1. What is Descartes’ argument for the “real distinction” between mind and body? Does his argument succeed? Why or why not?
According to Descartes (“Synopsis,” p. 1), “the mind is thus enabled easily to distinguish what pertains to itself, that is, to the intellectual nature, from what is referred to the body.” This means that Descartes recognized the irreconcilable nature of the mind and the body and that sometimes the body has its own peculiar and natural tendencies. Hence, he concluded that the mind is distinct from the body. There is the crucial battle between the desires of the mind and the body and there is a definite difference between the will of the human body and that of the mind. The notion of controlling one’s own mind or body is dependent upon the person because Descartes believed that the human body and the mind have certain modes. The mind, for instance, have modes of comprehending things while the body has also a distinct sense of feeling and sensing. There is a case to case basis in controlling one’s mind or body (p. 1). Descartes furthered that the extent to which we can control must be based on moderation. He advised men to live a moderate and sensible life. He can control his mind and his thoughts and so he must stand firm on his beliefs and always delay his judgments so that he avoids committing mistakes. Men should master himself and so he should not just follow his instincts and he should abide by reason in his thoughts and actions.
The philosopher succeeded in this notion because he has expounded on the nature of one’s man body and soul. Descartes has elaborated on the connections between the nature of the soul and the human body in order to show how to manage one’s existence in accordance to the unity of the mind and body. He has shown that a person has the power to control his will, thoughts and actions. This is to show that he was predisposed to believe in the strength of the human mind.
Descartes has succeeded because his Second Meditation evidenced his arguments of proving the “absolute” distinction of the mind and the body (p. 1). This argument maintained his search for absolute thing even when he recognized that he cannot be certain of anything (Philosophy Study Resources, p. 1). He completely turned to the mind in search of certainty. In this argument, Descartes was able to relate that a man is a thinking thing (p. 1). This new knowledge led him to conclude that the mind and its contents are more clearly known than any outside physical objects (p. 1). He was able to ascertain who is responsible for the perceptions he receives by his senses. It led to the famous philosophical quote, “I think, therefore, I am” which means that since man thinks, he is. He was able to distinguish himself as a rational being, with his mind. This rationality goes beyond the idea of a mere human body as Descartes proved that a man has a soul or a spirit (p. 1).
2. Some readers of the Meditations find that Descartes loses his way at some point in the first three meditations. If you are one of those readers, point out where you think Descartes goes wrong in a very serious way, and your reasons for thinking so. (Note that one way to go wrong in a serious way is to make a mistake that entails other large mistakes.)
Descartes explored various Meditation arguments to prove that God exists. He assumed that he could be false and this initially give his arguments some doubts. He proceeded to show that he exists based on his thinking. In the Third Meditation, Descrates he lays out two separate arguments for the proof of the existence of god, however several flaws can be found in his seemingly watertight argument, of which many will be addressed (Hatfield, p. 23).
Descartes started his third meditation by summarizing some points declared in the first two mediations. He emphasized that a man is “a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things”(p. 24). He also mentiond that he has sensory perceptions. But then, the philosopher also argued that a man’s senses are deceptive and that anything coming from these senses may be false, and that he cannot depend on them (p. 24). This, altogether brings weakness to his basic argument or assumption.
With this faulty assumption, descartes then set out to explore a thought beyond his own existence that he can, with absoluteness, know is true and he turned to the idea of God. He used the idea of God to wash away the “even the slight reason for doubt, as soon as the opportunity arises I must examine whether there is a God” (p. 25). While the process of thinking leading to his argument is still valid and sound, it proceeded to the arguments on the proof of God’s existence.
Somehow, this strays away from the major argument on an’s nature and his existence. However, it is still quite acceptable. By the notion of cause and effect, Descrates was able to argue on the existence of God. He argued that God is the “cause” or the beginning of all the thoughts man has. Hence, he was able to assert that God is “the creator of all things that exist apart from him”(p. 28). This is a sound argument and this is somehow related to his basic argument or point that a man is a thing that thinks, and that is all he is, and thus could not truly know what these dimensions mean (p. 24). Descartes applied this argument to make the claim that “namely extension, shape, position and movement, these are not formally contained in me, since I am nothing but a thinking thing” (p. 31). In sum, a man is a being who cannot fathom those things which he, himself, does not possess. This essentially rules out every idea he has in his mind, except for the idea of God. He argued that all of man’s notions come from God and because of this, sice, man exists, thus, God should have also existed.
The main weakness in his arguments is the idea that any element that man himself does not possess, he cannot possibly perceive. However, he argued that man can perceive size and shape even when there is no indication that he actually has size or shape, as a thinking thing, and thus could not possible perceive them (p. 28). It debuncts his very notion about God.
4. In class we discussed a possible objection to the Dream Argument from the 1st Meditation: either (a) his claim that there is no certain mark to distinguish dreams from waking life is an empirical claim about how (some) dreams actually are, or (b) it is a non-empirical claim about how dreams could/possibly be. Explain the challenges Descartes’ argument faces on either interpretation. Do you think that this dilemma is a strong objection to the Dream Argument? Why or why not?
