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.'

[Duvall Ledbetter]

"Let us suppose, then, that we are dreaming, and that all these particulars- namely, the opening of the eyes, the motion of the head, the forth - putting of the hands- are merely illusions; and even that we really possess neither an entire body nor hands such as we see. Nevertheless it must be admitted at least that the objects which appear to us in sleep are, as it were, painted representations which could not have been formed unless in the likeness of realities." (Descartes Meditation 1:6)

 Rene Descartes wants the reader to put on their thinking caps and explore outside the scope of "normal". There is an absence of human existence while Descartes portrays this imagination as a possibility of reality. Instead of just looking at one side of the page, people need to eliminate the easy portrayal of their 5 senses and establish a different approach to their views. The idea that "ordinary" prevails in critical thinking is a false statement when it comes to our perceptions. The motion of the head, the opening of the eyes and movement of the hands is what we see and feel everyday but if we think about them outside the senses there is a different view on our abilities. Although the idea of not having a physical presence is ridiculous, imagining it brings up a whole new discussion. The original twin towers standing erect over Manhattan is an image that will never be seen again in our time but what if it hadn't fell in the first place. Think about the possibility of what the victims families would be doing today had that fateful day not happen. The phrase of "what if" is very important in our thinking skills when confronted with easy story plots and pictures.  

I wonder why Descartes wants to doubt some of the most obvious attributes that humans possess. I understand he wants to expand his imagination but where did his curiosity stem from?

[sharifa.wickham]

“it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.”

I do not agree with this fully, but I also understand. No one should trust man, but it leads to Descartes questioning if we should even trust a higher being. How do we know that God is not deceiving us, and there is supposedly a separate being doing the deceit instead? Since everyone is deceived by anyone at some point in time of their life, how do we know what is true or false? Since information about life is either handed down from generation to generation, or is done scientifically with the advancement of technology, how we can be sure if our existence is real and not one big dream. I believe Descartes is making us question our existence as humans, rather than perceiving “things” because of what we've come to know from previous knowledge.

I too would like to know what led to this curiosity.

[lrwilen4]

"...I have supposed all these things to be nothing, because i have supposed all bodies to be nothing. Even if I go on supposing them to be nothing i am still something"(Meditation 2:6).
Rene Descarte is showing us how to come to the conclusion of who we are by starting from square one and working our way up. He starts by saying assume everything is nothing and then try to define yourself. Now it is so clear that our bodies actually exists and there is no way to even suppose we live in our own imaginary world. Its so crazy to see how clear things are when you start from step one. Descarte proves that even if every last object in the world didnt exists we would still be real. Descarte shows that next to nothing our bodies are something and always will be Are bodies are not a figment of imagination they are stationary and do exists. Its an idea that i have not yet thought about but when stated its like "hello everyone should have thought of that at some point in time".
Now that Descarte proved something that has a shape i wonder how do you prove something that does not have a actual shape or being? for example how would one describe emotions or thoughts? How do we know those are actual and real?
 

[arielleraoul]

"People who go in for laying down rules for others must think that they are more skillful than others; and they are at fault if they make the slightest mistake." 

I totally agree with this statement. I am constantly drilling myself about the importance of not judging others so that I won't be judged. Or if ever I find myself playing the blame game or looking at others faults more than I see my own, I have to remind myself that no one is perfect and I have as many flaws and faults as another person, so who am I to point out theirs. I once read something that said we look at others through a magnifying glass but look at ourselves through stained glass. Why is that? We set such high standards, in our book when it comes to others not realizing that we are also setting higher standards for ourselves.  

