PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Wednesday, November 15, 2006

1
PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Wednesday,
November 15, 2006

• For next Mondays class, finish reading
  Descartes Fifth Meditation.
• Movie. This Thursday (November 16) is World
  Philosophy Day. UTM Philosophy Club is marking
  the occasion with a screening of Eternal Sunshine
  of the Spotless Mind, 430 Thursday at the MIST
  theatre (0150 in the CCIT building). Door
  prizes, refreshments, free admission (but a 2
  suggested donation to United Way).
• Event for philosophy undergraduates. Lecture
  Racism, Morality, and Social Criticism Tommie
  Shelby (Harvard University) Date Friday,
  November 17, Time 315 pm Location St. George
  campus, University College, 15 King's College
  Circle, Room 161 Reception following in the
  Philosophy Dept. Lounge, 10th Floor, 215 Huron
  St.
• Tutorials continue this Friday. For this week,
  answer one of the following two questions, in
  about 200-250 words (about one typed
  double-spaced page) hand in the hard copy to
  your TA at the beginning of Fridays tutorial.
• How does Descartes reach the conclusion that his
  intellect is not the cause of his errors in
  judgment? How does he make mistakes, if the
  intellect is not to blame?
• Could God have made a free finite being who did
  not make mistakes, according to Descartes? Is
  there anything problematic about the answer
  Descartes gives to this question?

2
Descartes Third Meditation

• -The rule of clear and distinct ideas
• -The existence of God

3
The rule Descartes wants to prove

• If its clear and distinct,
• then its true

4
Free from deception?

• it is quite obvious that he cannot be a
  deceiver, for it is manifest by the light of
  nature that all fraud and deception depend on
  some defect. (AT52)

5
The Cartesian Circle?

• Descartes wants to prove that if its clear and
  distinct, then its true
• But how can he do this unless he already trusts
  his clear and distinct perceptions as true? What
  else could he have to go on?

6
One reading of Descartes strategy

• Descartes never stops using his basic rational
  principles even throughout the First Meditation,
  the doubts he generates are rational doubts he
  gives arguments about why each kind of claim
  should be doubted
• He suspends judgments about specific deliverances
  of reason he does not quit the use of reason
  altogether

7
What could Descartes be tryingto prove, anyway?

• Could you prove that reason is reliable to a
  person who wanted to refuse to engage in any
  reasoning?

8
What could Descartes be tryingto prove, anyway?

• Could you prove that reason is reliable to a
  person who wanted to refuse to engage in any
  reasoning?
• Could you prove that reason is reliable to
  someone who thinks she has rational evidence that
  reason itself could lead you astray?

9
One reading of Descartes strategy

• At the end of the First Meditation, Descartes
  casts doubt on reason by seeming to show that
• 1. Reason leads us to affirm what is clear and
  distinct (if you think about it rationally, you
  want to affirm that squares must be four-sided)
• 2. Reason itself also leads us to doubt those
  very claims (if you think about it rationally,
  you decide you could be intellectually defective,
  so your desire to affirm that squares must be
  four-sided cant be taken at face value perhaps
  squares are not four-sided)
• If reason leads to both X and not-X, theres a
  problem with reason. What Descartes wants to do
  is to show that (2) isnt true reason only seems
  to lead us to that kind of self-doubt. If you
  reason a bit more carefully, you see that a
  creature like you, with an idea of perfection,
  cannot be intellectually defective

10
The Fourth Meditation

• God and the problem of error

11
If my rationality is reliable,why do I make
mistakes?

• Three claims Descartes is committed to
• God does not deceive me
• My faculty of judgment comes from God
• I do make mistakes sometimes

12
Where does error come from?

• God is perfect, but Im further down the scale.
• Could error come from the simple fact that Im a
  limited being?
• God gave me a faculty of judgment alright, but
  its a limited one

13
Where does error come from?

• Pointing to the fact that Im finite doesnt work
  to explain error, because
• error is not a pure negation but rather a
  privation
• Whats the difference between a negation and a
  privation?

