Philosophy Exam 2 (Set 2) Med. 2

Front 1

What's the purpose of the meditations? What's Descartes trying to do?

Back 1

He looks at his beliefs and questions if they are true. He's looking for criterion to see if his beliefs are true. Looking for a solid belief that has to be true and then he wants to see if it is true.

Front 2

What does Descartes do in the first meditation?

Back 2

He gets rid of a posteriori and a priori premises. The fact that a priori premises are swept away is problematic. I could be dreaming. The evil demon could be tricking me.

Front 3

What does Descartes do in the second meditation?

Back 3

In the second we revisit all the ideas and see if we really have to get rid of everything. In Med. 2 there's the quest for the Archimedian point. Archemedes said if I could find a certain point and I had a lever then I could move the whole world. Descartes says the same thing. HE says if I've done this and I can find one point, I can build up all my beliefs again. He wants to see if he can do this.

Front 4

What does Archemedies think?

Back 4

Archemedes said if I could find a certain point and I had a lever then I could move the whole world.

Front 5

Based off of Archemedies ideas what does Descartes think he can do?

Back 5

Descartes says the same thing. HE says if I've done this and I can find one point, I can build up all my beliefs again. He wants to see if he can do this.

Front 6

Cogito

Back 6

I think therefore I am.
Knowing he's a thinking thing is that which Descartes cannot doubt.

Front 7

What is the point that Descartes finds that allows him to build back his beliefs?

Back 7

Cogito. As far as he's concerned at this point the fact that I'm here doesn't mean I'm real even if I can feel it that's not going to prove it because that's sensory experience.

Front 8

Cogito argument P1

Back 8

P1. IF I can think about a proposition-regardless of whether it is true or false, then I necessarily must exist. (The possibility of considering whether or not it's true/false that I have a hand: shows that he must necessarily exist.)

Front 9

Cogito Argument P2

Back 9

I can consider propositions, regardless of their truth or falsity. (But assume that there's an evil demon the third premise addresses the problem of the evil demon.)

Front 10

Cogito Argument P3.

Back 10

And the possibility of there being an evil demon does not jepordize my existence in that my existence as a thinking thing is a necessary condition for being tricked by an evil demon.
(IF you think about it, how can an evil demon trick you if you don't exist? IF you don't exist, there's nothing for the demon to trick. Even if I don't have a body, because I think means I exist. Unliving things don't think. To think you must exist. Doesn't matter whether or not there is an evil demon.)

Front 11

Cogito argument Conclusion. What type of existence does he have proved at this point?

Back 11

Therefore, I must exist. He has proved his existence as pure intellect.

Front 12

What is the Archemedian point?

Back 12

I think, therefore I exist.

Front 13

Who is the I that Descartes has proved in the second meditation?

Back 13

It is a thinking thing. He's a mind. It's pure intellect.

Front 14

Cogito ergo sum clearly translated.

Back 14

I think therefore I am.
He says, I am I exist. When he says it I is really the mind so people like to say I think therefore I am because this makes it clearer.

Front 15

Literal translation of cogito ergo sum

Back 15

I am, I exist.

Front 16

Why does the I refer to pure intellect?

Back 16

I has nothing to do with senses/imagination. Rather it is associated with pure intellect/mind. We know the I can't be related to the senses because he has thrown that out. It cannot be related to the imagination because that is throen out. He doesn't know that the body exists yet. He thinks the body is required for imagination but we don't know if the body exists. SO he thinks of himself as pure intellect.

Front 17

Rationalists believe you are born

Back 17

with certain innate iddeas. Certain ideas/foundational concepts that everyone has.

Front 18

Empiricists believe you are born

Back 18

a blank slate. You arrive and get ideas through your experiences.

Front 19

Wax example generic description and what does it prove about innate ideas?

Back 19

Wax is something that has a scent and looks a certain way that's how we recognize it as wax. But I put it in front of the fire and the scent changes and the form changes but NOBODY who sees it would say that this wax wasn't the same piece of wax. Nobody will say "No, that's not the wax". If we just based our conclusions on our senses we wouldn't say the wax was the same because it doesn't look the same, smell the same, feel the same. Since we all say it's the same piece of wax and we all say it exists we must have something else which leads us to the conclusion. We must have an innate idea.

Front 20

Wax example P1

Back 20

Under condition C this wax has certain sensible properties @ time 1. (This lays out the sense of the properties we can sense of the wax right out of the honeycomb.)

Front 21

Wax example P2

Back 21

Under an alternate set of conditions (when we introduce the wax to the fire) what I take to be the same wax has entirely different sensible properties at time 2. (under new conditions there are new sensible properties. Becomes hot, no more sound when you rap on it).

Front 22

Wax example P3

Back 22

IF the only way I can conceive of wax is through its sensible properties then there must be 2 different objects at time 1 and time 2.
(but we all know this isn't what we believe).

Front 23

Wax example P4

Back 23

However, I can conceive of the object in another manner, that is by using my intellect.
(instead of my senses, Alternative to the senses not just by looking at it we can use pure thought.)

Front 24

Wax example P5

Back 24

The idea of the object I conceive of with my intellect is clear and distinct in a way that my ideas from my senses are not.
(HE uses the fact that we all say at time 1 and time 2 that it is the same wax to say there's something in my pure intellect that is more clear and distinct . The intellect can offer far more clear and distinct ideas.)

Front 25

Wax example P6

Back 25

Through clear and distinct reflection, I can conceive of the object as essentially extended.
(Essentially occupying soace and taking up space. The fact that it's not taking up the same space doesn't matter. We simply view the way something takes up space)

Front 26

Wax example P7.

Back 26

This idea cannot have come from the senses since the senses can only relate finite particulars and my idea of the wax as a physical object contains more content than sensible experience can account for.
(We know that he's already written off the senses, Part 2 of P7 says that you could never have enough experience to say that you could say the wax was the same thing. All triangles have 3 sides. What if you had to rely on your experience to get to this. You'd have to go out and keep experiencing them. There's too much content. You can never go out and experience all of these. You could never gather enough evidence to say 2+3=5. IT's something innate that we are born with there's alot of things experience cannot account for).

Front 27

Wax example C1.

Back 27

The intellect and its clear and distinct ideas is the true guide to the nature of things.
(you really wanna know what the ball of wax is you can't look to your senses you learn through your intellect. Through clear and distinct experiences).

Front 28

Wax example C2.

Back 28

My idea of extension must be innate.
(didn't come from the senses. This is pure intellect. Seemingly you don't have enough evidence to say that we have the same wax there).