The meditator begins Meditation 3 by realigning her thoughts with the cogito after a rousing frolic through the magical world of wax, now she is looking for certainty. Her method to gain knowledge of what she identifies as certain uses the cogito as a formula. This formula is made by stating:
1. I am a thing that thinks
2. I came up with that through clear and distinct perception
4. “whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true.” (CSM 24)
Don’t worry I can count. I skipped the three because I feel like there is something missing. Hatfield states that 3 is “Clear and distinct perception would not be sufficient to yield such knowledge if it was in an way fallible” (144). But I feel that this doesn’t quite meet the criteria for truth. Descartes then brings the deceiving-god argument back into play. In the first meditation the deceiving-god hypothesis made meditator doubt simple and straightforward truths, but now Descartes states that there are three things safe from deceiving god: I am something, I exist, simple math (or arithmetic and geometry). Concerning what I called simple maths, I believe Descartes means anything simple without an inherent contradiction. But doesn’t the third point counter the idea that god can make us doubt simples? Now, math has been brought back as truth. So, my previous statement in my other blog that “we could conceivably convince ourselves that 2 + 3 = Monkey” is now false. I was reluctant before to believe that such a simple statement of fact that 2 + 3 =5 could be false, yet I doubted because that’s where the meditation led me. Now it seems I was foolish to do that. Descartes reason for this is that slight and metaphysical doubt should not stop the meditator from dwelling on deceiving god as cause for doubt and that there is no cause to think there is a deceiving god, or whether there is a god at all. Is that a kind of a copout or did I miss something? So, for now: it is the truth that 2 + 3 does = 5, but I am still not certain of this fact.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Mind your own beeswax
A piece of wax seems so simple. The residual taste of honey, a sweet fragrance, yellowish appearance, sticky and solid: that’s all there is to it, no source of complication just thoughts of buzzing bees and honey spread on toast. Oh how naïve of me. In this passage Descartes uses the piece of wax as an example that will show us two important and crucial aspects key in establishing truth: the true power of perception and what it means to be human. Suddenly this simple substance has become the seed of something much bigger.
Descartes leads the meditator to establish how best to perceive and understand the properties and nature of an object. First he grants her the senses, which reveal color, taste, texture, etc. He tears these sense-based conclusions down when the wax is melted and no longer contains the formerly held features. So, what is left of the nature of wax outside of that which is perceived by our senses is that it is extendable, flexible, and changeable. But how do we come to this knowledge? Even with the use of our imagination we cannot know the wax in all its infinite possible shapes it could be formed into. Thus, the senses and our imagination are not adequate in the perception of the nature of wax. It is the mind that reveals to us the true nature of wax. This use of the mind in discovering nature is “mental scrutiny” and the mind’s use of the intellect in creating an understanding of a thing.
This new idea of mental scrutiny, use of the intellect, and perceiving objects through understanding brings the meditator to a more important understanding, which is how the mind is better known than a body. It is this, although from a slightly different angle, that reaffirms the cogito in our knowledge of our own existence. For our experimentation with the wax and its nature could be false and does not matter. What the exploration of the wax does do is aid us in better knowing our own mind. And it is this use of our intellect and mind to perceive the nature and understanding of a thing that separates us from animals.
I am left with a slight buzzing in my ears for I am not qute sure about all of Descartes argument. One of the quesitons I have with these two conclusions is that how are we sure that our perception of the wax previous and post-melting is enough evidence to discount the senses and imagination all together. Couldn’t it be that our sense-perception and imagination contain the knowledge of wax when it was hard and after it is melted? Our senses do not perceive things as one image alone. Our imagination and senses could contain the knowledge that wax can change from one form to another. So this idea that wax is hard, sweet smelling, etc. and then when it is liquid and no longer smells the same are contained in the same knowledge. It is if it is not heated it is like this and if it is heated it is like this. Or is this ability to grasp shifting states of objects part of the mind and not a resource of our sense and imagination? I don’t know if that quite makes sense, but it seems slightly unclear to me. What is judgment’s role in determining the nature of things for we may judge things incorrectly and therefore wouldn’t the conclusion from these judgments be incorrect?
