came after ancient -> scholastics -> modern

scholastics: catholic philosophy to reconcile church w/ socratic and since developed ideas

1.) Christian/Catholic Philosophy

-attempt to apply aristotle's philosophy w/ christianity

2.)Based on authority of aristotle

-didnt do much original philosophy themselves, just commented on aristotles

-Descartes was opposed to simple commentary

use the doubt to leave the doubt, into knowledge

Methodological vs. substantive skepticism

METH: -skeptics doubt concept of knowledge

-was Descartes skeptic? no.

-only used skepticism to disprove skepticism

SUB: arrive at conclusion of no knowledge

"everything that can be doubted, ought to be doubted"

must doubt everything that is not certain, in same way of rejecting patently false claims 

--to doubt everything is not the same as thinking its false; implies some things CANT be doubted

Ex.) It rained. have I ever been wrong about this?

-if I have, than that is not indubitable knowledge

ex about being wrong about sensory perception:stick that looked bent in water was a product of light refraction

1. A class of knowledge that he can't(as of yet) doubt
2. if an immediate sensory experience has deceived, than the entire CLASS of knowledge is not valid
3. looking for what type of knowledge is scientific knowlege

Might think that reality, or sense of it, is a dream

-I am mistaken in believing it is real

no reliable test for proving that I'm not dreaming

cant prove that I am or aren't dreaming

all things are based on immediate sense experience

-some element of this must be real, even if scene is not(procludes corporeal nature in general)

All things that go past simple things(medicine) are dubitable. Math(algebra and geometry) are not.

--Science based on observation can be doubted, but the element of observation cant be.

Quantity is real. 2+2=4 is real, regardless of experience.

Unless!: there is an "evil genius" who has tricked my into thinking 2+2=4

-he's saying there could be, not that there is, acknowledge the possibility

RESULT: EVERYTHING CAN BE DOUBTED

Establish Possibility/existence of knowledge

1.) establish a set(can be 1) of indubitable truths from an archimedean point

2.)has to determine a rigorous method

(still has yet to establish an edifice of knowledge)

2 claims:

1.) Genuine knowledge must be based on a foundation of truths that are known to a high degree of certainty... even the possibility of error is enough to disprove

2.) Certainty is objective.

-"free from subjective interests"; all inquiry is undisturbed by personal intent or life happenings

is there anything I can know that not even the evil genius could trick me out of? 

YES - concludes the truth of his own existence is indubitable

I think, therefore I am(he doesnt say this)

he only says I exist, which is more basic than thinking

even if I doubt my existence, I nevertheless exist

The evil genius is tricking me to believe I exist, but he is still tricking ME, so I must exist.

Aristotle: "I am a rational animal"

Descartes says: too much presupposition

---foundationalists dont presuppose

nor do you suppose you are a body, or a spirit that animates the body

TAKE AWAY BODY.... what is left?

what the evil genius cant deny is that I am a "thinking thing"!

even im being tricked into the thoughts, I'm still having the thoughts.

I am a thinking thing.

-the mind could, in principle, exist outside of the body; an isolated, detachable thing

NOT THE BRAIN

Wax example - put a wax candle next to a fire. It is wax. however, the wax melts, and looks completely different. How do you know it is the same wax as before? - Deception of sense experience

to have only perception means that as properties change, so would the wax. It does not. must be some other faculty through which we know the wax is the same: thought

it is only one thing that undergoes all that change

draws difference b/w judging and perceiving

judgement is True or False, perception is not

this judgement is the basis of knowledge, an act of the mind that makes sense out of perceptions

automaton example: you see someone walking all bundled up. Descartes says you only see the clothes, so how do you KNOW that there is someone under the clothes? an influence, thats how

where the Body is perceived, the existence and nature of mind is inferred.

if god exists, and is perfect, then the evil demon can't be as powerful as surmised in 1st meditation.

2nd reason: Solipsism - the view that the existence of the mind is the only thing that can't be called into question

view that the existence of the mind is the only thing that cant be called into question(doubted)

existence of god disproves solipsism

-possibility of knowledge of the external world, AKA rejecting skepticism

s

fictitious - come from inside

adventitious - come from outside

objective - type of reality particular to the idea or thought

formal - the type of idea that is particular to the objects themselves

ex.) idea of tree is objective, the actual tree is formal

ideas themselves have formal reality - just like trees have matter, ideas have thought stuff

Substances are more real than attributes(modes, accolades)

more real, or perfect in Descartes language

most real of all are infinite substances

-cosmological arguments(causal arguments)