Descartes’ Dream Argument can be interpreted as the following arguments: 1). I usually have perceptions very much like the ones I often have in sensation while I am dreaming and 2). There are no certain signs to distinguish dream experience from waking experience. These arguments lead to a possible conclusion, which is - It may be that a person is just dreaming and all of his perceptions are not true. In short, there is no empirical truth or claims about dreams. The sceptical argument on dreaming that Descartes impressed in the First Meditation is a major philosophical discussion. It raises a challenge that seems to be both of the bare simplicity and to be devastating in its impact on people’s claims to know about external things. In sum, Descartes put doubts between what people perceives as dream and reality. There seems to be a thin line between these two concepts.
Inherently, the problems of the absurdity of dreams did not increase the dilemma of Descartes’ Dream Argument but rather embraced his other notions about truths, reality and how one can conceive truth and realties from the falseness in life. There are two aspects of Descartes’ concept of dream. Initially, it is the inexhaustible potential to mimic reality and secondly, it is the lack of impact in influencing the clearest thoughts of the intellect (p. 1). These two concepts definedescarets’ concept of dreaming as espoused in his Meditations.
It appears that Descartes’ dream is a matter solely of the imagination (p. 1). Because the imagination is treated as having the same characteristics and limits as sense-experience, the two are not greatly disntinguished. His arguments and its underlying problems (stemming out from reality) do not negatively affect his arguments. After all, the philosopher stated his proof of why he is not dreaming only in the last part of the book. Hence, his hypothesis did not threaten the development of his arguments.
The Dream argument shows Descartes’ thinking about the lack of insight in a dream. This is so because the data or information coming fromt he senses and the imagination are not distinguished. In a dream, Descartes proposed that an individual is thoroughly confused or because the ability to reflect is incapacitated. Hence, there is no dilemma with the problems brought about by the assumptions of Descarets about the lack of empirical basis of dreams. His arguemnts remained sound. It supposes that dreams are not states of the whole subject. The subject can remain lucid if an individual ignores the deliverances of sense-perception/ imagination.
5. What is the Cartesian Circle? Explain. Do you think that Descartes has a convincing response to this problem? Why or why not?
A Cartesian Circle is a philosophical flaw which is attributed to Descartes. It pertains to his “circular” argument which was an unconvincing response to the problem of certainty. Descartes argues that clear and distinct perception is a “basis” of truth because God, who is not a deceiver, would not let Descartes to be flawed about that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. The argument depends on Descartes' earlier proof of God’s existence.
In his ontological proof, Descartes depended on his claim that clear and distinct notions are true. However, in other earlier Meditations, he showed that the principle by depending on God. God guarantees that clear and distinct notions are true. Hence, Descartes has argued in a circle. The problem with this process of argument is that one cannot know that this proof does not contain an error unless he assumes that his clear and distinct perception of the steps of his reasoning guarantees that the proof is correct (p. 1). Descartes proposed that we should accept truths as we clearly and distinctly perceive them (Philosophy Study Resources, p. 1).
This Rule of Truth seems to be a circular argument as it does not prove anything. It can be simplified by the following argument:
(1) John said that he always tells the truth.
(2) If John said p, then p is true.
(3) So, John always tells the truth.
This argument assumes what it sets out to prove: premise (2) fundamentally states in a slightly varied way the same conclusion of the argument. In short, the argument just moves in circle. Descartes was not able to convince his fellow philosophers in this way of arguing. He then used this to prove the existence of God using the “trademark” argument as shown above. This is because the main point of an argument is often to provide a valid ground or a reason to accept its conclusion. There is no point to this argument is the conclusion is already set out.
The Cartesian Circle is not a convincing response to the problem and it is an objection against Descartes' use of the principles of reason in the process of proving certainty, right after finding the "Archimedean point" for his system in the certainty of the cogito, i.e., the judgment that I think/exist. The objection is represented by the notion that any demonstration can be effective only if its premises are more certain than its conclusion. But Descartes’ demonstration of God’s existence with the use of other premises, like the principle of causality (an effect cannot contain more (either objective or formal) reality than the (formal) reality of its cause). Hence, Descartes failed in proving the argument of God’s existence. He can only know that God exists and is not a deceiver if he knows that his clear and distinct perceptions are true. But he can only determine that his clear and distinct perceptions are true if he knows that God exists and is not a deceiver (p. 1). Hence, the argument just moves in circle.
Works Cited:
Hatfield, Gary. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Descartes and the Meditations. London: Routledge. 2003.
Philosophy Study Resources. “Mediation II.” Accessed on June 14, 2014 < http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsite/philosophy-study-resources/descartes-meditations/summaries/summary-2.php>.
“Synopsis.” Descartes: Meditations of First Philosophy. n.d. Accessed on 14 June 2014 < http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Synopsis.html>.
