Explain Descartes' claim that God is not responsible for our false beliefs. What is the justification for this claim and why does Descartes think he needs to defend it?
Thus far in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy he has arrived at two realities: that both he and God exist, and with those two inherent conclusions Descartes begins to wrestle with the idea of false beliefs, and, more importantly, do false beliefs come from God?
He wonders that if God is infallible, and everything in him is of God, then wouldn't Descartes be perfect as well? "It is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception is always indicative of some imperfection." (Descartes, p. 81) Though deception or trickery are often synonymous with cleverness or power, Descartes retorts that it would also be synonymous with maliciousness or weakness, neither of which God is capable. "Accordingly, deception is incompatible with God." (p. 81)
In an attempt to explain this conundrum, Descartes introduces the idea of nothingness. Nothingness is the absence of what is correct and the extreme opposite from any perfection. Descartes sees nothingness as the root of all deception and is the extremity of evil. His idea of nothingness being the lack of perfection allows for God and nothingness to coexist as two extremes. Humans fall in the middle ground between the two. We are created by a perfect entity but are simply unable to attain an infinite amount of knowledge equal to that of God. We are lacking and, thus, have the possibility of making mistakes.
However, another issue arises with this claim: how and why would an infinitely perfect being create other beings that were not? "For if it is true that the more expert the craftsman the more perfect the work he produces, what can supreme creator of all things make that is not perfect in all respects?" (p. 82) God's will is always the best way, so is it possible that error is the best way? Thus Descartes needs to defend his idea because otherwise there is doubt as to whether God is truly the source of all his ideas and ultimately perfect. He offers two different possibilities for defense against such a thought.
First, he makes the point that since we lack the infinite understanding of God then we are not capable of understanding why our ability to err could be the best option. "I know now that my nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite." (p. 83) Thus is it very plausible that God might understand something we do not. Secondly, Descartes defends by introducing the possibility that error is not evident when looking at the whole. It is possible that error is only on the individual level, the individual may "have the status of a part in the universal scheme of things." (p. 84) We are simply a small part of a bigger picture, and perhaps in the big picture individual error leads to universal perfection.
--------------
very interesting eh? thats modern philo post 3 of 10. i'm on a serious roll.
-ap.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
February 06, 2007
February 01, 2007
René Descartes: Meditation III
another short writing assignment for my Modern Philosophy class:
What is Descartes' central claim about causation and why is this claim so important to his argument in favor of God’s existence?
In Meditation III, René Descartes presents his argument for the existence of God, that is, "a supreme deity, eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and creator of all things other than himself." (Descartes, Meditation III, 73) His argument relies heavily on the concept of causation, specifically the causation of ideas, and even more specifically the idea of the all power being listed in the proceeding sentence.
Descartes' central claim concerning causation is the following: every idea must have a cause "in which there is at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality contained in the idea." (74) He argues that regardless of whether an idea is ultimately true or ultimately false, that idea undoubtedly exists in mind, and, because nothing comes from nothing, everything in existence - including an idea - must have a cause. With this logic, Descartes proceeds to explain that nothing in existence can be the product of a less perfect cause. An example Descartes uses in Meditation III concerns the creation of a stone. The cause of such a stone must have contained all the properties of the resultant stone for "how could the cause give that reality to the effect, unless it also possessed that reality?" (73) Again, nothing comes out of nothing, and, likewise, something must come from something.
This idea of causation is particularly important to Descartes' argument for the existence of God. With this logic in place, Descartes is able to deduct that the following: for there to be an idea, there must be "something else, that is the cause of the idea, that exists." (74) Because every idea must come from something, and since humans are in no way infinitely perfect we could not have been the cause of such an idea, so there must be a cause that is, in fact, infinitely perfect. The concept of causation is essential to Descartes' rationalistic conclusion that God must exist.
