Descartes - Meditations 1 and 2

[Dee]

Thomas wrote: "Looks like you can pick up a copy of the Descartes volume for a song and a prayer:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Searc..."

That looks to be your cheapest option - I don't know which translation it is though. Someone with the set will be able to advise. The most current translation is by John Cottingham, and is available in a complete version: The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol 2, and an edition with a selection of the Objections & Replies: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. I have used the latter, and while useful, the editors have taken the decision to rearrange the Objections & Replies according to which meditation they refer to, thus obscuring the original presentation, so I would recommend the complete version if you can track down a copy for a reasonable price.

[Everyman]

Paul wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Does anyone know where to get the book including the complete "Objections and Replies" in print?"

It's all in the Great Books of the Western World, volume 31...."

Which most libraries of any size probably have.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "Thanks to Everyman, BTW, for choosing it as a interim read. I enjoyed it much more than I had expected."

Glad to hear it. I was a bit concerned when the first few days provided almost no action, but then the discussion really took off. I should have had more faith in this group!

[Everyman]

I don't know which translation the first edition of the GBWW uses. The second edition, the 1990, uses Elizabeth Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (and it's in volume 28, not volume 31 in the 2nd ed.)

Nemo is right that with the Objections and Replies, it would constitute a major read. The copy on our bookshelf is just the Meditations, though. A bit surprising that there doesn't appear to be an edition in English just of the Meditation with the Objections and Replies.

[Dee]

Everyman wrote: "A bit surprising that there doesn't appear to be an edition in English just of the Meditation with the Objections and Replies."

The first edition I listed is actually, although part of a 3 volume collection, the Meditations and O&R fill the second volume.

[Paul]

Everyman wrote: "I was a bit concerned when the first few days provided almost no action..."

Please don't be concerned! The selection was right out of the Great Books set, and this is the Great Books group, so if we're a bit quiet, then that's on us. As far as I'm concerned, anything at all in that set is fair game.

I appreciate your thoughtful moderation, Everyman.

[Nemo]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Our library and bookstore have neither The Philosophical Writings of Descartes that David recommended, nor the GBWW series. (It's embarrassing). I'll have to get it online somehow.

P.S. Speaking of mind-body distinction, I got my comeuppance today for arguing against the senses. When I went to the information desk at the library for help, instead of friendly and courteous librarians whose faces I'm familiar with, I found nobody there, but a telephone kiosk in the middle of a large empty space, with a sign saying "Call ### if you need help."

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "When I went to the information desk at the library for help, instead of friendly and courteous librarians whose faces I'm familiar with, I found nobody there, but a telephone kiosk in the middle of a large empty space, with a sign saying "Call ### if you need help."
"

Ugh.

But at least they didn't leave a computer terminal and a sign saying "Google for help."

[Everyman]

Paul wrote: "I appreciate your thoughtful moderation, Everyman. "

Thanks, but it's really become a team effort. I rely heavily on Thomas and Laurel, and look forward to Zeke returning to active service when he gets some issues worked out. It was a one-man effort for the first few years, but I think the group is much stronger now for the great involvement of my co-moderators.

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "When I went to the information desk at the library for help, instead of friendly and courteous librarians whose faces I'm familiar with, I found nobody there, but a telephone kiosk in the middle of a large empty space, with a sign saying "Call ### if you need help." "

As a librarian I find that very sad. However, library budgets have suffered tremendously in the past few years, so it doesn't surprise me all that much. The good news is that the economy is improving and support for libraries remains strong. I hope your librarians return forthwith.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "P.S. Speaking of mind-body distinction, I got my comeuppance today for arguing against the senses. ..."

RFLOL! Nemo, you might guess my reaction would be different than anyone else's! But I also laughed at Eman's:

But at least they didn't leave a computer terminal and a sign saying "Google for help."

From another reading today: "No one is harder on his countrymen than Durrell, who has ... speak ... of a country in which one is educated 'not to wish to feel,' (Mountolive, 17) in which one loves judicially...." p. 179, Jane Lagoudis Pinchin, Alexandria Still: Forster, Durrell, and Cavafy.