Descartes leads the meditator to establish how best to perceive and understand the properties and nature of an object. First he grants her the senses, which reveal color, taste, texture, etc. He tears these sense-based conclusions down when the wax is melted and no longer contains the formerly held features. So, what is left of the nature of wax outside of that which is perceived by our senses is that it is extendable, flexible, and changeable. But how do we come to this knowledge? Even with the use of our imagination we cannot know the wax in all its infinite possible shapes it could be formed into. Thus, the senses and our imagination are not adequate in the perception of the nature of wax. It is the mind that reveals to us the true nature of wax. This use of the mind in discovering nature is “mental scrutiny” and the mind’s use of the intellect in creating an understanding of a thing.
This new idea of mental scrutiny, use of the intellect, and perceiving objects through understanding brings the meditator to a more important understanding, which is how the mind is better known than a body. It is this, although from a slightly different angle, that reaffirms the cogito in our knowledge of our own existence. For our experimentation with the wax and its nature could be false and does not matter. What the exploration of the wax does do is aid us in better knowing our own mind. And it is this use of our intellect and mind to perceive the nature and understanding of a thing that separates us from animals.
I am left with a slight buzzing in my ears for I am not qute sure about all of Descartes argument. One of the quesitons I have with these two conclusions is that how are we sure that our perception of the wax previous and post-melting is enough evidence to discount the senses and imagination all together. Couldn’t it be that our sense-perception and imagination contain the knowledge of wax when it was hard and after it is melted? Our senses do not perceive things as one image alone. Our imagination and senses could contain the knowledge that wax can change from one form to another. So this idea that wax is hard, sweet smelling, etc. and then when it is liquid and no longer smells the same are contained in the same knowledge. It is if it is not heated it is like this and if it is heated it is like this. Or is this ability to grasp shifting states of objects part of the mind and not a resource of our sense and imagination? I don’t know if that quite makes sense, but it seems slightly unclear to me. What is judgment’s role in determining the nature of things for we may judge things incorrectly and therefore wouldn’t the conclusion from these judgments be incorrect?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
My two cents...
We have given up on the idea of having a body. Sense-perception is only known through the body. Then Descartes states that a thinking thing includes having sensory perceptions (CSM 19). Confusion and discrepancy in the meditations? Not possible! therefore there must be some sort of explanation… I hope.
The meditator states that the “I” has “sensory perceptions, or is aware of bodily things as it were through the senses. For example, I am now seeing light, hearing a noise, feeling heat. But I am asleep, so all this is false. Yet I certainly seem to see, to hear, and to be warmed. This cannot be false; what is called ‘having sensory perception is strictly just this, and in this restricted sense o the term it is simply thinking.” (CSM 19). Here Descartes has made a distinction between sense-perception as a literal and real function of the body taking place and the mind’s perceiving of what seem to be the senses, which he equates with just thinking. In this case the senses are not really happening in the physical world, but because we think that the senses are real in our mind and we perceive them to be happening then they cannot be false because it is just our thought.
Hatfield states that this seemingly contradictoriness of not engaging and then engaging in sense-perception is explained by stating that the sense-perception that is true to us is related to “imagining” and is viewed as “a type of experience” (Hatfield 122). Despite the fact that the body no longer exists and there is nothing for the now doubted and false literal and physical senses to sense there is still the mind’s experience of the senses, which are a part of the meditator’s thoughts (Hatfield 122).
Wilson also argues along these same lines making the distinction between sensory-perception and “sensation” (Wilson 75). She states, “sensation can be viewed ass a type of thought, and that hence our experience of sensation can be abstracted form any commitment to what are ordinarily regarded as the necessary physical aspects of sensation… Descartes is concerned to establish the distinction between sensations construed as modes of thought, and sensation construed as modes of matter.” (Wilson 75).
The meditator states that the “I” has “sensory perceptions, or is aware of bodily things as it were through the senses. For example, I am now seeing light, hearing a noise, feeling heat. But I am asleep, so all this is false. Yet I certainly seem to see, to hear, and to be warmed. This cannot be false; what is called ‘having sensory perception is strictly just this, and in this restricted sense o the term it is simply thinking.” (CSM 19). Here Descartes has made a distinction between sense-perception as a literal and real function of the body taking place and the mind’s perceiving of what seem to be the senses, which he equates with just thinking. In this case the senses are not really happening in the physical world, but because we think that the senses are real in our mind and we perceive them to be happening then they cannot be false because it is just our thought.
Hatfield states that this seemingly contradictoriness of not engaging and then engaging in sense-perception is explained by stating that the sense-perception that is true to us is related to “imagining” and is viewed as “a type of experience” (Hatfield 122). Despite the fact that the body no longer exists and there is nothing for the now doubted and false literal and physical senses to sense there is still the mind’s experience of the senses, which are a part of the meditator’s thoughts (Hatfield 122).
