Descartes: Clear And Distinct Perception

Front 1

C+D perception 1: clear

Back 1

8A,22: 45: when 'it is present and accessible to the attentive mind - just as we say that we see something clearly when it is present to the eye's gaze and stimulates us with a sufficient degree of strength and accessibility'

Front 2

C+D perception 2: distinct

Back 2

8A,22: 45: 'if, as well as being clear, it is so sharply separated from all other perceptions that it contains within itself only what is clear.'
- note: can be clear and not distinct but not vice-versa (pain is clear ≠ distinct: we tend to iamgine something residing in the painful spot resembling the sensation of pain)

Front 3

Bennett and c+d perception: error in translation

Back 3

- 'clair' (clarus) in French can mean clear or 'vivid' (in the way that light can be more/less vivid)
- 'distinct' (distinta): 'every nook and cranny of it be vivid' (so I know exactly which part of me hurts)
- distinct is closer to what we mean by clear

Front 4

Where did c+d perceptions acquire their status as providing items of knowledge?

Back 4

Med 3 (7,35): 'I am certain that I am a thinking thing. Do I not therefore also know what is required for my being certain about anything? In this first item of knowledge there is simply a c+d perception of what I am asserting; this would not be enough to make me certain of the truth of the matter if it could ever turn out that smthng that i c+d perceived with such clarity and distinctness was F'

Front 5

Argument for c+d perceptions

Back 5

- c+d perception led me to the cogito, so c+d perceptions are the source of knowledge

Front 6

Objections to c+d perceptions: Invalid inference

Back 6

- He c+d perceives cogito, which allows him to claim that anything c+d perceived is true
- by same token, if he found cogito on a Tuesday, does that mean that anything found on a Tuesday is true?
- c+d may be necessary for knowledge, but D can't claim to know that it's sufficient

Front 7

Response to objection: The strength of the cogito

Back 7

- the cogito is true because its negation is self-contradictory (by doubting one's existence, one proves it)
- surely, anyone would agree that any proposition as self-evident as the cogito is certain

Front 8

Rejoinder: the limitations of c+d perception

Back 8

- if this (self evidence) strength/degree of clarity/distinctness is necessary for knowledge, D is extremely limited in what he can establish

Front 9

D's ambitions 1: Med 5 (7,69): God

Back 9

- existence of G seems self-evident (if I wasn't overwhelmed by preconceived opinions, 'what is more self-evident that the fact that the supreme being exists, or that G, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists?'

Front 10

D's ambitions 2: Med 5 (7,71):

Back 10

- 'and now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters'
- 'concerning G himself'
- 'other things whose nature is intellectual'
- 'the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject- matter of pure mathematics (...) which have no concern with whether that object exists'

Front 11

D's limited ambitions

Back 11

- his subsequent inquiries will be limited to subjects of intellectual nature and only corporeal things he needs to prove mathematical theorems (geometrical shapes).
- this does not require him pronouncing himself on whether they exist in the outside world
- does D intend on achieving knowledge of the outside world?

Front 12

Objections to c+d perceptions: the cartesian circle (Arnauld) a): the problem

Back 12

- for c+d perceptions to yield truth, we need G as a guarantor
- but the proof of G relies on c+d perceptions (Med5: G exists because existence is part of his nature as a perfect being)
- so how can we know either of these things?

Front 13

Solution to circle (reply to objections) 1: memory defense

Back 13

- God is only needed to recall c+d perceptions held at a time previous to the present. For 1st principles (perceptions that don't require deduction), G isn't necessary
- see 1st principles ≠ knowledge

Front 14

Solution to circle (reply to objections) 2: general rule defense

Back 14

- G is only necessary for us to assert the general rule that c+d perceptions are true, not indiv assertions of c+d perception

Front 15

Solution to circle (reply to objections) 3: note on c+d/existence of God

Back 15

it isn’t our c+d perception of God as existing that puts him into existence. Rather, his existence, and its essential connection to his perfection, is what creates this c+d perception in us

Front 16

Objections to c+d perceptions: The atheist (Arnauld)

Back 16

- c+d perceives there 3 angles of a triangle are equal to 2 right angles: this assertion doesn't require existence of G
- D:

Front 17

Objections to c+d perceptions: The atheist (Arnauld) - Reply

Back 17

- Doesn't dispute that A might be awar of this (and that he might be right)
- but this doesn't constitute justified true belief: always open to doubt until he accepts existence of G

Front 18

Objections to c+d perceptions: The atheist (Arnauld) - Rejoinder

Back 18

- D has just claimed that G is only necessary for recollection of c+d perceptions (memory defense: deduction)
- so the atheist doesn't need to doubt knowledge of props of triangle
- D has also said that 1st principles aren't generally considered knowledge: atheist has no real knowledge