinate to others. Must find an immediate criterion of certitude.

Apples example

o Descartes thought our beliefs is to throw the bad ones and keep the good ones. Or Descartes wanted

us to hoped, we would be left with just a stock of good beliefs on which we could rely completely.

o Turn apples in to beliefs, there is a different than differentiate the good and bad apples

o There is a criterion, which beliefs are genuine cases of knowledge and which beliefs are not?

o

Empiricism gives us an effective criterion for distinguishing the good apples from the bad ones. Two objections agaisnt empiricism

1. Is that the criterion is very broad and far reaching and at the same time completely arbitrary

2. We seem to throw out, not only the bad apples but the good ones as well, and we are left, with just afew parings or skins with no meat behind them.

Thomas Reid:

o A particularist


9/14

o Thought he had an answer to question A, and in terms of the answer to question A, he then worked

out a kind of answer to question B.

1. We want to have a method or procedure to help us to get to good beliefs, and get rid of bad beliefs.

But how do we justify a good belief from a bad belief?

a. I cant show the method work unless I know how to decide which is a good or bad belief.

2. Two related questions

a. What do we know which belief is good in a sense? (the extent about our knowledge)

b. How do we decide whether we know? (the criteria on our knowledge)

If you know question A, then you might know question B.

If I know B, then I will know A, because I know the procedure, if I dont have procedure,then we have no way to conclude A.

Answer A depends on answer B and vice versa.

Skepticism

If you can not solve the problems, you are screw.

Methodism

Claim an answer to B.

Start with a method, Methodism can not back up the answer, cause he goes on circle, he knows whichis a good belief. Certain sensation exist from the memory.

Ex: empiricism : all knowledge has to traceable back to experience. All knowledge comes toexperience. Give up too much.

Particularism

Claim an answer to A

Has knowledge, but he can not tell every good beliefs from the bad beliefs.

Possible to know, without showing that you know.

How does he know good beliefs from bad beliefs?

Assume an ordering on belief states:

Set some beliefs, objectively better

Beyond reasonable doubt


10/14

or

p Q

1. R is beyond reasonable doubt

2. R is evident, if R is beyond reasonable doubt, it is preferable to make decision using R than not using R.

3. R is certain, if it is evident and no other preposition is preferable .

First Truths of fact

o Evident: self-presenting

No doubt of your experience of how you feel, sense . Experience ourselves count the truth

First truths of reasono A priori truth

o Axiomatic : necessarily truth and if one believes the proposition, then it is evident.

Notes:

S knows X if and only if

1. X is true

2. S believes X

3. Proper justification of believing it

(Not true: Believe in fortune teller is not a knowledge)

These three takes sufficient

S knows X - > (1), (2), (3) 1. (1) (2) (3) are necessary condition for S knows X


11/14

(1) (2) (3) S knows X --------------------jointly speaking, then sufficientconditions.

Elementary logic:

How you prove an implication is false?

How to show that A > B is false?

Need: a situation in which A (1,2,3) is true and B (S knows X) is false.

EX: Suppose Yan and I are applying for the same job, Yan is going to get the job eventhough "I" seem to be a nice guy.

A: Yan will get the job S may be justified in believing something thatis false

If S is justified in believing A -> B andjustified in believing A and believes B becausehe believes A-> B and A then he is justified inbelieving B.

B: Yan has 37 cents

I believe (A & B) & I amjustified in that belief

(X) The person who will getthe job has 37cents.

(A&B) -> (X)

As soon as (A & B) -> X I am justified inbelieving X

Something happened to theboss, "I" got the job instead ofYan. Therefore:

1,2,3 are true:

1. (Yan does have 37 cents)

2. (He believes in Yan has 37 cents)

3. (He is justified Yan has 37 cents,because he saw my wallet)

BUT

I DO NOT KNOW X

A -> (A or B) if you know A then you know A or B.

B -> (A or B)

X stans for A or B

Ex: Obama is president, or I either Obama is a president or I have two feet. When there isa disjunction, and you know one of it, then A or B is true.


12/14

(a) Chad drives a Corolla

(b) Andrey lives in Birch Hall

I believed A & I am justified in believing A.

Thus, I have a justified belief in X.

Assuming that Chad does not drive Corolla, and Andrey lives in Birch, then X is true.(either A or B is true)

1,2,3 -> are true BUT I do not know X.

Notes:

1. Deducted: in when and which whenever the primacy is true and so is the conclusion.

For instance, if it is raining, then the dog is wet, when the dog is not wet, then it is not raining.

2. Inducted: See all swans are white, but not assuming all swans are white. See more swans are white, it isprobable that all swans are white, but not reach to certainty.

Inductive arguments only reach probable conclusions.

More instances yield more probable conclusion

o Why do you believe sun will rise tomorrow?

We expect certain things happen, because it never happen in another way before.

BECAUSE sun always rise in the past (inductive)

But, why do we need to believe in the past? It might change tomorrow

BECAUSE earth is rotating

Proof of law of motions (This provide another outside info. ) But where do you believein law of motions? Because of science from past experience and observation.


13/14

But we are still going around the question

Induction is a reliable method of reasoning

It is work well up till now. When I reason base on my past experience, then induction is apretty good guide. That is induction.

The past resembles the future.

o Every morning in my life, the sun is rising, great certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The next swan will be white > one allows you to guess the next one

All swans are white. > one allows you to conclude the next one

HUME believes induction is not justified.

Default reasoning often change once the statement has more details.

Joe is a bird > we assume he will fly


14/14

Entrenchment : past success induction.

Two predicates with same evidence class, we should see the predicate that is projectable, (produce moreinducted success)

Jesse Hughes Philosophy 101 NOTES: Descartes I.many

Documents

Transcript of Jesse Hughes Philosophy 101 NOTES: Descartes I.many