Wilson also argues along these same lines making the distinction between sensory-perception and “sensation” (Wilson 75). She states, “sensation can be viewed ass a type of thought, and that hence our experience of sensation can be abstracted form any commitment to what are ordinarily regarded as the necessary physical aspects of sensation… Descartes is concerned to establish the distinction between sensations construed as modes of thought, and sensation construed as modes of matter.” (Wilson 75).
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
neato mosquito, here goes the cogito
The doubt of the first mediation has left us with spinning heads and suffocating uncertainty about all aspects of reality and existence. Finding some singular, even if simple and small conclusion of truth may act as the lifesaver to which we cling and begin to build a raft on these turbulent waters of doubt. This is the importance of the cogito. Cogito is the immovable point from which all else must rest and from which the truths of the world will be founded for nothing else is certain except on the basis of I. It is, as Hatfield puts it, “the first principle” and is foundationalist (101). For any truth to be found and understood we must first establish a basis from which to build from. A flawed foundation or weak base will crumble and disrepute all that has been built on it. Whether I am being deceived by myself or by some outside force it is still I who am being deceived. To be deceived I have to exist even if nothing else I was once formerly so certain of exists or is real. Then Hatfield also says that the cogito is Descartes’ metaphorical fulcrum because there is also the possibility that one truth is attached to other truths and that discovering one will lead to the discovery of others (101). The second strand of the argument leads me to question if one truth necessarily begets another truth or intrinsically is attached to other truths then is there one reality in which all truths lie?
But I am also led to wonder if there is a distinction between thought and I. I feel as though thought is one thing and I, as born from thought, are not one in the same. When I think of me, I, myself, it clings to an image of my corpulent, physical being. And not only that, but my personality and preferences. Upon the simple base of thought has been built up this image of self, an image based in our relation to all those things that have just been previously jaded by Descartes’ shadowy and pervasive doubt. Are thought, I, and self all distinct entities some real and some not?
So, although only more questions have been the result of the cornerstone cogito, it acts as the antidote to the rather depressing doubt of the first meditation and the most solid place to stand to begin to better see the whole of reality and existence unmasked.
But I am also led to wonder if there is a distinction between thought and I. I feel as though thought is one thing and I, as born from thought, are not one in the same. When I think of me, I, myself, it clings to an image of my corpulent, physical being. And not only that, but my personality and preferences. Upon the simple base of thought has been built up this image of self, an image based in our relation to all those things that have just been previously jaded by Descartes’ shadowy and pervasive doubt. Are thought, I, and self all distinct entities some real and some not?
So, although only more questions have been the result of the cornerstone cogito, it acts as the antidote to the rather depressing doubt of the first meditation and the most solid place to stand to begin to better see the whole of reality and existence unmasked.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Coo Coo Kachoo
Thought is indubitable. But thought must be separated from the thought of self. For we think of ourselves as one way by love, hate, and the like, but this is not even certain. For it is somewhat superficial based in our experiences, which have already been proven to be a source of doubt for their basis in the senses. So, it is not the thought, that energy behind our eyes, that hum in our ears, that inspiration in our sleep that can ever be doubted for it is all. Even god is nothing if not for its place in our thoughts and mind. Those things that are real that do not even need to be in existence do not matter because without our thought they would have no home and be an empty formula floating in nothingness. It does not matter if we fall victim to the false beliefs produced by either scenario of the dream argument. Hatfield stating that these are the intervening hypothesis or the defective design hypothesis (81). If god has somehow tweaked our mind in such a way that it is fooled by either veiling or turning us from truth or by an inherent and unavoidable malfunction we are still thinking beings. Yes, our thoughts may produce false beliefs, rely on the unreliable, or see nothing as it truly exists we are still thinking. It is this fact that god, except by death, cannot take away from us our thought. Deceive, dupe, dazzle, and defect, but the fact that I have thoughts to be betrayed by shows that they can not be doubted.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Pumpkin with an Earthenware head: asleep or awake? At least you're not dead.
“I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep.” (CSM 13). Descartes makes it clear that although we may never actually be able to tell whether we are indeed awake or asleep, for the marks of wakefulness can be simple imagined and fabricated while we are asleep, there are certain things in this world which cannot be doubted as per their actual existence and reality. Wilson states, “The question Descartes wishes to raise is not whether I can know that this or that sense experience is veridical, but whether I can know with certainty that the senses ever afford us truth at all (apart from the reality of simples)” (Wilson 18).
