Notes On The Meditations

Notes on

The Meditations Descartes

First Meditation - Things which can be called into Doubt • Many false things are accepted as true, especially in childhood • In order to establish true knowledge we must therefore "begin again from the most basic foundations" • Any belief which can be doubted will be rejected • Only necessary to challenge basic principles for "as soon as foundations are undermined everything built on them collapses of its own accord" • Senses are deceitful therefore knowledge based on them is doubtful • Despite coming from the senses "how could I deny that these hands or that this body is mine?" • I may be asleep • Dreams are made up of familiar things which can only be copies of what are real, (concept of alien/unicorn etc) therefore there must be some basic/general things which are real, for example colour, shape, time etc • Physics/astronomy/medicine/disciplines which involve empirical study are doubtful whilst geometry/logic/arithmetic/ which involve only basic principles are beyond doubt • Suppose God is deceiving us so that each time we add 2 + 2 to make 4 we are mistaken? • God is good and would not deceive us • I am mistaken sometimes so this is contradictory • Anyway, suppose instead then that an "evil spirit" continuously deceives me so that "everything external to me are nothing more than the creatures of dreams" • This is not a practical scepticism but a methodological one

Second Meditation - Nature of the mind and that it is better known than the body Perhaps the only certainty is that nothing can be certain That I can doubt/have thoughts is certain ʻIʼ must be something Even if I am constantly deceived, it must be certain that I exist, otherwise there would be nothing to deceive • “I am, I exist” • • • •

• What is the nature of ʻIʼ? Formerly believed: • A human being (rational animal)? - What is an animal? What is rational? • A body with face, hands, arms, etc • A being that eats, walks, thinks due to possession of soul • Nature of soul unknown • Nature of body clear - limited by shape, retained in a place, excluded from other bodies, perceived through senses, moved by external forces • Assuming existence of evil demon, none of these qualities of the body can be certain • Without a body I no longer need to eat, nor am able to walk or sense • The only quality that cannot be detached (can be performed without a body) is thought • ʻI am, I existʼ is certain but for how long? • If I cease to think I may cease to exist • Therefore I can only certainly exist for as long as I think • I exist “as a thinking thing, that is, a mind, soul, intellect or reason” Premise b1 • Accurate judgments can only be made about things I know Premise b2 • Knowledge of the nature of ʻIʼ cannot depend on things imagined, as it is impossible to imagine/picture the nature of the mind • A thinking thing is one which “doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, does not will...imagines and senses” • The physical things still seem more distinct because the mind likes to wander • Example of wax - has certain properties when solid, loses (gains different) properties when melted although is still same wax • What was known about it? Not things perceived through senses as they have changed/ gone Premise a1 • The only properties which belong to the wax are that it is “extended, flexible and changeable” Premise a2 • These properties cannot be imagined, or perceived by the senses as they each contain innumerable examples Sub-conclusion a • The wax can be perceived accurately only by the mind

• Perceiving is an inspection of the mind, although language makes it appear that our senses are responsible (I judge/perceive that there are people under the umbrellas that I see, although I cannot see them) • Is wax better known through external senses, common sense (imagination) or investigation of the mind? • “I cannot perceive the wax correctly without a human mind” • If I judge that the wax exists through my senses, similarly I can judge that I exist Premise b3 • Any act of perception proves the existence of the mind However: • The nature of the mind can be established more distinctly by internal things, so it is pointless to consider external objects Conclusion a • Bodies are perceived only by being understood by the mind Conclusion b • Nothing can be perceived clearer or easier than my own mind • Essential features of the human mind are judgement and intellect, enabling knowledge to be gained without images/perception

Third Meditation - The Existence of God I know that I am a thinking thing because I perceive it clearly and distinctly Anything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true Previous things I accepted as clearly and distinctly true were in fact doubtful I perceived them correctly but was mistaken that they existed outside of me I decided to doubt such things as mathematics and geometry on the grounds that God could deceive me • I later rejected this idea on the grounds that God may not exist • I must now examine whether God exists and if he can be a deceiver • • • • •

• Thoughts can be classified into several groups, truth/falsehood can be found in some groups but not others • Cannot be false/mistaken: • Ideas - images of things • Volitions - actions of the will • Emotions - e.g. fear • Can be false/mistaken: • Judgements - affirming or denying • Most common error is to assume that ideas within me exist outside me - why would I assume/believe this? • Taught by nature? - automatically believe it • I should not put my trust in natural impulses • Ideas do not depend on will (as are often present against will) therefore must be independent of me • There may be some other faculty within me which I am not aware of which is the origin of these ideas • May originate from external things but not necessarily resemble them e.g. My idea of the sun as small originates from seeing the sun but reason tells me the sun is big • Some ideas contain more intentional reality than others, e.g. Those that represent substances compared to those that represent ʻnon-essential features of substancesʼ Premise a1 • The idea of God has more intentional reality than the idea of finite substances Premise a2 • ʻthere must be at least as much reality in an efficient and total cause as in the effect of that causeʼ Premise a3 • The intentional reality found in an idea must have some cause which holds the formal reality of it • I could be the cause of my ideas of other people and physical things because the intentional reality of them is no greater than my own formal reality - they are borrowed from the idea of myself Premise a4 • I have an idea of God of which I cannot be the cause Conclusion a • Therefore God necessarily exists as the cause of my idea of him

