Topic: Philosophy made (sort of) easy: Descartes
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU started this discussion 14 years ago #17,155
So, in a moment of pure boredom, I have decided to try to make philosophy a little more accessible. This topic would be the first in a series of topics if I weren't lazy, but I am, so this will probably be the only topic I ever make doing this.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I will start with Descartes. Specifically his Meditations on First Philosophy. If you plan on reading from that site, I wouldn't recommend reading the intro/preface/whatever. It's not necessary. I'll try to say whatever is in their in a much briefer (and probably more inaccurate) manner.
Descartes' mission is to find a firm philosophical foundation for the budding sciences. Natural philosophy (what would later become modern science) had just gotten started, and so Descartes was trying to find some really concrete philosophical justification for it in order to cement its usefulness. The gold standard for knowledge at the time was Euclid's Elements. In that book (actually a series of books), Euclid starts from (allegedly) incontestable axioms (such as 2 parallel lines never intersect) and then via pure deductive reasoning, expands those axioms into equally certain new truths. If Descartes could put Philosophy in general (or at least science) on equally firm footing, then humanity would be greatly benefited, and doing scientific inquiry could be permanently and perfectly epistemically justified.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I will start with Descartes. Specifically his Meditations on First Philosophy. If you plan on reading from that site, I wouldn't recommend reading the intro/preface/whatever. It's not necessary. I'll try to say whatever is in their in a much briefer (and probably more inaccurate) manner.
Descartes' mission is to find a firm philosophical foundation for the budding sciences. Natural philosophy (what would later become modern science) had just gotten started, and so Descartes was trying to find some really concrete philosophical justification for it in order to cement its usefulness. The gold standard for knowledge at the time was Euclid's Elements. In that book (actually a series of books), Euclid starts from (allegedly) incontestable axioms (such as 2 parallel lines never intersect) and then via pure deductive reasoning, expands those axioms into equally certain new truths. If Descartes could put Philosophy in general (or at least science) on equally firm footing, then humanity would be greatly benefited, and doing scientific inquiry could be permanently and perfectly epistemically justified.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #290,784
So basically his plan was to think really hard so that these thoughts could be used to expand science and stuff?
Cool guy. He had the right idea.
Cool guy. He had the right idea.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #290,787
(Note: This topic will be most useful to you if you read the passage first, and then look at my summary of it, though that's not necessary.)
Meditation #1
Descartes starts off by mentioning that as he has gone through life, there have been many beliefs and ideas which were at one point believed to be true but which later became utterly discredited. Given that so much alleged knowledge was in flux, was there any way he could know some thing which was utterly indubitable? Not merely in a "well you'd have to be crazy to deny X!" kind of way, but in a "It is logically impossible for you to doubt X" way.
With this in mind, we reach Descartes' epistemic (epistemic here means "related to a theory of knowledge: what knowledge is, and how we acquire it, and so forth) claim #1:
If it can in principle be doubted, then it cannot be considered knowledge. Using this incredibly harsh standard of knowledge, Descartes begins to slice away at his beliefs. Instead of going at them one by one, he cuts out whole swaths of beliefs. He immediately rejects any and all sensory "knowledge". After all, our senses do sometimes deceive us, and if we are sometimes deceived by our senses, it is logically possible that we are always deceived by our senses(no matter how incredibly remote and bizarre that idea may seem to you).
Here, Descartes kicks up the skepticism an extra notch. Suppose that not only our senses have deceived us, suppose that right at this very moment, you are sleeping and in the middle of a dream. Everything you see, think or do is taking place in an elaborate dream. Suppose this dream state has existed for as long as you have been conscious. If that is the case, then every observation you have ever made fails the strict standard of knowledge Descartes has set up. Even in a dream state, though, it still seems as though 2+2 = 4. The basic facts of geometry and arithmetic apply even in dream states, after all. A circle will never have three sides, even in a dream, and a square will never be one-dimensional.
