Here’s this week’s R&L thread. Leave a comment by class on Tuesday for participation credit.
Prompts and Questions:
- Are there real essences in Aristotle’s sense? Is the universe essentially atoms, or quarks, or quantum fluctuations? Are human beings essentially rational animals?
- Is Descartes’ goal, to ‘establish something firm and lasting in the sciences’, a worthwhile project? Does science need to rest on indubitable certainty?
- Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
- Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
- Does the Evil Genius effectively accomplish Descartes’ goals of destroying his beliefs?
Brandon Wilkins | 25-Jan-07 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes’ goal, to ‘establish something firm and lasting in the sciences’, a worthwhile project? Does science need to rest on indubitable certainty?
From reading Descartes’ Meditations I understand the importance, to him, of establishing “firm and lasting” knowledge of the sciences. He is seeking a new understanding of what is, so that he can be at peace with himself about the surrounding world. And because of this, I believe that it is a worthwhile project.
Nowadays, we are blessed with a greater understanding of basic mathematics and sciences; such as physics, chemistry, calculus and algebra. Some, if not all, of these subjects have been taught to us as early on as high school. I know I was expected to develop an understanding of the sciences based on my past teachers’ ability to explain the fundamentals which these subjects were based upon. Descartes was searching for a deeper understanding of the basis of science with “indubitable certainty.” I believe that sciences should be conceived without and doubt, because only then will people be able to investigate further into the knowledge of our world. Because of this, I think that Descartes’ project is worthwhile, and that the does need to be a universal understanding of what sciences are based on.
Kerry Phelan | 25-Jan-07 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
I don’t know if I would say that radical doubt is the best way to establish certainty, but it is something to think twice about. I don’t believe that someone can in one day erase all that they have learned and come to know throughout their life. Sure they may say that is what they will do in order to achieve the “correct” belief structure, but in the back of their minds I would think that they are saying to themselves, “Even though I said I would throw away what I knew and learned, I know that this is a circle.” Atleast, that’s how I would be. To me, this is one of those things that is a lot easier said then done. It takes very strong will power to throw away what you have worked so hard to learn and know for the past however many years only to start over in a new way. I think it would be extremely difficult to do, but the idea alone was somewhat entriguing.
Erica Yuenger | 26-Jan-07 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
Does the Evil Genius effectively accomplish Descartes’ goals of destroying his beliefs?
As the third stage in Descartes’s thought process, the idea that there is an Evil Genius “who has directed his entire effort at deceiving me,” seems to once and for all be a means of destroying all of Descartes’s beliefs. After all, if someone is constantly deceiving us, then we must doubt everything we know, because we could be being deceived at any moment.
Although this idea of the evil genius shows how all of Descartes’s beliefs can be called into doubt, it does not necessarily destroy all of his beliefs. Descartes even says he continues to “fall back of my own accord into my old opinions.” As Kerry mentioned above, you can’t just throw away all of the information you’ve ever learned just because you’ve found a way to call everything into doubt.
Another question that is raised by the evil genius theory is how can Descartes be certain that this evil genius even exists? Why can he not call this existence of a supreme being that deceives him into doubt? He addresses this briefly in the first full paragraph on page 16, by saying that maybe we are all just imperfect and always deceived through fate, or chance. It seems to me then, that he would then need to question his beliefs about fate and chance, and whether or not those ideas can be called into doubt. For me, the process of destroying all of one’s beliefs cannot stop with the assumption of an evil genius, but instead is an endless process in which one can never come to a conclusion as to a way that every single belief they have ever had can be destroyed.
Daniel Estrada | 27-Jan-07 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Erica: Descartes explicitly does not believe that an Evil Genius exists. This is extremely important to understand. Descartes has no reason to believe such a being exists.
But remember, Descartes is interested in certainty, because he wants to establish some firm and lasting truth in the sciences. So, although he doesn’t believe that an Evil Genius actually exists, he thinks it is at least possible that such a deceiver exists, in the same way he thinks it is possible that he is currently dreaming.
If the Evil Genius is possible, then there is reason to doubt the certainty of all my beliefs, according to Descartes. If none of my beliefs are certain, then I have effectively demolished all my opinions, and can now begin again from original foundations.
