--------
Descartes’ organising question is ...
--------
This seems true, even today.
Why is that?
--------
‘The main reason why we can find nothing in ordinary philosophy which is so evident and certain as to be beyond dispute is that students of the subject first of all are not content to acknowledge what is clear and certain, but on the basis of merely probably conjectures venture also to make assertions on obscure matters about which nothing is known; they then gradually come to have complete faith in these assertions, ... The result is that the only conclusions they can draw are ones which apparently rest on some such obscure proposition, and which are accordingly uncertain.’ (Rules for the Direction of the Mind, p. 14)
\citep[p.~14, AT X:367--8]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
Why do I mention this?
I’ve just been moderating your PH146 essays!
--------
‘in practical life
it is sometimes necessary to act upon opinons which one knows to be quite uncertain just as if they were indubitable’
\citep[p.~126 AT 6:31]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
In devoting ‘myself soley to the search for truth
... I resolved to
pretend
that all the things that had ever
entered my mind were no more true
that the illusions of my dreams’
\citep[p.~127 AT 6:32]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
--------
‘I noticed that while I was trying thus to think everything false
it was necessary that I,
who was thinking this,
was something.’
\citep[p.~126 AT 6:31]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
What is thinking?
‘By the term ‘thought’, I understand everything which we are aware of as
happening within us, in so far as we have awareness of it. Hence,
thinking is to be identified here not merely with understanding, willing
and imagining, but also with sensory awareness’
\citep[p.~195 AT VIII:7]{descartes:1985_csm1}.
--------
‘this truth
“I am thinking, therefore I exist”
[is] so firm and sure
that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics [are] incapable of shaking it’
I took it as ‘the first principle’.
--------
\citep[p.~126 AT 6:31]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
adapted from Hatfield p. 107
--------
subject, attitude, content
--------
No!
--------
‘We clearly understand that it is possible for me to exist at this moment, while I am thinking of
one thing, and yet not to exist at the very next moment’
\citep[p.~355 AT V:192]{descartes:1984_vol3}
--------
adapted from Hatfield p. 107
--------
Is this argument correct? Any objections?
--------
‘When someone says 'I am breathing, therefore I exist', if he wants to prove he exists from the fact
that there cannot be breathing without existence, he proves nothing, because he would have to prove
first that it is true that he is breathing, which is impossible unless he has also proved that
he exists’
\citep[p.~98 AT II:37]{descartes:1984_vol3}.
‘if I say ‘I
am seeing, or I am walking, therefore I exist’, and take this as applying to
vision or walking as bodily activities, then the conclusion is not
absolutely certain. This is because, as often happens during sleep, it is
possible for me to think I am seeing or walking, though my eyes are
closed and I am not moving about; such thoughts might even be possible
if I had no body at all. But if I take 'seeing' or 'walking' to apply to the
actual sense or awareness of seeing or walking, then the conclusion is
quite certain, since it relates to the mind, which alone has the sensation
or thought that it is seeing or walking’
\citep[p.~195 AT VII:7]{descartes:1985_csm1}.
--------
What is this ‘I’ doing here?
Why isn’t the conclusion just that something exists?
--------
Note that we are not deducing ‘I exist’ from any general premises ...
‘When someone says “I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist,” he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but by a simple intuition of the mind.
This is clear from the fact that if he were deducing it by a syllogism, he would
previously have had to know the major premise “Everything that thinks is, or exists”
--------
yet in fact
he learns this from experiencing in his own case that it is impossible that he should think
without existing.’
\citep[AT 7:140]{descartes:1985_csm2}
--------
Descartes’ view is that you know the “Everything that thinks is, or exists”
by virtue of knoiwng that you yourself cannot think without existing.
--------
Confirmed elsewhere ...
‘... the truth of the proposition 'I am thinking, therefore I exist.'
Now this knowledge is not the work
of your reasoning
--------
[...] it is something that your mind sees,
feels and handles;
[...] although your imagination insistently mixes itself up with your thoughts
and lessens the clarity of this knowledge by trying to clothe it with shapes
\citep[p.~331 AT V:138]{descartes:1984_vol3}
--------
adapted from Hatfield p. 107
There is no argument.
--------
recall from the start of the lecture ...
--------
‘this truth
“I am thinking, therefore I exist”
[is] so firm and sure
that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics [are] incapable of shaking it’
I took it as ‘the first principle’.
--------
\citep[p.~126 AT 6:31]{descartes:1985_csm1}
--------
One puzzle for us will be what this means.
Hatfield suggests one possibility:
‘by offering an instance of certain knowledge, [it] reveals the proper method for attaining knowledge’
--------
adapted from Hatfield p. 107
It is something certain, and it is a ‘first principle’.
--------
Descartes’ organising question is ...