• I cannot have an idea of infinite as a negation of finite because there is more reality in the infinite therefore it is prior to the finite • Perhaps I am greater than I believe and in fact all these perfections (infinite substance, independent, supreme intelligence and power) exist in me potentially • Existing in potency is less perfect than actually existing • Could I exist without God? • If I derived my existence from myself I would be perfect and would therefore be God himself Premise b1 • If I have the power to create, or conserve, my existence, being a thinking thing I would be aware of it Premise b2 • I have no knowledge of having such power therefore my existence depend on something external to me Premise b3 • That external thing must have at least as much reality as me and must have all the perfections that I attribute to God Conclusion b • Therefore God must exist, and the idea of him is innate in me

Fourth Meditation - Truth and Falsehood • The fact that I doubt means I must exist • My existence depends on God so God must exist • Now that I have knowledge of God, can I have knowledge of other things? • God cannot deceive me as this involves imperfection • It may seem that deceit is a form of cleverness, but the will to deceive is one of malice and so is not appropriate to God • God gave me a faculty of judgement and, since he does not wish to deceive me, it must not be faulty • If the faculty is not faulty then how do I make mistakes? • Along with my idea of God (supreme perfection) I have an idea of nothingness (supreme imperfection • I am intermediate between these states • My faculty of judgement is not faulty but finite (limited) • Error is a lack of something • God is perfect therefore he would have created me perfectly (not lacking anything I should have) • It may be better to consider myself as part of the world as a whole rather than in isolation • Mistakes occur when the intellect and will are used together Premise 1 • The intellect alone can contain no error as it only perceives the ideas about which a judgement may be made • There are things I have no ideas about but this is not error only a demonstration of the finite faculty Premise 2 • The will alone cannot be erroneous as it only affirms or denies an idea but contains no external force • Freedom is greater when one choice is clearly true/good and the other false/bad • Indifference indicates less freedom Premise 3 • The will extends further than understanding and so when it is applied to that which is not understood, error occurs • To avoid error I should not choose if the choices are indifferent Sub-conclusion • It is not an imperfection on God that I make errors but an imperfection in my ability to use the faculties he gave me correctly Conclusion • In order to make true judgements I should only consider the things I understand

Fifth Meditation - The Essence of Material Things. Another Discussion of Godʼs Existence • Can I have knowledge about material things? • I will first consider the ideas of material things to see which are distinct and which confused • I have a distinct image of ʻthe extension of a quantified thing in length, breadth and depthʼ • Various parts of this have ʻmagnitudes, shapes, positions and motions (which have durations)ʼ • Particular things about these qualities (shape, number, motion etc.) are so naturally true that it seems I do not learn it but remember it • I have many ideas of things which do not exist outside me, but yet are not nothing - ʻthey are not invented by me and they have their own true and immutable naturesʼ • For example, a triangle, even if it does not exist, ʻhas some determinate nature or essence or form, immutable and eternalʼ. I did not invent it and its existence does not depend on me - it has specific properties which make it a triangle • The properties are known clearly and distinctly by me, therefore they must be true, therefore my idea of a triangle cannot be nothing Premise a • I have clear and distinct knowledge of properties of things and I can create ideas from these properties Premise b • Everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true, so my ideas are true since I perceive them, clearly and distinctly, to have particular properties. • From this I can derive an argument for the existence of God Premise c • I have a clear and distinct idea of Godʼs essence and thus his existence • In all other cases, I can separate essence from existence • However, existence is part of Godʼs essence, like a triangle having three sides Sub-conclusion • If God lacked existence he would be lacking perfection in some way, thus the idea is contradictory Objection • Thinking of God as existing does not make him exist • The fact that God and existence are inseparable means that God exists Reply • It is not my thinking of Godʼs existence which makes him existence but the fact that he exists which makes me think of his existence Objection • I assume that God exists because he has all perfections but how do I know he has all perfections? Reply • That he has all perfections is the essence of God and existence is a perfection so God must exist

• Without knowledge of God nothing else can be known certainly Premise 1 • Once I know that God exists and is not a deceiver I know that everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is necessarily true Premise a • I have clear and distinct knowledge of properties of things and I can create ideas from these properties Premise b • Everything I perceive clearly and distinctly is true, so my ideas are true since I perceive them, clearly and distinctly, to have particular properties. Premise c • I have a clear and distinct idea of Godʼs essence and thus his existence Sub-conclusion • If God lacked existence he would be lacking perfection in some way, thus the idea is contradictory Premise 2 • God exists and is not a deceiver Conclusion • This means I can have certain knowledge about other material things.