Kimberly Koch | 27-Jan-07 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
I’m not sure radical doubt is the best way to establish certainty. On the one hand, if you are just going to withhold your opinion until you “discover” the truth, then I guess that would just leave you with no beliefs and no certainties. But if you are going to doubt everything, wouldn’t you have to doubt the hypothesis of an Evil Genius who is decieving you? If you have no beleifs, no truths, how could you arrive at anything substansial? This radical doubt is self-defeating. Doubt can go to far. And are there things in the world that can’t be doubted at all?
Jennifer Crabill | 27-Jan-07 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
Does the Evil Genius effectively accomplish Descartes’ goals of destroying his beliefs?
In response to this prompt and Erica’s and Daniel’s post, I believe that the Evil Genius does effectively accomplish Descartes’ first goal of destroying his original beliefs. An important observation to note when considering this prompt is that even though Descartes thinks the Evil Genius idea helped him accomplish his goal, he does not wholly believe in the Evil Genius’ existence (as Daniel wrote). When first introduced to the three stages of doubt, I first thought that Descartes’ reasoning was stupid. I mean, who can’t tell the difference between a dream and a reality? Also, who actually believes that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful figure that is deceiving humans at all times? After trying to put myself in Descartes’ frame of mind, however, I can see his goal and means of reaching it more clearly—he simply is looking for ANY type of doubt; any mere possibility that his original beliefs could be wrong. You do not have to believe in something to admit that there is a possibility it exists. And since no one can actually know for a fact that they are not dreaming or that there is not an Evil Genius, Descartes can believe that there is doubt to his original beliefs, therefore achieving his goal of destroying them.
The question is raised, though—where does Descartes go from here? I am looking forward to reading more of his book because I cannot see how, if Descartes thinks that there is some doubt to every belief, he arrives at any certainty about the meaning of man, humanly existence, etc. How does Descartes arrive at NEW beliefs?
William Barrett | 27-Jan-07 at 6:29 pm | Permalink
“Is Descartes’ goal, to ‘establish something firm and lasting in the sciences’, a worthwhile project? Does science need to rest on indubitable certainty?”
A definition of science is “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.” In science, there are theories which are subject to possible change, and there are laws which are not subject to change. Descartes is trying to establish something “firm and lasting in the sciences,” which would be a law and this would have to rest on “indubitable certainty” or the truth of the world and the universe. Another general description is that “the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.” If there is no truthful certainty with which science is based on, then there may be some physical aspects that we experience in which we are unsure if they are real or not, either by what we “thought” was true or through our senses. For instance, with the law of gravity, it is a certainty that the force of gravity of the earth pulls things downward, and the strength of the force is based on the size and mass of an object. If this law of science was not based on the natural truth or certainty of the physical world, what explanation or theory would be sufficient enough to be made in order to satisfy everyone’s beliefs, arguments, etc. about the subject and why things fall to the ground on earth and float in space? Truths based on the law of gravity that we know to be true may not have been the exact truth if there was no truth in the law of gravity. There is no doubt in the law of gravity, which is why it is a law and not a theory; therefore, it is “something firm and lasting in science” that has an explanation. I guess science doesn’t need to rest on “indubitable certainty,” but then how would we know whether something based on an aspect of science or related to it is necessarily the truth? Descartes is trying to do a similar task in finding an explanation without any reasonable doubt, such as a law. I can understand why Descartes needs this establishment of some lasting thing in order to be sure of himself and what he believes to be real in this world, as well as the purpose of human beings and their connection “into the picture that science is giving us.” Some people just need to know some things for themselves, as I have experienced also, whether it will changed things or not, sometimes it is just enough to be certain, which is why I believe it is a “worthwhile project.”
Erin Murphy | 28-Jan-07 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
“Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?”
Not necessarily. There have been times while sleeping that I realize that I’m only dreaming and then try (depending on *what* I’m dreaming) to either wake up or stay asleep.
Granted, usually at the time you’re dreaming, you accept everything as real. You think it’s really happening, and you don’t blink an eye when strange things happen, like walking out your front door and immediately ending up in class. But if I have a nightmare, and then later in the day go back and think, “Was I really running in slow motion across my front lawn while a monster chased me?” I’ll certainly know what was real and what wasn’t.
Jeremy Mcguire | 28-Jan-07 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I think that Descartes is on to something when says there is “no way to distinguish dreams from waking life.” I have had dreams that were so vivid that when I woke up I was still was in the emotional state of my dream. The dream was that my brother in law had died and I was very upset throughout the dream but when I woke up I was crying and I felt sad. But the point is I was able to distinguish between waking life and my dream because my brother in law was not dead. So to say that there is no way to distinguish between dreams and waking state I think is wrong because there would be inconsistencies between the two. Let’s say Descartes was right for a second, which would mean that in one life I would have a brother in law and in the other I wouldn’t. Maybe I am looking at this question to literally, but I will agree though that your unconscious thoughts do have an effect on you in your waking life.
