Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Descartes - Meditations 1 and 2
Another online version from The Philosophical Works of Descartes (Cambridge University Press), translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane.http://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/desc/...
Here is a more recent translation by Jonathan Bennett. I think it's a little easier to read than the Veitch or Haldane, though it does contain some extraneous editorial commentary that I find a little irritating: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/autho...
How many of you have wondered at times, as I certainly have, how we know whether life is real and earnest, or whether it is really just an extended dream. Whether other people are real, or whether they are figments of my imagination. Whether, as Men In Black would have us believe, our entire universe is just a marble in a game played by some creature, whether all we know is just a clipping from the fingernail of some great being.
How do we know?
What is knowing?a (1) : to apprehend immediately with the mind or with the senses : perceive directly : have direct unambiguous cognition of
b (1) : to apprehend as being the same as something previously apprehended : recognize as being an object of perception identical with a previous object of perception : recognize as familiar
Origin of KNOW
Middle English knowen, knawen, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Old Norse knā I can, Latin gnoscere, noscere to become acquainted with, come to know, Greek gignōskein to come to know, perceive, Old Slavic znati to know, Sanskrit jānāti he knows
First Known Use: before 12th century (transitive sense 1a(1))
Excerpts from: “Know.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2014.. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.
Not that the above is an "answer" to your question.
How can we know we weren't created ten seconds ago, in the middle of whatever we're doing, with a set of false memories of past that never happened? There's no way to disprove such an idea. But you can't base any action on such an extravagant hypothesis. If all our memories are false, we have nothing to guide action, there's no basis for knowing one action is better than another. But if our memories are true, and we fail to use them to guide our action, we will hurt ourselves. So either way, we're no worse off, and probably better, assuming everything is real as it seems.
Perhaps it is also worth considering that 'to know' changes based on the language one uses. For example, Spanish has two verbs both of which translate into English as 'to know', conocer and saber. But within Spanish there is a difference between the two, one means to know a person while the other means to know information or something. (This is of course assuming I recalled my high school classes correctly...) I wonder if this is the case with Latin, and if so, which verb did Descartes use in his original work?
If "knowing" is based on the ability to perceive with the senses, one of the questions that fascinates me is why humans have the particular set of senses they do. We certainly have learned to use our tool-making skills to extend the range of those senses (e.g., eye glasses, Hubble, Curiosity, Hadron Collider, ....) and we have observed that our animal colleagues on this planet earth often have a different range of sensitivity for their senses. (Does "reality" exist beyond the range of those "senses"? "Knowing?")
Knowing has to involve remembering in some way. One remembers what one has sensed, or thought, or had implanted in one's mind by Descartes' demon. Doesn't knowledge have to remain behind when the source of that knowledge is removed?
Descartes is preoccupied with the difference between existing and 'possibly dreaming' or in some other way; being fooled. That seems to me an early stage of modern philosophical thought; and although his inquiry kicked off modern philosophy I get much more insight from reading all the authors who came after RD and added their perspective (drawing from, and pointing back to, him). For example, Martin Heidegger says that Descartes' 'flash-of-brilliance' perhaps focused too much on 'cogito' and not enough on 'sum'. Heidegger--in his book--thence proceeds to dissect what does it mean to actually live, instead of just stating that 'I live'.
How do we live?
Other philosophers, investigating phenomenology--perception--consciousness--or reality--from a variety of other angles--have their own bits of fiber to unfold and expand, using 'ergo cogito' as their starting point. Exactly how do we think? How much of it is just language? (Wittgenstein) How much of it is just our idea or our will? (Schopenhauer). You get my drift.
But whichever way they choose to wend their path--no robust philosopher, can ignore Descartes. He needs must be mentioned by everybody.
I wonder how Descartes made his living. He must have had way too much time on his hand to even think of these things.