[Givan]

In the first meditation, Rene Descartes introduces the Universal Dreaming analogy which in my opinion was quite enigmatic and convoluted. In fact, after reading several times, I was still left in a state of confusion. Descartes is basically asking whether everything that he is experiencing is real or whether it is all just a dream. We all can come to one general consensus, that our dreams are so vividly real to us. Also, we all experience similar sensations in our dreams as we do in “real life.”  So the mind boggling question is whether what we are experiencing is real or are we just simply dreaming. I totally understand where Descartes is coming from. Some may perceive him as a naive man, but he does indeed make sense. In life, what determines what is real on not? Isn’t it our senses which determine what is real and what is illusive? Why is it that when we are dreaming everything seems so real and we experience the same sensations as we do in “Our Real Lives”? Is it a possibility that what we experience in our real life is just a dream?

There’s something I really don’t necessarily agree with. Descartes thinks that the understanding that’s being done by the mind isn’t being done through the body. The understanding is being done independently from the body. My question to this statement is if a part of your brain is damage couldn’t this be affecting certain functions of your mind, so don’t they both depend on each order to function efficiently?

[vgultyaeva]

I have always tried to stay away of the subject of death. Its not the matter of not breathing or heart not beating anymore but I can not imagine one not thinking or remembering.  Our minds are the only things that we can know exist and all other censes can be tricked. Just like in the reading being able to think is the only prove of ones existence all other proves as touch feel and so are created by nerve cells being activated and sending information to the brain and that brain deciding what is what. If those lines of communication are to be crossed that we could start feeling with our sense of sight and hear with our sense smell. Experiments hase been done that when human is in sensory deprivation chamber mind starts to create all new reality and it feels just as real as anything else. So what is reality?

I didn’t really understand of what he is understanding as reality?

[vgultyaeva]

Also I think that nothingness could be a good example of perfection because its free if imperfections. however, I understand that because we are thinking things that means that something exists that means that something greater that is flawless and infinite must exist as well that would perfection too. 

[Ji Yeon Park]

"how can I doubt that these hands or this whole body are mine?"

"This wouldn’t all happen with such clarity to someone asleep."

I found these two lines to be ironic and comedic. One wouldn't normally doubt that their body belongs to another, but how would you really know? Schizophrenia lets you see, and sometimes even feel, what isn't real. The concept of creating a memory is very common yet most people will not stop to even think that the fake memory is actually fake. I often get into arguments with others when we recall the same situation, but have a completely different flow of events. Therefore, how would you know if the memory or body that you 'think' belongs to you, actually does?

Dreams can also sometimes seem so realistic that one may mistake it as real memories from the past. Such as if you were to wake up and get ready for the day, but in 'reality' you're actually dreaming the events and are still in bed.

Just how much credibility can we give to our minds?

[Carmen Wang]

“So all I need, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, is to find in each of them at least some reason for doubt.” (p. 1, First Meditation)

Descartes’ project is to acquire a new set of beliefs that are true, “stable,” and “lasting” against his own false belief system, which he had built up for so many years. His method to acquire true knowledge involves a distrustful attitude and a contemplative process in setting the right foundation. To do this he attacks the original foundation for which his former beliefs were laid upon on, and provides his own reasons and reasons other people may have in doubting that it may be true. He either comes to a conclusion with certainty or he doubts and rejects it. For example, after reasoning, he concludes that science is uncertain and math is certain. If after reasoning and he does not have an answer or conclusion, such as to how God can be good if humans are deceived, he simply rejects the original opinion by turning it into a false belief until he finds further reason to confidently agree on. So to conclude, he will reject any opinion that he finds to have “some reason for doubt” because he believes that this will guard him from false beliefs. I can relate to Descartes regarding false beliefs. Whenever my old and false beliefs comes to my mind, I try my best to re-educate myself, and overcome these false beliefs by replacing them with true knowledge. When my knowledge is true, then I will be able to act accordingly to what is right.

As we can see, Descartes raised up some reasons for doubting, but what if the reason itself is false and in error? If he so doubts his opinion, he should at least provide good reasoning in order to doubt it. Maybe then he will reach to a conclusion, rather than not finding an answer.

