Meditation Three

Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito

 Meditation Three
Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito
What is it about the cogito that makes it certain?
 Meditation Three
Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito
What is it about the cogito that makes it certain?

Descartes’s Answer: I understand it clearly and distinctly.

 Meditation Three
Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito
What is it about the cogito that makes it certain?

Descartes’s Answer: I understand it clearly and distinctly.

Truth Rule: whatever I understand very clearly and distinctly is true.

 Meditation Three
Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito
What is it about the cogito that makes it certain?

Descartes’s Answer: I understand it clearly and distinctly.

Truth Rule: whatever I understand very clearly and distinctly is true.

Problem: the deceiving god hypothesis.

 Meditation Three
Extending knowledge beyond the Cogito
What is it about the cogito that makes it certain?

Descartes’s Answer: I understand it clearly and distinctly.

Truth Rule: whatever I understand very clearly and distinctly is true.

Problem: the deceiving god hypothesis.

Before he can trust the truth rule, Descartes must prove God’s existence
and veracity.
Background to Descartes’s Argument
for God’s Existence
 Background to Descartes’s Argument
for God’s Existence
I. There are degrees of reality.
 Background to Descartes’s Argument
for God’s Existence
I. There are degrees of reality.

The degree of a thing’s reality is a direct function of its

degree of perfection.
 Background to Descartes’s Argument
for God’s Existence
I. There are degrees of reality.

The degree of a thing’s reality is a direct function of its

degree of perfection.

II. Distinction between two kinds of reality:

 Background to Descartes’s Argument
for God’s Existence
I. There are degrees of reality.

The degree of a thing’s reality is a direct function of its

degree of perfection.

II. Distinction between two kinds of reality:

Formal Reality: the reality that a thing has in its own

right.

Objective Reality: the reality a thing has in respect of its

representational content. (That is, the reality that exists as a
representation.)
The Distinction Between Formal and
Objective Reality
Ranking Degrees of Reality
 Ranking Degrees of Reality
1st
2nd

3rd

4th
Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.

2) I have an idea of God; that is, an idea of a being that is supremely perfect.
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.

2) I have an idea of God; that is, an idea of a being that is supremely perfect.

From 1) and 2)
3) The cause of my idea of God must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained in the idea.
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.

2) I have an idea of God; that is, an idea of a being that is supremely perfect.

From 1) and 2)
3) The cause of my idea of God must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained in the idea.

From 2) and the definition of formal reality:

4) A being with at least as much formal reality as the objective reality contained in the idea of
God would be God.
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.

2) I have an idea of God; that is, an idea of a being that is supremely perfect.

From 1) and 2)
3) The cause of my idea of God must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained in the idea.

From 2) and the definition of formal reality:

4) A being with at least as much formal reality as the objective reality contained in the idea of
God would be God.

From 3) & 4):

5) God must be the cause of my idea of God.
 Descartes’s Argument for God’s Existence
1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained by the idea.

2) I have an idea of God; that is, an idea of a being that is supremely perfect.

From 1) and 2)
3) The cause of my idea of God must have at least as much formal reality as the objective reality
contained in the idea.

From 2) and the definition of formal reality:

4) A being with at least as much formal reality as the objective reality contained in the idea of
God would be God.

From 3) & 4):

5) God must be the cause of my idea of God.

From 5):
6) God exists.
Meditations Four, Five and Six
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.

Meditation Five. A Second Argument for God’s Existence.

(The Ontological Argument)
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.

Meditation Five. A Second Argument for God’s Existence.

(The Ontological Argument)

Meditation Six.
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.

Meditation Five. A Second Argument for God’s Existence.

(The Ontological Argument)

Meditation Six.

Two Arguments:
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.

Meditation Five. A Second Argument for God’s Existence.

(The Ontological Argument)

Meditation Six.

