Discussion Questions

1. How does Descartes argue for his own existence?
2. What is his theory of knowledge, and what makes it different from a belief?
3. What are two most important questions philosophies have to demonstrate? What are the two kinds of beliefs in which Descartes distinguishes? What does Descartes say about his proofs?

These are a few notes that I have gathered from the reading...

• Descartes lived and worked in a period that had one way of thinking, and one worldview.
• Descartes deduces that truth can only be attained by the mind, as it is the only reasoning organ man possesses. He therefore proceeds to abandon any and all sensory knowledge on the grounds that our senses often deceive us.
• Descartes realizes though that, whatever else this powerful being might deceive him about, it could not deceive him into thinking he existed if he didn't. This is his first certainty - which he is thinking, therefore he exists.
• Branching off of the bullet above... I've come to realize that there can be several problems in Descartes reasoning's. First off, it is not possible to doubt everything... For instance, take Descartes claim that the senses have sometimes deceived him. How does he know they have? It seems as though, Descartes judges on the basis of other sensory experience which he takes to be accurate.... (okay, just storming)
• Descartes seems to employ the method of doubt in his search for certainty. He rejects any belief that can possibly be doubted... until he finds a belief that cannot possibly be doubted.
• My thoughts on the blog above.... To examine every single belief would be an impossible task, so it seems that Descartes instead of doing so, tries to doubt the basis for whole groups of beliefs. First he doubts the senses. (Which Galileo called, God given). Since the senses have at times deceived him in the past, the question is, how can he be so sure that they will not deceive him now? Finally, he considers the possible existence of a powerful being whose sole aim is to deceive him about everything, even the basic 'truths' of mathematics... (which will be an upcoming blog).

Branching off of more descartes....

From the certainty of Descartes expanding knowledge, it seems as though he admits to the existence of God and the reality of the physical world- which he held to be "mechanistic" and entirely "divorced" from the mind. The only connection I can see between the two is the intervention of God. Descartes, it seems, evaluates and discerns what is actually true when he divides the foundations of knowledge into three sources: the senses, reality, and context.

More Descartes

Rene Descartes, believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method contains some of his most important philosophical theories. Especially mathematical, in which he found his passion lied. He intended to extend the mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge. He seemed to discarded the authoritarian and aristotelian systems of the scholastic philosophers, which was, according to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head." This is limited to reason and understanding. Senses, imagination, will, etc. make reference to things outside the mind. (not purely mental). Rather, they link the believer and thinker to the "outside" world. Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world. Okay, carying on... Descaertes discarded that and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. Man is thus a thinking thing which you know evolved from the Descartes slogan "Cogito Ergo Sum" ---> I am, therefore I exist" You can doubt everything you want, but you cannot doubt doubting because you are thinking. Thus thinking exists! You exist!

In the method, the text is broken up into 6 parts. In the first, will be found various considerations touching the Sciences; in the second, the principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered, in the third, certain of the rules of Morals which he has deduced from this Method; in the fourth, the reasonings by which he establishes the existence of God and of the Human Soul, which are the foundations of his Metaphysic; in the fifth, the order of the Physical questions which he has investigated, and, in particular, the explication of the motion of the heart and of some other difficulties pertaining to Medicine, as also the difference between the soul of man and that of the brutes; and, in the last, what the Author believes to be required in order to greater advancement in the investigation of Nature than has yet been made, with the reasons that have induced him to write. AKA- the heart... which we are disecting on tuesday!! so pumped.. aha no pun intended.

thoughts on descartes

Rene Descartes' overall objective in the "Discourse of Method" is to develop a new system of knowledge that is free of prejudices for establishing the truth of things. Most of Descartes "things" worth discussing are in Part 4 of the book. In part 4, he explains the philosophical basing (the meditations) for establishing the new system. These "meditations" are based on rationalism: that if someone truly knows something then they could not possibly be mistaken. (Which, I agree with, because those are your thoughts) He then goes on to provide a solid argument for his ideas. He comes to term with three certainties in meditation- the existence of the mind is/as the thing that thinks, the body is/as an extension, and God is/as the supreme being. (Which reminds me at this point of Galileo, because he mentioned God and the supreme being). He came to these conclusions by doubling all he learned in his formal education, and all he received through the senses..... Again with the senses thing, much like Galileo.

The difference between religion and science

Science versus Religion is a tough topic to discuss without letting ones own views interfere. It is also a difficult topic for me to accept both sides of the case because i am not that religious to begin with, and also my major is science, and i am just known to follow my scientific roots. I am also a very visual learner and "doer." therefore, it is difficult to accept the fact there is a greater being than ourselves, when i have yet to see it first hand, as opposed to science which i have seen experiments done, as well as been a part of them. Religion, more specifically Christianity, believes that God created the world, the universe and everything in them. It believes that God takes an ever-present and very active part in this world. Science, and evolution states that over long periods of time the world changes- bit by bit, change by change, the world was created and life began.

Another very obvious factor between Darwinism and Creationism, one is primarily based on data and research and the other is based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science, that is explained by scientific methods and experiments. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. On the other opposing side, the ideas of creation is that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once (in 7 days) in the past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution.

But then I guess I have a question concerning religion... Every aspect of life in a Puritan society, way back when, revolved around religion. No matter what, they obey God. However, Puritanism reflects the notion of pre-destination. So if everything is pre-determined and whatnot, then how does life as a whole obtain any meaning what-so-ever, if technically someone is "pupeteering" your entire life? Science is about discovery, and not having a pre-determined understanding of what is going to happen... for instance Global warming. I am not quite sure what I am getting at here, I am kind of just letting the ideas flow.