Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta.

Mesa, Manila
Department of Philosophy and the Humanities
Fundamentals of Research (PHIL 4013)

Annotated Bibliographies

Submitted by:
Ma. Clarida D. Pineda
AB PHILOSOPHY 3-1

Submitted to:
Professor Virgillio Rivas

February 05, 2015

A.Y. 2014-2015, 2nd Semester

Bibliography
Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method. Edited by Pamela
Kraus, & Frank Hunt. Translated by Richard Kennington.
Newburyport: Focus Publishing, 2007.
In the part one of the Discourse on the Method, Descartes
asserts that humans are rational animals and as a rational animal
we are capable of having a reason. However, we differ on how we
can arrive at truth because we have different ways of applying
our reason.
Descartes did not feel that his reason is better than anyone
but he feels that he discovered a genuine method of applying it.
In fact, he formulated a method which he thinks that could help
him to increase his knowledge to the extent. He did not formulate
the method for us to follow, instead, to increase to describe the
ways he conducted his own.
He had studied in an exclusive school in Europe but when he
graduated, he still finds himself doubting and ignorant. He did not
disregard all he had learned, but he decided to travel around the
world and enable to know the customs of the other countries.
Moreover, Descartes praise the virtue of studying ancient
texts, history, mathematics, theology and other sciences, but he
also cited why he is not satisfied with studying those. Among
those, mathematics captured his interest of its having welldefined rules, but for him it did not perceive its higher uses. He

desires theology, but for him it will not answer our problems
about heaven. In Philosophy there is no agreement between the
arguments of the philosophers. And to the other sciences which
made Philosophy as their foundation.
In addition, Descartes feels that he would be successful if
and only if he would use his own reason. When he was
contemplating, the first thing that comes to his mind is that the
works of an individual are much better that the work of a group.
Buildings that are made by a single plan or a single architect are
much better than a building designed by several architects. By
this, he concludes that a person would be better if he will be
guided by his own reason rather than to be influenced by
guardians.
It is not necessary to rebuild all the things, according to
Descartes. He proposes a method to make things right, he
decided to let go all his knowledge and start rebuilding it by the
guidance of his own reason. He noted the two types of people
whom his method would be befitted. First are those who think
that they know more than they do and who lack of patience for
such careful work. Second are, those who are modest enough to
think that they are more capable of finding out the truth if he
follows a guardian.
Descartes consider himself that he belongs to the second
group. And before, letting his former knowledge go, he formulates
four laws that will guide his reason. First, never accept anything

as true, unless there is adequate evidence for it. Second, divide

each problem as into greatest possible manner, to make an
adequate solution. Third, start with the simplest objects and
slowly, you will take a step into a more complex object. Lastly,
review what you have done to be sure that nothing was omitted.
He found this method efficient in mathematics, but before
applying it into other sciences, he thought there was a need for
him to find a philosophical foundation for the method.
Furthermore, Descartes provides himself a code of morals to
guide him while he undergoes his period of skeptical doubt. The
first maxim is that, to remain faithful to the law of his country, to
its customs, and to his religion. Second is to remain firm and
faithful to his actions. Third, to conquer himself and not the
external factors. To change his desires rather than the world. And
fourth, to choose the best occupation in the world.
Having himself provided with those maxims, he spent the
next years of his life travelling around the world, he desires to be
a spectator in the place rather than to be an actor. Descartes
describes his meditations and doubt if it will be accepted by
everyone because of its being metaphysical and uncommon.
In addition, he considered false anything that is doubtful. He
only accepts beliefs that are wholly indubitable. Any knowledge
gained through senses was doubtful since sometimes senses
deceived us. Descartes said that in order to doubt he must be
something. Doubting requires thought and this justifies his

existence. With that being said, he claimed I think, therefore I am

(Cogito ergo sum).
In the Part four of the discourse, Descartes asserts that the
thoughts of external objects such as sky, earth, light, heat and
many more are all delusions of the mind. These imperfect objects
are made by an imperfect mind.
Likewise, Descartes method allows him to infer great things
like all the principal difficulties which are usually treated of in
Philosophy and certain laws established in nature by God and
discovered that many truths are more useful and important. He
cited characters of a rational soul, like it is a gift from God. It
allows us to exercise reason. Being rational is what makes us
unique or different to other animals.He also describes the content
of his book that he cannot publish, wherein, he talks about the
nature of light, sun, fixed stars, planets, comets and earth and
how the perfect being created the world, animals, and human
beings. According to Descartes, we have an immortal soul that
will make us surpass death.
D'Souza, Dinesh. "The World Beyond Our Senses: Kant and The
Limits of Reason." In What's So Great in Christianity, by Dinesh
D'Souza, 171-182. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2007.
In this chapter, the author Dinesh D'Souza pointed out that
he wants to examine the claim of the atheists that they are the
apostles of reason. DSouza says that an atheist claims himself
that he is superior to those who rely on faith, superstitions and

other forms of reality.