[iriejam796]

I agree with some of the reading in this article. It tries to distinguish how the senses and the body works. I think our senses can definitely deceive us in many ways. Even if you believe in God and the bible we do question our existence at times and try to be hopeful that we are here for a reason and a purpose. In this article, I think Descartes is telling us that life is unpredictable and in the end it's the mind that controls the body. Whether we are rich, poor or indifferent we all have the same thoughts, dreams and imagination. He is also stating that mankind is doubtful but hopeful at the same time in learning what's right from wrong and true from false. He's also telling us that everything that has been researched is not proven to be true and people are more inclined to believe the simplest stuff than the more complex ones. One of his quote "Anyway I sometimes think that others go wrong even when they think they have the most knowledge." From my perspective, no one is perfect we all make mistakes and it's for us to correct them without blaming anyone. People are quick to blame the devil over God when something is not going right in their lives. In their minds they tell themselves that God will never deceive them. I think that God do have control over our lives and sometimes he wants us to make mistakes so we can learn from them. I also think that our mind controls our body so therefore we are in total control of our destiny. As the saying goes, whatever our mind conceive it will achieve. Therefore, if we tell ourselves that we are a loser then that's what we train our minds to believe.

In conclusion, I think our senses and our beliefs is what makes us who we are. After all we rely on them to get us through life. The distinction in the article between the wax and mankind gives us concrete proof of how our senses perceive what is considered to be true or false. 

[odinredd]

"I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it." (Second Meditation)

What I find interesting here is that the act of existing is an active thing. In order for something to truly know it exists then it must be able to think that it does. Whether we are someone else's dream or not we do exist somewhere, somehow. Our lives are the basic products of our senses which are interpreted by our mind. 

What controls the mind though? Maybe it is our soul-that spiritual part of us that controls the mind.

In this lay-out I simply put forth the question; "Now that we know we exist.... How do we exist?" Can there be something even more mysterious that controls the soul? Can we get so deep and past into our environmental control that it can loop back to us and control what controls the soul? Since it seems that the trajectory over what we directly control goes inward to outward from us, could it be considered a cone of control? Why would that "Cone of Control" have to stop with just the soul? We see how the cone of control can go backward into the body and mind. I wonder when we will be able to expand those limits. 

           /??\

         /Soul\

        / Mind\

       /  Body \

    /Environment\

          ???

This might have been a bit off topic. Sorry.

[Blanca]

"Some people would deny the existence of such a powerful god rather than believe everything is uncertain."

I completely agree with Descartes point of view. Many people question if there really is a God rather than question if everything we feel and everything we see is concrete. He shares his thoughts that for many years he has been certain that there is a God but is uncertain if the world around him is only visible to his eyes because God is making sure that everything appearing to him exists. If this powerful God exists, it would make sense that he would be able to do such a thing to our minds because he or she is "powerful" as Descartes described. Whenever Descartes has a doubt, his certainty decreases and vice versa. He really thinks outside the box.

Descartes states that our eyes, head, hands, and body as a whole must be real. If these things must be real, then why doubt our senses?

[jossianny(jossy)]

"This will be hard work, though, and a kind of laziness pulls me back into my old ways.Like a prisoner who dreams that he is free,starts to suspect that it is merely a dream, and wants to go on dreaming rather than waking up,so i am content to slide back into my old opinions...(1:3).

 This quote bring to mind many thoughts. But i mainly see it as when we have something we belief in our whole life, and then one day we come to find out that it is not true.We as human, or " thinking things" are full of custom believes and when somebody questions them, even if we are not certain in them, we think they are correct and anything that goes against it is false.The prisoner is us, the dream is the world we are in and everything in it, as for waking up i will see that as dying. I don't think we can come to a conclusion about our whole existence until we die because when that happens we will truly know if our beliefs were true.

I do belief we are a thinking thing but the mind cannot work by itself. i would like to know, what got Rene Descartes questioning the world and our existence? and

it does not have to be God or a "demon", don't we deceive our self ? 

