Descartes: Meditation 4 and Review

Otis is studying. What's your excuse? 

Comprehension Check:
1. What is the whole purpose of Descartes' meditations? 
2. What is the cogito and why is it important to Descartes' project?
3. In terms of 'ways of knowing', what is the theme common to (a) Mediation 1 (3 levels of doubt), (b) the wax section, (c) the proofs of God?
4. Why does Descartes try prove the existence of God? I.e., what problem(s) is it supposed to solve in the context of his project?
5. What is Descartes' criterion of knowledge? 

Discussion Questions
1. (a) Write down what is contained in the concept of an infinitely perfect being.  
(b) What might this tell us about Descartes's argument for the existence of God?  (discuss the concept of infinity in math)

2. (a) Think about a time that you made a mistake that wasn't caused by someone else's deliberate deception; that is, you believed something was true that turned out to be false. 
(b) Write down and describe what you think caused you to make a mistake. 

3. (a) Why do machines make mistakes? When a machine makes a mistake, who or what is responsible? 
(b) Suppose you had the capacity to design and make a perfect machine. Would you make one that is less perfect than what you can make even if both took the same amount of effort? Why or why not? (c) If you made a less perfect machine than you were able to, what would be responsible for the machine's mistakes, you or the machine? Why? 


4. (a) Descartes says that we were created by an infinitely perfect and powerful being. God is our 'craftsman'. Let's suppose he's right. There's a problem. We make mistakes (i.e., we have defects).  If God had both the ability and the power to make us so we'd never make mistakes, why didn't He?  
(b) If we draw an analogy with question 3, it seems like God is ultimately responsible for our mistakes, but Descartes doesn't think so...
(c) What is Descartes' answer? (Hint: You'll need to discuss the roles of and distinctions between the 'will', the intellect, and 'judgment').
(d) (i) Critically evaluate Descartes' argument. [Hint: (a) are the concepts clear? (b) are the premises true? (check for counter-examples), (c) is the argument valid? (does the conclusion follow necessarily? Can you run a reductio?)]. (ii) Is Descartes right that we are ultimately responsible for our own mistakes?
(e) Does Descartes solution solve the problem of the two world view? Does it give him the tools to accomplish his ultimate goal: a scientific understanding of the world? (Hint: Think about the first 2 levels of doubt in the 1st Meditation). 

5. Consider Descartes' answer in light of moral judgments and particularly in light of the divine consequences of getting the wrong answer. Is this a problem for Descartes? Why/why not?

How to Prepare for an Exam

Preparing for Exams
The most common mistake students make in preparing for exams is to study 'passively' rather than 'actively'. Let me explain the difference. Passive studying is when you simply reread the material and/or the notes. This will not help you very much. To figure out how to do well on an exam let's think about what an exam is. An exam is a demonstration of your comprehension of a topic. So, to do well on an exam you have to be able to do two things: (a) recall the information being asked of you and (b) show that you understand it. Here's the thing, if you focus on (b), (a) will follow without any effort. Going from (a) to (b) takes more work. That is, when you are studying, try to understand WHY Descartes is making a particular argument (what's he trying to prove in relation to his project) and how each step in the argument connects to previous premises and supports that conclusion. Once you've done this, you will also have recreated the argument! Pure memorization without understanding is much harder to do.

The other vital part of studying is to RECREATE EXAM CONDITIONS. On an exam you are being asked to RECALL information. Simply rereading doesn't train you to recall. To practice recalling information, you have to--well--recall information. This is the same for any skill. If I want to get better at basketball, I practice throwing the ball into the hoop. Reading about it won't help much. If I want to get better at guitar, reading about it won't help. I have to PLAY the guitar.  You get the idea... So, to recap, on a test you are being asked to RECALL and so you should practice recalling the information. In practical terms this means after reviewing a potential exam question, you should WRITE OUT in point form your answers to the question while your text and notes are closed. This is what it is to recreate exam conditions. If you can do this at home for all the questions, you will ace the test (so long as you took good notes). Also, you'll have a lot less stress because YOU"VE ALREADY WRITTEN THE TEST SEVERAL TIMES AT HOME. When I write exams I use this technique. If I get stuck while recall in an argument at home, I peek at my notes, complete the answer then I DO IT AGAIN, this time without peeking. I keep repeating as many times as I have to until I can recreate the answer without peeking at my notes (i.e., I recreate the exam conditions). When I can do it perfectly, I KNOW I will ace the test because I've already aced it before even stepping into the exam room.