However, according to DSouza an atheist has no evidence
that human reason is the best way to comprehend reality. ,
Likewise, an atheists claim that their rational, scientific approach
gives them full access to external reality is a form of arrogance.
DSouza asserts that the attitude of an atheist that he is smarter
that the community of religious believers was misplaced. And
DSouza intends to show how their arrogance was misplaced.
DSouza contends that there are two levels of reality
established by religious groups. The first level is the human
perspective on reality, that is, experiential in perspective. The
second level of reality is the, transcendental view of reality, the
Gods-eye view of reality. DSouza claims that only the first level
of reality can be attained by human beings and they can never
have an access to the Gods-eye view of reality. Rather, humans
can only capture the appearances of it. It is like the Platos world
of forms that we have access to it, that we have only access to
the world of senses.
For DSouza, with the two views of reality claimed by the
atheists and religious groups. That is, for atheists, the ground for
reality is through senses and reason, and for the religious groups,
that there are two levels of reality. DSouza said that the right one
is the claims of the religious groups. And he will prove this with
the help of Immanuel Kant.
DSouza claims that Kant is the greatest among modern

philosophers. In his Critique on Practical Reason, DSouza argues

that Kant himself claims that there is a great limit to the humans
capability of knowing. And I is important to know its limits,
because it would seem so dogmatic if we claim based on reason
without examining it if we can consider it as a final judgment. This
implies that reason itself, in order to be reasonable should be
aware of its own limits.
This was proven, according to DSouza, through Kants
concept of noumenon and phenomenon. Noumenon according to
Kant, is the things in themselves, and of them, we can know
nothing. On the other hand, what we can know is only our
experience of those things. With that being said, D'Souza claimed
that Kant seems to say that our knowledge using reason is
limited.
Furthermore, DSouza believes that Kants idea confirms to
the core elements of religious thoughts. DSouza argued that Kant
arrived at them on the basis of reason alone and he does not
apply any religious vocabulary, nor on faith, but by showing the
limits of reason, Kant makes a room for faith.
Heidegger, Martin. "The Possible Being-a-Whole of Da-sein and
the Being-toward-Death." In Being and Time, by Martin
Heidegger, edited by Dennis J. Schmidt, translated by Joan
Stambaugh, 219-246. New York: State University of New York
Press, Albany, 1996.

In the introductory part of Martin Heideggers Being and

Time, it was mentioned that Heideggers goal is to solve the
question of the meaning of being. This poses a huge hurdle
because he believed that Da-sein is in the process of becoming.
Why is that the case?
The reason is that the understanding of the meaning of
being, somehow, suggests the wholeness of Da-sein. Since Dasein is in becoming which possesses possibilities for it to be.
Then, it seems impossible to understand the meaning of being.
However, Heidegger said that the solution to this is death.
Therefore, death measures, to a certain extent, the wholeness of
Da-sein.
According to Heidegger, the Da- sein is thrown into death,
even in the very beginning of its life. To make this clear, take this
example, as a consideration. At the birth of a human being, he or
she is already subjected to death. The reason is that he or she
can die already. If thats the case, the end of Da-sein, death, is
something that cannot be escaped.
Furthermore, the death of da-sein transforms the being-inthe-world constitution of Da-sein to no-longer-being-in-the-world.
This means that the relation and interaction of da-sein to its
surrounding world ceases to happen. He called this being-towardthe-end. Therefore being-toward-the-end has two characteristics:
non-relational and cannot-be-bypassed.

Based on the statements above, death, for Heidegger, is a

natural existential phenomenon and something that should not be
feared. However, the they confuse the notion of death. The they
believe that accepting death is a sign of weakness and cowardice.
Because, death, for the they, is a simple event wherein it happens
to other people. It concerns the Da-sein but belongs to no one in
particular. The they evade the non-relational and cannot-bebypassed aspect of being-toward-the-end. He called it inauthentic
being-toward-the-end.
In addition, Heidegger says that death is something that
should be anticipated by Da-sein. This means that, as long as Dasein exists, Da-sein becomes closer to death. And the
understanding of death deepens to nearness.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. London
and New York: Routledge, 1962.
Physiological and psychological facts are treated by science
as two clear and distinct disciplines. However, for Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, existential point of view can link them internally.
By the term existential, it tells something about existence. As
Heidegger would put it, Da-sein possessed the being of being-inthe-world. This means that, for Merleau-Ponty, existence must
always

be

in

the

world.

