Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How do we acquire knowledge?, ANDREA KALCHEVA AND ANELI DRAGINOVA - Coggle…
How do we acquire knowledge?
Meditation I
D searches a secure foundation to knowledge that can stand against doubt and scepticism
Two sources of knowledge: intellect and senses
The senses are deceptive
The argument from dreaming
We are not aware of a dream while we are having it
How can we be certain that the experiences we have are reliable
Is the intellect reliable?
The evil demon argument
He has the power to decept me even when things seem self evidently true
Meditation lll
Can you discover whether God exists, using the rationalist approach?
God must be an innate idea (this idea did not originate from D.), which was placed into Desc’s mind by an infinite being (which needs to exist in order to place the idea into D’s head) (circular arg. - could this be a fallacy?)
Only an infinite being can create the idea of an infinite being
The idea of God
- clear and distinct; infinite; eternal; immutable; independent; omniscient
Why can we understand and comprehend an infinite being such as God if we are mere finite beings?
You can only know that you are finite if you understand the concept of infiniteness
Assume God does not exist
What then is the cause of D’s existence?
He is the creator of himself, of his own existence
Another source (not an infinite being) -> infinite regress
Parents
Clear and distinct ideas
Adventitious (appearing to come from an external cause - noise)
Innate (No external cause; not created by mind; they are there from the start, always true - math
Factitious (solely created in the mind - unicorns)
Meditation lV
The Problem of Error
If God exists,(and created my mind), then I do not make mistakes
I do make mistakes
Therefore, God does not exist.
Valid argument → Descartes has to prove it is not sound
Argues that the first premise is false
Descartes solution
God created my mind with two faculties - intellect and free will
Error can arises when I chose to believe something beyond my intellect
It is my fault
Descartes solution to the problem of error
Avoid error by choosing to believe all and only the things I perceive clearly and distinctly
Meditation ll
One belief known with certainty: the belief of his own existence -
“I think I exist”
Foundational belief
Survives skeptical attacks
Even if one is constantly deceived, he cannot doubt his own existence
Why not, “I walk, I exist”?
The awareness of walking is a thought. The inference is certain only if applied to this awareness.
Therefore you have a mind but you are not sure if you are actually walking
Two versions of the “cogito argument”
In the Discourse on Method, Descartes presents it as an inference
In the Second Meditation, the argument is different - self’s existence does not seem to be inferred but somehow immediately certain.
Problems: Is this circular? Does “I think” presuppose “I exist”? “I think” or just ”thinking”?
“I think”, sign of doubting → doubting is a variety of thinking
What is this “I” that thinks?
Descartes is not certain that he has a body
Soul assigns every feeling to the body
Thinking is an essential property of the soul = mind
The piece of wax argument
Through intellect we know that even after changing something is still the same
Meditation V
Onthology: Deals with the nature of being
Argument is based on two other ideas
innate ideas - their content is “given”
clear and distinct perceptions/ideas
Axiom: self-evident, not a formal proof but similar to a geometric demonstration
Material objects - distinctly imagine extension, size, shape, position, and local motion, associated with duration
Existence of abstract geometrical objects
They are not mind dependent
ex: Triangles
God’s existence - inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being.
Proof based on “essence” - the nature of God. It just include existence
Logical leap from mental to real world
“Perfect Islands” and unicorns exist even if in mind. Existence is part of everything about which we have a clear and distinct idea (incl. experiences) but their existence is dependent (om our mind) whereas G’s is independent
Meditation Vl
Imagination
Imagining requires focus and a mental effort in order to produce pictures in the mind;
Imagination is not a part of my essence;
Understanding
Thinking is more important, because imagination is not a part of my essence
Corporeal objects
similar to the argument for the existence of God
both use a causal principle and a source of ideas principle, but the last premis is different;
differences from the argument for the existence of God
The premises that get us to the conclusion are importantly different;
The Role of God
God is not a deceiver
corporeal objects must cause the idea of corporeal objects in my mind;
The Dream argument
The dreaming state and the state of being awake are very different - we experience different sensations in them
We can rely on memories
ANDREA KALCHEVA AND ANELI DRAGINOVA