WEEK 3: Descartes's Meditations (1 and 2)

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This week and next week, we are reading René Descartes's Meditations. The Meditations can be a strange work, especially the first time around. So I recommend reading it a few times, or go back and re-reading difficult sections you didn't get. Usually the first time we read something, we only get the barest sketch of what was said. It is only in going back a second and third, etc. time that we begin to see the structure of what an author is doing. We begin to see more than just the 'what' s/he is saying and see the 'how' s/he is doing it. Later we might even see a 'why'.

What I recommend specifically about reading the Meditations is: keep an open mind! Descartes's Meditations is a ride. So don't get used to any one stable thing. It's like a drug-trip. Many students read what Descartes is up to--that he wants to get rid of all his past beliefs, judgments, and begin to allow only those to un-doubtable back in to his mind--and dismiss it because it could not really happen in real life. Those students would be right. If I really did get rid of all my beliefs I would be like an infant or in a very low, functioning mental state. I might no longer possess the power of speech or judgment. However, Descartes is asking us to entertain a thought experiment. There are several in the meditations, see if you can spot them. Many times Descartes we signal it by saying, "suppose..." You use thought experiments a lot in philosophy and in other disciplines, like in physics. You might say, "imagine a plane with no surface friction...", even though that is impossible, or, "imagine a world with no gravity, or where the rate of acceleration is altered..." Also, be aware that Descartes is going to put forward ideas and thoughts that he doesn't really believe and that eventually he will try to disprove. So, just because he asks us to think of an evil-demon does not mean that Descartes believes in demons.

I'm going to put up another reading by Descartes that is not super long and gives a bit of context to the Meditations; it is called the Discourse on Method. This was Descartes's own sort of playbook in how to proceed in all investigations: scientific, mathematical, philosophical. Within Descartes's time these different subject matters were not as clearly defined as they are now.

Jim Pryor has some awesome things about the connection between the Matrix and philosophy, check it out. http://www.jimpryor.net/research/papers/matrix/plain.html and http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/epist/notes/matrix.html

Think about Descartes's concept of the 'mind.' We will being focusing in on that issue this and next week, when we read a more contemporary article discussing 'minds.'


 

[Yolanda Challenger]

In the First Meditation, Descartes found room to doubt everything that he had once believed. He is reasoning his existence, he knows that he exists, but sometimes he thinks that he is deceived by his senses. The Second Meditation clears his confusion and he comes to terms with his existence and that he is a thing, "a thinking thing".

I think that Descartes is making some sort of connection with the five senses and the wax, but what is it? "It has just been taken away from the honeycomb; it still tastes of honey and has the scent of the flowers from which the honey was gathered; its color, shape and size are plain to see; it is hard, cold and can be handled easily; if you tap it with your knuckle it makes a sound". (p 6)

What's the connection with the way the wax has changed and the senses?

[joyash22]

I think therefore I am.... Does he believe he has a body or is it in his imagination? He has started his reasoning from scratch discounting all his previous knowledge. I think that is very hard to do. We all have preconceived notions and ideas that would be so hard to ignore. He seems to believe in G-d but he puts that aside for awhile. He is skeptical about everything. His reasoning about dreaming and dream like states gives him his foundation of doubt. How can we ever be sure we are up and existing in the here and now. I'm starting to wonder about it myself!   It was interesting that it was a honeycomb that brought him to a revelation. 

[Sol]

I heard a saying once (maybe in a movie) that without doubt there is no faith. I think that Descartes doubts is actually strengthening his faith. He isn't discrediting what he believes. He even states "My old familiar opinions keep coming  back, and against my will they capture my belief. It is as though they had a right to a place in my belief system as a result of long occupation and the law of custom." He is somehow connecting his reasoning with his faith and trying to find oneness with his senses and his beliefs. Finding a medium between what is tangible and what is unseen. Maybe someones reasoning can only take you so far and your belief-system can take you a bit further than what the eye can see. He is trying to find a reasoning for his belief-system.

