Argument From Dreaming. 1 This is the second sceptical argument – the second wave of doubt, after the argument from illusion – senses cannot be trusted.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How do we know what exists?
Advertisements

Meditation IV God is not a Deceiver, Truth Criterion & Problem of Error.
The ontological argument. I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor.
The Cogito. The Story So Far! Descartes’ search for certainty has him using extreme sceptical arguments in order to finally arrive at knowledge. He has.
The Role of God in the Meditations (1) Context
© Michael Lacewing Scepticism Michael Lacewing
Descartes’ rationalism
Descartes’ rationalism
René Descartes ( ) Father of modern rationalism. Reason is the source of knowledge, not experience. All our ideas are innate. God fashioned us.
Meditations on First Philosophy
Bigquestions.co.uk1 meditation 3, the trademark argument perfection.
The first proof for God’s existence I have an idea of God (an infinite, perfect being. The cause of an idea must have as much formal reality as objectively.
Lecture Three “The Problem of Knowledge” Think (pp. 32 – 48)  Review last lecture  Descartes’ Clear and Distinct Ideas  “The Trademark Argument”  The.
Descartes on Certainty (and Doubt)
The Rationalists: Descartes Certainty: Self and God
Meditation One What is the objective of the Meditations? Hint: look at second sentence of Med. I.
Sources of knowledge: –Sense experience (empiricism) –Reasoning alone (rationalism) We truly know only that of which we are certain (a priori). Since sense.
Descartes on scepticism
Knowledge empiricism Michael Lacewing
René Descartes The father of modern Western philosophy and the epistemological turn Methodological doubt, his dreaming argument and the evil.
Epistemology: the study of the nature, source, limits, & justification of knowledge Rationalism: we truly know only that of which we are certain. Since.
Results from Meditation 2
Descartes’ Epistemology
Philosophy of Mind Week 3: Objections to Dualism Logical Behaviorism
Descartes’ First Meditation
Knowledge, Skepticism, and Descartes. Knowing In normal life, we distinguish between knowing and just believing. “I think the keys are in my pocket.”
Descartes & Rationalism
Philosophy of Mind Week 2: Descartes and Dualism
Epistemology Section 1 What is knowledge?
Descartes’ Meditations
© Michael Lacewing Doubt in Descartes’ Meditations Michael Lacewing
Descartes Meditations. Knowledge needs a foundation Descartes knows he has false beliefs, but he does not know which ones are false So, we need a method.
Meditation 1. Argument From Illusion We needn’t reject sources of knowledge one by one – we can reject by class. Authorities – parents, books, famous people,
René Descartes ( AD) Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) (Text, pp )
Meditation 6. Trusting the Senses The senses certainly appear real. Rejects God or himself as the source of sense impression & concludes they are real.
René Descartes ( ) Father of modern rationalism.
Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis:
Varieties of Scepticism. Academic Scepticism Arcesilaus, 6 th scolarch of the Academy Arcesilaus, 6 th scolarch of the Academy A return to the Socratic.
René Descartes, Meditations Introduction to Philosophy Jason M. Chang.
“Cogito, ergo sum.” “I think, therefore I am.”.  chief architect of 17 th C intellectual revolution  laid foundations of ‘modern scientific age’
Can you trust your senses?. WHAT DO YOU KNOW? AN INTRODUCTION TO SCEPTICISM.
Descates Meditations II A starting point for reconstructing the world.
DESCARTES MEDITATION 1. René Descartes
1 What’s wrong with the cogito? 1) Is there a questionable hidden premise?  Most criticism is of the cogito in its earlier format: “I think therefore.
A posteriori Knowledge A priori knowledge A posteriori knowledge is based on experience. A posteriori knowledge is based on experience. A priori knowledge.
Meditation 3. Clear & Distinct Ideas Knows that he, “a thinking thing”, exists. Believes he exists because it is so “clearly and distinctly” so – this.
René Descartes Brandon Lee Block D.
Meditations: 3 & 4.
An Outline of Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy
WEEK 4: EPISTEMOLOGY Introduction to Rationalism.
Rene Descartes: March – February Father of Modern Philosophy Attempts to reconcile the new scientific method with traditional metaphysics.
1. I exist, because I think. 2. I am a thinking thing 3
Meditation Six Of God: That He Exists.
Hume’s Fork A priori/ A posteriori Empiricism/ Rationalism
Intuition and deduction thesis (rationalism)
Hume’s Fork A priori/ A posteriori Empiricism/ Rationalism
Skepticism.
The Trademark Argument and Cogito Criticisms
Descartes’ Meditations
1st wave: Illusion Descartes begins his method of doubt by considering that in the past he has been deceived by his senses: Things in the distance looked.
Descartes’ proof of the external world
Descartes, Meditations 1 and 2
Major Periods of Western Philosophy
On your whiteboard: What is empiricism? Arguments/evidence for it?
Problems with IDR Before the holidays we discussed two problems with the indirect realist view. If we can’t perceive the external world directly (because.
Rationalism: we truly know only that of which we are certain
On your whiteboards: 3 differences between philosophical scepticism and everyday incredulity What is meant by “infinite regress”? Why is it a problem.
First Meditation – paragraph 1
Epistemology “Episteme” = knowledge “Logos” = words / study of
God is not a Deceiver, Truth Criterion & Problem of Error
Presentation transcript:

