Lucretia Field
001691599
Philosophy 1101
Paper 2
The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes examines the way in which material objects are observed through cognitive understanding through the senses and what is known about the world. In the second meditation, Descartes examines the nature of the mind and how it relates to the physical observed properties. The specific example which is used in this meditation is the example of a ball of wax which, when melted changes in all observable ways and yet is still identifiable as the same wax. The meditator reasons that since there are innumerable conditions pertaining to how it is sensed which can be met by a single object, there must be something which is inherent in the mind of the …show more content…
One of the major issues which the objector voices is that Descartes cannot identify what makes the object intellectually knowable and recognizable. “What this subject is,” the objector points out, “or what its nature is, we do not know” (271). The object cannot be separated from the imagination unless the thing which is understandable through the intellect is specifically identified. In order to understand the object as something extended, there must first be something limited by physical properties which can be extended. Moreover, when the wax or object is being contemplated, it must be conceived of as something more substantive than a void and mere absence of sense influence. The objector feels that without identifying some aspect of the object through the imagination of it as a physical thing with at least color or shape, the argument cannot be complete. Imagination, understanding, and conception of an idea, relies on the imagination through physical experience with at least one form of the object as it is known by the physical properties it appears to …show more content…
The understanding of wax was not abstracted from the accidents of the senses such as sight or sound, but instead, the notion of the wax is revealed by those accidents to be something which can be distinctly understood. Careful examination and reflection on the accidents can show that the understanding of the object must come from the intellect but is influenced by perceptions made by the mind. He then refutes the dog example by simply saying that the dog’s mind cannot be understood or conceived of as the same as a human’s mind. Descartes seems to mostly reply to this objector with ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ by claiming that the objections which are made are only made because the objector does not have an adequate understanding of the subject being
001691599
Philosophy 1101
Paper 2
The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes examines the way in which material objects are observed through cognitive understanding through the senses and what is known about the world. In the second meditation, Descartes examines the nature of the mind and how it relates to the physical observed properties. The specific example which is used in this meditation is the example of a ball of wax which, when melted changes in all observable ways and yet is still identifiable as the same wax. The meditator reasons that since there are innumerable conditions pertaining to how it is sensed which can be met by a single object, there must be something which is inherent in the mind of the …show more content…
One of the major issues which the objector voices is that Descartes cannot identify what makes the object intellectually knowable and recognizable. “What this subject is,” the objector points out, “or what its nature is, we do not know” (271). The object cannot be separated from the imagination unless the thing which is understandable through the intellect is specifically identified. In order to understand the object as something extended, there must first be something limited by physical properties which can be extended. Moreover, when the wax or object is being contemplated, it must be conceived of as something more substantive than a void and mere absence of sense influence. The objector feels that without identifying some aspect of the object through the imagination of it as a physical thing with at least color or shape, the argument cannot be complete. Imagination, understanding, and conception of an idea, relies on the imagination through physical experience with at least one form of the object as it is known by the physical properties it appears to …show more content…
The understanding of wax was not abstracted from the accidents of the senses such as sight or sound, but instead, the notion of the wax is revealed by those accidents to be something which can be distinctly understood. Careful examination and reflection on the accidents can show that the understanding of the object must come from the intellect but is influenced by perceptions made by the mind. He then refutes the dog example by simply saying that the dog’s mind cannot be understood or conceived of as the same as a human’s mind. Descartes seems to mostly reply to this objector with ‘quod erat demonstrandum’ by claiming that the objections which are made are only made because the objector does not have an adequate understanding of the subject being