[Soon M. Seo]

Soon M. Seo_Rene Descartes
“So what remains true? Perhaps just the one fact that nothing is certain!”(Descartes 4)
I used to think and discuss about that kind of questions a lot when I was younger. I had always asked myself and tried to find answers. I was sick of asking meaningless questions again and again because including myself and God, no one has the answer. I needed a closure anyway. First of all, the answer I found is there is no answer. More properly I’d say, there is no Fixed truth. Descartes’s thoughts remind me the subjects that do not have a conclusion and is good to talk about for killing time. However I somewhat agree with him. There certainly is no certainty. The only truth of truth is truth changes. Do we need to think about this endless issue? Do we need to know and understand the truth we think right? Yes and no. The choices we made construct another truth and we move on. Sometimes the false with full of belief becomes truth. What is truth? What is certainty? What is moral? What is wrong or right? Can we absolutely define those matters above without circumstances and conditions? Never can we. Everyone has one’s own truth. Is that real? Yes and no.

[imusicea92]

What I found most interesting about the reading was that the entire basis for Meditations is to eliminate doubt in order to reinforce  beliefs; and this to me is an impossibility. We have beliefs because we have an instinct or a passion or choose to fight for a side without proof that we are right. If we could eliminate doubt we would find perfection. Interestingly enough the questions posed are today the same questions someone with obsessive compulsive disorder poses as they try to eliminate doubt and it's often known as the doubting disease. This is not to infer that Descartes had any such disorder but to point out that during his time Descartes was a philosopher and today those who pose such questions are put under scrutiny and medication. In today's society there is no room for discussion, we fight for our beliefs without backing or reason and it's a shame because it shouldn't have to be one way or another. In today's world is truth individualistic because we are not open or comfortable with other options or is there any truth at all?

[ivandavenny]

"Thought!  This is the one thing that cannot be separated from me." (Second Meditation, 7)

Descartes essentially begins his discourse by dividing himself up, parceling his body and his mind into two distinct and separate packages.  His body, and the sensations perceived by it, have previously produced inaccuracies, and so he separates himself from them.  

He even divides his mind, arguing with himself, then discussing each distinct thing his mind does: doubts, understands, affirms, denies, desires, refuses, imagines, and is aware.  These last two he discounts, but if one thought is suspect, couldn't they all be suspect?  He describes the changes the wax goes through; couldn't these be similar to how his thoughts change over the course of his ponderings?  Things he took be be absolute truths, solid facts, melted away and became different forms entirely.  Just as there is no singular form to this wax, there really is no singular form to the mind either.  So why should he address his mind, his thoughts, as an "I", a singular identity or object?  He has already shown that his mind has many different forms and purposes and thoughts, why should he identify them all as a single entity?  He literally converses with himself, (whether he initially presented it that way or not, he is clearly arguing with himself on these points) and yet considers his mind to be a singular entity.  Has he considered the sources of these thoughts?  If some omnipotent demon is holding his senses at ransom, couldn't his mind also be suspect?

Or perhaps, his mind should be broken down further, each thought an independent organism, turning his mind his mind into a siphonophore, a seemingly singular organism composed of multiple, highly specialized organisms, his thoughts.  His thoughts fight for supremacy, to be in control, to right themselves at the front of his mind.  He should in fact, be suspect of each thought in turn, not because they are dependent on his senses, but because they are separate from each other.

[monise_71]

 "...even if I can't learn any truth, I shall at least do what I can do, Which is to be on my guard against accepting any falsehood,..." (first meditation)

 

We're always pursuing the truth, but who knows when the truth is really true? When can we know we finally find the truth?

Most of the time we accept for truth what we feel comfortable with or anything that meet our expectation. However, when something does not meet our expectation, we doubt it and question it until we find wthat we believe in. In my opinion, everything is a about what you believe and accept for the truth. I also think that the truth varies from one opinion to another which means there is no absolute truth the same way that a question can have many good answers. After all this is what philosophy is about: never stop thinking and ask question as often as you can. My understanding about Descartes first meditation is that our senses is not the most reliable source of knowledge but it does not mean either that they are deceptive. Nevertheless we should be able to question our beliefs. I agree that we should not accept anything as absolute truth and that nothing is certain even the uncertain.

