PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Monday, November 13, 2006

1
PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Monday,
November 13, 2006

• For Wednesdays class, finish reading Descartes
  Fourth Meditation.
• Movie. This Thursday (November 16) is World
  Philosophy Day. UTM Philosophy Club is marking
  the occasion with a screening of Eternal Sunshine
  of the Spotless Mind, 430 Thursday at the MIST
  theatre (0150 in the CCIT building). Door
  prizes, refreshments, free admission (but a 2
  suggested donation to United Way).
• Event for philosophy undergraduates. Lecture
  Racism, Morality, and Social Criticism Tommie
  Shelby (Harvard University) Date Friday,
  November 17, Time 315 pm Location St. George
  campus, University College, 15 King's College
  Circle, Room 161 Reception following in the
  Philosophy Dept. Lounge, 10th Floor, 215 Huron
  St.
• The final version of your first essay was due
  last Wednesday. All papers need to be uploaded
  to www.turnitin.com. The class ID is 1674578 the
  class password is socrates. If your essay is
  late, there is an automatic -2 marks per school
  day penalty unless you have a documented excuse
  (e.g. medical note). Date of turnitin upload is
  counted as date of submission a hard copy
  exactly matching your upload must be submitted in
  person to your TA or to me (Nagel).
• Tutorials continue this Friday. For this week,
  answer one of the following two questions, in
  about 200-250 words (about one typed
  double-spaced page) hand in the hard copy to
  your TA at the beginning of Fridays tutorial.
• How does Descartes reach the conclusion that his
  intellect is not the cause of his errors in
  judgment? How does he make mistakes, if the
  intellect is not to blame?
• Could God have made a free finite being who did
  not make mistakes, according to Descartes? Is
  there anything problematic about the answer
  Descartes gives to this question?

2
Descartes Third Meditation

• -The rule of clear and distinct ideas
• -The existence of God

3
The rule Descartes wants to prove

• If its clear and distinct,
• then its true

4
The new goal proving the rule

• If I could show that whats clear and distinct is
  true, I would restore confidence in my intellect
• How were doubts raised about my intellect in the
  first place?
• By the argument concerning the origin of my
  nature an all-powerful being might have created
  me and left me rationally defective, so that what
  seemed clear and distinct to me was false

5
Getting rid of doubtsabout my intellect

• If Descartes can prove that the origin of his
  nature is a perfect and trustworthy
  (non-deceiving) being, then he no longer has a
  reason to doubt his intellect.
• Descartes new goal to prove that he was created
  by a non-deceiving, perfect God.

6
Taking stock of my ideas

• I am aware that I have various ideas ideas of
  myself, chimeras, the sky, God, and so on
• There are three possible kinds of ideas
• 1. innate (built in to my nature)
• 2. adventitious (produced by external sources)
• 3. invented (produced by me)

7
Taking stock of my ideas

• I am aware that I have various ideas ideas of
  myself, chimeras, the sky, God, and so on
• I know that I exist, but I dont yet know which
  of my other ideas correspond to anything real
  where do my ideas come from?

8
Why do I think my ideasstand for things outside
the mind?

• Descartes wonders why he is inclined to believe
  that his ideas resemble things outside the mind.

9
Why do I think my ideasstand for things outside
the mind?

• Descartes wonders why he is inclined to believe
  that his ideas resemble things outside the mind.
• He concludes that he has been taught by nature
  that there are outer things resembling his ideas
  this belief is a matter of instinct. Can he
  trust instinct?

10
The light of nature vs.the teachings of nature

• What has been taught by nature is instinctive,
  and can be overruled by our better judgment.
• What is evident by the light of nature is
  invincible for example, it is evident by the
  light of nature that from the fact that I doubt,
  it follows that I am. There is no higher
  faculty that can overrule this finding.

11
The two ideas of the sun

• Descartes finds he has two ideas of the sun (1)
  a crude idea (based on naïve visual observation)
  representing it as a smallish object, and (2) a
  more intellectual idea (based on astronomical
  reasoning) representing it as many times larger
  than the earth.
• These ideas cant both be right.
• He would go wrong in instinctively taking idea
  (1) to show him the sun as it really is instinct
  is a fallible guide to what corresponds to your
  ideas. But maybe we have other
  (non-instinctive!) ways to tell what is real.

12
Taking stock of ideas

• The ideas I am aware of are not all the same
• They all exist as modes of my thought
• But some represent greater, and some represent
  lesser objects

13
Taking stock of ideas

• They all exist as modes of my thought (they all
  have formal reality)
• Formal reality is a measure of whether something
  (anything at all) does or does not exist a
  thought, a table, a dog, etc. all have formal
  reality if they exist, or lack it if they do not
• But some represent greater, and some represent
  lesser objects (they have different levels of
  objective reality)
• - Objective reality is something that only
  representations (pictures, ideas, etc.) can have
  the level of objective reality of a
  representation is a function of the formal
  reality of what it depicts. My idea of God has
  greater objective reality than my idea of a mouse.

