MEDITATION ONE 

• Descartes employs the method of doubt and aims to eliminate error from his system of beliefs to establish certain and enduring knowledge.
• To do this he must destroy all his previous opinions by rejecting any that have the slightest grounds for doubt.
• He does not go through each belief individually as this would take too long, but destroys the ‘principles’ of his basic beliefs so that the rest will collapse of their own accord.
• Whatever beliefs survive must be indubitable, creating the foundations upon which to build human knowledge anew, free from error.
I have doubt that doubting everything is an efficient way to uncover ‘truths’. I do not believe that it is possible to live a life of scepticism, if Descartes does all he says and refutes all that cannot be proven with certainty, he has no starting point and therefore will find it hard to get anywhere, he states ‘I must avoid believing things that are not entirely certain and indubitable’

Words? – and cartesianism
Assessing our beliefs one by one could never be completed anyway

Descartes doubts the senses – because his senses have deceived him, he cannot entirely trust them. He completely undermines empiricism and the view that knowledge comes from sense experience. This is the first of his three main sceptical arguments in this meditation. He considers how he can possibly know that he is not dreaming, he argues that when he is dreaming he often is in a similar situation to that he describes himself to be in – sitting besides the fire in his dressing gown. He suggests that perhaps his senses deceive him – they are therefore not a reliable source of evidence. Perhaps his senses do not ‘deceive’ him – rather he misinterprets them due to an altered state of consciousness. It seems that it is not human senses that are to be mistrusted, but initiative.

Others views on this (from text book)

However, the subject of dreams must be taken from real life, this would imply the existence of, for example, matter, space and time. Surely the truths of maths and geometry remain constant whether asleep or awake, hence must exist. He argues that Physics, Astronomy and medicine can be doubted, as their theories are reliant upon other theories – which could lead to an infinite regress. He claims that ‘two and three added together always make five and a square never has more than four sides’. The definition of a square is ‘a geometrical object with four right angles and four equal sides’. If a shape had more than four sides it would not be a square, there is no question of this – man made up the definition and gave the concept of a square its bounds. The proposition that two and three makes five is also dependant on the meaning of the numbers – also, not everything is certain in arithmetic’s, which (like physics, astronomy, medicine etc.) relies upon everything ‘fitting’ and ‘working’ together, for example zero is a very troublesome number; some mathematicians claim that they can even prove 2=0.
- Descartes recalls that he had previously believed in the existence of an omnipotent being – God, who would be capable of deceiving him about anything. If such a being does exist, he would be able to deceive Descartes about the existence of the world and his judgements on maths and geometry. Descartes prior perception of God was that off an omni benevolent force, deception would be inconsistent with his goodness. Descartes suggests that this deceiver is instead likened to an ‘evil demon’. If Descartes can defeat this doubt in the existence of everything then he will have discovered indubitable knowledge.
Descartes readily accepts that there is a kind of god – whether good or bad, upon absolutely no evidence. He should not feel the need to ‘suppose’ that there is an evil demon deceiving him. Surely he is overlooking his original claims to ‘apply (himself) seriously and freely to the destruction of all (his) former opinions’ and all the ‘insecure principles’ that he can doubt. This is some evidence to support my theory that Descartes method of Scepticism depends upon theory – in this case it is that we are all being deceived by an ‘evil demon’. This indicates that he cannot keep his habitual opinions entirely from his mind.
Critics complain that the evil demon hypothesis is empty as if the demon is so cunning that its trickery is undetectable then all vain attempts to find ‘truths’ must grind to a halt.

