Comments on: Are We the Wax? http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/are-we-the-wax/ Fall 2008 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:10:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Lihy E. http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/are-we-the-wax/#comment-161 Lihy E. Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:48:55 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=109#comment-161 From what I gathered, Descartes analysis of the wax was a depiction that further developed his notion of our reliance on the senses. Thus, my understanding led me to believe that the wax was a metaphor used to show us that what our senses tell us should be doubted because all of those characteristics can be changed (instantaneously). Building further on what you said about the impossibility of the task Descartes was attempting to take on, it doesn't seem feasible in any sense. How can he/we just let go of everything that has happened or that we have experienced for this greater purpose. Our outlook on life is shaped entirely on our interactions with society. Even if we conform to the non-conformist perspective, we nonetheless have been shaped by opting to not be something that is in our midst. This was the central argument that I had with his later meditations. He tells us to doubt everything from so many angles and does such a thorough analysis to come to his one conclusion. However, then he just makes this huge leap and various assertions that lead to the existence of G-d. Yet, his analysis isn't strong enough. It is evident, through the language he uses, that this belief in the existence of G-d was presupposed/predetermined. That was, no doubt, the influence of society and his upbringing (perhaps even the power of purse the Church had on him at the time). That entire sections was just unsatisfying. From what I gathered, Descartes analysis of the wax was a depiction that further developed his notion of our reliance on the senses. Thus, my understanding led me to believe that the wax was a metaphor used to show us that what our senses tell us should be doubted because all of those characteristics can be changed (instantaneously).

Building further on what you said about the impossibility of the task Descartes was attempting to take on, it doesn’t seem feasible in any sense. How can he/we just let go of everything that has happened or that we have experienced for this greater purpose. Our outlook on life is shaped entirely on our interactions with society. Even if we conform to the non-conformist perspective, we nonetheless have been shaped by opting to not be something that is in our midst.

This was the central argument that I had with his later meditations. He tells us to doubt everything from so many angles and does such a thorough analysis to come to his one conclusion. However, then he just makes this huge leap and various assertions that lead to the existence of G-d. Yet, his analysis isn’t strong enough. It is evident, through the language he uses, that this belief in the existence of G-d was presupposed/predetermined. That was, no doubt, the influence of society and his upbringing (perhaps even the power of purse the Church had on him at the time). That entire sections was just unsatisfying.

]]> By: Daniel Estrada http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/are-we-the-wax/#comment-159 Daniel Estrada Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:40:39 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=109#comment-159 A couple of points: 1) You are absolutely right about Descartes's conclusions: everything we think we know about ourselves that we have gained from experience could be nothing more than a delusion, and therefore can be doubted. The only thing we know for certain is that we are thinking. Therefore the core of who we are, according to Descartes, is our mind, our thoughts; these alone cannot be doubted. 2) But that means that "your very soul" is nothing more than your thoughts, since that alone cannot be separated from who you are. Descartes cannot conclude from this that the soul is immortal, but he has good reason to think it is possible, since it is metaphysically distinct from the body. 3) Beyond everything else, Descartes has very good reason to call so many of his beliefs into doubt. Descartes thinks that if he doesn't engage in systematic doubt, he cannot hope to engage in science. Without doubt, we cannot hope to know anything about the world. You refuse to question your beliefs; on Descartes' view, you have given up the project of attempting to understand the world. Do you think this is a fair characterization? Can knowledge of the world only come from a skeptical stance? A couple of points:

1) You are absolutely right about Descartes’s conclusions: everything we think we know about ourselves that we have gained from experience could be nothing more than a delusion, and therefore can be doubted. The only thing we know for certain is that we are thinking. Therefore the core of who we are, according to Descartes, is our mind, our thoughts; these alone cannot be doubted.

2) But that means that “your very soul” is nothing more than your thoughts, since that alone cannot be separated from who you are. Descartes cannot conclude from this that the soul is immortal, but he has good reason to think it is possible, since it is metaphysically distinct from the body.

3) Beyond everything else, Descartes has very good reason to call so many of his beliefs into doubt. Descartes thinks that if he doesn’t engage in systematic doubt, he cannot hope to engage in science. Without doubt, we cannot hope to know anything about the world. You refuse to question your beliefs; on Descartes’ view, you have given up the project of attempting to understand the world. Do you think this is a fair characterization? Can knowledge of the world only come from a skeptical stance?

]]>