So I have to ask myself whether I have the power to bringit about that I, who now exist, will still exist a minute fromnow. For since I am nothing but a thinking thing—or anywaythat is the only part of me that I am now concerned with—ifI had such a power I would undoubtedly be aware of it
This really stood out to me. If the only thing we can for sure do is think then that is not enough to keep ourselves existing.
bring a thing intoexistence is also needed to •keep it in existence at each mo
God creates and maintains
Perhaps I have always existed as I do now.Then wouldn’t it follow that there need be no cause for myexistence?
If we never change it isn't worth it for us to exist?
a being more perfect than God, or even one as perfect, isunthinkable
Why can't God create a being as perfect as Him? Can He only make something less than him and not equal too?
If one concentrates carefully, all this is quite evident bythe natural light. But when I relax my concentration, and mymental vision is blurred by the images of things I perceiveby the senses
We can manipulate our own senses, as well as senses already being manipulated to begin with
strictly speaking potential being is nothing; what ittakes to cause the representative being of an idea is actualbeing
This makes sense. There MUST be an infinite being for their to be the possibility of us (finite) and that 'potential' isn't enough
First, though it is true thatmy knowledge is increasing, and that I have many poten-tialities that are not yet actual, this is all quite irrelevant tothe idea of God, which contains absolutely nothing that ispotential.
How does God contain nothing that is potential? Doesn't this directly contradict Descartes claims about God being infinite? Or is this 'devils advocate?'
Whenever I know that I doubt something or want something,I understand that I lack something and am therefore notwholly perfect
Proof we are not infinite
I understand a substance that is infinite,eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent,supremely powerful, which created myself and anything elsethat may exist. The more carefully I concentrate on theseattributes, the less possible it seems that any of them couldhave originated from me alone. So this whole discussionimplies that God necessarily exists.
Something infinite must have put these ideas in our finite minds, this is necessary.
For example, I think that astone is a substance, or is a thing capable of existing indepen-dently, and I also think that I am a substance.
USE IN CAPSTONE
obscure way that I don’t even know whether they are trueor false
Hasn't proven that senses are true since they can be manipulated and their legitimacy is still questionable. Still doubting.
As to my ideas of bodies, so far as I can see they containnothing that is so great or excellent that it couldn’t haveoriginated in myself
Determined there is a creator. Now moving on to the creation of bodies themselves knowing that a creator is certain from logical reasoning above.
So the natural light makes itclear to me that my ideas are like pictures or images that caneasily •fall short of the perfection of the things from whichthey are taken, but which can’t •exceed it
The quality of something depends on the extent to which the creator has the capacity to create. Finite cannot make something infinite but infinite can make something finite.
Thus, for example, althoughGod is obviously not himself hot, he can cause something tobe hot because he contains heat not straightforwardly but ina higher form·
Isn't this saying God 'can't' be something? Thus saying he is not omnipotent?
though they seemopposed to my will, come from within me; ·which providesevidence that I can cause things that my will does not cause
Can we go over this in class? I think I know what it is trying to say but I want clarification. Having thoughts that we don't want to have proves we cause things our wills don't want? Is our 'will' then separate from 'ourselves?'
ight now, for example, I have a feeling ofwarmth, whether I want to or not, and that leads me to thinkthat this sensation or idea of heat comes from somethingother than myself, namely the heat of a fire by which I amsitting.
Connection to Galileo (first reading for this class)
Among my ideas, some seem to be •innate, some to be•caused from the outside, and others to have been •inventedby me
Voluntary vs involuntary as discussed in class
the reason fordoubt based purely on this supposition of a deceiving Godis a very slight and theoretical one
Fiinite mind can't come up with this concept so there must be something greater. That is how I read and understand this.
Indeed, Ibelieved this for so long that I wrongly came to think that Iperceived it clearly
Mistook 'perceiving and experiencing' something as 'seeing' it.
stillsensory perception and imagination themselves, consideredsimply as mental events, certainly do occur in me
mental events = thinking, perceiving the world around him without ever truly seeing it
I will now shut my eyes, block my ears, cut off all mysenses
So as not to be lead astray since thinking is the only thing he is sure of so far
because those arguments imply that there really isa world, and that men have bodies and so on (no sane personhas ever seriously doubted these things), but •because inconsidering these arguments we come to realise that theyare not as solid or as transparent as the ones that lead usto knowledge of our minds and of God
There is more transparent reasons to believe in God whom we cannot see than bodies that are right in front of us
so our idea of God must haveGod himself as its cause
Idea originated by means of something greater than a finite mind. It seems Descartes thinks humans could have never come up with such a concept alone.
wanting to draw my readers’ souls awayfrom the senses as far as possible, I didn’t want there touse any comparison taken from bodily things
Is this because God is not human and does not have the bodily characteristics that we associate with a person/being? Descartes doesn't want the reader to have that association.
we need to recognise that body, takenin the general sense, is a substance that also never perishes.But a human body, considered as separate from other bodies,is constituted simply by a certain configuration of organs andother accidents
'Body' and 'Human Body' are used differently here and their distinction must be noted. Going back to the idea that words and word choice matters and must have close attention when reading Philosophy.
irst because these argumentsare enough to show that the decay of the body does not implythe destruction of the mind, and are hence enough to givemortals the hope of an after-life
Is this the opposite of what he hopes to accomplish in these meditations? Because I thought this was the intention...