Well, no--he actually had his hands full trying to get published; although he had enjoyed a period of peace/serenity when he was staying with Lord-somebody in England--was it David Hume? I can't recall. He unfortunately had a falling-out with him; and thereafter engaged in a writer's quarrel at a distance with the former boon friend...Descartes possessed a suspicious and insecure personality. Still, he wouldn't turn down a sous from any interested patron if it meant he could lounge about at his ease for another week or so. He was living uncomfortably in another country for a period trying to reorganize his life, his finances, and his career.
Lily wrote: "What is knowing?"That definition lacks a lot for me.
For example, using that definition, I cannot know who wrote today's New York Times editorial. I cannot know how cold the water temperature is ten feet off the rocks in front of our house. I cannot know whether the object called President Obama is a real person or a robot.
A dog thinks, but does not realize that it thinks, and does not conclude from that that it exists.
Roger wrote: "How can we know we weren't created ten seconds ago, in the middle of whatever we're doing, with a set of false memories of past that never happened? There's no way to disprove such an idea. But y..."I agree that for practical purposes we shouldn't base our every day actions on such hypotheses. But Descartes is doing a thought exercise, not a life activity. He wants to ask exactly that question, is it possible to know that we weren't created ten seconds ago with a set of false memories. He doesn't get to this point in the first two Meditations, but there's more beyond what I chose for the Interim Read (didn't want to make it too lengthy).
Feliks wrote: "Descartes is preoccupied with the difference between existing and 'possibly dreaming' or in some other way; being fooled. That seems to me an early stage of modern philosophical thought; and althou..."Nice post. Yes, Descartes has just laid a preliminary foundation on which so many others have built. (He did this not only in philosophy, but also in mathematics.) But I thought it would be interesting for us to look at where that chain of thinking began.
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "How can we know we weren't created ten seconds ago, in the middle of whatever we're doing, with a set of false memories of past that never happened? There's no way to disprove such a..."Descartes doesn't consider false memories, I think. He accepts his memory and sense perception as real, but imagines that his sense inputs have been deceived by a demon. I do recall that he goes on to ontologically prove the existence of a benevolent God who would not permit such a demon. I'm taking Descartes a step farther. What if I was created ten seconds ago, with the feeling that I had just proved my own existence to myself? How could I be sure that my reasoning was correct without going over it again? When could I ever stop going over it and believe that I had achieved uncontrovertable knowledge?
Roger wrote: "I'm taking Descartes a step farther. What if I was created ten seconds ago, with the feeling that I had just proved my own existence to myself? "But wouldn't you still have proved your existence?
The wrinkle I myself prefer to put on Descartes' statement (privately, not knowing if any other writer has done so) is rather like this: "I have thought, therefore I am."
Or, "I have had thoughts, therefore I am".
This is because I very much like Kierkegaard's dictum that "We must live forwards, but we comprehend ourselves backwards".
To me, there is no way to be conscious of a thought as it occurs. This impression is probably not correct--probably contradicted in many treatises--this is just my own private musing--but I'm suggesting that thoughts can only be understood after they have passed. We review our thoughts; examining them afterwards. They "make sense" to us (Kant or Locke might ask, 'what sense?') In any case, then we may act on them, evaluate them, make a decision based on them, whatever. Its simply the way it seems to me.
But I like it as well because if we recognize that thoughts have a 'passage' (e.g., they form, pass, and disperse) then we can say that conform to Aristotlean cause/effect: nothing exists without cause. Thoughts have an 'arc' in time; you can see that once the thought-crossing-your-mind is over; but not during- its-passing. Thereafter, my choice to review-my-own-thoughts represents 'me living' because I am making a choice and an action. It also fits with his notion that, "We are what we regularly do, a man is the sum of his habits."
Any comments? Its not bulletproof but just the way I like to benefit (personally) from Descartes. Knitting his statement together with some others. Some seem complementary; others not. For example Hume gives me nothing. Very keen on Liebniz lately; eager to explore him, been waiting a long time...