   

[laquintaclark]

"Now that I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world--no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies--does it follow that I don't exist either?"
"So after thoroughly thinking the matter through I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it."

I had the toughest time connecting to this work. It was indeed a trip of sorts. I read it more than three times before these particular passages stood out and before I kind of understood what I think he may have meant. What we think and perceive with our minds view can be as we want it to be, so we must exist inorder for this to be true. The Matrix article was also interesting because what if the two worlds do exist? The way the author put it was that those living in the Matrix had it worse than those living on the outside, but they were unaware of this. Although both readings seem to be hypothetical, it's hard not to do exactly what they were written for, which is to provoke thinking in ways that you may not normally do.

If the two worlds do exist; one we see & believe we exist in and the other that is completely opposite of everything we know. Will there be a way to know which one is real and which one is not real,or is it as real as we make it?

[racquelallwood1987]

I sort of agree, It would really be unwise, to trust some one who deceived you once before.if they did you wrong before,why would you think that they won't do it once more. It's just like the saying"once a liar always a liar."
But sometimes I have mixed feeling about this saying because people are able to learn from their mistakes and change!

[tayo.ojudun]

Descartes' writing isn't an complexed as I thought it would be.  Perhaps because I had read one of his works in high school. The ongoing conversation between the hopefully and the doubtful is one that I believe many of us experience on a daily basis. at least I do. Constantly questioning things, it becomes tasking at times, but I also feel like it's somewhat important for my personal development. 

When it comes to Descartes to be honest I do not like the way how goes about dealing with it by questioning our senses. All we really have is our senses and I feel to eliminate that or scrutinize that seems like of trivial and pointless. But then he goes on to bring the senses back into play by mentioning that whatever is in our minds is based on something that we've seen in real life. 

Descartes seems extremely uncertain which is understandable since he is going about questioning everything he believes in, but it would have been nice for him to have picked a side in the end. I this way a I find my thought process to be similar to Descartes' being able to see and understand both sides of a situation, therefore in the end not being about to choose a side, which I find to be a very important tool.  

Descartes is more human than a philosopher for me. Philosophers have always been portrayed as these god like humans who have this knowledge that the masses should attempt to obtain, but could never really. No matter how hard they worked towards it because it just happens to be something that's innate within the philosopher. However, Descartes doesn't seem like that to me. He seems like he would have been a down to earth type of philosopher. Someone who is trying to work the same kinks out of life just as you are trying to. 

We really get to know Doubtful, so much so that when he starts of this meditation we don't even need a label of who's speaking. 

"...and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."

For me this sentence was the sole purpose of the meditations. Without the constant deception of our human senses there would be no need to meditate. It's not as though our senses are meant to deceive us, it is just that they do. Actually, they don't deceive us, it is just how they work. Not meant to be perfect and never will be. 

But we have to as humans constantly rely on our senses no matter the situation and no matter how much we might not want to. We constantly trust our senses even after they have failed us once or twice because it we do not trust our senses, then what can we trust? Our senses are all we really have and that it why at the start of the meditation I was a bit disturbed. I was disturbed because I believed it was silly of Descartes to question so rigorously our senses, the only thing we really have. 

Why did the hopefully voice die out in the First Meditation? 

Were these meditation done day by day? 

Cogito ergo sum 

[asiyebodur91]

First meditations-page 2
"So it seems reasonable to conclude that physics,astronomy,medicine and all other sciences dealing with things that have complex structures are doubtful;while arithmetic,geometry and other studies of the simplest and most general things-whether they really exist in nature or not-contain something certain. And indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three makes five, and a square has only four sides. It seems impossible to suspect that such obvious truths might be false."

