PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Wednesday, November 15, 2006 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1b9e0c-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

PHL105Y Introduction to Philosophy Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Description:

This Thursday (November 16) is World Philosophy Day. ... just presents ideas; whether you contemplate an idea of yourself, a table, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:17
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: jennife63
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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 trying to 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 trying to 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?
About PowerShow.com