Descartes' central claim regarding a causation of equal or greater formal reality than its effect is key to his argument because without it he cannot explain the origin of his thoughts. If he cannot account for a causation then he must rely on "spontaneous impulse" (72) which is in no way rational. Descartes has already concluded that he exists - i think, therefore i am - but without any knowledge of causation, he must rationally conclude that he is alone in the world and that there is no other object outside of himself. Without a concept of causation he must continue to doubt the truth of all of his sensory ideas.
-ap.
What is Descartes' central claim about causation and why is this claim so important to his argument in favor of God’s existence?
In Meditation III, René Descartes presents his argument for the existence of God, that is, "a supreme deity, eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and creator of all things other than himself." (Descartes, Meditation III, 73) His argument relies heavily on the concept of causation, specifically the causation of ideas, and even more specifically the idea of the all power being listed in the proceeding sentence.
Descartes' central claim concerning causation is the following: every idea must have a cause "in which there is at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality contained in the idea." (74) He argues that regardless of whether an idea is ultimately true or ultimately false, that idea undoubtedly exists in mind, and, because nothing comes from nothing, everything in existence - including an idea - must have a cause. With this logic, Descartes proceeds to explain that nothing in existence can be the product of a less perfect cause. An example Descartes uses in Meditation III concerns the creation of a stone. The cause of such a stone must have contained all the properties of the resultant stone for "how could the cause give that reality to the effect, unless it also possessed that reality?" (73) Again, nothing comes out of nothing, and, likewise, something must come from something.
This idea of causation is particularly important to Descartes' argument for the existence of God. With this logic in place, Descartes is able to deduct that the following: for there to be an idea, there must be "something else, that is the cause of the idea, that exists." (74) Because every idea must come from something, and since humans are in no way infinitely perfect we could not have been the cause of such an idea, so there must be a cause that is, in fact, infinitely perfect. The concept of causation is essential to Descartes' rationalistic conclusion that God must exist.
Descartes' central claim regarding a causation of equal or greater formal reality than its effect is key to his argument because without it he cannot explain the origin of his thoughts. If he cannot account for a causation then he must rely on "spontaneous impulse" (72) which is in no way rational. Descartes has already concluded that he exists - i think, therefore i am - but without any knowledge of causation, he must rationally conclude that he is alone in the world and that there is no other object outside of himself. Without a concept of causation he must continue to doubt the truth of all of his sensory ideas.
-ap.
January 18, 2007
René Descartes: Discourse on Method
this is a short paper i had to do for my History of Modern Philosophy course. i figured i'd share.
Why does Descartes believe a monkey is like a machine?
In Part V of René Descartes' Discourse on Method he expresses his belief that the bodies of humans and animals alike are a beautifully complex networking of organs, nerves, arteries and veins which God himself has created. The fact that it was made by God makes it "incomparably better ordered and has within itself movements far more wondrous than any of those that can be invented by men."
However, Descartes proceeds to mention that he believes that while humans are unique and soul-driven, animals are remarkably like machines. He supports this logically as well as thoroughly. Descartes begins by explaining the following: we would not be able to differentiate a true monkey from a machine monkey if it had the exact bodily organization and shape of a real monkey. However, if the same were said for humans it would be undoubtedly false.
Descartes' first point is that machines are unable to piece words together as humans do in order to declare thoughts to others. Animals are made up of bones, nerves, muscles, and organs just as humans, however, though they have movement and actions, they cannot express themselves verbally. In the same way, a machine may be able to move about and function on its own, but it is unable to compile thoughts into speech. This separates "beasts" (as Descartes calls them) from human beings first and foremost. Humans have the capabilities of expressing their thoughts and ideas and animals do not.
One might argue that humans simply do not speak the same language as these beasts, but Descartes is quick to correct this rebuttal. He explains that machines can only perform based on the disposition of their parts and have no ability to develop new understandings and skills. He concedes that animals and machines can and do perform better than human beings in certain aspects of life. Cheetahs can run faster; fish are better swimmers; bears are stronger creatures, yet Descartes continues to mention that although they may have a margin of superiority in certain areas, "it is also very remarkable that they show none at all in many other actions." This is because they lack the ability to develop greater understanding beyond the abilities their organs allow. Likewise, machines make human life easier at times simply by being able to accomplish things better than a human could on their own. Descartes uses the example of a clock being able to "count the hours and measure time more accurately than we can with all our carefulness." However, a clock cannot learn and new skills beyond telling the time, nor can it adapt to new situations as humans can.