14
Where does error come from?

• Pointing to the fact that Im finite doesnt work
  to explain error, because
• error is not a pure negation but rather a
  privation or lack of some knowledge that somehow
  ought to be in me
• Whats the difference between a negation and a
  privation?

15
Where does error come from?

• Whats the difference between a negation and a
  privation?
• Negation something I happen to lack, but neednt
  have had anyway I dont have five arms or
  wheels Im not twelve feet tall (because God
  made me this way and not that and theres no
  fault there Im not falling short of a standard)
• Privation something I lack, but somehow should
  have had (I am falling short of a standard if
  God is responsible for a privation, hes somehow
  at fault)

16
An analysis of judgment

• Judgments always involve the joint work of
• The intellect, through which I perceive ideas
• The will, which affirms or denies (or suspends
  judgment upon) what I perceive

17
An analysis of judgment

• Judgments always involve the joint work of
• The intellect, through which I perceive ideas
• The will, which affirms or denies (or suspends
  judgment upon) what I perceive
• Warning Descartes is now using the term
  intellect more broadly than in the Second
  Meditation now by intellect he means your power
  of grasping any idea at all, whether it is a
  rational idea or an idea of sensation

18
An analysis of judgment

• The intellect, taken on its own, is not the
  source of error (why not?)

19
An analysis of judgment

• The intellect, taken on its own, is not the
  source of error (why not?)
• -the intellect just presents ideas whether you
  contemplate an idea of yourself, a table, or the
  tooth fairy, you havent made an error until you
  judge it, until you say The tooth fairy exists.

20
An analysis of judgment

• The will, taken on its own, is not defective (why
  not?)

21
An analysis of judgment

• The will, taken on its own, is not defective (why
  not?)
• It is just the power to affirm or deny any
  particular idea its an unlimited power for me
  I am always free to decide what to think
• (what is freedom?)

22
What is freedom?

• In order to be free I need not be capable of
  being moved in each direction on the contrary,
  the more I am inclined in one direction the
  more freely do I choose that direction.
• AT57-8.

23
What is freedom?

• the will consists solely in the fact that when
  something is proposed to us by our intellect
  either to affirm or deny, to pursue or to sun, we
  are moved in such a way that we sense we are
  determined to it by no external force.
• AT57.

24
What is freedom?

• Were I always to see clearly what is true and
  good, I would never deliberate about what is to
  be judged or chosen. In that event, although I
  would be entirely free, I could never be
  indifferent.
• AT57.

25
Where errors come from

• Not from the intellect, on its own, nor from the
  will, on its own, but from my failure to align
  them properly
• The intellect is fine as far as it goes, but it
  doesnt present me with a clear and distinct idea
  of everything (its finite)
• Errors arise when I make judgments about things
  that are not clear and distinct

26
Where errors come from

• The scope of the will is larger than the range of
  clear and distinct ideas we have.
• We can use the will to affirm or deny anything we
  grasp, whether it is clear and distinct or not.
• Errors arise when we affirm ideas outside the
  safe zone of what is clear and distinct.

27
Whos to blame?

• If I want to, I can avoid error entirely, all my
  life, by only judging what is clear and distinct
  to me
• Note that God could have given me a clear and
  distinct idea about everything Id ever think
  about. Since he didnt, is he to blame for my
  mistakes?

28
Error and God

• God could have made me free, finite, and
  infallible
• He didnt do so, but hes not responsible for my
  mistakes (why not?)

29
Error and God

• God could have made me free, finite, and
  infallible
• He didnt do so, but hes not responsible for my
  mistakes (why not?)
• Inescapable (built-in) human error would be a
  problem avoidable human error is not

30
The avoidance of error

• We can avoid error entirely by taking care to
  remember to abstain from making judgments
  whenever the truth of a given matter is not
  apparent. (AT 62, p.41)
• How helpful is that rule?
• What does it presuppose about us?