This quote is really really interesting for me!! I want to dissect it until I believe there is no more, but in reality there might be much more that I don't see. So firstly, it seems to me that Descartes is just underestimating the mind and capacity of learning and understanding and just limiting it to the simple and general things. I feel like this is just lazy talk and N easy way out. You cannot state that something doesn't exist cause of its complexity, we may not understand it but its there. So lets say that is true, then why believe that two plus three makes five? What if thts false believe as well, something that your mind states and believes of created... What if there aren't any numbers? If he is doubting everything, including our body structure our mind, then doubting numbers and the simplest form of things is also at risk. I believe it is easier to suspect such on joys truths to be false because to me it'll be too good or too easy to understand. Anyhow I think I can go a long way with this quote, but for now this is it.

[Carmen Wang]

“I now know that even bodies are perceived not by the senses or by imagination but by the intellect alone, not through their being touched or seen but through their being understood; and this helps me to know plainly that I can perceive my own mind more easily and clearly than I can anything else.” (p.8, Second Meditation)

 

Descartes continues on to his next meditation by providing more reasons to figure out a solution. He realizes that he does exist through his senses, and that imagination is fictitious and is not true. However, he concludes that for him to realize what is true or not is not based on the senses or imagination, but the fact that he has a thinking mind to gain knowledge, understanding, and to perceive what is true and what is not. I agree that the mind does the understanding, but I also believe that the body is given the senses to help the mind to perceive and judge things correctly. For example, humans are given a brain, ears, mouth, nose, hands and eyes in order to fully function as a human being. If any one of the senses is impaired, their intellect is affected and has learning disabilities. Though one without hearing ability can still live an intellectual life through other advantages and modern technology just as one with audition. In order for the mind to learn, understand, it is perceived through the senses, mainly the ears and the eyes. Take a look in an infant’s life from its birth to a toddler to a child and to an adult. This human being had to understand through language; learning simple words to complex sentences, and build a vocabulary that helps this child to understand the name of the objects, nature, and people. Such language is gained through words written down seen by the eyes, and words heard through parents, teachings, and television through the ears. If the mind could not gain understanding through the hearing and sight of language, the ability to form such understanding as Descartes clearly wrote is nearly impossible.

 

Can a mind perceive without the knowledge gained through sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste?

[taniki0108]

"My old familiar opinions keep coming back, and against my will they capture my belief." (3)

 

I see where Descartes is going with his believes, but he will just keep going around in circles with no means to an end. There would be questions for every thought you have, every emotion you feel, every move you make and this could go on and on. For us to erase all that we know and believe in, is to dismiss life altogether and if we don't have life then we certainly don't have thoughts.  He made a great deal of sense but like he mentioned "to doubt such things I would have to liken myself to brain-damaged madmen" (1) if you try to even think the way he is doing in this piece of writing it gives you an headache.  If you don't exist then you don't have a mind and if you don't have a mind then you can't think, but he is doing a whole lot of thinking so thats telling me he exist and he his a person with means and intelligence. We would keep going back to our old ways because thats who we are and what makes us so unique.

 

When you dream it seems real but you know its not real because of some of the events that take place in your dreams.  For instance you dreamed that you are flying, but when you come to yourself you are right were you were before you started to dream.  Suppose your dream was your real life, may be it would be amazing, I don't know, sometimes I have some pretty scary dreams which make reality seems like a walk in the park. A dream is like a wish, things we want to do or things we want to have, but because of our existence its not totally available to us.

 

I believe that there is a higher power and that we as human exist among other things here on earth and because we exist we so the things we do and  possess the knowledge we do, to question the things we believe in.

 

This I did not understand - "If my mind is to get a clear understanding of its own nature, it had better not look to the imagination for it." (5)  

[Linda Chen]

Linda Chen

"Well, then, what did I think I was? A man. But what is a man? Shall I say ‘a rational animal’? No; for then I should have to ask what an animal is, and what rationality is—each  question would lead me on to other still harder ones, and this would take more time than I can spare."

