@12 on Friday, 15 October 1999
20th century sees Descartes as an anti-hero
with philosophers defining themselves with regard to Descartes�s flaws
Bernard Williams � paper written on Descartes � �Descartes�s works, or very few of them, are read, or partly read, as the most challenging & informative example of what is to be rejected � typically rejected as one who simply has a weakness for scepticism or mathematical certainty, or whatever his conception, particularly impresses the teacher of� Descartes as providing the source of scepticism. a student would reasonably conclude that Descartes is a fool, and that the subject cannot be a very serious subjective�
try and show that Descartes � a fool
�skeptos� � Gk � Pyrrho originally aimed to overcome the desire to discover the truth
whereas Descartes was trying to use scept to discover the truth
�first ancient sceptic � Pyrrho of Elis (360-23), suspended judgement about how things reallyare in themselves, and tried to live accordingo the appaearnaces and thus atain �peace of mind�
at the beginning of th 17th C the most foreceful form of scepticism was put forward by Pierre Gassendi, who challenged alost every aspect of the Ari viewof the uni�
Descartes attack the scholastic/medieval view of the universe � dominant view = ari view of the cosmos � this is what the scholastics were studying
new astro discoveries, were showing that many of the medieval claims were wrong
�/span> many medievals beocmign very sceptical about what we claim to know about th world
early 17 century � most forceful scepticism = Pierre Gassendi � one of the thinkers who correponsodned with Descartes
most challening form of scept, anti the medieval conception of the cosms
argument: Descartes�s formulation of the sceptical problem = original
nothing like his method of formulating scepticism existed before
the conclusion that we cannot know anything of the world around about us = scepticism about the external world � distinction between world of own consc (beliefs, desires etc.) vs world out there (other people, inds, extern world) � independent of consc & own mind
the problem of our knowledge of the world around us arose for Descartes in his search for certainty & truth � the 2 concepts cannot really be separated in Descartes
came in the course of reflecting on anything he was taught/told/read/discovered
begins his enquiry by asking: among all the things I take to be true (I have all these beliefs about the world), what amounts to konwledge and what does not?
i.e. which of the beliefs I hold to be true really are true?
in his search for truth � guided by his famous method � method of philosophy/cartesian doubt
this method of doubt = hyperbolic (exaggerated) � not meant to be taken literally � simply a methodological process (rather than genuine doubt, because after all, Descartes � a sceptic) � Descartes never doubted the existence of the external world � but he did seriously entertain doubts in the hope as achieving certainty re: the external world
in order to embark on this enquiry, he obviously needs to use arguments
only way to search for at least 1 truth not subject to doubt: to serve as a basis for the rest of knowledge (but this cannot be subject to doubt) � an indubital truth = a turth that cannot be doutb, not simply a truth which he doesn[the doubt � not concerned with simply a psycho state
in order to do this, must first rid himself of all opinions
of which he has cause to doubt
not necessary for him (or even possible) for him to check every single belief individually to see which he has reason to doubt
\ � the foundations
because Descartes thinks that there are certain pricniples on which the whoel of our body of knowledge is based
most of the beliefs which we have, which we accept as true, come directly or indirectly from our exp of the world � senses & sensory organs
first task: see if this principle holds, because if it�s valid, then the beliefs based on it will hold
requires the use of arguments
argument:
1. the argument from illusion: the senses sometimes deceive us (e.g. a tower which looks round for a distance, but square close up)
is this strong enough an argument to overthrow the first principle?
difference in scope:
possible that [my senses always deceive me]
always possible that [my senses deceive me]
which
does Descartes hold?
concludes: better not to trust the senses completely
many other beliefs acquired through sense xp which he finds difficult to doubt, things which are close to me � e.g. these hands & this body
dialectic:
puts forward hypothesis
then tests the hypothesis
counter-argument to test the argument of illusion:
2. argument of insanity
madmen think dressed inpurple when naked, think made of pumpkin/glass
he dismisses the argument of insanity. why? how can he be so sure that he himself is not mad, and that what he takes to be the case is not. contrast with evil demon hypothesis.