[Nemo]

A fascinating overview of Descartes' philosophy by John Cottingham, one of the translators of the 3-volume series aforementioned.

http://youtu.be/abVVKe5zObU

[Laurel]

Nemo wrote: "A fascinating overview of Descartes' philosophy by John Cottingham, one of the translators of the 3-volume series aforementioned.

http://youtu.be/abVVKe5zObU"

Thanks, Nemo. That's excellent, and it led me to this lecture by Sproul: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=csG5SmTTrE8

[Lily]

A quotation from (anonymous) on another board:

"So I've been reading Being and Time again. Heidegger focused on the idea that Western Civilization had always ignored questioning what being was, taking it for a given or as a postulate. There's a lot more to it and I suppose that's why it takes a few pages to elicit [revised]. Later in life, time became a really important thing for Heidegger and he comes to believe that he mishandled time in his original work." Bold added.

[Thomas]

Perhaps it's not fair to dump on Descartes too much here, having read as little of him as we have for this read, but it's fair to say that Heidegger does not think much of him. But to say "Western Civilization had always ignored questioning what being was" is something Heidegger would never say. Plato and Aristotle certainly questioned what being is, and Heidegger understood this implicitly -- this is apparent from the first sentence of Being and Time to the last.

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "...But to say "Western Civilization had always ignored questioning what being was" is something Heidegger would never say. Plato and Aristotle certainly questioned what being is, and Heidegger understood this implicitly -- this is apparent from the first sentence of Being and Time to the last. ..."

I obviously don't know Heidegger, so in fairness to the person I quote, I have made it anonymous. Thanks for whatever feedback furthers the conversation.

[Thomas]

Heidegger can come into the discussion, but mostly as a critic of Descartes. He presents the same argument that Kierkegaard does -- in short, that the "cogito" presupposes the ego. In a formal sense, the argument is tautological. But on a much more serious level (serious because Descartes was, and still is, enormously influential) Descartes separates the self from the world. The material world exists independently from the spiritual. What kind of consequences might this have for, say, technology and ecology? Would it, for example, have a bearing on the engineering of human life? And on the other hand, what kind of spirituality might come from a view that alienates the physical world?

For Heidegger, Dasein (his term for the being of human beings) is being-in-the-world. The self and the world cannot be understood as independent entities.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "Heidegger can come into the discussion, but mostly as a critic of Descartes. He presents the same argument that Kierkegaard does -- in short, that the "cogito" presupposes the ego. In a formal sens..."

That argument was the reason that I didn't expect much from Descartes at the beginning, but after actually reading Meditations, I think Descartes' proposition is not as simple as others made it out to be.

Descartes' point is not the existence of "I" (which is either self-evident or otherwise cannot be proven), but the relation between "cogito" and "sum", that is, the correspondence between subjective knowledge and objective reality, which is the foundation for science and any type of knowledge.

Descartes separates mind from the body, which is not the same as separating self from the world, as the self, which is in the world, is a union of mind and body.

Nature teaches me, through these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst and so on, that I (a thinking thing) am not merely in my body as a sailor is in a ship. Rather, I am closely joined to it—intermingled with it, so to speak—so that it and I form a unit. If this weren’t so, I wouldn’t feel pain when the body was hurt but would perceive the damage in an intellectual way, like a sailor seeing that his ship needs repairs.

(P.S. I'm not sure what Heidegger meant exactly by "being". If Plato couldn't provide a definite answer, I doubt anybody else could. :) It would be fun to read Heidegger as a group, though I didn't find him on our bookshelf).

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "Descartes separates mind from the body, which is not the same as separating self from the world, as the self, which is in the world, is a union of mind and body.."

