Modern Philosophy

Front 1

Doubt Argument (Stage 1): Dream Argument

Back 1

a) In order to be certain that I am writing this study guide, I must be certain that I am not dreaming and that my senses are not lying.
To avoid doubt, Descartes says that b) is not true, after proving that G-d exists and G-d is not a deceiver. Since G-d is not a deceiver, G-d would not allow someone to have a fully coherent experience that does not represent the world accurately.
b) I can’t be certain that I am not dreaming.
c) I can’t be certain that I am writing this study guide.
Valid argument.

Front 2

Doubt Argument (Stage 2): Evil Demon Argument

Back 2

a) In order to be certain there is a physical world, you must be certain that there is no omnipotent deceiving G-d.
b) You cannot be certain that there is no omnipotent deceiving G-d.
c) Therefore you cannot be certain that there is a physical world.

Front 3

. Why does Descartes claim to be certain of the following claims in the Second Meditation: I think; I am a thinking thing; I seem to see a rose.

Back 3

I think: the fact that Descartes doubts leads to a certainty that he exists. Every time you reflect on your existence, you have to exist. Thought has a built in reflectiveness. In order to presuppose any doubt, you first have to assume your own thoughts. Therefore, I think.

I am a thinking thing: Descartes presupposes that thought requires a thinking substance. He also presupposes that you can have awareness of yourself as the thinking substance. Therefore, you must be that thinking substance.

I seem to see a rose: There is no deceiving g-d and I have a clear and distinct idea of a rose, so I must see a rose.

Front 4

How does Descartes prove that all his clear and distinct ideas are true?

Back 4

Descartes proves that all clear and distinct ideas are true by arguing that g-d is not a deceiver. G-d has all positive qualities, all perfections. Existence and goodness are positive qualities. Therefore if g-d exists, g-d cannot be a deceiver. If g-d cannot be a deceiver, then all my clear and distinct ideas must be true, because g-d would not give me untrue thoughts; this would be a deception

Front 5

Why might Descartes’ argument here be thought to be circular?

Back 5

This argument is circular and is referred to as the Cartesian Circle. His reason for believing clear and distinct ideas are true is because they are true by “the light of nature.” His reason for believing these ideas is that they are clearly and distinctly perceived, and the fact that they are clear and distinct lead me to believe they are true. He is presupposing that clear and distinct ideas are true in order to justify the claim that clear and distinct ideas are true.

Front 6

How does Descartes prove that a physical world exists?

Back 6

In order to be certain that there is a physical world, there must not be an omnipotent deceiving g-d. G-d has all positive qualities, all perfections. Existence and goodness are positive qualities. Therefore if g-d exists, g-d cannot be a deceiver. If g-d cannot be a deceiver, then all my clear and distinct ideas must be true, because g-d would not give me untrue thoughts; this would be a deception. Since we have a clear and distinct idea of the physical world, it must exist.

Front 7

What does Descartes’ claim that the mind and body are really distinct mean? How does he argue for this claim?

Back 7

Descartes thinks that the mind and body are separate but causally interact.

His argument:
1) The mind is essentially thinking.
2) The mind is not essentially extended.
3) The body is essentially extended.
4) The body is not essentially thinking.

If all four of these claims are true, the mind can exist without being extended and the body can exist without being thinking. Therefore, there are two realms of being: the physical world and the mental realm of the mind with causal interactions between the two realms.

Front 8

How does Descartes, at the very end of the Meditations, respond to the dream argument of the First Meditation?

Back 8

Relevant quote: “Dreams are never joined by the memory with all the other actions of life, as is the case with those actions that occur when one is awake…I should not have the least doubt regarding the truth of these things, for from the fact that G-d is no deceiver, it follows that I am in no way mistaken in these matters.”

When perception occurs in sequential order from the rest of life’s perceptions, these perceptions are clear and distinct and not a dream. Dreams are not part of memory in this way, so they can be easily differentiated. This is all true because g-d exists and is not a deceiver.

Front 9

Cartesian Circle

Back 9

Descartes goes on in the same Meditation to argue for the existence of a benevolent God, in order to defeat his skeptical argument in the first Meditation from the possibility that God be a deceiver. He then says that without his knowledge of God's existence, none of his knowledge could be certain. The argument takes this from: 1) Descartes' proof of the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions takes as a premise God's existence as a non-deceiver. 2) Descartes' proofs of God's existence presuppose the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions.

Front 10

Monism, chez Spinoza

Back 10

Monist →the view that everything is connected/unified under one substance. (to be contrasted with dualism) Spinoza is a monist in two ways:
1. In the thinking realm, there is only one substance that is thinking (God); in the physical realm, there is only one substance which is extended (God).
2. Because the thinking and extended substance are ONE.

Front 11

Why does Spinoza think that there is only one substance?

Back 11

Because substances cannot share attributes, for if they did they would have to be distinguished (and e explained) by their modes and this would not fit the definition. So if substances cannot share attributes, and they cannot be limited (for to be limited they would have be limited by another substance and this is not possible because they would have to have some attributes in common to have a causal effect on one another and this would violate the principle that they cannot share attributes) than they must be infinite. And if the substance is infinite, containing all attributes (an infinity of attributes) than there can only be one.