A Critique Of Descartes Argument

My perception of my body and matter in general is that it is in its essence divisible (Descartes,1641) This essay here will insert a reference to ‘Leibnitz’s Law’ or otherwise the relatively intuitive principle that for two things to be the same thing, they must share all the qualities of each other. Descartes does not specifically do so, but it is heavily inferred from his argument. Descartes now concludes that since minds are indivisible and bodies are, that according to the Leibnitz’s law they cannot be the same thing and hence: Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.

Mackie believes that there are no objective moral values, and to support his stand, he famously puts forth two arguments. The first argument is the Argument from Relativity or Disagreement, and the second is the Argument from Queerness. The focus of this essay will be on Mackie’s argument from queerness, and I seek to prove that his argument does not succeed in showing that there are no objective values. I will first be summarizing Mackie’s argument from queerness. Subsequently, I will proceed to form an argument on the first part of Mackie’s argument from queerness, the metaphysical component.

As such, she constructs a process of analysis that is based on two different, yet connected frameworks, conceptual and volitional contradictions. Conceptual contradictions note that the maxims in reference to contradictions tend to ignore the fundamental core of the maxim, that it is a principle of action, or a principle that we will. Much like Korsgaard’s Logical Contradiction Interpretation, the conceptual contradiction is based on analyzing whether the unsuccessful universalization of the maxim leading to a contradiction would fundamentally prevent the intent of the maxim from being realized; for example, if one posits the maxim that ‘one should break promises’, the universalization of this maxim would eliminate the practice of promises, preventing one from breaking promises. To this she adds a concept of volitional contradiction, volitional contradictions can be based on conceptually consistent maxims, but only if these maxims ignore the fundamental importance of willing. To will is to intend to make something occur, rather than just wishing it were the case, in which one analyzes whether the means, components and consequences of the universalization of the maxim would fundamentally

In Wiggins’ case of fission he undermines the belief that all questions of personal identity must have answers. The belief when asked in response to brain division is found implausible. According to Parfit, ‘If all the possible answers are implausible, it is hard to decide which of them is true, and hard even to keep the belief that one of them must be true’. (1971, p.8) He also undermines the second belief that personal identity plays a part in survival. Wiggins’ case shows that you may not have identity but you may have everything you need for survival.

However, this until after all of his questions of the mind and body have been brought forth throughout the essay. Therefore, it isn’t until Meditation Six that he discusses this argument. What the argument is trying to explain is that without the ability to distinctly understand the difference between the body and the mind you will of course not know that there is a mind, but rather your understanding would be that the mind is simply the brain. This is because if Descartes could not distinguish that that mind was not part of the brain, a part of the body, then there would be no argument as to the fact that the body is a separate substance from the mind. Descartes explains his understanding that the two are different by saying, “First, I know that all the things that I clearly and distinctly understand can be made by God such as I understand them.

For how he can be certain that 2+2= 4 and not 5, how can he know for sure that he is not being deceived into believing the answer to be 5 due to a demon. But even if an evil demon did indeed exist, in order to be misled, Descartes himself must exist. As there must be an “I”, that can be deceived. Conclusively, upon Descartes’ interpretations we can come to decipher that in order for someone to exist they must indeed be able to think, to exist as a thinking thing. Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being.

I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built.

Explain Descartes’ method of doubt. What is Descartes purpose in exercising this method? Descartes begins Meditation I by stating that in order for him to establish anything in the sciences that was constant, he would have to start from the foundations of all knowledge. By claiming this, he is adopting skepticism which is not him rejecting his beliefs, but doubting them. The First Meditation is a exercises in learning to doubt everything that one believes at three different levels.

Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.

“ The natural cause of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism,” said by Thomas Jefferson. Skepticism, which we call “The Regress Argument,” is pretty much a self - defeating argument, which is why René Descartes has an objection to it. Descartes objection include his view, Foundationalism. In this essay the establishment of skepticism, the regress argument in standard form, foundationalism and how it overcomes the regress argument will all be discussed. Skepticism is a philosophical view that states that no knowledge claim is fully justifiable so therefore knowledge is impossible.

Descartes’ first argument for the existence of God In meditations of the first philosophy, Descartes reflects that he is often deceived by his senses. He therefore decides to discard all his pre-conceived notions and start from scratch to find out things that he is absolutely certain about. Descartes begins by showing that he is certain about only one thing, which is that he exists as a thinking thing. The fact that he can doubt his own existence goes on to show that he exists and that he is a thinking thing capable of doubting, imagining, willing etc. (142).

Kneezer’s theory of ectoplasmic dynamics violates all four laws of scientific change. In order to distinguish the difference between a science and non-science theory, the theory must comply with the laws of scientific change. As per the third law of scientific change, also known as the law of method employment, a method can only be employed if it is in accord with other methods and accepted theories of the time. The method that Mr. Kneezer attempts to employ is quite arbitrary. It does not follow our contemporary method, known as the Hypothetico-Deductive Method, which states that a new theory with unobservable entities can only be accepted if it has some confirmed novel predictions to support it.

277). But is is a double standard to hold religious beliefs up to a stricter evidentiary standard because the objective evidence that politicians, philosophers, and other disciplines use can not be agreed on. If there was such a thing as objective evidence that could convince everyone then there would be no difference in opinion. But because there are differences in opinion evidence should be based on insight that is incommunicable. If evidence were to be based on insight then

Though he believes that the mind is not a physical entity like the body, he reasons that because the mind is connected to the body, physical actions conducted by the body are attributable to the mind (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua). It seems Plato is indicating that whatever is true for the physical world, must also be true for the mind and therefore, by his logic, jumps the ‘gap’ between physical and mental [437b]. This approach is again reminiscent of the ‘affirming the consequent’ fallacy and gives no real proof as to why the ‘gap’ could have logically been