Embedded Files
Background
Background
In this sixth and final meditation, Descartes attempts to show how two things. Firstly, he wants to clarify the distinction between the mind and the body - he wants to show that the mind is immaterial. Secondly, he wants to round off the meditations by showing how he has overcome the initial problems laid out at the start of the book, and describe the foundations for scientific discovery.
Proof of the body being distinct from the mind
Proof of the body being distinct from the mind
Descartes’ analysis of the mind relies on what he calls a real distinction. If one can conceive of one thing without another, then we might say that they are two distinct things. I can conceive of a ‘blue triangle’, but I can also conceive of blueness without triangularity, and triangularity without blueness. Thus, we might say that blueness and triangularity are distinct. I cannot, however, conceive of ‘triangularity’ without ‘three-sidedness’. Descartes argues that we can conceive of a mind without a body, and therefore there is a real distinction between the two.
God can create anything that I can conceive
I can conceive of myself existing as a thinking thing without a body
∴ God can create a thinking thing (a mind) without a body
I can conceive of a body existing without a mind
∴ God can create a body without a mind
If God can create a mind without a body and a body without a mind, then there is a real distinction between the body and the mind
∴ there is a real distinction
Discussion
Discussion
Descartes’ conception of the mind was radically different from the Aristotelian concept which had gone before. According to Aristotle, to have a mind (or psyche) is to have a specific set of powers/abilities - potatoes have a potato mind, dogs have a dog mind and humans have a human mind. Therefore, since an ability doesn't have a location, it makes no sense to think of minds as having one. People have locations not thoughts. If we ask someone, ‘where did you learn to speak Chinese?’ we would expect them to say, ‘at school’ not, ‘in my brain’.
Similarly, it is people who think, feel, calculate, imagine, NOT minds or brains. We can’t think without our brains, but that doesn’t mean our brains think – I can’t play the piano without my hands, but my hands don’t play the piano, I play the piano.
We can contrast that with the commonly held view of the mind nowadays, which, whilst not exactly the same as Descartes’, clearly exists within a Cartesian framework - i.e. the mind is no longer conceived of as a set of powers, but as a seat of consciousness.
The mind is where we think; we can ask ‘how does the mind work?’ the mind is the machine of thoughts.
That the mind is ‘in’ the brain/or is the brain, and equally thoughts and memories have location - are stored in the brain.
We are our mind/brains, and the mind/brain controls the body. Brains think
Which of these conceptions of the mind do you think makes most sense - the Aristotelian conception or the modern view? (Or the Cartesian view?!)
Tasks
Tasks
Explain Descartes’ argument for the distinction between the body and the mind.
Can you think of an objection to Descartes' argument.
Evaluate Descartes' argument.
Proof of the reality of external material things (the divine Guarantee)
Proof of the reality of external material things (the divine Guarantee)
Descartes’ finishes the Meditations with an argument known as the divine guarantee. He rounds off his investigations by showing how the existence of God solves any epistemological problems caused by the Evil Demon thought experiment.
I have a ‘strong inclination’ to believe in the reality of external material things due to my senses.
God must have created me with this nature.
If independent material things do not exist, God is a deceiver.
But God is not a deceiver (because God is perfect - not a liar)
∴ material things exist and contain the properties essential to them.
Discussion
Discussion
The following summary describes how Descartes’ meditations are usually interpreted:
Problem of scepticism
If there is an evil demon who is fooling us, we cannot be certain about anything.
Cogito
Even if I am being fooled, there is something that is being fooled
Therefore, I can know that I exist
Divine Guarantee
If God exists, then he can guarantee my beliefs about the external world
God exists*
Therefore, I can be certain about my beliefs in the external world.
According to this interpretation, the usual conclusion is that Descartes’ system falls because he fails to convince us that God exists.
This isn’t the only interpretation of the Meditations, however. Simone Weil interprets the work slightly differently - something like the following:
The problem of scepticism
If there is an evil demon who is fooling us, we cannot be certain about anything
Cogito
There is a distinction between me and the external world: my will and everything that is not my will; the experiencer and the cause of the experiences
Divine Guarantee
Whatever causes my experiences is the measure of all things, it cannot be wrong.
Therefore, that which causes my experience cannot be evil*
Therefore, we can trust that which causes my experiences
Therefore, there is no problem of scepticism
*Descartes argues that we are in no position to judge God.
What do you think of Simone Weil’s interpretation of the Meditations?
Tasks
Explain Descartes’ ‘divine guarantee’.
Do you find Descartes’ Meditations convincing?
Page updated
Report abuse