He wraps up his discourse in Part V by mentioning a third major difference between animals and humans, namely, the soul. Descartes declares that the human rational soul "can in no way be derived from the potentiality of matter." In this section, everything mentioned pertaining to the human body can be built up, that is, the human body is based upon matter such that an individual is able to enhance their body and their abilities. The soul carries no mass and is made of no matter, and is unlike the rest of the body in that sense. We as humans carry a God-given soul that no other species possesses, and it is important that we realize not only this, but also that an individual's soul, Descartes explains, is independent from her or his body and does not die when the body does. the soul is immortal.
In summery, according to René Descartes in part V of his Discourse on Method, animals are like machines. This is because animals do not possess the capability of expressing their thoughts verbally, nor are they capable of adopting a further understanding of life beyond that creature's body's disposition. Descartes also explains that this is because humans, unlike "beasts", were created by God with an immortal, yet intangible and formless, soul.
---------
there are 9 more of these little bundles of joy to come this semester. glorious.
-ap.
Why does Descartes believe a monkey is like a machine?
In Part V of René Descartes' Discourse on Method he expresses his belief that the bodies of humans and animals alike are a beautifully complex networking of organs, nerves, arteries and veins which God himself has created. The fact that it was made by God makes it "incomparably better ordered and has within itself movements far more wondrous than any of those that can be invented by men."
However, Descartes proceeds to mention that he believes that while humans are unique and soul-driven, animals are remarkably like machines. He supports this logically as well as thoroughly. Descartes begins by explaining the following: we would not be able to differentiate a true monkey from a machine monkey if it had the exact bodily organization and shape of a real monkey. However, if the same were said for humans it would be undoubtedly false.
Descartes' first point is that machines are unable to piece words together as humans do in order to declare thoughts to others. Animals are made up of bones, nerves, muscles, and organs just as humans, however, though they have movement and actions, they cannot express themselves verbally. In the same way, a machine may be able to move about and function on its own, but it is unable to compile thoughts into speech. This separates "beasts" (as Descartes calls them) from human beings first and foremost. Humans have the capabilities of expressing their thoughts and ideas and animals do not.
One might argue that humans simply do not speak the same language as these beasts, but Descartes is quick to correct this rebuttal. He explains that machines can only perform based on the disposition of their parts and have no ability to develop new understandings and skills. He concedes that animals and machines can and do perform better than human beings in certain aspects of life. Cheetahs can run faster; fish are better swimmers; bears are stronger creatures, yet Descartes continues to mention that although they may have a margin of superiority in certain areas, "it is also very remarkable that they show none at all in many other actions." This is because they lack the ability to develop greater understanding beyond the abilities their organs allow. Likewise, machines make human life easier at times simply by being able to accomplish things better than a human could on their own. Descartes uses the example of a clock being able to "count the hours and measure time more accurately than we can with all our carefulness." However, a clock cannot learn and new skills beyond telling the time, nor can it adapt to new situations as humans can.
He wraps up his discourse in Part V by mentioning a third major difference between animals and humans, namely, the soul. Descartes declares that the human rational soul "can in no way be derived from the potentiality of matter." In this section, everything mentioned pertaining to the human body can be built up, that is, the human body is based upon matter such that an individual is able to enhance their body and their abilities. The soul carries no mass and is made of no matter, and is unlike the rest of the body in that sense. We as humans carry a God-given soul that no other species possesses, and it is important that we realize not only this, but also that an individual's soul, Descartes explains, is independent from her or his body and does not die when the body does. the soul is immortal.
In summery, according to René Descartes in part V of his Discourse on Method, animals are like machines. This is because animals do not possess the capability of expressing their thoughts verbally, nor are they capable of adopting a further understanding of life beyond that creature's body's disposition. Descartes also explains that this is because humans, unlike "beasts", were created by God with an immortal, yet intangible and formless, soul.