Amanda Bleatman | 28-Jan-07 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes’ goal, to ‘establish something firm and lasting in the sciences’, a worthwhile project? Does science need to rest on indubitable certainty?
Yes, I do believe that Descartes’ goal was well worth the time spent. Considering the disillusionment from previous sources that knowledge was based on, the sciences did need a solid place to build from. Instead of science speaking for itself and having society rely on that, other sources such as our senses, spiritual beliefs, and societal goals had contributed to that prior knowledge. While it was ambitious for Descartes to take this endeavor alone, he had a good reason in mind. Now, whether he achieved his goal or not, is another problem to discuss. As said before in other comments, how can one entirely destroy their prior knowledge? You really can’t. Somewhere in the back of your mind, or just engrained in your everyday life, the simplest knowledge still lurks. I do no think that Descartes was unsuccessful though. He didn’t tear down his knowledge in the literal sense, but he did tear down his fear of losing his knowledge. Only then, can someone with that mindset can begin to look at the world differently and more objectively (which science needs).
John Rooney | 28-Jan-07 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
This post is in response to the documentary on the bower birds.
After watching the documentary, I couldn’t help but think about the classification of things. Aristotle said that there was the animate, the inanimate, and the eternal. Since then it has been clearly proven that this is not so. Marx said that humans are the only species to use tools and this also has been disproved. I have always thought that humans are the only species to make any kind of art, and I was almost scared when I watched the film to learn that this is not clearly not so. The most interesting thing about the birds to me was that they made aesthetic choices about the bowers that they made. It wasn’t purely a result of instinct because some birds decorated differently than others. This realization turned my idea of the difference between man and animal upside down. For quite some time, I couldn’t think of what, if any, difference there is between man and animal. I have since realized that the birds did everything that they did purely for the reason of reproduction, but man makes art for many other reasons (although that may be one of them) too. These birds are driven to make art by instinct, but I think man makes a conscious choice to do so. Are there other differences that I have not seen?
Stephanie Prather | 28-Jan-07 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
Descartes is not necessarily \”right\” or \”wrong\” when he is questioning the distinction between dreams and waking life. But Descartes\’ questioning of these seemingly seperate bodily states can help us better understand the relationship between what we dream and how we live.
It is clear to any rational person that there is a difference between exploring the boundaries of your subconscious while lying in bed, and living and interacting in daily life. As human beings with rational minds we experience the world much differently than other mammals. What brings meaning to our lives is the intellectual exploration of our time on earth, or \”figuring it out.\” Such is the quest of the sciences, literature, and every other facet of academia. While dreaming, we can explore things we have seen before, people we\’ve met, fears we have developed in a safe environment with no physical repercussions. In waking life we can do the same things, but with infinite opportunnities and true consequences to our actions.
Because waking life can leave little room for reflection in the moment, our dream life serves as a way we reevaluate the experiences we collect in everyday life, often mixing them up in unexpected ways. We can explore the possibilities of the real world in a safe mental environment, that can bring us to new conclusions about what is and is not possible in our lives. This interdependency is what both unites and seperates the two states of the human body.
Sam Mowry | 28-Jan-07 at 11:27 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I don’t think there’s any reason why Descartes wouldn’t be right in claiming this. Everyone’s had those dreams that are so real you remember them as past events, and get confused for a moment when the real-life person who was in your dream reminds you that it was a dream and they weren’t really there. Similarly, we’ve all had those moments when you’re just waking up (on your own time, not interrupted by an alarm clock or other annoying articifial evil thing) and you drift in and out of sleeping/dreaming, so that when you wake up fully you can’t remember if you were awake or dreaming during that time? Also, when you’re dozing off (in front of the tv or in class or whatever), and you only realize you were asleep because you’ve just woken up.
If that kind of thing can happen so easily, how can we really tell where the line is between awake and dreaming? And if there isn’t a solid line, how can we prove conclusively that we’re on one side or another of it?
