Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. Andrea Borghini. Professor of Philosophy. Andrea Borghini, Ph. His research focuses on metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of biology. Featured Video. Cite this Article Format. Borghini, Andrea. Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question.
Hypostatization Fallacy: Ascribing Reality to Abstractions. Understanding the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy. Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Authority. Plato and Aristotle on the Family: Selected Quotes. Timeline of Greek and Roman Philosophers. Moral Philosophy According to Immanuel Kant. Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for ThoughtCo.
At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. Yet this will not be sufficient for Descartes, for we can imagine theoretical entities such as unicorns that we know do not exist.
Descartes will have account for the placement of a theoretical concept of a particular entity in the mind and the presence of this entity in the physical or metaphysical world. The concept of God Descartes is trying to advance is based on the monotheist Christian notion of a supremely perfect being. Most Western intellectual contemporaries of Descartes, whether atheists or believers, were aware of this particular concept of God and would, in all likelihood, not have objected to the advancement of this concept.
In the development of this concept, we are assured that a supreme being lacking in nothing would obviously possess the property of existence.
Thus for Descartes, when we think about the essence of God, existence is inseparable. However, Descartes believes that his arguments can proceed without serious difficulty because.
Thus it is no less contradictory to think of God that is, a supremely perfect being lacking existence that is, lacking some perfection than it is to think of a mountain without a valley. This is the crux of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Once we accept the concept of a perfect God, we are unable to rationally deny the existence of that entity. It would be analogous to saying that one understands the concept of a triangle i.
On such an account, Descartes believes that he can make the jump from the conception of God to instantiation of God by direct intuition. This is obviously cognitively suspect. Aware of the possible appearance of sophism, Descartes states:. I can no more think of God as not existing than I can think of a mountain without a valley, nevertheless it surely does not follow from the fact that I think of a mountain without a valley that a mountain exists in the world.
Likewise, from the fact that I think of God as existing, it does not seem to follow that God exists, for my thought imposes no necessity on things. Yet, even with this acknowledgement, Descartes does not see this as a serious problem in continuing.
For Descartes, it does not appear essential to have to establish that for every mountain there will be a valley - he only has to identify the fact that when we think of the concept of a mountain, the concept of its accompanying valley is explicit and incontrovertible. To affirm the concept of God, yet deny the existence of God would be a contradiction. Although the Mediations is a well-written, and tersely argued treatise, which includes numerous examples and analogies to algebra i.
It is the empiricist methods of observation and experimentation that Descartes rejects as error prone and limiting to the project of total and certain knowledge.
Descartes believed that with the employment of a rational method of inquiry which applied some of the methods of analytic geometry to the study of philosophy, our ability to attain certainty and validity about our knowledge would be greatly increased. Yet, knowing that Descartes partially bases his deductive methodology on mathematics, it is surely questionable why he felt the need to have two distinct proofs.
The wine is said to occupy that place within the bottle. Once the wine is finished, this place is now constituted by the quantity of air now occupying it. Notice that the extension of the wine and that of the air are two different sets of bodies, and so the place inside the wine bottle was constituted by two different pieces of extension.
Therefore, so long as bodies of the same shape, size and position continue to replace each other, it is considered one and the same place. This assimilation of a place or space with the body constituting it gives rise to an interesting philosophical problem.
A return to the wine bottle example will help to illustrate this point. Recall that first the extension of the wine constituted the place inside the bottle and then, after the wine was finished, that place inside the body was constituted by the extension of the air now occupying it. It is difficult to see how Descartes would address this issue. This is because an empty space, according to Descartes, would just be a non-extended space, which is impossible.
A return to the wine bottle will further illustrate this point. Notice that the place inside the wine bottle was first constituted by the wine and then by air. These are two different kinds of extended things, but they are extended things nonetheless. Accordingly, the place inside the bottle is constituted first by one body the wine and then by another air. So, under these circumstances, no mode of distance could exist inside the bottle.
Therefore, an empty space cannot exist between two or more bodies. This asymmetry is found in the claim that particular minds are substances for Descartes but not particular bodies. Rather, these considerations indicate to some that only the whole, physical universe is a substance, while particular bodies, for example, the wine bottle, are modes of that substance.
Though the textual issues are many, the main philosophical problem stems from the rejection of the vacuum. The argument goes like this: particular bodies are not really distinct substances, because two or more particular bodies cannot be clearly and distinctly understood with an empty space between them; that is, they are not separable from each other, even by the power of God.
Hence, particular bodies are not substances, and therefore they must be modes. However, this line of reasoning is a result of misunderstanding the criterion for a real distinction. Instead of trying to understand two bodies with an empty space between them, one body should be understood all by itself so that God could have created a world with that body, for example, the wine bottle, as its only existent.
But, suffice it to say that the textual evidence is also in favor of the claim that Descartes, despite the unforeseen problem about surfaces, maintained that particular bodies are substances. The most telling piece of textual evidence is found in a letter to Gibeuf:. From the simple fact that I consider two halves of a part of matter, however small it may be, as two complete substances. I conclude with certainty that they are really divisible.
