Meditation 2: The Nature of the Mind, which is Better Known than the Body Descartes Meditation I

Descartes as Rationalist

This is NOT what we mean by ‘Rationalist’! Not rational as opposed to irrational Notice: she doesn’t have a head Rationalist as opposed to Empiricist!

Rationalist vs Empiricist: Knowledge & Sense Experience Empiricists: sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge. Rationalists: significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area are knowable by us by intuition alone; others by being deduced from intuited propositions. Note commitment to epistemic fundamentalism: the Cartesian project! The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature. The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature.

What do I know? Foundationalism: rebuilding from foundation of certainty (the Archimedian point) ‘I will set aside anything that admits of the slightest doubt’ (for the time being) including The existence of ordinary material objects (including my own body) and their properties (‘Body, shape, extension, movement, place) since sense experience is unreliable What is certain? (i.e. Evil-Demon-Resistent?) Cogito: I know that I exist (‘let him [the demon] deceive me all he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing while I think I am something ‘I am simply a thing that thinks--a mind, or soul, or intellect, or reason’ The Wax Example: mind known more certainly than body

Cogito ergo Sum! I am, I exist, must be true whnever I assert it or think it

The Archimedian Point! Archeimedes said that if he had one firm and immovable point he could lift the world with a long enough lever; so I to can hope for great things if I manage to find just one little thing a that is solid and certain.

I am! I exist! ‘I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.’ First person formulation essential: I only know of my own existence. Present tense formulation essential: I only know that I now exist My existence is not necessary but necessarily if/when I conceive or doubt my existence I exist. Does not assume ontological dualism or doctrine of the substantial self (to be discussed later): I don’t know what I am. Arguably assumes point-or-view--which isn’t given in sense-experience (as Hume notes). Do I know that I exist rather than just that thinking occurs?

The Subconscious? What do I know of myself?

Privileged Access ‘I know plainly that I can achieve an easier and more evident perception of my own mind than of anything else.’ Further questions on varieties of privileged access of the mental: Omniscience: if I am in a mental state, S, then I know I’m in S. (I can’t be ignorant) Infallibility: If I believe that I’m in a mental state, S, then I am in S. (I can’t be mistaken) And many other varieties, e.g. I know better than anyone else whether I’m in S Varieties of mental states--’feely’ and otherwise…

Now what? I think, therefore I am

The Wax Argument

The Wax Thought Experiment Preliminary: what is a thought experiment--and what can a thought experiment show? Distinguish sense perception and judgement (compare judgement re optical illusions!) We say that we see the wax itself, if it is there before us, not that we judge it to be there from its colour or shape; and this might lead me to conclude without more ado that knowledge of the wax comes from what the eye sees, and not from the scrutiny of the mind alone. But then if I look out of the window and see men crossing the square, as I just happen to have done, I normally say that I see the men themselves, just as I say that I see the wax. Yet do I see any more than hats and coats which could conceal automatons? I judge that they are men. (Intellect entertains; will judges)

The Moral of the Wax Example Mind's immediate perception does not, strictly speaking, extend beyond itself, to external bodies. …an important basis of the mind-better-known-than-body doctrine. But I shall let my mind run free for a while and consider what material substance would be like if it were out there… The sensible qualities of the wax (taste, smell, color, tangible solidity, etc. are like the hats and coats on the men in the street--which don’t show what they are. Even bodies are not strictly [proprie] perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagination but by the intellect alone, and that this perception derives not from their being touched or seen but from their being understood.

So, what is there? Me…at least me now...or at least my current thoughts (e.g. my thinking, my doubting, etc. But I still don’t know what I am other than that I am a thing that thinks (that has to wait until Meditation VI) I know also that if there are material things out there (which I don’t yet know) then they are essentially extended substances. So...I am a thinking thing; material things if there are such are extended substances. But am I, this thinking thing, the Archemedian point from which I can leverage further knowledge about about the world???

Now what?