Brian Horn | 29-Jan-07 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I understand what Descartes is trying to say here, that we can’t really know if anything is real if our senses can deceive us so greatly in our dreams as to make us wonder whether anything could be real, but I don’t agree with it personally. Even when you are dreaming you still generally are aware of it, or will become aware in due time. When we are awake, though, there is a different sense of things, they just seem more real to us. While it is easy to say, yeah, but what about those dreams that seem real? Even at those times, at least for me, there is stilll a sense that what is happening is not really happening to me. Maybe your senses can trick you, but you can still gain control over these tricks by using your mind and intellect.
Fernando Londono | 29-Jan-07 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
No one can ever entirely raze their entire belief structure to the ground and begin again from original foundations. Every one/thing we have encountered in our personal experience has shaped or formed us to act or feel a certain way about that person/thing. Everything around us affects the way we behave from colors to sounds. Our senses have deceived us only because we have not known better. Since being born into this world, we have been vulnerable to engage and accept everything we see for what it is and not what we know. The Evil Genuis would then be our own self sense since we have been the ones that allows ourselves to be deceived. Like in the second stage of doubt dream vs reality the dreams seem real only because we allow them to feel real, our mind is constantly in the “on” position so whatever setting (whether sleeping or awake) we are in we tackle the situation by believing and focusing on the task in front us. We are a gullible species because we believe what we want to believe and see what we want to see. The only prescribed notion that could ban this reality would be to be completely born again not believing anything except the “complete truth” denying the existence of the Evil Genius. But this obviously is not a practical solution.
Jeffery Villalobos | 29-Jan-07 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
I agree for the most part with the above comments on this same topic. Any single person cannot truely raze all their beliefs about what they perceive to be the truth. There are so many factors from the day we are born that shape our beliefs such as religion, socioeconomical background, life experiences, etc. These are deep seeded elements that we cannot just shake off in order to find new truths. What I believe people can do is reevaluate their beliefs to find new truths about themselves and their enviornment. By “razing” some of your beliefs you may be come enlightened to a “new” truth about yourself or the world.
I like Descartes idea of making all your opinions and beliefs original, but it is unreasonable to have all of your thoughts and beliefs be 100% original. I believe that you can have an original opinioin or belief simply by using logic and reason to the fullest extent and basing your belief off of that.
John Creger | 29-Jan-07 at 9:05 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I just woke up from a nap- I am well aware that right now as I type this, I am not dreaming. I am one of those people who can’t remember their dreams very well, but I can remember the definite point in time where I woke up and got a drink of orange juice. I was able to distinguish my sleeping/dreaming state from my waking state. I have been in certain circumstances that while dreaming, I start to feel emotions in my dream that I would if the same thing happened in real life. For instance, if I was dreaming that I was late to class and I missed a midterm- I would panic and trying to hurry my daily routine. For the time being, I thought that was real- then I woke up and realized that it was not. I could then clearly determine the point of dreaming and waking. If we can not distinguish dreams from waking life, then can I not be for certain that as I type this right now that I am not merely dreaming?
Angela Kinsella | 29-Jan-07 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I think Descartes had the right intention when he said that since dreams deceive us into thinking we are awake that you must not be able to distinguish the two. However, I have convictions about this belief. I know when I am dreaming no matter how life-like it is because usually dreams are about something that has happened that day or something I was thinking about. Dreams can seem as if it is actually happening but there is something in my subconscious that tells me it is not real. On the other side, I never think when I am awake that I am actually dreaming because I have all of the senses that tell me I am awake. When I am dreaming I think I have those senses but it is not quite the intensity as if it was actually happening. When we are dreaming there is no control over what happens which is the opposite of awake life, dreams are just like someone reading a story that we are acting out.
Andrea Fish | 29-Jan-07 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
Is radical doubt the best way to establish certainty? Can anyone ever really raze their entire belief structure to the ground and ‘begin again from original foundations’?
Descartes idea to establish foundational certainty by doubting all things he once held to be true is a very convincing way of going about it, but I am interested in reading further because I dont believe you could ever start from the beginning again. The first and second stages of doubt concern your senses and dreams. Dreams are construed through different experiences you have in your waking life, and the way that you have these experiences is through your senses. Helen Keller, though deaf and blind was able to communicate by learning to use her remaining senses. When you are first born, even while you are still in the womb some of your senses are actively at work. If Descartes admits that the senses are deceiving, what does he imagine ‘original foundations’ to be without them?
Amanda Jakstas | 29-Jan-07 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
Descartes believes that you can’t distinguish whether you are dreaming or awake because our senses are not enough to determine the condition. He also argues that you can only dream about something that you already know, or have already seen or experienced. So don’t we know everything we know and experience everything we have done through our senses? So if our senses seem to be the same when we are asleep and when we are awake, then I would have to agree with Descartes and that there is no way to distinguish dreaming from being awake.