---------
there are 9 more of these little bundles of joy to come this semester. glorious.
-ap.
January 14, 2007
the identity of indiscernibles
its snowing/icing/raining/sleeting/nasty outside and I'm pretty much stuck at home, so excuse the multiple updates in one day. not that i don't sometimes do that already, i just have an excuse today.
i did my first reading assignment for my Theories of Knowledge and Reality class on Friday evening. yes, i was at home reading about philosophy on Friday night. feel free to make fun of me for being lame. my pathetic social life aside, the selection i was supposed to read was out of the book Metaphysics: An Anthology. really really interesting stuff. hopefully the other 700 pages or whatever continue to be equally as intriguing.
the basic question the selection proposed was whether or not two objects can be truly identical in every way. i love thinking about ridiculous and confusing and relatively meaningless questions like that to begin with, so i was hooked before i even opened the book. i was also really encouraged because the majority of the arguments mentioned in the book were the exact ones i'd mulled over in my head before even starting the selection. i actually felt smart.
in the case of this question, as well as similar ones, my gut instinct is to be skeptical of both answers. because the motivation for such a question is solely to get you to think and struggle with answers. but my initial and final answers in this case were the same: i don't believe it to be possible.
my favorite reasoning is that even if two objects were physically 100% identical, they could never be 100% identical relationally. if you have two objects, a and b, they cannot be in the same place, otherwise they would be just one object, so they must be varying distances from any object c (unless, of course, object c was on the two dimensional plane centered between the objects a and b). for example, imagine i lay the two objects on my "desk" in front of me (anyone who has seen my room knows why desk is in quotes). if i lay them side by side and pick a third object in the room, say my lamp, and were to measure each object's distance from that lamp they wouldn't be the same. (the line between the two represents the center plane between the objects.)
____lamp__________A____|____B____
object B is clearly farther from the lamp than object A, and thus, in relation to the lamp, they are different. so the only way for them to be entirely identical relationally would be if 1) they were the only two objects in the universe or 2) if everything that happened on one side of the center plane was perfectly mirrored on the opposite side, so if a banana was to the left of A then an identical banana would have to be the same distance away to the right of B. but since neither situation exists then it is not possible.
but even if, lets say, they did exist, neither of those are even possible. both for weird strange reasons, but for reasons that make sense.
reason 1 (or the "only two items in the universe" theory): lets say the universe really does only exist of these two floating objects. first of all we could never label them "object A" and "object B" because then the labeler has made a distinction between them and, therefore, they aren't identical. the one on the observer's left is A and the one on the observer's right is B, that is a difference already. also, they could never been viewed at all. because the moment i see the two objects, then i am in the universe as well and the two are now are different relationally from me.
now you might say "well sure ap. but what if you're on the center plane?" well, my friend, that would mean that my entire left side would be identical to my right side. i would be ambidextrus, yes, but more importantly to this post, one side of my body would be mirrored to the other. thus, two hearts and two stomachs or two livers and two gall bladders (depending on which side of me was mirrored). that just doesn't make sense, nor would that work.
but even if we were biologically symmetrical and could view these two objects without screwing up the whole universe, we wouldn't ever be allowed to close our eyes or divert our sight from the objects ever. because once we did that there would be know way of knowing which object was which when you came back to look at it. A and B could've switched, and without knowing which object is which there can be no comparison.
reason 2 (or the "hugely infinite mirror between the objects" theory): the only way this would work is if the objects on the A side had no knowledge of the objects on the B side and vice versa. otherwise you could say that relationally object B is farther from any object c on the object A side, and vice versa.
assuming that to be the case, the objects would never be able to cross the center plane. once they started leaving one side they would start appearing on the other side. there would be morphing and overlapping and all sorts of of wack going on. but even if both of those scenarios were true, then you have two different universes both without the knowledge of the other and with no connection with the other. so how can anyone ever know that there are two objects in the first place? without the knowledge of the other object there can be no comparison.
and besides. even with all these ridiculous assumptions and scenarios, we live in a universe that is not the ones listed above, so whatever. let me know your thoughts.