14
What about my idea of God?

• Even before I raise the question of which ideas
  of mine correspond to real things, I can organize
  them according to their objective reality some
  of them depict greater objects than others
• The idea with the greatest objective reality is
  my idea of a perfect, infinite being
• But there must be some reason why some ideas have
  more objective reality than others for every
  effect, there must be a cause

15
Where does the reality of ideas come from?

• The causal principle there must be at least as
  much reality in the efficient and total cause
  as there is in the effect of that cause.
• that a particular idea contains this as opposed
  to that objective reality is surely owing to some
  cause in which there is at least as much formal
  reality as there is objective reality contained
  in the idea
• If the effect is that Ive got an idea of an
  infinite perfect being, the cause needs to be
  something that has infinite formal reality

16
My idea of God

• Other ideas have a level of objective reality
  that can be explained in terms of my existence,
  and the existence of my idea of God
• So, for example, my idea of an angel could be
  something I invent by combining aspects of my
  idea of myself and my idea of God.
• But for my idea of an infinite perfect being, the
  cause needs to be something that has infinite
  formal reality
• So God exists.

17
My idea of God

• Descartes basic move
• The only way a finite being like me could have
  the idea of an infinite being, is if an infinite
  being really exists.

18
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection cold isnt a real thing its just
  the absence of heat. If I have a positive idea
  of cold, its materially false. Could my idea
  of God be like that?

19
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection cold isnt a real thing its just
  the absence of heat. If I have a positive idea
  of cold, its materially false. Could my idea
  of God be like that?
• Reply that kind of idea is not very clear or
  distinct, and displays very little reality it
  could have got its reality from me. The idea of
  God is not like that.

20
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection could I have gained the idea of the
  infinite just by taking some idea of the finite
  (say, the idea of me) and negating it?

21
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection could I have gained the idea of the
  infinite just by taking some idea of the finite
  (say, the idea of me) and negating it?
• No, because there is more reality in the idea of
  an infinite substance than a finite one.

22
A surprising claim

• the perception of the infinite is somehow prior
  in me to the perception of the finite, that is,
  my perception of God is prior to my perception of
  myself. For how would I understand that I doubt
  and that I desire, that is, that I lack something
  and that I am not wholly perfect, unless there
  were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by
  comparison with which I might recognize my
  defects?

23
Reality God?

• The idea of God is indeed an idea that is
  utterly clear and distinct for whatever I
  clearly and distinctly perceive to be real and
  true and to involve some perfection is wholly
  contained in that idea. (AT 46)

24
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection What if I somehow had infinite powers
  without realizing it, and so could create the
  idea of an infinite being on my own?

25
Is it true that my idea of God could only have
come from God?

• Objection What if I somehow had infinite powers
  without realizing it, and so could create the
  idea of an infinite being on my own?
• Reply I may have more power than I now
  recognize, e.g. I may gradually be increasing my
  knowledge, but God is entirely actual, rather
  than potential

26
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?

27
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• From me?
• From my parents?

28
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• Even if my parents did bring me into existence,
  they dont sustain me from one instant to the
  next the same force and action are needed to
  preserve anything at each individual moment that
  it lasts as would be required to create that same
  thing anew (AT49)

29
The second proof

• From what source do I derive my existence?
• Could it be me, or some other finite cause, or
  some combination of finite causes?
• No because I have an idea of a unified perfect
  being within me, I could only have been created
  by such a being.

30
Where does the idea of God come from?

• Descartes thinks it is innate in us.
• It is not invented, because we cant add or
  subtract to it (contrast my idea of my dream
  home)
• It is not adventitious, because it doesnt come
  to me unexpectedly (contrast my idea of the
  oncoming car)

31
Free from deception?

• it is quite obvious that he cannot be a
  deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of
  nature that all fraud and deception depend on
  some defect. (AT52)

32
The Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes wants to prove that if its clear and
  distinct, then its true
• But how can he do this unless he already trusts
  his clear and distinct perceptions as true? What
  else could he have to go on?

33
One reading of Descartes strategy

• Descartes never stops using his basic rational
  principles even throughout the First Meditation,
  the doubts he generates are rational doubts he
  gives arguments about why each kind of claim
  should be doubted
• He suspends judgments about specific deliverances
  of reason he does not quit the use of reason
  altogether

34
One reading of Descartes strategy

• At the end of the First Meditation, Descartes
  casts doubt on reason by seeming to show that
• 1. Reason leads us to affirm what is clear and
  distinct (if you think about it rationally, you
  want to affirm that squares must be four-sided)
• 2. Reason itself also leads us to doubt those
  very claims (if you think about it rationally,
  you decide you could be intellectually defective,
  so your desire to affirm that squares must be
  four-sided cant be taken at face value perhaps
  squares are not four-sided)
• If reason leads to both X and not-X, theres a
  problem with reason. What Descartes wants to do
  is to show that (2) isnt true reason only seems
  to lead us to that kind of self-doubt. If you
  reason a bit more carefully, you see that a
  creature like you, with an idea of perfection,
  cannot be intellectually defective