However, it is difficult to agree with Descartes based on my own assumptions. I agree that we dream about things that we know or feel or experience, but I trust my senses when they tell me I’m dreaming. We all get caught in those dreams where we believe (at the time) that what we are experiencing is real. Then I wake up and realize the dream wasn’t real.
Our dreams are built on the foundations of what we know, have seen, or heard of. During most dreams, our bodies sense that we are dreaming and can force us to wake up. We always have control.
Chris Paolinetti | 29-Jan-07 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
I don’t believe that Descartes is right to claim that one cannot distinguish between dreams and real life, because in my experience, at least, there are differences in how I perceive the world in dreams and reality. For example, in a dream, I have noticed that I lack peripheral vision, and that I do not hear sounds. This may be unique to me, but many people say they “don’t dream in color” or mention other differentiations between dreams and wakefulness, and I believe that most people are capable of telling the difference; whether they try to or not is up to them.
Ryan Marshall | 29-Jan-07 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
From my experiences, I believe that Descartes is right in saying that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life. That is, while you are having the dream. Think about it: you wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night, perhaps screaming, from a nightmare. Due to these physical symptoms alone, it is easy to see that your body was convinced that the dream was real. It is only when you wake up that you realize you are safe and unharmed. Also, I have at times remembered all aspects of some of the nightmare’s I had when I was a younger child. At any point I would have liked to wake up from the dream but couldn’t. If one could distinguish between the dreams and real life while they were dreaming, they would be able to wake up and stop the dream without becoming involved enough in the dream to yell or break out in a sweat. I believe that while we are dreaming we can not distinguish dreams from real life, but it is only while we are awake that we are able to.
Ryan Riordan | 29-Jan-07 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
is descartes right to say there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life? i dont think so. as we talked about in class, most dreams come from things we experience in real life. i know that when i dream there is often a person in it that i know from “waking life” or it is a similar event or happening that has happened to me while i was awake. not only do i feel this way because of the linkage between my dreams and daily life, but i feel this way also because when i dream there is always something that is a little wierd about it. i know daily life can be a little wierd and random at times, but it’s much more noticeable in the dream world. how many times in a dream have two people that dont even know each other get grouped together in the same dream? i’ve noticed that often times two of my friends that do not even know each other will be in the same dream together. i’m sure everybody dreams a little bit differently from one another, but most dreams that i’ve heard and have experienced myself consist of many random and abnormal things that would not really happen in real life. so i do believe there is definitely a way to distinguish between dreams and reality….. common sense.
Danielle Foster | 30-Jan-07 at 12:27 am | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
I understand what Descartes said about dreams deceiving us into thinking that we are really awake when we are actually not. I can see where he is coming from with the point but I do not agree with it. I think that it is quite easy to distinguish dreams from reality. My dreams are always slower and a lot different from reality. For me I can always tell, but perhaps for someone who has very lifelike intense dreams I can understand how it may be hard to disinguish between the dream and real life. It is hard for me to take a firm position on Descartes theory because it is too easy for me to see both sides of the argument. Perhaps there is no right answer and that is the point Descartes is trying to make.
Annie Werly | 30-Jan-07 at 12:50 am | Permalink
What proved to be one of the most interesting parts of Descartes meditations was the inclusion of God. Descartes systematically destroyed each and every one of his beliefs through the means of doubt, yet the belief in God was seemingly ever present. How can one, especially when attempting to dismantle an entire belief system, not bring the existance of “God” into question and at least have SOME doubt in the matter? It of course is due to the precident set by the Catholic church over the centuries- one who is in a position of knowledge and power who publically denounces or questions “god” or their teachings is, like Descartes beliefs, systematically destroyed. Descartes saw the example of Galileo and how he was treated after questioning the “facts” set forth by the church and realized that he cannot question them. As one reads, it’s quite evident that he is intentionally trying to convey that he DOES “believe” in the existence of God- especially when he differenciates between God and the Evil Genius. The title of the work is “Meditations on First Philosophy in which the Existence of God and the Distinction Between the Soul and the Body are Demonstrated”. Descartes was sure to include this very important “fact” upfront so as to avoid any issues with the church. Descartes states: “there is fixed in my mind a certain opinion of long standing, namely that there exists a God who is able to do anything” (15)- in this quotation he continues to demonstrate to the church that he does in fact believe their teachings, yet how can this be? His meditations continue and he beings to doubt this god: “But perhaps God has not willed that I be decieved in this way, for he is said to be supremely good” (15-16). He doubts, but then backs away so as not to offend anyone. Ultimately he continues to doubt, but names this doubted god the evil genius. Ultimately, the Descartes meditations were slightly tainted for this reason- he desired to live freely and modify his belief rather than speak out and then forever be stifled (that is, if the book were ever to have been published after the denouncement of god).