 

Monise Sanon 

 

 

 

[dahlia4808]

Decrates in meditations one doubts everything. Doubting everything at first may be a start to help bringing things into existence and our certainties about things. If we doubt everything around us then what faith or beliefs are we going to have. We must have some doubt about certain things to be a believers. Decrates speak about our senses that something's we may know and something's we may not know. I know that I'm typing this blog post. Decrates also speaks about dreams. How do we not know we are experiencing our dreams. Is there a way to prove that what we are dreaming is not directly the same as what we are experiencing? Yes I believe we can prove this. Dreams are a figment of our imagination. That lasts for a few. We can hardly remember what we dreamt last night but your experiences we can remembered for years.

[elena.pronoza]

Reading of the Meditations #1 and #2 for the first time gave me a state of discomfort. Of course there is a deep sense in demolishing everything that established in order to build or find a real truth. And this idea of denying everything is well known for the long time. But it is definitely a painful task to put every single thing into question and doubt. At the same time I found his second meditation pretty interesting and more positive than the first one. Descartes starts to figure out that at list something is real and it is a "thought! This is the one thing that can't be separated from me...still, I am a real, existing thing...a thinking thing." At least a hope we have! So, I'm looking forward to the reading of his other meditations.

[mahbob.ali]

"if God's goodness would stop him from letting me be deceived all the time, you would expect it to stop him from allowing me to be deceived even occasionally; yet clearly I sometimes am deceived." (First Meditation, 2)

Descartes begins his first meditation by throwing away his previous conceptions of what was true. He raises the argument that how can we believe most of what we think is true if these truths are derived from our senses? If our senses have the ability to deceive us, then how do we know all we perceive with them to be true. At one point he even raises the argument of not being able to discern whether we are awake or dreaming. Descartes goes on further to question the omnipotent God. By his logic, how could something so perfect creation something so imperfect? Having no answer to that question, Descartes states that anything he once held to be true can be doubted. To prevent any further doubt he hopes to withhold judgment based on prior beliefs, no matter how true he perceived them as, and approach the acquisition of new knowledge with objectivity. I believe that by raising this skepticism in his mind, Descartes hopes to further solidify the previous beliefs he held to be so true.  

[sremac.sara]

I quite enjoyed these two meditations. Not to say that I was convinced by his arguments or revelations, but it was refreshing to read a text that brings so much into doubt and inspection that you are forced to reevaluate or at least try to better understand your beliefs. I thought that was the purpose of the first meditation, clearly an introduction, used to detach the reader from the conditioned mindset of common reality and open their minds to the possibility of unconventional thought and exploration. I agreed with a lot of the second meditation, as, towards the end, it drew on a common contemplation in my life in regards to the assumed nature and rhythm of life. Descartes says,

"If I look out of the window and see men crossing the square, as I have just done, I say that I see the men themselves, just as I say that I see the wax; yet do I see anymore than hats and coats that could conceal robots? I judge that they are men".

 I distinctly remember being in elementary school and crossing the street to get the mail from the mailbox every day. I lived on a very busy road and was very warned by my parents to be careful crossing, and so, naturally, I thought a lot about the possibility of getting hit by a car. I remember waiting for the cars to pass so I could return to my house from the mailbox and witnessing a squirrel attempt to cross the road. When it was about halfway across a car came hurling up the road. The squirrel was in its path and could sense the sudden urgency of the situation and instead of retreating or sprinting, it just froze. Miraculously the car passed over it and the squirrel avoided a very possible death that day. However, the situation got me thinking about what we expect in the rhythm of life we have all come to accept. If I see a car coming and decide that I have enough time to cross in front of it just before it passes me, then the car will assume the same thing, that I will have passed by the time they come and they do not need to slow down. However, this assumes that I am a sane person who accepts this routine and assumes that I will not stop walking. However, what is to say that I will not just freeze or reverse my steps when it appears I have passed and run into the car just as it comes to my house? The driver is making an assumption or judgement based on what he or she has come to learn is normal. 

So returning to Descarte's assertion, though he knows that men wear hats and coats and walk on the street, this is a judgement that he has come to assume is true based on societal conditioning. If he questioned all men in hats it would disrupt his life and inconvenience him, so, like all people, he makes judgements and assumptions.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

"As if I were not a man who sleeps at night and often has all the same experiences while asleep as madmen do when awake-indeed sometimes even more improbable ones."