-ap.
i did my first reading assignment for my Theories of Knowledge and Reality class on Friday evening. yes, i was at home reading about philosophy on Friday night. feel free to make fun of me for being lame. my pathetic social life aside, the selection i was supposed to read was out of the book Metaphysics: An Anthology. really really interesting stuff. hopefully the other 700 pages or whatever continue to be equally as intriguing.
the basic question the selection proposed was whether or not two objects can be truly identical in every way. i love thinking about ridiculous and confusing and relatively meaningless questions like that to begin with, so i was hooked before i even opened the book. i was also really encouraged because the majority of the arguments mentioned in the book were the exact ones i'd mulled over in my head before even starting the selection. i actually felt smart.
in the case of this question, as well as similar ones, my gut instinct is to be skeptical of both answers. because the motivation for such a question is solely to get you to think and struggle with answers. but my initial and final answers in this case were the same: i don't believe it to be possible.
my favorite reasoning is that even if two objects were physically 100% identical, they could never be 100% identical relationally. if you have two objects, a and b, they cannot be in the same place, otherwise they would be just one object, so they must be varying distances from any object c (unless, of course, object c was on the two dimensional plane centered between the objects a and b). for example, imagine i lay the two objects on my "desk" in front of me (anyone who has seen my room knows why desk is in quotes). if i lay them side by side and pick a third object in the room, say my lamp, and were to measure each object's distance from that lamp they wouldn't be the same. (the line between the two represents the center plane between the objects.)
____lamp__________A____|____B____
object B is clearly farther from the lamp than object A, and thus, in relation to the lamp, they are different. so the only way for them to be entirely identical relationally would be if 1) they were the only two objects in the universe or 2) if everything that happened on one side of the center plane was perfectly mirrored on the opposite side, so if a banana was to the left of A then an identical banana would have to be the same distance away to the right of B. but since neither situation exists then it is not possible.
but even if, lets say, they did exist, neither of those are even possible. both for weird strange reasons, but for reasons that make sense.
reason 1 (or the "only two items in the universe" theory): lets say the universe really does only exist of these two floating objects. first of all we could never label them "object A" and "object B" because then the labeler has made a distinction between them and, therefore, they aren't identical. the one on the observer's left is A and the one on the observer's right is B, that is a difference already. also, they could never been viewed at all. because the moment i see the two objects, then i am in the universe as well and the two are now are different relationally from me.
now you might say "well sure ap. but what if you're on the center plane?" well, my friend, that would mean that my entire left side would be identical to my right side. i would be ambidextrus, yes, but more importantly to this post, one side of my body would be mirrored to the other. thus, two hearts and two stomachs or two livers and two gall bladders (depending on which side of me was mirrored). that just doesn't make sense, nor would that work.
but even if we were biologically symmetrical and could view these two objects without screwing up the whole universe, we wouldn't ever be allowed to close our eyes or divert our sight from the objects ever. because once we did that there would be know way of knowing which object was which when you came back to look at it. A and B could've switched, and without knowing which object is which there can be no comparison.
reason 2 (or the "hugely infinite mirror between the objects" theory): the only way this would work is if the objects on the A side had no knowledge of the objects on the B side and vice versa. otherwise you could say that relationally object B is farther from any object c on the object A side, and vice versa.
assuming that to be the case, the objects would never be able to cross the center plane. once they started leaving one side they would start appearing on the other side. there would be morphing and overlapping and all sorts of of wack going on. but even if both of those scenarios were true, then you have two different universes both without the knowledge of the other and with no connection with the other. so how can anyone ever know that there are two objects in the first place? without the knowledge of the other object there can be no comparison.
and besides. even with all these ridiculous assumptions and scenarios, we live in a universe that is not the ones listed above, so whatever. let me know your thoughts.
-ap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)