That's interesting. Does Descartes believe, then, that the self dies with the body, leaving the mind? I'm not quite sure actually what Descartes means by "mind," now that I think about it. I have always taken it to mean reason, because without the body's sensory input that is what remains. Is the mind conscious? (That sounds like an absurd question, but without sensory input, how does the mind "know" anything except what is deducible via pure reason? Is the mind, without the body, aware of the world, or even of itself?)

Heidegger's ontology is closely related to (or at least heavily indebted to) Aristotle's. I would not willingly inflict Heidegger upon the group, but I hope at some point we can take a look at Aristotle.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "Does Descartes believe, then, that the self dies with the body, leaving the mind? "

Descartes perceives body and mind as distinct from one another, because the body is quantifiable and divisible --and therefore mortal, whereas the mind is one and indivisible-and therefore immortal.

without sensory input, how does the mind "know" anything except what is deducible via pure reason?

The mind has the faculty to reason, but it is not reason itself. As a mathematician, Descartes knows firsthand that there are things the mind can perceive and know without any sensory input. These things, unlike the sensory input which are in a constant flux, are permanent and certain. According to Cottingham, Descartes envisioned that mathematics (and the related sciences) could accurately describe the whole universe, and present an image of the world more accurate than that received from the senses. If that is the case, the mind without the body would be able to "see" and "know" the world still, though in a different manner as we do in the body.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "It would be fun to read Heidegger as a group"

I'm not sure your idea of fun is quite the same as mine. [g]

Interesting, yes. Rewarding, I hope. Fun? Well . . .

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "It would be fun to read Heidegger as a group"

I'm not sure your idea of fun is quite the same as mine. [g]. . ."

It can't be worse than reading Kant or Hegel, can it?

Speaking from experience, reading with this group has always been fun and rewarding. For that, I'm grateful. Thank you to moderators and group members. :)

[Laurel]

Nothing could be worse than reading Hegel.

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "Nothing could be worse than reading Hegel."

Except maybe Aquinas?

[Laurel]

That, too.

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "Descartes perceives body and mind as distinct from one another, because the body is quantifiable and divisible --and therefore mortal, whereas the mind is one and indivisible-and therefore immortal.
..."

If the mind is one and indivisible, is it also impersonal? I imagine a purely rational and collective hive-mind, like the Borg maybe. (This hardly seems human to me, but a lot of Descartes strikes me that way.)

I suddenly remembered this morning, while pondering the mind-body problem, a side-note in a lecture series on the brain that I saw a while back: Understanding the Brain Really good series (for a medicine neophyte like me, anyway.) But the professor at one point mentioned that Descartes identified the pineal gland as the "seat of the soul" because it is the only singular structure in the brain, as opposed to the other parts of the brain that appear in pairs, mirrored in the two hemispheres. Apparently, for Descartes, this is where the rubber meets the road.

[Thomas]

Laurele wrote: "Nothing could be worse than reading Hegel."

I think I have to agree. Philosophy in general is challenging to read, and most philosophers leave a great deal to be desired as authors. Plato is a startling and magnificent exception.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "If the mind is one and indivisible, is it also impersonal? I imagine a purely rational and collective hive-mind, like the Borg maybe. "

The Borg. That sounds familiar. :) Hegel's Absolute Spirit seems like the Borg to me, "You will be synthesized. Resistance is futile".

But no, for Descartes, the mind is one individual mind, capable of free thinking and willing, not a "collective consciousness".

the professor at one point mentioned that Descartes identified the pineal gland as the "seat of the soul" because it is the only singular structure in the brain,

That sounds like an educated guess on Descartes' part, not a logical deduction. I'll have to read his original writing to find out more.

As all bodies are infinitely divisible, there isn't really one thing that can be the "seat of the soul". The pineal gland only has the appearance of unity, but in reality, it is made up of many cells, not to mention numerous elementary particles. On the other hand, if the pineal gland is the "only" singular structure, that makes it an obvious candidate.

[Laurel]

Yes, Hegel the Borgist. Resistance is futile. He is far too seductive for me. Must run!