"Often in my dreams I am convinced of just familiar events-.."

Descartes portrays the idea that our experiences are just false illusions. He says that when he sleeps, he sometimes feel like he is awake and that he is doing things he would normally do if he really was awake. He says that he dreams of sitting by the fire in his dressing-gown, meanwhile he is really asleep in his bed. He claims there is no difference or ways to distinguish waking experiences compared to asleep (dreaming) experiences. Descartes is very doubtful in himself and his ideas. He goes constantly goes back and forth arguing his ideas in a positive and negative way. In the second meditation, Descartes questions, how does one know if he/she really exists? What if the whole time, our existence was just a dream due to our senses constantly deceiving us. For example, the way we sometimes see something can be totally different what it really is, because our mind could possibly want to see that. The mind processes the images we see and than converts these images to whatever it wants it to be.

[andrewaalvarez10]

"However, someone who wants to know more than the common crowd should be ashamed to base his doubts on ordinary ways of talking."

Descartes understands that himself and everyone around him has been exposed to similar ideas that have been expressed by the general intellect of society. This means if he wants to create a new idea that he needs to take everything he knows from life experience and discard them. Well not so much discard them but any truth that these experiences have. This allows for him to think in such a way where everything is possible and impossible at the same time. This leads him into doubting his existence as a being. I think this is where his ideas become tricky and he starts to contradict himself at points. This is because he says that your senses are imperfect and are confused but the fact that he is able to perceive things is grounds for knowing he exist. This doesn't make sense to me because in doubting the perceptions that you have made with your senses then shouldn't you doubt the act of perception itself. Unless perception by itself isn't a means of intelligence but just an act of the existing. In that case, perception only does justice for yourself and not for things around you.

[rbrutusjr]

"Anyway, I sometime think that others go wrong even when they think they have the most perfect knowledge: so how do I know that I myself don't go wrong every time I as two and three or count the sides of a square?"(First Meditation)

I find this quote to be very interesting and made me think about what was said. In this area of the reading, Descartes raises the idea that even the most obvious concepts to us can must be questioned. For example, Descartes brings about the point about simple arithmetic and geometry and how two plus three equals five and a square always has four sides. It is impossible to question such concepts right? However, the doubtful speaker says that he was created by a powerful god but what if the sky and everything around him is really don't exist. Following this is where the doubtful speaker raises the idea that what if two plus three really isn't five and that he is mistaken. He says that some people believe that God's goodness allows stops them from being deceived. But the doubtful speaker then says why is it that God's goodness doesn't stop you from being deceived occasionally and that he is sometimes still deceived. While I am not entirely sure if that is the meaning or what is trying to be conveyed, this is what I took from the quote.

[carroyo600]

After the first time I read Descartes Mediations 1 and 2 it was confusing and I thought Descartes was out of his mind. However after reading it a 2^nd time and highlighting certain parts the reading became clearer. In Mediations 1 and 2 Descartes wanted to question everything he knew to find out what he really is. Descartes questioned his existence and if he even had a body. Descartes doubted everything so much that he was not sure if he was awake or dreaming what he may have been doing at the moment. As Descartes went on to doubt his existence and every and anything he thought to be true he came to one conclusion that he knew cannot be questioned. Descartes came to the conclusion that he knows he exist because he can think. While Descartes at this point is not sure exactly what he is he knows he is a “thinking thing.”

[Elvira Toporova]

In Meditation One, Descartes discusses how as a child he believed many false things. Descartes asserts that those false beliefs have to be eliminated before he can obtain any true knowledge. He goes on to explain that he does not exactly have to prove his beliefs to be false, but he needs to convince himself to avoid having beliefs that are not certain. Descartes also questions God and his own existence. He wonders if God only makes it seem to him that he is on Earth and that there is a sky. He wonders if God is deceiving him in this way. To him, the accepting the possibility of deception is useful. He ponders whether the "sky, air, earth, color, shape, sound and other external things are just dreamed illusions" He suggests that he doesn't have his senses, he has no eyes, ears, or anything, that they are just false beliefs of his.
In Meditation Two, Descartes begins to have doubtful thoughts that he can not ignore. Everything he sees is unreal, and he considers the possibility that the only truth is that nothing is certain. He tries to figure out what he "is." He answers himself by saying he is a "man, of course," he then questions what a man actually is. He couldn't say man was an animal, because then he would have to question what an animal was. Descartes now knows he exists, but only as a thinking thing, and not as a body. Descartes believes that a person is made up of two separate and distinct kinds of substance — material substance and thinking substance.