Feliks wrote: "The wrinkle I myself prefer to put on Descartes' statement (privately, not knowing if any other writer has done so) is rather like this: "I have thought, therefore I am."
Or, "I have had thoughts..."
I agree that we observe/review thoughts, but they are not necessarily "our" thoughts. Unless there is a way to prove "ownership" between thoughts and the thinker, the existence of the former doesn't prove that of the latter.
OTOH, if you treat "to think" as an activity which presupposes an actor, Descartes argument becomes circular reasoning, because "I think" already presupposes the existence of "I", which is Kierkegaard's point.
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "I'm taking Descartes a step farther. What if I was created ten seconds ago, with the feeling that I had just proved my own existence to myself? "But wouldn't you still have proved y..."
I remember having proved my existence, but maybe that memory is false.
I admit 'circular reasoning' worries me less now -- 400 years later--than it would if I was a contemporary of Descartes. The work which has been performed since his advent, leaves me to select sections of his thought at leisure, because I have other texts on which to rely to assure me I'm not 'dreaming'. :)
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "What is knowing?"That definition lacks a lot for me.
For example, using that definition, I cannot know who wrote today's New York Times editorial. I cannot know how cold the wate..."
Well, using b(1) broadly, you probably can know at least most of the things you list. However, I was trying to narrow to the parts seemingly most applicable to knowing existence of self.
Here is the full Merriam-Webster online re: know:
(view spoiler)
Something I find fascinating about Descartes's argument is that he treats himself as both a subject and an object of his experience. The relation between the two is uncertain, but he can't escape the need of one for the other. I think this is why the argument is called circular, and Kierkegaard was the one who defined the self as "the relation which relates itself to itself," so he should know. What I wonder though is how does he escape from this vortex of uncertainty? Even if the senses can not be trusted, and God is a deceiver, won't he have to make a compromise with convention at some point? What happens when he wakes up from his sense-deprived revery? Will the door knob turn? Will the door open? Will he somehow get his morning oatmeal?
I just finished reading Ruth Ozeki's
A Tale for the Time Being
tonight (shortlisted for 2013 Man Booker). Playing with the concepts of existence in her story, Ozeki includes among her six appendices "SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT" and "HUGH EVERETT." "Hugh Everett published what came to be called his 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1957, in Reviews of Modern Physics, when he was twenty-seven years old....[later] He’d already written the mathematical proof of his many-worlds interpretation,..."
Ozeki, Ruth (2013-03-12). A Tale for the Time Being: A Novel (p. 417). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.
Existence in not just one world, but many?
Feliks wrote: "I have other texts on which to rely to assure me I'm not 'dreaming'. :) "I'm curious which texts you're referring to.
Feliks wrote: ""I have thought, therefore I am."Or, "I have had thoughts, therefore I am".
I think Decartes would have had no problem with this. And indeed, the Latin may (or may not) imply or include this.
Roger wrote: "I remember having proved my existence, but maybe that memory is false. "But if you have even a false memory, that proves that you exist. Something that doesn't exist can't have a memory, false or true. So the fact that you have the memory proves your existence. Doesn't matter whether it's false. Doesn't matter whether it was created only 10 seconds ago. If you have it, you exist.
Tanks. Or, would you take his phrasing to read like this?"I CAN think, therefore I must be" (?)
p.s. at one time I was fascinated by the "I" in the statement. What does "I" really mean? To us, to any of us? It came to me once that I had been taught to use this 'vowel' all my life, to "indicate myself". But its still really just a vowel sound, after all. Folks, stay away from hallucinogenics as a teenager. :)
Everyman wrote: "But if you have even a false memory, that proves that you exist."Yes, that is Augustine's argument in Confessions,
"Perhaps you're mistaken about your own existence?"
"If I err, I exist" (He who doesn't exist cannot err)
We can perhaps derive some comfort from this, because "If we suffer, it means we're alive".
Lily wrote: "Existence in not just one world, but many? "Whether it be one or many, what difference does it make from a practical pov?
