This is all LSB's fault. *blames boyfriend indiscriminately*
I've been reading:
- Roger Scruton's A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 2nd ed.
- Joan A. Price's Philosophy Through the Ages
I'm not a philo person, even though I must say I'm very attracted to philo books, largely because they tend to be on the extreme end of incomprehensible. I've studied some philosophers before, but largely in context of political thought or political ideology, hardly conducive to the mind-numbing finger-gnawing zen state I wish to achieve. My knowledge of philosophy is very very rudimentary.
So I've decided to study them philosophers a bit more systematically, starting with Descartes. I'm giving the ancients a wide berth because (and this is my own theory) they're so distant and difficult to relate to.
I've made it through Descartes & Spinoza, and for the sake of consolidation, have (largely) paraphrased what I have learnt below. I don't know if I've understood everything perfectly, and would appreciate (if any of you make it through) any corrections.
Ok *deep breath* let's do this before I get lazy.
DescartesThe starting point: take nothing for granted.- What if an evil genius had deceived me into thinking what I think?
- If such a genius exists, then I don't know if this world is real, or if I am myself real.
- How can I know the truth? I cannot trust my senses. I can only trust the 'natural light of reason'.
'Cogito ergo sum.'- What can I ascertain is necessarily true?
- To start with, the moment I think 'I exist', I must necessarily exist. The thought 'I exist' is self-verifying because I have to exist in order to think that thought.
- It is also necessarily true that I think. For even if I think that I don't think, in that very act of doubt, I am thinking.
Distinction between Body and Soul (Mind)- I know that I exist as a thing that thinks.
- I find that every other thing about me can change except my ability to think. I cannot conceive of myself as not thinking, but my body can grow old, or I can lose a leg or my sight.
- Therefore my body is not of essence to me; my mind is my essence.
- Therefore I could conceivably exist (as a 'soul') after my body has ceased.
- Therefore, I am a substance which involves thinking; I endure through change. But my physical form is an attribute which can change without altering the substance.
God: The Cosmological Argument- Something cannot come from nothing; more cannot come from less. Ideas are effects and have causes.
- I do not have perfect knowledge because I doubt. Therefore I am imperfect. Yet I have the idea of perfection (God).
- Where did my idea of perfection come from? My idea of perfection is an effect of something. There must be a cause of this idea of perfection.
- The idea of perfection cannot come from my imperfect self. The idea of perfection must come from perfection, i.e. God.
The Honest God- Since God is perfect, and since intuitively, we know that deceit stems from imperfection, we know that God cannot be the evil genius we hypothesized earlier.
- Since God does not seek to deceive us, this means that if we use our reason and our senses (given to us by God for that very purpose) to their greatest ability, we will perceive the truth.
Objections to Descartes
The Existence of Error- If God does not deceive, why does he allow the possibility of error?
- Descartes' answer: Error occurs when we choose to assent to an idea that is not the perceived through the 'natural light of reason'.
- Scruton: "Human error is therefore the necesary consequence of human freedom, and this seeming evil is part of a real and greater good." (33)
The Evil Genius Objection (The Cartesian circle)- If the perfect God exists, then we know that our God-given faculty of reason will lead us to the truth. However, we only 'know' that the perfect God exists through our faculty of reason. Our conclusion that God exists depends on the reliability of our reason, which depends on God existing in the first place.
The Mind-Body Problem
- If the mind and body are separate, how do they interact with each other? How is it that the mind and body are joined in one person? ie. what is to prevent mind and body from going their own separate ways?
- Descartes: the soul is joined to the whole body through the pineal gland.
- But how can the non-physical mind be joined to the body through a physical gland? Doesn't this return to the question of how the mind can be connected to the physical body (or part of it)?
The First-Person Privilege
- Descartes assumes that while I cannot be sure of the world around me, I have a privileged knowledge of what I think and feel. My mind thinks exactly what it thinks it thinks. Is this necessarily true?
The Illusion of the Idea of Perfection
- Do we truly have an idea of perfection? Or do we merely have an idea of the 'extremely good' or 'extremely desirable'? What does perfection mean?
Spinoza
Substance- Spinoza was a descendant of Descartes (who was in turn a descendant of Aristotle).
- Recall Descartes' arguments about 'substance'
- Spinoza argued that a substance is entirely self-contained. It depends on nothing outside itself for its existence; it is not caused by anything, but is its own cause.
- Therefore, only God is a substance, for God is his own cause (
causa sui).
God: Thought and Extension- Spinoza argues that God is a substance with infinite attributes, and all God's attributes are infinite. Hence all attributes are attributes of God's. These include the attributes of 'extension' in space (matter) and thought.
- While God might have attributes besides extension and thought, because we are finite, we can only know these two attributes of God.
- Because both thought and extension are attributes of God, we can comprehend God through thought and extension.
God and Nature- When we comprehend God through extension, we understand him as 'Nature'. When we comprehend God through thought, we know him as 'God'. Because both thought and extension each constitute the essence of God, each "present[s] to the intellect a full and adequate [clearly & distinctly true] idea of what God is." (Scruton, 51)
- God and Nature are the same.
Solving Descartes' Mind-Body Problem- Since thought and extension are both essences of God, there is no difference between them.
- Our finite minds are part of God's infinite thought, and our finite bodies are part of God's infinite extension.
- Thus we are but expressions of God.
- Thus my mind is the same as my body.
- I perceive my mind and body to be different only because the modes of thought and extension present me with different pictures. When I use the mode of thought to understand myself, I perceive myself as 'mind'; when I use the mode of extension, I perceive myself as 'body'.
- Scruton's analogy: "When I look at a picture I see physical objects: patches of pigment smeared on a canvas. And I can describe these objects so thoroughly as to account for the entire picture. ... the other thing I see: a stag hunt passing before a country house. This too I could describe so thoroughly as to give a complete account of the picture. But the two accounts are incommensurable... I cannot describe the lead hound as frantically pursuing a patch of ochre." (53)
The Problem of Free Will- Since both thought and matter stem from the divine substance (God), everything happens not by chance but by necessity.
- Thoughts must relate to each other in a series of logical, necessary steps. (eg. mathematical proofs)
- Matter too, must relate to each other in a necessary sequence. Events follow each other ina necessary sequence.
- The implication for humans is that, being mere expressions of God, we too are the effects and not causes, as are our actions and thoughts. Since only God is able to 'cause', we are not able to cause anything, and therefore it would seem that we have no free will.
- If there is no freedom to act or think differently, the idea of morality collapses. To judge someone as good or bad, one must believe that that person could have caused himself to act differently.
Spinoza's Freedom- Spinoza argues that the distinction between free/unfree is not the same as that between caused/uncaused.
- To react in an emotional way is to react passively because we endure emotions. When I am passive I am therefore not free.
- Since the mode of thought and the mode of extension correspond to each other, for every adequate idea (thought), there is an ideatum (extension).
- Thus it makes sense that a person who is more physically active has more adequate ideas of his behaviour and the causes of his behaviour.
- A free person is one who masters his emotions (passivity) and has adequate ideas about the world. He understands the world better, and thus understands God better.
- The free person who masters his passions understands the world and thus grows to love it. Since the world is God, he also loves God, not in a passive emotional way, but in an intellectual way.
- Thus the way to happiness and freedom is through the refinement of the intellect and the mastery of emotions.
I definitely died while trying to get through Spinoza. Sighz.