[rebecca.s]

I rather like the breakdown and separation of mind and senses within the example of the wax. First he observes the wax: he describes its physical characteristics. However, he then holds it by the fire and the wax takes on a whole new set of characteristics. At first he uses this as an example of how senses fail to describe the true characteristics, or essence, or truth about a thing. However, there are a secondary set of observations he makes regarding the wax without the use of any of his bodily senses. He understands, with his mind, the wax to be a fluid and changing thing while still maintaining that it is still one thing. "But is it still the same wax? Of course it is; no-one denies this." His mind, the only part of him that he has rediscovered to be truly existent, has made an observation about the wax that his physical senses would have independently been unable to discern. This therefor lends some permanence to the existence of the wax, because his mind was able to discover a true characteristic of the substance (the fact that it is a thing that changes physically yet remains the same essential thing).

[Kateryna Panasyuk]

I read 1 and 2 Meditation quite few times. In English( it is my second language) he seemed insane to me, but after reading in my native language I understood why Descartes has all these confusing questions in his mind. First of all he is mathematician and he needs proofs and understanding of everything what is going on around him, and himself of course.

I loved the 1st Meditation for the idea of separation of mind, senses and emotions. The 2nd Meditation is weird to me because I don't think that it is the proof of his own existence just because he can see, feel and describe wax. Maybe I didn't get it because it is not a good example with wax to me. And after reading the 2nd meditation there is still a question who is he? - the thing that can see, feel and describe some subject?

[krystalgonzalez.28]

When I first read these meditations it was a lot for me to take in.  I had to reread it a few times.  It took a lot of thought and concentration.  As I read the first meditation I felt I could relate to Descartes.  I remember having the same thoughts he did and doubting reality from a false world, or what could be a dream.  Descartes questions his existence and beliefs about the world he lives in.  He explains that he knows for sure his physical body features are real but then he questions his belief for God.  From what I read I understand that he believes in God but then again is there a God?  Hes never physically seen God.  These are all thoughts that I have asked my self and wondered about in the past.  I have found my own answers. He tries to understand this "false"world he lives in.  From my understanding he says what is true to most of us.  As a child many of us are told what to believe so we sort of grow up in a false world.  As we get older we start to think about   what was true or not.  Many people believe that if you cant see it or if there is no scientific explanation then it isn't true or real.  

I haven't chosen a quote because its hard for me to really go in debt and explain what Descartes is trying to say.  I'm still a little confused reading these meditations.

[Mateo Duque]

Here are my comments to students:

Yolanda, as a "question-post" where you are just asking an initial question of fellow student to get the discussion going this is fine. However, I want you to analyze the text a bit more closely and try to come up with an interpretation, reading. I prefer that you be "wrong" and try to defend your reasons than to play safe and not really say that much.

Joy, like Yolanda, I encourage you to push against the text. You bring up good questions. Pick one and pursue it. What is Descartes doing with God in M1 and M2?

Sol, this is the start of a good post. You pick a great quote, but you should analyze it more thoroughly. What is D's relationship to this past beliefs that keep coming back? Good/Bad? Why? What is he talking about?

Soon, D thinks he has answers, and you should try to find them. Philosophy is often characterized as anything goes, that there is no truth, no certainty. However, that is not how D sees himself and that is not how contemporary philosophers see themselves. Look for what D is saying.

Elizabeth, very nice post. Good job! One suggestion: follow through your idea, you could have tried to find symptoms of D's mental illness within the text. You don't need to list all of them. Pick out 1 or 2.

Ivan, awesome post. Ivan I like how you take an idea, a thesis, and pursues it. D concludes that he thinks he can prove his own mind exists (cogito), but he still a bit doubtful about his own body and the concept of other people having minds. Strange...