Argument From Dreaming. 1 This is the second sceptical argument – the second wave of doubt, after the argument from illusion – senses cannot be trusted. Descartes thinks he may have gone too far in doubting the senses – that he should trust them after all! He is after all pretty certain of sitting by the fire in his winter dressing gown. But – he thinks it perfectly possible he is dreaming he is sitting by the fire in his winter dressing gown. Thinks there is no certain means by which he can distinguish dream from reality. We can support Descartes here by noting that when we have certain dream experiences the body appears to accept what the dreaming mind accepts as real – we suffer adrenalin rushes and palpitations of the heart when we feel we are being chased by a murderer in our dream.

Argument From Dreaming. 2 Descartes’ point is that if we cannot tell dream from waking experience – if we do not even know that we are dreaming rather than awake – then we do not even know if we are having sense experience or not. Thus the idea of sense experience being reliable is further weakened. Descartes suggests that although while are dreaming of a round red ball it does not actually exist as an object, the dream perception is based on real experience of a round red ball. So the dream still points to waking experience – depends on it in fact! Even if the object is a non existent one – a scaly dragon with a bird head for example – the parts that make up this non real creature are grounded in reality – scales, bird, colour, etc. In fact Descartes thinks that ideas of shape and number – roundness, two legs, one beak and so on – are ideas which are reliable because they exist even if the objects associated with them in the dream do not.

Argument From Dreaming. 3 For whether I am awake or sleeping, two and three added together always make five and a square never has more than four sides and it does not seem possible that truths so apparent can be false. (Med 1) The argument from dreaming seems to suggest that all ideas dependent upon the senses are unreliable – all a posteriori ideas are to be rejected. But this leaves a priori ideas – maths, etc, intact and reliable. Descartes will need the evil demon argument to destroy the reliability of a priori ideas.

Argument From Dreaming. 4 Meditation 6 By the time he arrives at Med 6 Descartes has established the cogito as certain, stated the clear and distinct rule as certain and most importantly established the existence of a wholly good and all powerful God. This God is no deceiver and he argues in Med 6 that sense experience is real since God would not allow us to be deceived – even the minor errors – the sense of itching in an amputated leg – can be corrected by God’s gifts of rationality, memory and the use of the other senses. So having convinced himself of the fact that he has solved the problems he raised in Med 1, he now has to revisit the argument from dreaming for earlier he had argued it undermined trust in the senses and now he is in a position where he thinks, because of God, that they can be trusted. So he must show that he was in error about the dream argument earlier! How to do it though?

Argument From Dreaming. 5 Hence, I need no longer fear that what the senses daily show me is unreal. I should reject the exaggerated doubts of the past few days as ridiculous. This is especially true of the chief ground of these doubts – namely, my inability to distinguish dreaming from being awake. (Med 6.) Dreaming experience is fragmentary and disjointed. For example:- 1.We find ourselves in locations without having travelled to them. 2.People appear out of nowhere. 3.We appear not to exercise memory in dreams – our experience seems not to be continuous but episodic. 4.Time hardly seems to figure in dreams. Waking experience has continuity and coherence. For example:- 1.We can relate our presence in a place easily to how we got there, where we were before. 2.People we meet have independence from our thought process. 3. In waking life we have a very powerful sense of this moment being part of a stream linking all parts of our life together. 4.Time figures strongly in waking life.

Argument From Dreaming. 6 Descartes brings little that is new to his consideration of dreams in Med 6. Although a non deceiving God is now in the picture and encourages him to believe God would not allow him to be seriously deceived in mistaking dream for reality, the key points that distinguish waking from dream experience (slide 5) could have been made when the dream argument was first raised. Waking mind can tell the difference between dream and reality – the dreaming mind cannot. But the waking mind is more essentially “me”. We can apply clear & distinct rule here – we know that we are awake now! Descartes refers to his doubts as “exaggerated....ridiculous”...is this a way of escaping the rigor of Cartesian Method? Does dream argument need a philosophical solution?