I prefer to study alone but this isn't for everyone. If you do better studying in a group or with a partner, you can practice by quizzing each other on each question. This tests recall. However, you should still also test yourself at least once in your ability to write your answer in point form because this is what you will be asked to do on the exam (i.e., recreate test conditions).

Descartes Meditation 3

COLLLECT HOMEWORK

I.  (a) How can you know that you know something instead of that you just believe it? (b) What is Descartes' answer; i.e., his 'criterion of knowledge' ? (sec. 35) (c) Give two examples of things Descartes thinks we can know. Give an example of something we can't know for certain. (d) Can you think of a counter-example to Descartes criterion of knowledge?

II. Comprehension check: What's the problem of the two-world view?

III. Descartes 1st Argument for the Existence of God

1.  It is clear from the light of nature that there must be as least as much reality in the cause as in the effect.

• How could the effect get its reality if not from what caused it? 
• How could the cause give that reality if it did not possess it itself?

2. It follows that: 

(a) Something can't come into being from nothing and 

(b) The more perfect (or real) cannot come from the less perfect.

3. This is true of both things in the world and ideas in the mind.

• I cannot have an idea unless it caused by something that has as much reality as the idea

4. Great Chain of Being: Levels of Perfection or Reality. I have an idea of “a substance [God] that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful”.

5. The idea could not originate with me because I am finite and the infinite is more real than the finite.

• This comes from premise 2.
• The more real cannot come from what is less real. 
• So, this idea must have been placed in me.

6. Thus, the idea must have been placed in me by a being who is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful

In other words, from the idea I have of God as a perfect being I can concluded that God must exist. 

IV. Descartes Second Argument for the Existence of God
The Basic Argument
A) i)    Every event must have a cause.
     ii)   This cannot go back indefinitely (infinitely).
     iii)  Thus, there must be a first cause.
     iv)  The first cause must be the cause of itself.
     v)   The source of my own (or anything's) existence isn't either (a) myself, (b) my parents, (c)                    anything less perfect less than God.
     vi)   The first cause is God.

(a)  I could not have created myself (sec. 48). Argument: If he had he would have given himself all the perfections he can imagine. But he has imperfections. So, he must not be God and have the power of self-creation nor be the source of the idea of God. 

(b) I can't self-sustain my existence. Even if I suppose I always existed, something must sustain my existence. However, this can't be true since I have no awareness of any such power within me (sec. 48-49).  Is this true that you can't sustain your own existence as a thinking thing? Does this apply to everything? Is it true that the only evidence you have for capacities are ones you are aware of? Can you think of a capacity you have but that you aren't conscious of?

Discussion for Descartes Meditations 1 and 2

Argument against empiricism: Could you know if you were in the Matrix?

1. Comprehension: Why is Descartes trying to discover what cannot possibly be false? What are the three stages of doubt, and what is the point of having all three? Why not just jump to the last one? Explain what foundationalism is. Motivation for Foundationalism.

2. Concept of Knowledge: What is Descartes standard for what counts as knowledge? Why does Descartes make the standard so high?Is it too high? If so, propose an alternative standard.  

3. The Cogito: Explain why "I think therefore I am" is important to Descartes's project and what it means. Do you see any problems with the cogito, either in its implications or in its truth (i.e., can you find counter examples)? 

4. The Wax: How do you know it's the same thing? What's Descartes's answer? Why does he think it is not via perception (sec. 32)? Do you agree or disagree? Whether you agree or not, suppose you wanted to reject his answer, how would you do it? 

5. Truth, Knowledge, and Representational Realism: What does it mean for a statement to be true? How is Descartes representational realism going to make truth about the world difficult to establish?