Dahlia, not a bad post. I can see that D seems to have excited you, but try to pick one thing and analyze it. Remember you don't need to say everything, you don't need to write about everything.

Monise, this is not bad but you lost D. He's only in the last few sentences and you don't say that much about his philosophy. Talking about oneself is okay, but don't do it instead of discussing the author.

Elena, this is the beginning of a good paper. You talk about discomfort and hope. Explore those. Tell me more about it. Why is D's M1 so hard to read? Did you find comfort in M2? Why? Do you think D is a good writer that makes you feel certain emotions about ideas and concepts.

Ali, this is not a bad start, but your post reads like a book report that we do when we are younger. I don't want just the facts of what D is doing, although I get that just understanding what D is up to can be hard. I urge you to think about the why and the how. Why is D writing the Meditations? Don't just tell me what he says in your own words, do a bit of interpreting. 

Sara, I really liked the beginning of your post. I think you kind of went off on a tangent with the squirrel. I sort of know what you were trying to say, and its done very artistically, almost literary, but I urge you to think more about concepts, reasons, ways of thinking. You can try to link that up with your own life and experiences, but I need to feel like the reading is not taking a back seat.

Yuliya, not bad, but try to dig deeper. Like I told Ali, don't give me a book report of what D is doing. Try to figure out and interpret what is going on. Get to the next level, don't just describe, analyze!

Andrew, nice post. I like how you pursued one idea about the senses. You accuse D of contradicting himself and go some way towards making your argument. What I want you to do next time is think of objections to your position. In this case, you would have had to think like D. So maybe have a little dialogue in your head where you go back and forth. This will help you try to understand the reading better.

Brutus, not bad, but think about going deeper into the text. Don't just follow the "plot" try to give me an interpretation.

Elvira, Christina, you're just telling me what happened in M1 and M2. I need you to analyze it. What does that mean? Judge, evaluate, weigh D's arguments and reasons. 

Rebecca, nice job. I really liked your analysis of D's wax argument. One suggestion: ask yourself, what conclusions does D draw from this? You kind of touch upon it, but you might want to elaborate.

Kateryna, I know that English is your second language--it's actually mine too--but I want you to write a bit more, and try to investigate, to question, and hypothesize what is that D is doing in the Meditations.

Krystal, I appreciate your post. You mention being confused. That is actually really good, but instead of trying to prove to me that you read the whole Meditation by giving me a book report, try to focus on one thing, one event, or idea that confused you the most and really go into it. Try to explain why it is that it confused you, and try to see if you can come up with some reasons for it, on D's behalf.

[gregorydny]

Descartees first meditation was pointless. You cant unlearn what you've learned. You can enhance or change your views but only on a few certain things. The foundation is basic but holds certain key truths that allow you to build on them. The knowledge that people gain is from trial and error not only knowledge passed on or learned in a classroom. The first meditation is probably a great play to watch and nothing more.

[AYGUL KULA]

When I was reading Descartes it was hard to understand him. Existence without a body was so confusing for me. How can we exist without a body? I always thought that mind and body are inseparable. Our mind is a part of our body and it cannot exist without it. He talks about dreams. These dreams are maybe just a game that our mind plays for us.  We can live and feel everything like real, but when we woke up we realize that was only a dream.

[Juliet Harper]

	Feb 9

hi, 

 This is my understanding of chapter 1 and 2 of Meditation.

Chapter 1 and 2 talked about him going into meditation and answering himself question of being. him trying to fine himself in dept thoughts and not putting it any longer. him thinking of being deceived by oneself. Also talked about the body, mind and spirit. his beliefs in God and science should play no part. To me he don't do anything without truly  thinking it out in meditation.

quote" I shall do this until I have something to counter - balance the weight of old opinion......" so to him he look at it as a project.

In the second meditation page 4 " let him deceive me all he can" WHO IS THE HE <HE IS TALKING ABOUT? is it GOD or the devil?   he though me of there.

the body he talks about can be anything(animals or human). Then the brain comes into play by him saying that the brain cannot do anything unless you authorize it to, He continues to say that he can still miss judge and be perceive by his mind.....

JULIET HARPER THOMAS