It's a very difficult to determine what is matter? A body that occupy "space"? But then what is "space"?  Descartes wants to know what is happening to the mind and why we can trust it. He wants to know what makes us acknowledge that what we see or perceive is actually there. How does our "mind", and "soul" correspond to reality, or is there a reality. His questions are numerous and never ending. From saying that "I" have hands, and "I" can type may not be true. It could all be a part of our imagination.It all be a "dream". Descartes may be able to find his answer in a baby. A new born baby have to be taught about religions and how to determine what is real and what is fake. Which means that they are almost like a clean slate. How can a child know good and evil, what is acceptable and what is wrong. Children all have to be taught, and yet they all grow up to ask the same questions as Descartes.He wants us to explore the world without limitations, boundaries, and doubts. An explored life without these limitations, boundaries, doubts can open our imagination and questions about our lives. At the end of these questions, more unexplainable questions will arise.

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

I find it interesting how descartes is willing to sit down and completely rop apart his belief system and opinions. I admire that he acknowledges tbe terror thay will avcompany thr unraveling of his life views. In part one he compares his old opinions to a demon that has attempted to decieve him. But in comparing the decieved notions he has, isnt he having an illogical thought which he is trying to avoid? In part two descartes speaks a lot about the body and the wax ge "sees". I do not understand why distorts his thoughts by analyzing the flexiblity of wax. What he sees and touches is part of the body that exists. When he speaks of his existence and that he exists because he thinks, it is inevitable that what he touches and what he smells must exist too and not be a lie.

[m.inam.gul]

"Whatever i have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally i have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once"

The line that interests me the most was actually in the first page of mediation one. I was sort of confused until i came upon this line and i realized what Descartes was up too. It's so interesting that how he says one can't completely trust their senses, i mean if not your senses what else can you trust and rely on! It seems that Descartes was the first to raise the mystifying questions of how can one claim to know with certainty anything around us and am i here or am i not questions. What i find interesting is being very keen on science, him being a scientist, why didn't he take the physiological perspective of being alive and functionally present. For example, your organs functioning, your heart pumping etc. Instead he takes a cognitive approach, the famous "i think therefore i am" or cogito as he called it. This curiosity of his lead to dualism, that being the mind and body being two separate, individual entities. He laid his foundation on basically 3 steps. One was the concept of being mad, if you didn't believe in some perceptions. The second was the idea of when you dreaming and when you are actually not. He gives an example of this and describing a painting of a mermaid. The image is drawn from real experience and if not the image than the color must be real. Last was the idea of an evil demon. An analogy to this could be like the matrix, is it deceiving you? is everything fake? The question i have also pertains to the nature of the evil demon. Does he really doubt everything around him so he wont be misled by the evil demon or is that just grounds for some greater epistemology?  

[trinimjs]

First and Second Mediation

             First we must make Clair the meaning of Doubt:-This is when we have a lack of confidence even when the thought is told of considered unlikely as the dictionary puts it.  However in Rene Descartes First meditation he took into consideration all of the things that can be called into doubt, without demolishing his opinions mainly because, I believe everyone is entitle to his or her own opinion.  In doing this he is trying to show that his beliefs are false just by looking at the basics.  He first looked at the Senses, which at some point deceives us all.

            Now after being deceived and because, he was entitling to his own opinion, Hope comes to being.  There is still room for hope in all of us just as there is good and bad in all of us. It may seam crazy, but this is true ‘To doubt such things I would have to like myself to brain damaged madmen who are convinced they are kings, when really they are paupers.’  One thing Descartes was sure of is that there is a God, and that he did not doubt. He believed a demon was trying to concur his belief.

            The second meditation deals with mind and body. This is where doubt would like to take pre-eminence, but cannot in my opinion because, when a mother conceives after six weeks the brain develops and that is the first part of being a human begins (This constitute to the mind) from which the rest of the body develops, therefore it’s my conclusion that the body can not function without the mind. ‘What comes to my mind from bodies, therefore, helps me to know my min distinctly.’