Two Arguments:

A. The Proof of the Real Distinction Between the Mind

and the Body.
 Meditations Four, Five and Six
Meditation Four. Descartes’s Solution to the Problem of Error.

Meditation Five. A Second Argument for God’s Existence.

(The Ontological Argument)

Meditation Six.

Two Arguments:

A. The Proof of the Real Distinction Between the Mind

and the Body.

B. The Proof of the existence of the external, material

world.
 II. Empiricism

Empiricism: theory that all knowledge of reality is a posteriori.

David Hume (1711-1776)
David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics
 David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics
Optimism about
human progress
in science and
technology.
 David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics
Optimism about
human progress Call to each person to trust
in science and her or his ability to use
technology. reason to understand
reality and morality.
 David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics Liberating: human beings
are liberated from the
Optimism about “bonds” of unreasoned
human progress Call to each person to trust faith in authority,
in science and her or his ability to use superstition, and
technology. reason to understand prejudice.
reality and morality.
 David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics Liberating: human beings
are liberated from the
Optimism about “bonds” of unreasoned
human progress Call to each person to trust faith in authority,
in science and her or his ability to use superstition, and
technology. reason to understand prejudice.
reality and morality.

Figure responsible for this attitude.

 David Hume (1711-1776)
Intellectual Background
18th Century = Age of Enlightenment
Characteristics Liberating: human beings
are liberated from the
Optimism about “bonds” of unreasoned
human progress Call to each person to trust faith in authority,
in science and her or his ability to use superstition, and
technology. reason to understand prejudice.
reality and morality.

Figure responsible for this attitude.

Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)

Offered a unified system of mechanics: a set of simple and comprehensive

principles that governed the behavior of both celestial and terrestrial motions of bodies.
Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton by Godfrey Kneller
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/art/portrait.html
Alexander Pope on Newton’s Achievement

Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton by Godfrey Kneller

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/art/portrait.html
Alexander Pope on Newton’s Achievement
“Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night;
God said, “Let Newton be!” And all was light.”

Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton by Godfrey Kneller

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/art/portrait.html
 Hume’s Aspiration
To Be the Newton of Human Nature

Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), Historian and

Philosopher, by Allan Ramsay.
 Hume’s Aspiration
To Be the Newton of Human Nature
Goal: to provide simple
and comprehensive
principles that describe
human behavior and
human understanding.

Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), Historian and

Philosopher, by Allan Ramsay.
 Hume’s Aspiration
To Be the Newton of Human Nature
Goal: to provide simple
and comprehensive
principles that describe
human behavior and
human understanding.

Set limits to human

understanding.

Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), Historian and

Philosopher, by Allan Ramsay.
 Hume’s Aspiration
To Be the Newton of Human Nature
Goal: to provide simple
and comprehensive
principles that describe
human behavior and
human understanding.

Set limits to human

understanding.

Debunk religious superstition and

unfounded metaphysical speculation.
Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), Historian and
Philosopher, by Allan Ramsay.
 Hume’s Aspiration
To Be the Newton of Human Nature
Goal: to provide simple
and comprehensive
principles that describe
human behavior and
human understanding.

Set limits to human

understanding.

Debunk religious superstition and

unfounded metaphysical speculation.
Portrait of David Hume (1711-1776), Historian and
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) Philosopher, by Allan Ramsay.
A Science of the Human Understanding
Twofold Classification of Perceptions
(Perception = any mental representation)
A Science of the Human Understanding
Twofold Classification of Perceptions
(Perception = any mental representation)

Impressions
Actual (occurrent)
sensations, emotions and
desires.
Tend to be very forceful
and lively.
A Science of the Human Understanding
Twofold Classification of Perceptions
(Perception = any mental representation)

Impressions Ideas
Actual (occurrent) Recollected or imagined
sensations, emotions and sensations, emotions and
desires. desires.
Tend to be very forceful Less forceful and lively
and lively. than impressions, but
otherwise qualitatively
similar to them.
Impressions and Ideas
 The Copy Principle
“. . . all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies
of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Enquiry,
Section II)
 The Copy Principle
“. . . all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies
of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Enquiry,
Section II)

The content of all our thinking ultimately is derived from

experience.
 The Copy Principle
“. . . all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies
of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Enquiry,
Section II)

The content of all our thinking ultimately is derived from

experience.