These ‘reality of simples’ is not completely clear to me. But my estimation of these mysterious small nuggets of truth in an unsure world are Descartes examples of color and certain sciences. He explains that colors cannot have been produced without the aid of their actually being in existence. So, though we may not be able to tell whether these colors are reflections of a true world outside of our own minds and dreams, these colors do indeed exist in reality. He also states that along with colors simple sciences and math are “transparent truths” that remain valid whether awake or asleep. Yet even this idea of math can be so skewed when asleep that we could conceivably convince ourselves that 2 + 3 = Monkey or something such. So, in my view even these supposedly indubitable truths may be called into question, but the reality of color does seem to remain true.
What I did find very interesting, which I had previously not even considered until it was brought up in class is the fact that the emotions we feel in dreams are as true in the make believe world of our minds as they are in the physical world of reality. Emotions transcend the idea that we can simply convince ourselves in a dream that we are lounging in our PJs or whether we actually are. Either way whether real or imagined the feeling of calm is undeniable. But emotions are not solid foundations for discovering something solid, timeless, and space less like the science Descartes is proposing he has set out to discover.
Though we are not mad and no matter how hard I try I have been unsuccessful in turning myself into a squash it seems that whether or not we are mad does not make that much of a difference for the simple fact that I can never be sure of anything, ever, whether I am truly awake or asleep outside of the reality of colors and my own emotions, but even madmen perceive colors and have emotions so sanity doesn’t seem that special anymore.
These ‘reality of simples’ is not completely clear to me. But my estimation of these mysterious small nuggets of truth in an unsure world are Descartes examples of color and certain sciences. He explains that colors cannot have been produced without the aid of their actually being in existence. So, though we may not be able to tell whether these colors are reflections of a true world outside of our own minds and dreams, these colors do indeed exist in reality. He also states that along with colors simple sciences and math are “transparent truths” that remain valid whether awake or asleep. Yet even this idea of math can be so skewed when asleep that we could conceivably convince ourselves that 2 + 3 = Monkey or something such. So, in my view even these supposedly indubitable truths may be called into question, but the reality of color does seem to remain true.
What I did find very interesting, which I had previously not even considered until it was brought up in class is the fact that the emotions we feel in dreams are as true in the make believe world of our minds as they are in the physical world of reality. Emotions transcend the idea that we can simply convince ourselves in a dream that we are lounging in our PJs or whether we actually are. Either way whether real or imagined the feeling of calm is undeniable. But emotions are not solid foundations for discovering something solid, timeless, and space less like the science Descartes is proposing he has set out to discover.
Though we are not mad and no matter how hard I try I have been unsuccessful in turning myself into a squash it seems that whether or not we are mad does not make that much of a difference for the simple fact that I can never be sure of anything, ever, whether I am truly awake or asleep outside of the reality of colors and my own emotions, but even madmen perceive colors and have emotions so sanity doesn’t seem that special anymore.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Death and Taxes
To say whether certainty is necessary begs the question if anything is certain. To me nothing is certain. Nothing can be so known to us that we are free from any sort of doubt about it. I believe this to be true mainly for the reason that certainty implies constancy. For those things we believe to be indubitable are also the things we believe to be absolutely unchanging. The combination of our senses and reason lead us to find certain things indisputable, but truly nothing in this world ever remains permanent or static so the certainty we see is produced by us and us alone. Though the saying is somewhat cliché and perhaps a bit trite, but you can never step in the same river twice. Our minds seem to cling to the stable and seek to quickly identify, label, and file away. Certainty is a cage that we willingly place our minds and movements in. It is easier to take seemingly simple things and judge them by what they are similar to or certain other preconceived notions. We never truly know the thing for itself by peering into its individual spirit and essence, which will change from moment to moment. It is made two dimensional and given only the slightest passing glance so that we may judge it and move on concerned only with our set objective. But then again I feel a slight twinge of irony in that proclaiming that nothing is certain is possibly in itself a certainty. I feel as though our false sense of certainty is useful, but not necessarily imperative to our lives. If we can live with a constantly open mind and accept every breath and breeze as unique and never promised we can live without certainty. But because we always seem to be rushing about this open-mindedness is slightly improbable. We fear doubt and wish to know things exactly as we need them to be: constant and thus certain. There is life and spirit in everything thus it is unique, but ever shifting in its own self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