So, after reaching this point it seems that we have found a base, right? Geometry and mathematics will provide us with the grounding for our theory of knowledge.
...Except not quite.
Descartes asks us to entertain one last extraordinary possibility: Suppose that every thought you have ever had has been the product of a perfectly malevolent, perfectly powerful, perfectly knowledgeable being whose sole purpose is to ensure that you are as deceived as you can possibly be. Every thought you have ever thought or ever will think is utterly false. This includes even basic mathematical propositions like 1 + 1 = 2. After all, since such a scenario is conceivable (no matter how unlikely you may think), it seems that all knowledge claims are totally unsubstantiated, unjustifiable and false.
At this point, Descartes ends his first Meditation in a deeply troubling philosophical hole. What, if anything can he do to get himself out of this mess?
Feel free to take a guess, or ask questions, or just ignore this thread because it's boring. I will try to respond to feedback if you have anything you'd like to tell me.
Meditation #1
Descartes starts off by mentioning that as he has gone through life, there have been many beliefs and ideas which were at one point believed to be true but which later became utterly discredited. Given that so much alleged knowledge was in flux, was there any way he could know some thing which was utterly indubitable? Not merely in a "well you'd have to be crazy to deny X!" kind of way, but in a "It is logically impossible for you to doubt X" way.
With this in mind, we reach Descartes' epistemic (epistemic here means "related to a theory of knowledge: what knowledge is, and how we acquire it, and so forth) claim #1:
If it can in principle be doubted, then it cannot be considered knowledge. Using this incredibly harsh standard of knowledge, Descartes begins to slice away at his beliefs. Instead of going at them one by one, he cuts out whole swaths of beliefs. He immediately rejects any and all sensory "knowledge". After all, our senses do sometimes deceive us, and if we are sometimes deceived by our senses, it is logically possible that we are always deceived by our senses(no matter how incredibly remote and bizarre that idea may seem to you).
Here, Descartes kicks up the skepticism an extra notch. Suppose that not only our senses have deceived us, suppose that right at this very moment, you are sleeping and in the middle of a dream. Everything you see, think or do is taking place in an elaborate dream. Suppose this dream state has existed for as long as you have been conscious. If that is the case, then every observation you have ever made fails the strict standard of knowledge Descartes has set up. Even in a dream state, though, it still seems as though 2+2 = 4. The basic facts of geometry and arithmetic apply even in dream states, after all. A circle will never have three sides, even in a dream, and a square will never be one-dimensional.
So, after reaching this point it seems that we have found a base, right? Geometry and mathematics will provide us with the grounding for our theory of knowledge.
...Except not quite.
Descartes asks us to entertain one last extraordinary possibility: Suppose that every thought you have ever had has been the product of a perfectly malevolent, perfectly powerful, perfectly knowledgeable being whose sole purpose is to ensure that you are as deceived as you can possibly be. Every thought you have ever thought or ever will think is utterly false. This includes even basic mathematical propositions like 1 + 1 = 2. After all, since such a scenario is conceivable (no matter how unlikely you may think), it seems that all knowledge claims are totally unsubstantiated, unjustifiable and false.
At this point, Descartes ends his first Meditation in a deeply troubling philosophical hole. What, if anything can he do to get himself out of this mess?
Feel free to take a guess, or ask questions, or just ignore this thread because it's boring. I will try to respond to feedback if you have anything you'd like to tell me.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #290,897
Philosophy: hey, i just figured it out! Maybe...
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #291,003
tl;dr-
He's the guy who recognized "I think, therefore I am," as the one undeniable truth, and started deriving other mathematical truths from there. Also, the Cartesian plane that you use in algebra, geometry, and graphs all the time? He fucking invented that. You're welcome.
Also, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHihkRwisbE
He's the guy who recognized "I think, therefore I am," as the one undeniable truth, and started deriving other mathematical truths from there. Also, the Cartesian plane that you use in algebra, geometry, and graphs all the time? He fucking invented that. You're welcome.
Also, this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHihkRwisbE
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #291,067