MEDITATION TWO
- Descartes pushes his doubts further by suggesting that if the world may not exist, it is possible that he does not exist either.
However, purely because he can doubt his existence he must exist in some form ‘cogito ergo sum’. Thus, whenever he conceives the proposition ‘I think, therefore I am’ at that moment it is certain to be true.
The following criticisms have surfaced:
- ‘cogito ergo sum’ is a deceptively simple claim. ‘cogito’ could be an inference – the move that we make when reasoning from premise onto conclusion. However the conclusion is not fully supported by the premise because it concludes more than can legitimately be inferred by the information given. As suggestion of a more complete version of this argument is ‘I am thinking. To think I must exist. Therefore I exist’.
- By use of ‘I’ in ‘I think’ Descartes suggests the existence of himself at the outset. George Lichtenberg argued that to say ‘cogito’ is too much – ‘’It thinks’, we really ought to say, just as we say ‘it thunders’.’
- Is this argument simply informing us about the meaning of terms and the relationship between them and nothing about what does or does not exist. They tell us about our concepts and not about reality. However, the cogito is not really a truth about concepts, but a truth about the person conceiving the concepts.
- Possibility that it is a transcendental argument –it transcends human experience of phenomena but is within a realm of knowledge. Kant argued that certain things must be true in order for doubt to exist, the preconditions of doubt. Just as one cannot doubt that one doubts, one cannot doubt that one is thinking. It is the very act of thinking which makes it true.
- However, the evil demon may have created Descartes a second ago with a full set of false memories and so Descartes cannot rely on his memory over even the shortest period of time.
- Descartes could be seen to claim that he is aware of the self, which is the subject of all his experiences. Wittgenstein argues that there is no such thing as the subject of experiences. ‘The subject does not belong to the world, rather is a limit of the world. Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be found?’
- Hume famously argues that he has no consciousness of himself – ‘when I enter most intimately into what I call myself I always stumble on some particular perception or other, heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the but the perception’.
- Similarly, Bertrand Russell argues ‘When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not ‘I am seeing a brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not ‘I am seeing a brown colour’; but rather –a brown colour is being seen’.
- Some express concern that Descartes could become trapped by Solipsism – the belief that only ‘me and the contents of my mind’ exist.
The issue becomes discovering exactly what he is, and he considers the possible ‘modes’ of existence in relation to his consciousness. Descartes argues that he has an intellect that enables him to reason. He also has a will that allows him to make choices and decide what to think and believe. On top of this, he states that he has an imagination that has the ability to picture physical things. Finally he establishes that he must have sensations – the awareness of experiences through his sense organs.
- Descartes begins to focus on the way material things appear to his mind. He uses his perception of a piece of wax as an example. He observes that the wax has various characteristics, a series of perceptible qualities such as colour, smell, size and shape. However, when the wax changes state, for example under heat, these qualities seem to change – it becomes a different colour, acquires a different smell, expands… None of the original qualities by which he perceived the wax are present, yet it is the same piece of wax. Therefore, he reasons, that the senses cannot be what perceives the wax.
Descartes dismisses the possibility that his imagination perceives the wax, on the grounds that his idea of the wax includes the understanding that the changes it could undergo are infinite, and he is he is unable to imagine all the possible states of the wax.
This leaves only the possibility of his intellect as what perceives the wax. Descartes claims that his intellect recognises the essence of the wax by ‘intuition’ or a purely mental inspection. The mind judges it to be in essence something extended in space.
He draws an analogy of his perception of the wax with his perception of people in the street wearing hats and coats. As he cannot see the people, he argues that he cannot know that they are not just automatic machines – his mind makes a judgement that they are not. In the same way, his senses only perceive the outer appearance of the wax, while the mind judges that the essence of the wax exists beneath.
Descartes concludes stating that he now knows himself better – while he can doubt the existence of the wax, his own existence is certain as he must exist to have a perception of the wax.
- Critics point out that Descartes should not have ignored the properties of wax that it is ‘extended, flexible and malleable’ when he considers its characteristics.
…finish notes on wax

MEDITATION 3
All ideas have a cause. The cause must either be inside me, or something else. Infinity and perfection are not inside me, so the idea of an infinite and perfect god must have come from outside me, so god must exist.
- Descartes ponders what it was about the cogito that allowed him to know it with absolute certainty.
- Light of reason.
- The Trademark Argument:
1. I know that ideas exist in my mind, but I don’t know whether what they represent really exists outside of my mind.
2. I am lead to think that my idea’s of material things represent real physical things, and this judgement is made by a ‘blind and rash impulse; not by the light of reason’.
3. So can I prove that there is anything outside of my mind?
4. Yes. My ideas have degrees of ‘objective reality’, that is to say, what they represent can be thought of as being more or less ‘perfect’. For example, my idea of a mode is less perfect than my idea of a substance, which in turn is less perfect than my idea of a substance, which in turn is less perfect than my idea of God.
5. ‘(T)here must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect.’ In other words, any effect cannot be greater than what caused it: it cannot be more ‘perfect’ or contain more ‘reality’ than its effect – Descartes ‘causal principle’.
6. It follows that since our ideas come from somewhere and so must be caused by something, their causes must contain at least as much reality or perfection as the ideas themselves.
7. So if I cannot be the cause of one of my ideas, then I shall know that there must be something other than me in the world.
8. Now I could well be the cause of my idea of physical substances (e.g. a goat, a rock or a tree) since I am myself a substance (i.e. a thinking substance). I may not be aware that I am the origin of such ideas, but then it is quite possible that perceptions come from some unknown part of me. So I cannot prove that physical things really exist outside my mind.
9. But what of God? My idea of God is that of an ‘infinite substance’ with ‘great attributes’. Since I am only a finite substance(which I must be because I make mistakes), I am not sufficiently perfect to create this idea myself. So I cannot be the cause of my idea of God.
10. Since the cause of my idea of God must be at least as perfect as the idea, the only thing that can be the cause of God is God himself. And so it follows that God exists.
Criticisms
We have an idea that there could be such a thing as infinity and perfection from our own experiences, and we can attribute this to god, although it may be arguable what the words indicate. Some people might argue that a rose is perfect and Descartes argues that the wax is infinite – these are simply words implying greatness beyond imagination. Seeing as we are so shaky in our multiple conceptions of god, it seems man does not fully understand the characteristics he ascribes. Just as man (collectively) has a very shaky and inconsistent idea of god, his use of this words – which themselves suggest something beyond the confines of mans imagination, is similarly uncertain.
Finish notes…
MEDITATION 4
God is no demon; so long as he proceeds with great care in his investigations he should avoid making any more mistakes. As god would not deceive him, Descartes concludes that the reason he has gone wrong in the past has been because he has allowed himself to rush to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