-saying my idea(god exists) has its own reality

-typically assume "by the natural light" the Principle of Sufficient Reason

pg. 37 - everything must have a sufficient cause, cannot come from nothing

says must be as much reality in cause as there is in effect

--cannot get infinite substance out of finite substance

1st premise - idea of God: descartes has an idea of god

2nd premise - my idea of god must have a cause

3rd premise - the cause of my idea of god must have as much reality as my idea

therefore, there must be an infinitely perfect substance behind the idea of god... god is this infinitely perfect substance

reflects on own existence and persistence through time

1st premise - I exist, and I persist through time

2nd premise - Something must have caused me to exist and persist, i.e i havent always existed

3rd premise - couldnt have been me, my parents, or a being less perfect than that of god

therefore: god exists

recognize that it would be impossible to exist with present nature I have, where it not the case that God existed

--by God, the possesor of all perfect things, who can in my thoughts and be perfect, no error

Descartes believes this knowledge is airtight

both arguments depend on only own existence and own ideas

--"I exist as a thinking thing" is the most basic premise

plato and descartes - reason is essential for human dignity

human dignity is what separates us from everything  else

both say we have innate knowledge and this is essential

french movement of philosophy after WWII

philosophy of existence

-essence precedes existence(according to the essentialist)

-existence precedes essence(according to the existentialist)

--meaning, you exist w/o essence and then you figure it out

(plato - exist through forms)

man is determined to ask the very questions he cant answer

another way of capturing the lack of essence exercises the existential consequences of our nothing awareness

-consequences are: dread, anxiety, despair

these are typically subconsious. fear has an object, anxiety does not

Death provokes that human dignity question: "Who are we?"

what makes us special? could just be accidents, or not!

might be IN the world, but not OF the world

this question is theoretical and normative

saying we are all rational doesnt make us so, it just means we have the capacity

says soul gets wrapped up and imprisoned by desires and says investigation through senses is full of deception, says trust only forms

aim of philosophy is to purify soul at expense of the body

theoretical and normative perfectionism

fuck it

two types - subjective and objective truth

subjective - ethical/religious truth, also aesthetics

objective - appropriate in scientific/empirical contexts

improving self.

sickness unto death is not a selfhelp manual, simply trying to provoke a re-examination views

a.) the self is a relation, not a substance/thing

b.) not just a relation, its a relating

-its an activity, not a state

c.)relating itself to itself

-aspects of the self; composed of elements that can be unrelating(out of harmony, fragmented, broken)

d.) self is self-conscious

"to exist" is to "become human"

-meta position with regards to who i am 

e.) the self is not self-sufficient

self exists only relating to "the power that establishes it" (basically a social relation)

need an other to define the self

activity of the self = activity of becoming a self

despair is failing to become a self(an authentic self)

1.) despair is not identical to its symptoms; can be in despair even if you dont have any symptoms

the most secret hiding place of despair is happiness

2.)No form of Despair can be defined directly, only by reflecting on its opposite can it be defined

ex.) I dont have any symptoms, I'm not in despair!

Fuck you, you probably are!

3.) To despair over oneself; to despair to be rid of oneself

-when you despair, you despair over internal things, not external

Despair is a nagging call to become a self that intensifies as you realize you're in it

(can't escape death, and that's what drives you crazy)

despair is universal condition of self, self is complicated activity of becoming human

-doesnt always appear with symptoms

mans dominance over animals boils down to ?

wishing away despair is like wishing away rationality

possibility to despair makes us human

Descartes - Mind and body

Kierkegaard - Soul and body

Body                           Soul

material                  immaterial

embody                    disembody

etc.............................etc.

mind/body problem, the mind is a physical thing is ALL aspects. everything ascribed to mind is more correctly ascribed to brain(body)

reducing human being to body vs. soul

the BIG RIFT b/w Descartes and Kierkegaard

Despair is a result of a poor balance between existing self and ideal self

existing self is the finite/temporal/necessary. it is the bourgeouis conformist. a person with the full existing self has no imagination at all, obsessed with facts.

Ideal self - the possibility/eternal/infinite. the thinking self. they are always thinking and never take any action.

these are both extremes.

not knowing there is a task to become a self (despair as a weakness)

man of immediacy - who's life happens by accident

someone who has no idea of the task of becoming a self, happiness is really a term for pleasantness

the man of immediacy is an unreflective creature, a man of nature. the man to whom things happen, not the man who makes things happen. passive, unreflective, at mercy of external circumstance.

person is aware that he has a self, aware that becoming a self requires a certain amount of infinitizing(moving beyond the immediate)

-however, this person rejects the task

is therefore conscious of despair

becomes aware of task and manages to forget it, usually during pursuit of societies picture of ideal happiness

once aware of the task, simply willing oneself to become a self is not sufficient. (a self is not self-sufficient)

willing to be a self is necessary but not sufficient to becoming a self

A limiting factor is Despair as Defiance

-trying to hard to become a self, as you think it is something you can do on your own. you are unable to be self-sufficient, yet you think you are.