However,

as

mentioned

before,

physiological and psychological thoughts offer different answers

to the relationship of something that exists in the world.

Therefore, it is a must to link physiological and psychological facts

in relation to existence in terms of the world.
If existence is in the world, then, the person who owns his
existence interacts with the world. This means that the person
must be aware of a world that as the set of all patterns of
behavior. This pattern of behavior must be understood as
something between the person and the world. The statement
means that there are stimulations that come from the outside and
that have an effect on the person. However, the stimulation is not
an involuntary act. The person must be aware of it, according to
Merleau-Ponty. It can be implied that the stimulations happen
externally and not in the center of a persons existence. MerleauPonty

added

that

it

should

be

outlined

based

on

their

commonality.
According to Merleau-Ponty, in order to actually perceive the
world and be free of being situated in it, the person must give up
his spontaneity. As mentioned above, the person must be aware
of the world. It can be implied that the person possessed
realization of the world which is set in his existence in the world.
Thus, what makes physiology and psychology connected is that
they are both directed towards the world.
All of the time, physiological acts and psychological motives
overlap, because nothing is in the mind that does not first pass
through the senses. Many argued about what dominates between
the two, but Merleau-Ponty said that they should not argue about

that because they are so intimately linked. This strengthens the

facts that they are not distinct external disciplines.
Soccio, Douglas J. "The Universalist: Immanuel Kant." Chap. 11 in
Archetypes of Wisdom, by Douglas J. Soccio, 309-338.
California: Wadsworth Cencage Learning, 2010.
In this Chapter, Soccio discusses the necessity of the
noumena. According to Kant, knowledge is formed through the
sense data and the categories of the mind. The sense data
gathered from experiences must conform to the categories of the
mind in order to say that certain knowledge is true and valid. This
means that reality is only comprised of only what can be known
by humans. This shows that things in themselves do not exist
corporeally. However, in the formulation of knowledge, sense
perception comes first. This posits the other way around. Here,
Kant introduced two types of reality, namely phenomena and
noumena
The world as humans experience it is called phenomenal
reality which is why Kant said that this is the only reality that can
be known. He also called it perceived reality. On the other hand,
noumenal reality is the world that is independent from our sense
perceptions. Kant called it pure reality, because it is unknowable.
Even though the noumenal reality cannot be experienced, the gap
between these can be bridged. Transcendental ideas bridged the
gap.

Transcendental ideas are those that are products of reason

alone. This means that these ideas are not based on experiences,
but still triggered by it. They also regulate and unify experiences
into totality. According to Kant, there are three transcendental
ideas, namely the ideas of self, cosmos and gold. This suggests
that the noumenal world has an essential influence in the
phenomenal reality, which makes it a necessity. Therefore,
noumenal reality is necessary because it influences and limits the
phenomenal reality.
In addition, it was also discussed the possibility of practical reason
and moral philosophy. In order to discuss the practical reason, it is
important to know what theoretical reason is. Theoretical reason,
according to Kant, is the reason that is based on experience. This
means that it is empirical. Since it is empirical, it belongs in the
phenomenal world. This implies that, because of theoretical
reason, humans view reality mechanically. And, Kant disagrees in
this kind of view. Thus, he formulated the practical reason
because there are things that cannot be explained and should not
be explicated by theoretical reason.
Practical reason is the capacity of humans to resolve the
question of what one is to do through reflection. This suggests
that practical reason involves duty. Furthermore, since Kant said
that practical reason begins with knowledge about moral
conduct, religious feelings and intuition, then it is a moral duty. It
shows that practical reason shifts notion of human life from the
phenomenal world to the moral world. Since this is beyond the

phenomenal world, moral duty comes from within the self. And,
the self is rational, thus moral duty comes from rationality. This
means that practical reason indicates that humans must not act
upon inclinations and desires alone. Thus, moral philosophy is
possible because of practical reason under the state of being
obligated.
The moral philosophy of Kant relies in his categorical
imperative. The categorical imperative is rational and reasonable
since it is based on moral duty. It suggests that actions are right
when they conform to the principles a person can consistently will
as a universal law. This shows that the consequences of actions
do not matter as long as the intent is good.
In this chapter, it was also discussed Kants notion of man as
an end-in-himself. Kant said that man is an end-in-himself. It is a
moral duty for humans to always treat humanity as an end and
never as a means. The reason is that treating someone as a
means suggests superiority and inferiority because, they are
simply tools to be used. That must not happen because humans
possess certain intricate qualities which show that humans have
dignity and rights. In short, it should be equal. Hence, it is an end.
Just as Kant would put it, Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never as a means but always at the same time as an end.