Read the first
two of Rene Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. A version modernized by Professor Jonathon
Bennett is online at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/philosophy/Personnel/susan/Amina_Frank/meditations.htm
(Note: When you get to the
heading that says "Third Meditation: The Existence of God," you are
done. Reading further is entirely
optional.) A very helpful guide to the Meditations,
written by Rae Langton of the University of Edinburgh, is available at http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/study_html/vade_mecum/sections/section5/descart1.htm. I’d strongly recommend reading at least the
first part of this for background on Descartes and his social context.
Below are study
questions for Descartes’ first two meditations. (You need not write out
answers to these; they are meant to help guide your reading.) The numbers in parentheses refer to the paragraphs
of the Bennett version of the Meditations. There are 12 paragraphs in his
version of the first meditation and 21 in the second meditation.
1.
What task does
Descartes set for himself at the beginning of this meditation?
2.
How does he
propose to accomplish his task? (Paragraph 2)
3.
What is the
first reason he finds to doubt the evidence of his senses? (End of P. 2)
4.
Why does he
think that this reason is not enough to undermine all his sense-based
beliefs? (P.3)
5.
What further
reason does he then propose for doubting his opinions? (P. 4-6)
6.
What sorts of
beliefs survive even this reason for doubting them? (P.7-8)
7.
What hypothesis
then leads him to doubt even these remaining beliefs? (P. 9)
8.
What other
hypothesis does he then consider, which leads him to the same conclusion (i.e.,
the conclusion that “doubts can properly be raised about any of my former
beliefs ... on the basis of powerful and well thought-out reasons.”)? (P. 10)
9.
For what
purpose does Descartes suppose “an evil genius, supremely powerful and clever,
who has directed his entire effort at deceiving me”? (P. 12)
10. Note how Descartes works his
way towards his first indubitable conclusion: “I am, I exist.” (Para’s 2-9,
presented by Bennett as a dialogue between Hopeful and Doubtful) How do you think he would respond if someone
said: “How do you know you really exist?
You might just be dreaming that you exist!”?
12. What did Descartes used to
think he was before he set out on these meditations? (P. 11)
13. What do his current
meditations lead him to conclude about himself? (P.12-13)
14.
The
passage about the wax is difficult.
Feel free to skip it.
15.
Descartes
has now established (to his satisfaction, at least) that he does know something
for sure: he knows that he exists. Do
you agree with him that he does know this for sure (and that you, therefore,
know for sure that you exist)? Do you
agree with him when he says that he has “powerful and well thought-out reasons”
to conclude that he doesn’t know anything else for sure (and, therefore, that
you don’t know anything else for sure either)?
Why or why not? Does the
possibility that you might be living in the Matrix (or some such virtual
reality device) give you a good reason to doubt all your beliefs?
Read
also: Martin Gardner’s forward to How to Think About Weird Things (pp.vii-viii)
and the Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science (pp.1-8). As you read these two selections, think
about your own attitudes towards and beliefs about science. Do you think that the natural sciences
produce universally valid and objective knowledge? Do you think that they constitute the best or the only way of
knowing what the world is really like?
Do you think (as Fay suggests at the top of page 2) that there are
“alternative forms of knowing?” (If so, what are they?) Do you agree with what Fay calls
‘relativism’ that no perspective on the world is any better than any other
perspective – that, for example, voodoo may be as valid as scientific medicine
as a way of understanding diseases?
(Notice that ‘perspectivism’ and ‘relativism’ are different. What, according to Fay, is the
difference?) Think, also, about your
own attitudes toward relativism and multiculturalism. In my experience teaching college, it is very common for students
to express relativistic ideas. “It all
depends on your point of view.” Or “Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.”
Or the recurring question, “Who’s to say?”
Sometimes I get the feeling that people are actually offended by the
idea that some opinions might be just wrong and other opinions simply
correct. What do you think?