A.)Descartes becomes discontent with his entire education because he is still questioning things after he has reached the “ranks of the learned” (3). He believed that through education he could achieve a sound and affirmed intelligence of everything that is useful in life, but despite going through the process of “teaching myself” (3), he was still confused on certain things. “I have been nourished on letters since my childhood, and because I was convinced that by means of them one could acquire a clear and assured knowledge of everything that is useful in life, I had a tremendous desire to master them. But as soon as I Had completed this entire course of study, at the end of which one is ordinarily received into the ranks of the learned, I
…show more content…
Meaning that there is no way of doubting it, it had to be indubitable. If you do not know something entirely than you should not assume you know. That creates ignorance. The second rule of good reason is: division/analysis into components. Dividing his doubts into as many components as possible as was required in order to better resolve them. An example of how we have advanced by using almost the same kind of step is the human body. We have looked at each part and learned about them separately, to know how the parts of the body all come together. The third rule is: order of investigation/move from simple to more complex. You cannot jump in into multiplication without knowing addition, by taking smaller steps to gain knowledge on the most complex things. Descartes also says that they do not have to precede one another. The fourth rule is: completeness. To make sure that he did not overlook anything. To make sure that it is indeed indubitable. The overall meaning of the method is said on page 12, “For ultimately, the method that teaches one to follow the true order and to enumerate exactly all the circumstances of what one is seeking contains everything that gives certainty to the rules of …show more content…
Descartes describes the laws of nature as being perfect. “Moreover, I showed what the laws of nature were, and, without supporting my reasons on any other principle but the infinite perfections of God…” (24). Descartes calls them “infinite perfections of God” because of how nature’s laws are perfect even when we see them as having flaws. That they are a certain way because it is a small part of a big puzzle. He explains in the book about light, and how it ends up reflecting on earth. The rational soul is what Descartes said God put in our body that is different from all other living things. It is what enables us to reason. “For on examining the functions that could, as a consequence, be in this body, I found there precisely all those things can be in us without our thinking about them, and hence, without our soul’s contributing to them, that is to say, that part distinct from the body that of which it has been said previously that its nature is only to think. And these are all the same features in which one can say that animals lacking reason resemble us” (26). The biggest difference between us and other animals is our ability to think and reason. Descartes says that from this approach that he took, it was possible for him to see that he could arrive at a level of intelligence that could be very useful in life and that, in the spot of that “speculative philosophy”, by ways
Meaning that there is no way of doubting it, it had to be indubitable. If you do not know something entirely than you should not assume you know. That creates ignorance. The second rule of good reason is: division/analysis into components. Dividing his doubts into as many components as possible as was required in order to better resolve them. An example of how we have advanced by using almost the same kind of step is the human body. We have looked at each part and learned about them separately, to know how the parts of the body all come together. The third rule is: order of investigation/move from simple to more complex. You cannot jump in into multiplication without knowing addition, by taking smaller steps to gain knowledge on the most complex things. Descartes also says that they do not have to precede one another. The fourth rule is: completeness. To make sure that he did not overlook anything. To make sure that it is indeed indubitable. The overall meaning of the method is said on page 12, “For ultimately, the method that teaches one to follow the true order and to enumerate exactly all the circumstances of what one is seeking contains everything that gives certainty to the rules of …show more content…
Descartes describes the laws of nature as being perfect. “Moreover, I showed what the laws of nature were, and, without supporting my reasons on any other principle but the infinite perfections of God…” (24). Descartes calls them “infinite perfections of God” because of how nature’s laws are perfect even when we see them as having flaws. That they are a certain way because it is a small part of a big puzzle. He explains in the book about light, and how it ends up reflecting on earth. The rational soul is what Descartes said God put in our body that is different from all other living things. It is what enables us to reason. “For on examining the functions that could, as a consequence, be in this body, I found there precisely all those things can be in us without our thinking about them, and hence, without our soul’s contributing to them, that is to say, that part distinct from the body that of which it has been said previously that its nature is only to think. And these are all the same features in which one can say that animals lacking reason resemble us” (26). The biggest difference between us and other animals is our ability to think and reason. Descartes says that from this approach that he took, it was possible for him to see that he could arrive at a level of intelligence that could be very useful in life and that, in the spot of that “speculative philosophy”, by ways