Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by René Descartes

[Gill]

I'm not sure I got the impression you did of Part 6. I thought more about what I'd read about it being close to the trial of Galileo, and thought the reasons he was giving for the delay were a bit of an excuse; that it was more to do with concerns about maybe going against the church. But then I don't know enough about Galileo and the situation in those days to be able to comment further.

[Gill]

Re Meditations:
I've read that the first part of this is called 'Letter of dedication and preface', but in my edition it is called 'Letter to the reader'.
How about in your copy, Jenny?

Also, mine doesn't say it was initially for people at the Sorbonne, which I've read elsewhere. At least that explains the introductory 'Gentlemen'!

[Jenny]

Gill wrote: "I'm not sure I got the impression you did of Part 6. I thought more about what I'd read about it being close to the trial of Galileo, and thought the reasons he was giving for the delay were a bit ..."

you might be right Gill, I hadn't thought of that but was reminded of it today when reading the first meditation, which to me sounded rather defensive as well.

As for the first part: it is called 'Vorwort an den Leser, which equals 'Letter to the Reader'

I had marked the part where he says that he wrote this in Latin so that a natural selection would be made of those who are capable to understand and follow his path, which I thought was very Russell of him, but under the light of the Galileo trials maybe being very selective is a wise thing to do, to avoid misunderstanding that could lead to rather unpleasant outcomes.
I thought is was interesting to hear, that the original publication of this held 6times!!! the size of the actual book of counter-arguments and his response.

An interesting question which we've met with Russell as well: does the idea that because I can imagine 'perfect' mean that 'perfect' actually exists? And his differentiation between image and image (or imagination and imagination?) that he uses to justify his attempt at proving Gods existence.

[Gill]

Have you any idea how common it was at the time to be an atheist? I'm surprised how much Descartes is taken up with disagreeing with atheism and trying to prove the existence of God. To most people, believing in God would have been an act of faith, not proof, wouldn't it.

I'm nearly through Meditation 1 now.

[Jenny]

No idea to be honest! Now I am curious though!

[Gill]

I'm part way through Meditation 2. I like the way Descartes is considering what he thought he was in terms of body etc, before he decided to not know anything.

Also I forgot to say, it's interesting how he has replaced the 'supreme being' by an evil one and is considering how this works. Yet he still considers there is definitively a supreme being, almost as if he is unable to view things any other way.

[Gill]

re Meditation 2

I like how Descartes defines what a thinking thing is 'It is a thing that doubts, understands (conceives), affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives.', and then proceeds to enlarge on each of them.

Later, when he says that perceiving is the same as thinking, I don't see what the evidence is for this. Is he just stating this as a fact?

The example about wax was good I thought; though he uses the word perception differently here, saying it is an intuition. (If I'm reading that correctly, or is it a different sort of perception here?)

I like the 'words yet occasionally impede my progress' comment.

I thought the example about seeing hats and coats, and judging there are human beings was spot on; also quite intriguing though. Would someone assume that in all circumstances?

Some of the time I think I'm following this well, then I come to the section near the end that starts, in English, 'it is now manifest to me' (re perception being by the intellect alone), and it feels like Descartes is making massive leaps of assumption that I don't understand where they have come from.

[Jenny]

I feel the same Gill, particularly about thinking and perception. I also think your conclusion regarding his two differing definitions of perception is spot on, my edition actually has a translator comment on exactly that.
RE: thinking and perception. I always thought that the sentence should have been 'I perceive, therefore I am', however saying that makes me doubt my own definition of perception.
I wonder whether Descartes idea of perception stopped at the purely physical process of it. It is not enough for my skin to perceive the sensory information of heat unless it then signals that information to my nervous system. That doesn't seem quite enough though either, because I would need to also have awareness of what is happening to my body, so my little grey matter by experience tells me I've burned my hand for example. In order to prove that I exist all it needs is sensation, however I wouldn't ever conclude that I exist without the rational, cognitive portion of 'I' which is there to 'make sense' of the stimuli my senses receive and has the ability to conclude that 'I' exist.

According to Wikipedia 'Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment'

So do you think Descartes stopped short when defining perception (or got confused, since already he defines it two different ways in the 2nd meditations), or am I missing another reason why he insisted on 'thinking' and not perception?