John Rooney | 30-Jan-07 at 1:40 am | Permalink
Bower birds.
When I was watching the documentary on the Bower birds, I couldn’t help but to think about what it is that separates man from animals. Aristotle said that all things could be classified as animate, inanimate, or eternal, and we have since realized that this is not so. Marx later said that man is the only animal to use tools, and this has also been proven false. It has always been my opinion that man is the only species to create art and was almost scared when I learned that the Bower birds made aesthetic choices between one thing and another when building their bowers. This completely discredited my belief and for some time after, I wasn’t sure if there was any distinguishable difference between man and animal. However, since I have realized that although the birds make artistic choices, it is instinct that drives them to build their bowers in the first place. The only purpose of their bowers is to attract a mate in order to reproduce. Man creates art for many other reasons (although sex may be one of them), and it was realizing this that made me finally fully understand the idea that man is a reasonable animal and that he has free will. This is the only idea that makes sense to me when it comes to distinguishing the difference, although, as time has shown, this idea could be very wrong.
Krystal Kniep | 30-Jan-07 at 7:54 am | Permalink
After putting everything about the evil demon argument into perspective, it is very hard not to share Descartes worry that we could be trapped in the Matrix!
The evil demon argument in a way was illustrated in the Matrix. The evil demon could make it seem that our senses perceive sensations and experiences, and in the Matrix, a powerful computer houses human with wires and causes them to imagine their experiences. How do I really know I am not in the Matrix? How do I really know that my world is not created by a super-human intelligence in such a way that I cannot possibly detect? In Rene Descartes point of view, how do we really know if our experiences are a result of a powerful outside force, an “evil genius”?
If I cannot know whether we are in the real world or in a world of computer simulation, I cannot be sure my beliefs about the world are true. I am very eager to learn how Decartes will figure out this dilemma.
Adam Domanico | 30-Jan-07 at 9:47 am | Permalink
Descartes I believe was a much better philosopher than Plato in the sense that what he claimed was a lot more practical. Although the different realms and forms make sense, they are abstract and are much harder for people to grasp. On the other hand Descartes simply deals with the finding truth through a rational approach of which others may easily follow. This approach is merely to radically doubt everything you think, which in Descartes opinion is the only way to find certainty. Despite the excellent idea of purifying oneself of all beliefs and opinions in order to achieve everlasting truth and certainty I do not believe it is quite possible. This radical doubt is especially difficult in today’s world where us humans are polarized and catagorized merely by the beliefs we possess. The only thing that allows people to be heard are their specific opinions. Therefore, it is impossible for a person to live in mainstream society in today’s world and completly doubt themselves.
Rutvi Shah | 30-Jan-07 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
As it was mentioned, many of our dreams are a result of our experiences during our conscious state of mind. Often times, dreams turn our internal desires into reality. Therefore, our dreams often feel real because we are expressing our inner desires and enjoying what is taking place. At the same time, through our dreams, we express what we fear and try to face it then. It sometimes is difficult for me to tell dreams apart from reality, but not impossible. I am always able to distinguish the two once I am awake. Therefore, I do not completely agree with Descartes point. If he were true, we would all either be living in a surreal world where everything took place just the way we want it to. Dreams are a quick escape from reality, but sometimes far from being reality unless effort is made towards making them come true.
Tariq Mohammed | 30-Jan-07 at 9:56 am | Permalink
Is Descartes right to claim that there is no way to distinguish dreams from waking life?
Descartes says that our own senses can deceive us in such a profound way that we can not even distinguish dreams from reality. Personally, I would have to disagree. While we are sleeping, our senses have turned into a more ‘relaxed’ state as compared to when we are awake and active during the day and our senses are more active.
When we are sleeping, we are in such a relaxed state that we can pretty much dream about anything and live out that dream. However, when we wake up and enter reality again, our nervous system knows how to act and what to accept from past experiences as being real.