Thomas wrote: "Will he somehow get his morning oatmeal?"I guess that's why he always stayed in bed till noon.
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Existence in not just one world, but many? "Whether it be one or many, what difference does it make from a practical pov?"
LOL! Since I don't understand the math, I'll just posit that the only practical concern is which world.
I've a hazy recollection too of either Locke or Hume characterizing Descartes' statement rather in this way: not 'I think'--but, I 'doubt'. "I doubt, therefore I am". Descartes is playing with a mental stance of 'total doubt'; but Hume (or whoever it was) claimed that although seductive, this is a one-legged stool. You can't possess doubt without also possessing belief. Descartes eventually wins his way back to a sort of belief; belief in himself--but he may have already been there via exercising doubt in the first place.
The last time I read these meditations was in 1979 for my Philosophy 100 course, during my brief career at the University of British Columbia. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. One important development was that I took up the practice and study of Buddhism (Tibetan) in the 1980s, and I learned that the Buddhists had taken Descartes' type of inquiry into the nature of the self and of reality to great lengths and depths, and had reached what appear to be opposite conclusions: that is, there is no "I" (ego), and there is no God, at least insofar as God is conceived as having some kind of a self or "I."Nonetheless, I find Descartes' inquiry to be bold and exciting. He has used a simple but powerful method to cut to the heart of experience, and has found something that is truly irreducible, that cannot be doubted away. He calls these things "I" and "thought," although the Buddhists would deny that these are actually what he found, or anyway that they have fundamental reality.
I think an analogy might be the faculty of sight, and realizing that the whole vibrant world of vision boils down to impressions somehow made by things on a part of myself that I call the "eye." If I've never seen an eye, then I have to start speculating about what it is and how it works. My speculations might be wildly off the mark, but the eye keeps doing its job, registering what is presented to it.
I think that to start with, anyway, Descartes' term "I" simply refers to the basic phenomenon that experience always has the two aspects of a perceiver and of something perceived. From the Buddhist perspective, the system he developed from this was erroneous, but they might say that while his meditations apparently occupied him for only a few days, the Buddha had spent many concentrated years at it!
What I like about the Meditations is that, as far as I know, no thinker (no Western thinker, at least) had ever questioned his very existence. That was an automatic, as I think it is for most people. While the argument may look simplistic now that we think about it, it was in fact quite innovative and, dare I say it, intellectually daring for Descartes to propose it in an environment where, since the Bible taught that God created man, to question the existence of the human was to challenge the whole religious structure and indeed of the Bible itself, something not very safe to do (as Galileo found out).
Paul wrote: I think an analogy might be the faculty of sight, and realizing that the whole vibrant world of vision boils down to impressions somehow made by things on a part of myself that I call the "eye.""I like this analogy as well. While Descartes's thought experiment proves to himself that he exists, it must also prove that something outside himself exists. The eye cannot see itself; it must have an object to reflect off in order to see itself. Without anything to see, or the absence of light, does the eye even exist?
Descartes supposes at one point that what exists outside himself might in fact be identical with the "I" of which he is aware, but he dismisses that as uncertain. That is funny in a way, because that identity is an expression of a non-dualist philosophy found often in the east. Descartes, on the other hand, becomes the founder of Cartesian dualism and the "mind-body" problem.
Everyman wrote: "What I like about the Meditations is that, as far as I know, no thinker (no Western thinker, at least) had ever questioned his very existence. That was an automatic, as I think it is for most peop..."This is a good point. It's easy to take Descartes' achievement for granted after the fact, but his effort represented a strong turn away from authority toward the validity of individual experience. He was truly modern in this sense, no? Incidentally, he was an Aries--the sign of individualism and the pioneer.
Patrice and Thomas: thanks for your appreciation of my "eye" analogy! I like Thomas's point that the eye absolutely depends on an object. Even in Buddhism this question of subject/object runs deep, deep.