MEDITATION 5
Descartes resolves to find out whether any certain judgements can be made regarding material objects; to do this he begins by analysing his ideas of material objects.
He suggests that extension in three dimensions, motion, duration, number etc. Can be clearly and distinctly understood and seem to be innate, arguing that even if such qualities do not exist outside of his thought they have ‘true and immutable nature’ which is unchangeable and eternal.
These geometric properties cannot derive from sensation, they are therefore knowable a priori, and as they are clear and distinct, must be true; they are ‘something and not a mere nothing’. He does not however claim, at this stage, the existence of matter.
The Ontological Argument
This is Descartes second argument (Trademark Argument) for the existence of God. He aims to derive the existence of God from… just as he feels he is able to do with geometrical shapes.
However, it is part if the essence of a triangle that it must have three sides, but this doesn’t tell him anything about whether a triangle actually exists anywhere outside of my mind.
Premise 1. I have an idea of God, that is to say, an idea of a perfect being. Premise 2. A perfect being must have all perfections. Premise 3. Existence is a perfection Conclusion God exists
Gaunilo objects, arguing we could prove the exeistence of a perfect anything, using this form of reasoning – He give’s the example of a perfect island:
Premise 1. I have an idea of a perfect island Premise 2. A perfect island must have all perfections Premise 3. Existence is a perfection Conclusion The perfect island exists
The argument seems very subjective, as it is dependent on having a clear idea of god. It is plausible to argue that the idea of god is vague and without a ‘true and immutable nature’ however, if Descartes experiences otherwise, it is difficult to object.
-However, if not everyone feels that they have a clear idea of god how could Descartes doubt it if it is so clear? I see nothing to persuade me that he does have a clear idea of god.
-Is god a priori – he was told about god, by some other authority.
Kant argues that it is wrong to think of existence as a property or predicate of an individual. By treating existence this way, Descartes is able to argue that existence must be one of the properties or perfections a perfect being would have to have.
Existence cannot be a property that some tings don’t have, because if they don’t exist then they don’t have any properties at all. If existence cannot be a property that things can lack, then it cannot be a property that they have either.
Caterus argues that even if we grant that ‘God exists’ is analytic (true by definition) all that follows is that the concept of existence is contained within the concept of God. It is one thoing to talk about the definition of terms such as ‘God’ and another to talk about what exists in the world, but we cant legitimately move in an argument about one to the other.
The idea that is more ‘perfect’ to exist, has also been disputed – it certainly does not seem to be knowable clearly and distinctly.
Descartes does not consider that idea that there may be other potential gods outside of the one he previously chose to believe in. He assumes that the only god possible is the one he already has an idea of – so he never really lets go of this.

The Cartesian Circle
The existence of a non-deceiving creator can only be established with certainty of we can trust our clear and distinct perception of the Trademark/ontological argument in the first place. So, I need to trust my clear and distinct ideas in order to prove the existence of God; but I also need the existence of God to trust such ideas. If Descartes has committed a fallacy here, his whole enterprise must collapse and he will never be able to escape the solipsistic confines of the cogito.
- Descartes argues back to this that there are some propositions of which he can have self-evident knowledge while he is attending them and which do not need the divine guarantee.
Descartes establishes that the sense experience is caused by a world of physical objects impacting on the sense organs of his body. He goes on to discuss the nature of material reality.
He argue that imagination is inessential; if he did not have an imagination he would still be able to think and to reason and still be aware of his own existence as a conscious thing. Descartes concludes from this that the imagination must depend on some other object other than the self. He argues that perhaps his mind is able to contemplate a body to which it is joined – perhaps this is how physical objects are imagined.
Thus the imagination would consist in the mind turning towards the body and apprehending resemblances of things perceived by the senses; while the intellect would simply consist of the mind turning towards itself. While the imagination deals with images of material things, the intellect is purely intellectual, dealing with a priori truths which require no empirical output.
NB// but we a require memory to think about things – this is not stored in the ‘intellect’ this has much more to do with imagination.
WHERE do our sensations come from?
Sensations come from outside of me
Qualities such as colours and smells, rather than geometrical properties, appear to originate in sensation. He describes two features of sensation which suggests that they do not emanate from his essential nature as a thinking thing:
1. They are not subject to his will – he is unable to control their appearance.
2. Sensations are (in a sense) extended. They appear to represent things that have size and shape, but his mind is unextended. The mind is non-spatial and whatever is non-spatial cannot create something, which is spatial. So, sensations must come from outside of him.
CRITICISM: The claim that dreams are not subject to will
- Berkeley suggests that God could be the origin of our sensation. However, Descartes rejects this idea on the grounds that it would be a grave deception on God’s part to make us think that there is a material world when there isn’t.

MEDITATION 6
The relation of mind and body

MIND:
Unextended – the essence of mind is pure conciousness of thought. The intellect which performs the cogito.