[Lily]

Lily wrote: "A quotation from (anonymous) on another board:

"So I've been reading Being and Time again. Heidegger focused on the idea that Western Civilization had always ignored questioning what being was, ta..."

Received this comment via correspondence:

"Heidegger actually did say that one must go back before Socrates to find true exploration of the question..."

That may still reflect reading Heidegger less for logic and historical accuracy and more for relevance to living.

[Nemo]

Speaking of relevance to living, this discussion often reminds me of the movie about the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash, "A Beautiful Mind" (a great movie if you haven't seen it). It's interesting that Nash, like Descartes, has to use reason and logic to find his way out of his hallucinations. Is this how it happened to the real Nash?

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "Speaking of relevance to living, this discussion often reminds me of the movie about the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash, "A Beautiful Mind" (a great movie if you haven't seen it). It's inter..."

The book is good, too.

A Beautiful Mind: The Life of Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash by Sylvia Nasar

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "The book is good, too. "

The movie doesn't really address the question "What is real?", and how a person who constantly deals with abstract concepts can discern "the difference between what's real and what is in his mind". Does the book delve into these questions any further?

Near the end of the movie, when a stranger approaches Nash outside of his classroom, he immediately turns to one of his students and asks her to confirm that the man is real.

Now that I think of it, it's almost a parody of Nash's life and what he stands for.

The real Nash was once asked why he trusted his hallucinations, he answered because they came from the same source whence his ingenious ideas in mathematics also came. In other words, just because he is the only who sees and experiences them doesn't necessarily mean they are not real. As Schopenhauer put it, "Genius hits a target no one else can see".

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "The movie doesn't really address the question 'What is real?', and how a person who constantly deals with abstract concepts can discern 'the difference between what's real and what is in his mind'. Does the book delve into these questions any further?..."

I'd have to re-read the book to even comment. It has been a number of years now and that was not particularly my interest at the time. I guess my attitude is that a question like that is very much a matter of defining reality, although quantitative measurements and images of what is happening in the brain at such times may be increasingly possible. I do know that I felt there were big differences between the book and the movie -- with my preference falling on the side of the book, although as I recall the movie visualized and made stark certain aspects.

Have you seen any of the Nova series on the functioning of the brain? I attended a not-for-credit class by a psychologist a few years ago in which she showed some amazing excerpts from those which visualized and went well beyond what I had seen in textbooks thirty years earlier. I suspect you would enjoy those. I have not checked on how easy those are to obtain.

[Roger]

Patrice wrote: "I have just begun to read "The Future of the Mind" by Michio Kaku. It's fascinating reading and addresses a lot of the same issues Descartes addresses. This one line jumped out at me.

In the App..."

Consciousness is certainly fundamental or our reality. Without it we'd just be biochemical contraptions.

[Roger]

Patrice wrote: "The way you put it it sounds so obvious. I wonder what Kaku is getting at?"

As I understand it, the idea is that "conscious" observation causes the wave-like probability fields that underly matter to "collapse" and produce a single concrete reality--a living or dead cat, in Schroedinger's famous thought experiment. The mechanism by which consciousness does this is unguessed-at, as far as I know, as is where consciouosness inheres, other than in people. For instance, is it in cats? But please read the book and report.

[Roger]

Patrice wrote: "I think I once heard something about how measuring a table will change the size of the table...or something like that. I fear that this is above my cognitive level but I'll be brave and give it a ..."

Measuring a table will indeed minutely change its size--you have to bounce a photon off it and that causes a subatomic change. But that's a separate effect from quantum collapse.

[Roger]

Patrice wrote: "Well, no question that Johnnies are good with science!

It's nice to know that if (if? ha!) I don't understand something you're here."

You are charming. But stay wary--I'm fairly knowledgeable in some areas, but in others totally clueless.

[Nemo]

Roger wrote: "As I understand it, the idea is that "conscious" observation causes the wave-like probability fields that underly matter to "collapse" and produce a single concrete reality..."

Does that even qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis?

P.S. Patrice, I second what Roger said. You're a charming lady. :)