then � test the claim that things close to him are indubitable
3. dream argument
considers that he is a man like any other, who sleeps & dreams
yet he feels awake at the moment � could that feeling of certainty in his own wakefulness be part of a dream?
past human blunders re: dreaming/waking �/span> that there is no ground for distinguishing between dreams & waking stage � if that is the case, then dreams can delude us
his own pos on dreaming is difficult to unravel
he doesn�t appear interested in discovering the criteria which if applied, would tell infallibly whether we are now awake or asleep
one possible reason: could be using that criterion in a dream state, and that would render it invalid
all Descartes needs for the dream argument to be accepted = the mere logical possibility of not being able to rationally rule out that any experience we have in our waking state could be part of a dream
not going to simply accept the argument he has just given us
Socratic method of enquiry = to put forward an argument, then put forward counter-argument to test and see if it stands up to scrutiny
counter-argument:
even if, and let�s assume that I am, dreaming:
surely the things that I experience in my dreams, are real enough (they certainly seem real)
the images I have in my dream, are pictures, and aren't pictures composed of real things, i.e. things taken from the real world?
even if the picture I have of my hand, it doens't necessarily follow that there are no such things as hands in the real world
but: could it not be a fiction that there are in reality the kind of things I dream about � i.e. what is my explanation that there are real external things which correspond to the things I dream of
i.e. the stuff he dreams of might correspond to nothing in the �real� world
can he be dreaming all of the material properties?
what about general & universal notions
he�s not saying that colours are real � he�s simply using a metaphor
it�s those general & universal notions, e.g. size, shape, number, figure, motion/rest etc.
out of which all physical objects are composed
with this conjecture, he has tested the limit of the dream conjecture
the dream argument cannot make him doubt the limit of universal notions
completed the first principle of the enquiry
tested the principle that most beliefs are derived from senses
but what about beliefs are not derived from senses? e.g. maths & geometry (size, shape & number are from maths)
= the 2nd principle put forward to see if can stand up to scrutiny
but must test even this principle, in accordance with his method
begins to feel vulnerable and shaken � realises that if he continues, could lose all the beliefs he holds
argument from god: perhaps = omnipotent creator who ensures that he can not be deceived about these
if = a loving god, perhaps he won�t allow me to � wrong
= an attempt to try & save his beliefs
= 3rd principle on which his beliefs are based
however, he must scrutinise this principle too
belief in god = just one hypothesis among many to explain his existnece
could exist as fate or chance, as a result of a continuous chain of causes (almost a theory of evolution) � why choose argument from god from among these others
don't be misled by the postulate that Descartes never abandoned his faith in god � this belief has also gone through the method of doubt (but in this area especially, he seems more susceptible to fuck up as a result of the strength of his belief and desire to hold it � G)
the evil demon hypothesis: to counter, deliberatley postulates the possible existence to all-powerful malicious demon � devotes all energies to deceiving Descartes
= a hypothesis, not an argument
not put forward in order to guarantee anything
does Descartes belief in the existence
of the ED? if so, does the ED guarantee anyting for Descartes � (perhaps believes in the
existence of the ED as an explanation of the problem of evil? � G)
now use the evil sc, rather than the ED
corresponding modern hypothesis = all brains in vats
logically possible that I am deceived about everything around me
just that possibility = sufficient for a lack of certainty
ED cannot cast doubt on the power of reason of the meditator
why not?
connect with the argument of insanity � see why he dismisses the argument of insanity, and why the hypo of the ED cannot make him doubt the power of reason (because it screws the whole hypo? - G)
some argue that the ED hypo does cast doubt on the power of reason
does Descartes believe this � obviously doesn't think that there is a geniune possible that the ED can cast doutb on reason
at the end of the 1st Meditation, complete darkness
it is only by removing all the beliefs on which it is possible for us to cast dount that he can clear the stage for ascertaining those worthy of certainty