Forwe cannot conceive of half of a mind, while we can alwaysconceive of half of a body, however small; and this leads usto recognise that the natures of mind and body are not onlydifferent but in a way opposite
This stands out to me because I have never thought of it like this before. The inability to have half a mind intrigues me.
all the things that we vividly and clearlyconceive of as different substances (as we do in the case ofmind and body) are in fact substances that are really distinctone from the other
The use of 'Substances' (the term) is unique here as it refers to persons
But since some people may expect arguments for theimmortality of the soul in this place, I think they should bewarned here that I have tried not to put down anything thatI could not precisely demonstrate
Only writes philosophical concepts and arguments that he can prove without question (when asked to clarify at times if needed)
the mind—using its own freedom—supposes the non-existence of all the things about whoseexistence there can be even the slightest doubt, and becomesaware that it is impossible that it should not itself exist atthis time
The mind should not exist?
So first of all in the Meditations I will set out thevery thoughts that have led me to what I think is certainand evident knowledge of the truth, so that I can find outwhether I can convince others by the same arguments thathave convinced me
Write his experiences and thoughts and the reader can 'take it or leave it'
I wouldnot urge anyone to read this book except those who are ableand willing to meditate seriously with me, and to withdrawtheir minds from the senses and from all preconceivedopinions
Come to the reading with an open mind and believe what Descartes writes. Then ponder and question after meditating on it.
So, providedwe remember that our minds must be regarded as finite,while God is infinite and beyond our comprehension, suchobjections will not cause us any difficulty
But how do we know for sure that God is infinite? Or is this something we must assume for the arguments to work?
all the objections commonly tossed around by atheists toattack the existence of God depend either on •attributinghuman feelings to God or on •arrogantly claiming such powerand wisdom for our own minds that we can set out to grasp
We can't consider our human feelings when questioning and exploring the existence of God. Our feelings don't impact this reality or non-reality.
he judgement of many people is so silly and weak that theyaccept an opinion the first time they encounter it,
It's important to read and reread and not believe something the first time it is presented to you. This is something I intend to work on in this class.
’Idea’ can be taken a materially, as an operation of theintellect, which cannot be said to be more perfect than me;or it can be taken b objectively
Understanding of 'idea' relies on interpretation of the word. Words are so important and each one has meaning so they must be used carefully and thoughtfully when explaining and making arguments.
From the fact that the human mind, when directedtowards itself, does not perceive itself to be anythingbut a thinking thing, it does not follow that its natureor essence consists only in its being a thinking thing,where the word ’only’ excludes everything else thatcould be said to belong to the nature of the sou
I remember this from Intro to Philosophy, the essence of the mind is to be a thinking thing and if it doesn't fulfill this then it is not fulfilling its purpose
because then weakerintellects might think they should set out on the same path
Descartes holds himself to a high standard and wants future philosophers to produce work on a higher level as well
everyone else will confidently go along with so manydeclarations of assent, so that there will be no-one left inthe world who dares to call in question either the existenceof God or the real distinctness of the human soul from thehuman body
Is 'confidently going along' the same as believing?
your authority will induce the atheists—whousually have smatterings of knowledge rather than intelli-gence or learning
claims atheists are not 'well-educated' but and don't have the insight a philosopher does. Can nonbelievers be philosophers then?
so clear that theyare fit to be regarded as very exact demonstrations,you may be willing to declare as much, and make apublic statement to that effect
Descartes wants the reader to go out and discuss these concepts and arguments. Philosophy is meant to be a conversation.
Hence, whatever the quality of my arguments may be,because they have to do with philosophy I don’t expect theywill have much effect on people’s minds unless you grant meyour patronage
Reader must be open to ideas and not seek to argue / disprove but consider the statements and their legitimacy
they require amind that is completely free from preconceived opinions andcan easily detach itself from involvement with the senses
The Religious Studies Concept of 'Phenomenology'
In geometry there are manywritings left by Archimedes, Apollonius, Pappus and othersthat are accepted by everyone as evident and certain becauseeach step in them is easily seen to be true when consideredon its own,
These writings also cover such topics of the soul and God. Descartes cites because their claims may appear in these meditations?
Now, I completely disagree with this; I think that almost allthe arguments that great men have put forward on these twoquestions (when properly understood) are demonstrations,and that it would be almost impossible to discover anynew ones
Philosophers have proven these points to nonbelievers, but they have failed to 'properly understand' according to Descartes
Christian philosophers to reply to their arguments and touse all the powers of their intellect to establish the truth, Ihave not hesitated to undertake that task in this work.
Thesis: Prove God and soul with all his philosophical mind has to offer in these meditations as the Church has requested
And in the same place, in the words ’that whichmay be known of God is manifest in them’, we seem to betold that everything that can be known of God can be shownby reasons that have no other source but our own mind
Our own mind. Reminds me of the philosophical concept where I know I am a concise being but I can't know another person is because I don't know their mind and state of consciousness personally.
But this argumentcannot be put to unbelievers, because they would think it tobe (as the logicians say) circular
This argument has the assumption that the one hearing it already believes in God and the soul as a theologist would, however this may not be the case which is why philosophy is a more successful approach at explaining these concepts.
but in the case of unbelievers,it seems that there is no religion—and hardly any moralvirtue—that they can be persuaded to adopt until these twotruths are proved to them by natural reason
From what I understand of this: Philosophers do a better job proving to nonbelievers the existence of God and the soul than a theologist does. Is that because nonbelievers are more receptive to philosophers? Or is it their approach?
I have always thought that two topics—namely God andthe soul—are prime examples of subjects where demonstra-tive proofs ought to be given with the aid of philosophy ratherthan theology
This is interesting to me. God and matters of the soul should be considered and studied by philosophers. The difference of lens and approach when analyzing these topics is what I seek to understand better.