Sixth Meditation - The Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction Between Mind and Body • Do material things exist? • Material things, qua objects of pure mathematics, can exist because I perceive them clearly & distinctly (God is capable of creating anything I perceive clearly & distinctly) • Faculty of imagination suggests they do exist because imagination relies on the existence of the body Understanding and imagination are different Understanding a triangle means knowing it has three sides etc Imagining a triangle is picturing the shape in my mind It is not possible to imagine a chiliagon/myriagon but it is possible to understand them as shapes with 1000/10000 sides respectively Premise 1 • Imagination is not part of my essence - it depends on something external to me/my mind • When understanding, the mind turns inwards and examines an idea present in itself Premise 2 • When imagining, the mind turns outwards and sees a body/object which resembles and idea which is understood Premise 3 • Imagination is only possible if external objects exist Conclusion • Therefore material things probably do exist, since there is no better explanation of the imagination • • • •

• I also imagine things such as colour, taste, sound, pain etc which are perceived, not through mathematics but through sensation What I formerly believed as true and why: Premise a1 • Ideas from the senses occur with no consent on my part - I cannot perceive them without senses and I cannot but perceive them with senses Premise a2 • Ideas perceived through senses are more distinct than those I form myself Conclusion a • The ideas must originate from something external to me Premise b1 • I have no knowledge of these things apart from the ideas they produce, Conclusion b • The ideas must resemble the things from which they originate Premise c1 • I cannot be separated from what I perceive to be my body Premise c2 • Through my body I sense my appetites and passions Conclusion c • The body I judge to be my own belongs to me more than any other body Why I doubted these things: Premise 1 • The judgements of both the external and internal senses were mistaken Premise 2 • Things I sense whilst asleep do not come from anything external

Premise 3 • My nature may be so constituted that I make mistakes even about things which seem certain • Reason dissuaded me from things which I was drawn to only by nature Conclusion • Perhaps my ideas are produced by some unknown faculty in me What I now know: Premise a1 • Everything I understand clearly and distinctly can be made by God Premise a2 • I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a thinking, non-extended thing Premise a3 • I have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended, nonthinking thing Conclusion a • I (my mind) am distinct from my body Premise b1 • I have faculties, such as imagining and sensing, which are not essential to my essence but cannot be understood in themselves without some substance in which to exist Premise b2 • The clear and distinct ideas of these faculties includes extension and not intellection Conclusion b • There must be some physical substance for these faculties to exist in Premise a1 • Passive faculty for sensing is not possible without active faculty Premise a2 • Active faculty is not located in me as it acts even without my intention Conclusion a • Active faculty must exist in some substance external to me Premise b1 • Ideas produced by active faculty have intentional reality Conclusion b • Substance must either have as much formal reality as the intentional reality of the ideas, or else be God Premise c1 • God is not a deceiver so does not send ideas from himself either directly or indirectly Premise c2 • God gave me a strong belief that ideas come from physical things Premise c3 • If this belief is incorrect then God is a deceiver Conclusion c • Physical things exist • Sensory perception is confused so physical things may not exist exactly as I perceive them • Other things which are not known clearly can nevertheless be known to some degree because God is not a deceiver so would not allow me to believe something false • There must be some truth in things I am taught by nature since nature is God himself • Nature teaches me most persuasively that I have a body • Nature also suggests that my mind and body are so closely joined that they form one entity • I am also taught that there are other bodies that can affect me

• Nature should not be confused with judgement as judgement can sometimes be mistaken • Nature is that which is given to me by God and includes only judgements which are made by both the mind and body - e.g avoid pain • Sensory perception was given to me by God in order to enable the mind to distinguish between what is beneficial and what is harmful to the body - to this end the senses provide clear and distinct information • When I use my senses to discover the essence of external bodies I am likely to make false judgements • Nature sometimes provides us with mistakes e.g a person with dropsy (edema) feeling thirsty • If God is good how is nature able to be deceitful? Premise a1 • The mind is indivisible - unified and integral and containing no separate parts (faculties are not parts because the whole mind is required to perform the function of each e.g. willing, understanding etc) Premise a2 • The body is divisible by nature - made up of several parts e.g. feet, hand, legs etc. Conclusion a • The mind is different from the body Premise b1 • The mind is not affected by all parts of the body, only the brain (or a part of the brain) Premise b2 • If one part of the body (A) is moved by another part (D) it could also be moved in the same way by any intermediate parts (B or C) (e.g pain in the foot travels through the nerves (which travel through leg, back, neck) to the brain which causes sensation of pain in the mind, however the same sensation would occur in the brain if the pain originate from either foot, leg back or neck) Premise b3 • Because only one particular sensation is felt in the mind, it would be best to trigger the specific sensation which is most often beneficial (e.g dryness of the throat triggers thirst as this is most often beneficial) Conclusion b • Despite Gods goodness nature cannot avoid being occasionally deceptive (e.g thirst for someone suffering from dropsy) • This conclusion allows me to avoid mistakes as well as to notice them • I know that my senses are more frequently correct than mistaken • I can also use more than one sense to examine something in order to increase the chance of my judgement being correct • I can also use my memory to link previous sensations with present ones • This allows me to distinguish between dreaming and waking because the sensations in dreams are not linked to memorable sensations in life • I can know something to be true if its truth presents no conflict when examined by all of my senses, my memory and my understanding • The weakness of human nature means that urgency does not always allow for such careful examination, so human life is often prone to error