This is the first time I read Descartes firsthand, and I'm impressed by the way he thinks things through.In Meditations 2, the example of the wax. By observing the wax changing shape under heat, he realizes that his previous knowledge that wax is something that has fixed shape, size, color and smell is erroneous. The error does not lie with the senses, but with his mind, i.e. his judgment. There is a gap between what the senses perceive and what appears in our mind, and the mind itself bridges that gap with its judgment. In other words, we "see" what we *think* we see. By discovering the subtle and imperceptible difference between two, he confirms the distinction between mind and body. Brilliant!
Some four hundred years later, neuroscience provided experimental evidence of that idea. Another boost to the claim that philosophers are way ahead of scientists in discovering hidden things.
Patrice wrote: "Gee, I don't know how I missed this before but when Moses asks God his name his answer is "I am". I am that I am."I'm curious (as usual) how do the Rabbis interpret that?
What is the difference between "I think, therefore I am" versus "I feel, therefore I am"? Or I.... (provide the verb of your choice).Do all imply the use of language?
Lily wrote: "What is the difference between "I think, therefore I am" versus "I feel, therefore I am"? Or I.... (provide the verb of your choice).Do all imply the use of language?"
Descartes doesn't really discuss "feel" in Meditations 1 and 2 -- the part I've read so far. If I understand him correctly, "think" is restricted to abstract reasoning, as in geometry, whereas "feel" is perhaps more akin to the senses.
ETA: But in terms of logic, "I think therefore I am" is the same as "I feel therefore I am". Existence of the actor is manifested in/proven by activity.
Nemo wrote: "Descartes doesn't really discuss "feel" in Meditations 1 and 2 -- the part I've read so far. If I understand him correctly, "think" is restricted to abstract reasoning, as in geometry, whereas "feel" is perhaps more akin to the senses."Is "think" "necessary" to his argument?
Lily wrote: "What is the difference between "I think, therefore I am" versus "I feel, therefore I am"? "Interesting question. But then, I feel things that aren't there when I'm dreaming. Does that still prove that I am?
Is Descartes' method of radical doubt really reasonable? Does it make sense to regard as equally doubtful everything that cannot be absolutely proven? What sense does it make to doubt the reality of things that we can all plainly see are real? What action would we ever take based on the hypothesis of their falseness?
Hate to mention Hume again but that's a Hume-ian confrontation. In the end he came down on the side of pragmaticism; admitting that no, you can't doubt everything and continue to function.
Lily wrote: "What is the difference between "I think, therefore I am" versus "I feel, therefore I am"?I note this passage in the 2nd Meditation:
What then am I? A thing which thinks. What is a thing which thinks? It is a thing which doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and feels.
It appears that Descartes is using thinking as a general term for mental experience; it is the genus to which the other acts, including feeling, belong as species.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
A Beautiful Mind (other topics)Mountolive (other topics)
Alexandria Still: Forster, Durrell, and Cavafy (other topics)
The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume II (other topics)
Meditations on First Philosophy, with Selections from the Objections and Replies (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jane Lagoudis Pinchin (other topics)Ruth Ozeki (other topics)
If not, you soon will.
Our next Interim Read is Descartes's Meditations 1 and 2. They're short, and on first glance they may seem simplistic (at least, that was my initial response the first time I read them fifty years ago), but it you read them several times over I think you'll find that they pack in a lot more than is obvious on the first reading.
The link below takes you to the full text of the Meditations on First Philosophy. You're welcome to read and discuss the entire work, but the official Interim Read is just Meditations 1 and 2, so if you post about other sections of the work please indicate in your post what other sections you're referring to.
Here's the link to the John Veitch translation of the text, which is the only one I've found online.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl30...
If you read Latin, here's the original text as Descartes wrote it. (Yes, he was French, but he wrote it in Latin.) The page also has a French translation for those who prefer.
http://www.wright.edu/~charles.taylor...