Also: how far was knowledge of how we perceive advanced? I remember seeing drawings of his, that apart from him placing the soul in the pineal gland (which always makes me chuckle a wee bit, though I am aware that that is quiet mean of me) looked like he already had a pretty clear idea of how sensory information travels through our body.

[Gill]

I'm afraid I got rather lost with Meditation 3. I followed the 3 types of ideas , but I didn't follow the proof that God existed. I looked at a commentary on this on Wikipedia but did't follow that either. So apart from when D talks about the 2 different sizes of the sun, I've not got much from Med 3!

[Jenny]

I am mid-Meditation 3 and I think one of the reasons why this is hard to follow, is because again there are big leaps in his deduction I find. He starts from a point of strong believe and from this starting point then tries to construct a logical deduction to back up his believe which to me has a lot of similarities to those scientific test which are designed to produce the desired and pre-defined result.
Or maybe his logic escapes us. I guess that it is fair to assume Descartes might have outshone us intellectually?

[Gill]

Jenny wrote: "I am mid-Meditation 3 and I think one of the reasons why this is hard to follow, is because again there are big leaps in his deduction I find. He starts from a point of strong believe and from this..."

Yes, I think that's a fair assumption!

But I also agree with you about producing the desired result, Jenny.

[Jenny]

Have you managed to transfer your books over Gill? And are you planning to finish this before you leave (on Wednesday?) or are you going to be 'meditating' in Brisbane?

[Gill]

Jenny wrote: "Have you managed to transfer your books over Gill? And are you planning to finish this before you leave (on Wednesday?) or are you going to be 'meditating' in Brisbane?"

Yes, I've got them transferred ok now. I'd hoped to finish this by Wednesday, but am not really sure if I will or not. It may be that I finish it off on the train to the airport (Manchester), and then it'll be Zola to entertain me on the journey!

[Gill]

I'm finding this quite hard actually. Descartes says, near the start of Meditation 4

But, on considering the nature of God, it seems impossible that he should have planted in his creature any faculty not perfect in its kind,

I just don't get why it seems impossible. If it's ok with you Jenny, I think I'm going to read on ahead and see if I come to any sections that aren't so much to do with God. If there are, I might find them a bit easier.

[Gill]

I've finished Meditation 4 now, and found it easier as it progressed.

I found the discussion about free will pretty interesting, in that Descartes seemed to be saying that it was he that was not making the right use of free will, rather than it being an issue with God.

I also found his doubt as to whether his thinking nature is different from his corporeal (I think that means bodily, does it?) nature interesting.

[Gill]

I read Meditation 5 on the way to the airport. I'll post about it in the next few days, Jenny.

[Jenny]

Finished the Meditations. I really enjoyed his thoughts on 'thinking', on free will, on what we can know to be true and to some extend even his version of a theory proving the existence of God, yet the latter turned into a bit of an obstacle for me at some point, as I increasingly felt that all his philosophy was designed to run towards this center point of belief, which I found hardest to follow, and most up to 'belief' and not logical or scientific thinking despite the alleged 'proof' he produced.

Yet Descartes is not an anomaly in planting his philosophy firmly onto religious ground. I think it is quite interesting that in this time religion and philosphy were still so attached at the navel.

I stumbled over an article yesterday actually that is quite related (though it is mainly about developments in Spanish philosophical and scientific thinking)

At the end of the 17th century, Europeans accepted the Biblical tale of the Creation of the Earth, which implied admitting that the Earth had an origin and would also have an end; according to the most common calculations, some 6,000 years would have elapsed since the moment of Creation. A century later, scientists already had accepted the ideas of evolution and change and had considerably extended the age of our planet. The triumph of these ideas entailed a long fight against profound religious beliefs, and contributed to the questioning of the whole intellectual universe of the Europeans. It did not involve only a discussion in which scientific reasons flourished, based on the observation of the terrestrial surface. Rather, arguments of a theological and erudite nature were used; at first, to an overwhelming extent. This was the logical result in an intellectual environment so profoundly saturated with religious beliefs, which, besides, appraised humanistic criticism of historical-philological nature.

[Gill]

Jenny, yes, I find that quotation very informative. I find it easy to forget the time and context in which Descartes was writing.

I also found his 'proofs' of the existence of God hard to follow, more like a justification rather than a proof really.

I'm glad to have read these two books. Thanks for introducing me to them, Jenny.