Qualification: we can have compound ideas that did not

previously occur as impressions.
 The Copy Principle
“. . . all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies
of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Enquiry,
Section II)

The content of all our thinking ultimately is derived from

experience.

Qualification: we can have compound ideas that did not

previously occur as impressions.

Once we have derived various ideas from impressions we can

arrange those ideas in ways that were never experienced as
impressions.
 The Copy Principle
“. . . all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies
of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Enquiry,
Section II)

The content of all our thinking ultimately is derived from

experience.

Qualification: we can have compound ideas that did not

previously occur as impressions.

Once we have derived various ideas from impressions we can

arrange those ideas in ways that were never experienced as
impressions.
Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
This is why
his belief
that these
judgments
are a priori
does not
violate
Hume’s
empiricism.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
Example: All bachelors are unmarried. This is why
Negation Test: Negating a judgment expressing a relation his belief
of ideas results in an internally contradictory statement. that these
judgments
are a priori
does not
violate
Hume’s
empiricism.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
Example: All bachelors are unmarried. This is why
Negation Test: Negating a judgment expressing a relation his belief
of ideas results in an internally contradictory statement. that these
judgments
A bachelor is not unmarried. are a priori
does not
violate
Hume’s
empiricism.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
Example: All bachelors are unmarried. This is why
Negation Test: Negating a judgment expressing a relation his belief
of ideas results in an internally contradictory statement. that these
judgments
A bachelor is not unmarried. are a priori
does not
violate
An unmarried adult male is not unmarried.
Hume’s
empiricism.
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
Example: All bachelors are unmarried. This is why
Negation Test: Negating a judgment expressing a relation his belief
of ideas results in an internally contradictory statement. that these
judgments
A bachelor is not unmarried. are a priori
does not
violate
An unmarried adult male is not unmarried.
Hume’s
Internally empiricism.
Contradictory
 Classification of Judgments (Knowledge Claims)
I. Judgments expressing relations of ideas: “every
affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively
certain.”
-- true in respect of the meanings of the terms.
-- in that sense they are known a priori.
-- no experience would falsify them.
-- they provide no positive knowledge about the world.
Example: All bachelors are unmarried. This is why
Negation Test: Negating a judgment expressing a relation his belief
of ideas results in an internally contradictory statement. that these
judgments
A bachelor is not unmarried. are a priori
does not
violate
An unmarried adult male is not unmarried.
Hume’s
Internally empiricism.
All a priori judgments fall into this category. Contradictory
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
A. Reports of Direct Experience
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
A. Reports of Direct Experience

Examples:

There are over three people

in this room.

I am wearing shoes.
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
A. Reports of Direct Experience B. Claims About States of Affairs
Not Directly Observed
Examples:

There are over three people

in this room.

I am wearing shoes.
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
A. Reports of Direct Experience B. Claims About States of Affairs
Not Directly Observed
Examples:
Examples:
There are over three people Many, but not all, are claims about the
in this room. future:
This pen will fall when
I am wearing shoes. released.
II. Judgments Expressing Matters of Fact:
They are contingent judgments in that their truth and falsity
are both conceivable and possible.
Their negation does not result in an internally contradictory
statement.
Two Kinds
A. Reports of Direct Experience B. Claims About States of Affairs
Not Directly Observed
Examples:
Examples:
There are over three people Many, but not all, are claims about the
in this room. future:
This pen will fall when
I am wearing shoes. released.

Claims about the past and present can

also fall into this category:
There was a lightning strike.
All bachelors are happy.