[rican230]

"God would not let me be deceived like that, because he is said to be supremely good But I reply, 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 page 2 (Rene Descartes)

Descartes was trying to determine whether or not if he really existed.  He needed to do it with about doubting himself. Base on his quote Descartes believes that if God is about goodness, then  God would not let him be deceived.  I don't thing Descartes question if  God is real rather than God let people be imperfect.  He believes that doubt leads to imperfection.  Therefore, Descartes knows that religion is not going to lead him to the answer that he is look for.  whether or not if he is real.

Why must Descartes must prove himself without doubt? 

[Kevin Duffy]

"The simpler and more universal kinds include body, and extention; the shape of extended things; their quantity,size and number, the place things can be in,the time in which they can last and so on."

 

I believe Descartes is depicting that there is an infinite amount of combinations of goods that are in the world.  He goes on to question why god would decieve him if god is a good god and i think he is trying to think why things are the way they are.  I believe the quote i chose to be concrete because whether god had anything to do with them or not they are concrete.

[gulyabigela]

“For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three makes five, and a square has only four sides” (2)

I found this approach, where Descartes believes more in mere digits than in reality of his own body, as a very interesting and hypothetical. I may assume, that in such way this genius demonstrates us the impermanence of human existence as person with body and senses, against the clarity and immortality of the mathematical science, which is the product of the human minds and which develops throughout the human history.

Thus, he believes in pure mind, which can deceive him sometimes, when he will be dreaming, but which exists without doubts. As I understand, the question about deceiving is not so important. His main argument is that mind is something that exists and central, not the body, senses and the surrounding world. If the mind exists, then the person exists too. “I think, therefore I am” is a famous phrase, which also stresses the importance of the mind and thinking process for Descartes.

I do not fully understand how we can deny our own senses, even if they deceive us. Does it mean that if somebody or something is not bringing the truth, that it is not merely exist?  

[jimborat69]

It is very hard to absorb this reading. I do see the point of removing everything we know and build a nonbiased foundation. I don't think this is something that can be accomplished when you are a grown person. I do believe that all the values in life had already encrypted inside a person. No matter how you think and say that will remove the values. He tries to remove everything and it seems working but I still think that everytime he reached to a point of resolving his doubt, it is because he is bringing back what he knew before his meditation. My suggestion is to have this work is to monitor different babies in different environments and compare all notes. This is the only way to see what Renee Descartes doubted.

[kenlyv]

While reading meditation something stood out to me, when Descartes mentioned "I shall do this until I have something to counter-balance the weight of old opinion, and the distorting influence of habit no longer prevents me from judging correctly. However far I go in my distrustful attitude, no actual harm will come of it, because my project won’t affect how I •act, but only how I •go about acquiring knowledge."
Descartes is trying to convey, believe no matter how much times he's being deceive it won't change who he is nor would he forget what his motive are, which is gathering knowledge. For Descartes knowledge was the key to his unanswered questions.

[Amanda Murat]

Physics, astronomy, medicine, and all other sciences”...”are doubtful, while arithmetic, geometry and other studies of the simplest and most general things –whether they really  exist in nature or not – contain something certain and indubitable." (pg.2 pargraph 4)

Reading Meditations 1 &2 I had to go back multiple times to get a better understanding of Descartes argument. This statement he made was appealing and I found it to be very interesting .Indeed science is made up by studies and that we believe is true based on  past and presence with no real evidence that it is a fact,  sometimes new studies reveals otherwise. But when dealing with Mathematics it is a hands on experiment that only concluded one answer no matter what angle it is viewed,. This conclusion is back up with evidence and could never be doubted. Descartes attempts to start all over clearing his mind of all his thoughts and knowledge, and what to rethink everything all over again. As he is doing so he realizes that something’s will always be the same and could never be doubted.