These considerations in general, and this quotation in particular, lead to another distinct feature of Cartesian body, namely that extension is infinitely divisible. The point is that no matter how small a piece of matter, it can always be divided in half, and then each half can itself be divided in half, and so on to infinity.
These considerations about the vacuum and the infinite divisibility of extension amount to a rejection of atomism. Atomism is a school of thought going back to the ancients, which received a revival in the 17th century most notably in the philosophy and science of Pierre Gassendi.
This mechanistic physics is also a point of fundamental difference between the Cartesian and Scholastic-Aristotelian schools of thought. For the latter as Descartes understood them , the regular behavior of inanimate bodies was explained by certain ends towards which those bodies strive.
Furthermore, Descartes maintained that the geometric method should also be applied to physics so that results are deduced from the clear and distinct perceptions of the geometrical or quantifiable properties found in bodies, that is, size, shape, motion, determination or direction , quantity, and so forth.
From what has already been said we have established that all the bodies in the universe are composed of one and the same matter, which is divisible into indefinitely many parts, and is in fact divided into a large number of parts which move in different directions and have a sort of circular motion; moreover, the same quantity of motion is always preserved in the universe.
Since the matter constituting the physical universe and its divisibility were previously discussed, a brief explanation of the circular motion of bodies and the preservation of motion is in order.
This principle indicates that something will remain in a given state as long as it is not being affected by some external cause. So a body moving at a certain speed will continue to move at that speed indefinitely unless something comes along to change it.
The second thesis about the circular motion of bodies is discussed at Principles , part II, section This claim is based on the earlier thesis that the physical universe is a plenum of contiguous bodies. On this account, one moving body must collide with and replace another body, which, in turn, is set in motion and collides with another body, replacing it and so on.
But, at the end of this series of collisions and replacements, the last body moved must then collide with and replace the first body in the sequence. This is known as a Cartesian vortex. The principle expressed here is that any body considered all by itself tends to move in a straight line unless it collides with another body, which deflects it. Notice that this is a thesis about any body left all by itself, and so only lone bodies will continue to move in a straight line.
However, since the physical world is a plenum, bodies are not all by themselves but constantly colliding with one another, which gives rise to Cartesian vortices as explained above. The third general law of motion, in turn, governs the collision and deflection of bodies in motion. But if the body collides with a weaker body, then the first body loses a quantity of motion equal to that given in the second.
Notice that all three of these principles doe not employ the goals or purposes that is, final causes utilized in Scholastic-Aristotelian physics as Descartes understood it but only the most general laws of the mechanisms of bodies by means of their contact and motion.
In part five of the Discourse on Method , Descartes examines the nature of animals and how they are to be distinguished from human beings. Here Descartes argues that if a machine were made with the outward appearance of some animal lacking reason, like a monkey, it would be indistinguishable from a real specimen of that animal found in nature. But if such a machine of a human being were made, it would be readily distinguishable from a real human being due to its inability to use language.
Hence, it follows that no animal has an immaterial mind or soul. For Descartes this also means that animals do not, strictly speaking, have sensations like hunger, thirst and pain.
Rather, squeals of pain, for instance, are mere mechanical reactions to external stimuli without any sensation of pain. In other words, hitting a dog with a stick, for example, is a kind of input and the squeal that follows would be merely output, but the dog did not feel anything at all and could not feel pain unless it was endowed with a mind.
Humans, however, are endowed with minds or rational souls, and therefore they can use language and feel sensations like hunger, thirst, and pain. The point is that just as the workings of a clock can be best understood by means of the configuration and motion of its parts so also with animal and human bodies. He then goes on to describe in some detail the motion of the blood through the heart in order to explain that when the heart hardens it is not contracting but really swelling in such a way as to allow more blood into a given cavity.
Although this account goes contrary to the more correct observation made by William Harvey, an Englishman who published a book on the circulation of the blood in , Descartes argues that his explanation has the force of geometrical demonstration.
Accordingly, the physiology and biology of human bodies, considered without regard for those functions requiring the soul to operate, should be conducted in the same way as the physiology and biology of animal bodies, namely via the application of the geometrical method to the configuration and motion of parts.
In his last published work, Passions of the Soul , Descartes provides accounts of how various motions in the body cause sensations and passions to arise in the soul. He begins by making several observations about the mind-body relation. The main point was that the soul makes a human body truly human; that is, makes it a living human body and not merely a corpse. So the mind is united to the whole body and the whole in each of its parts insofar as it is a soul or principle of life.
The variety of different movements of the animals spirits cause a variety of different sensations not in the part of the body originally affected but only in the brain and ultimately in the pineal gland. So, strictly speaking, pain does not occur in the foot when a toe is stubbed but only in the brain.
This, in turn, may cause the widening or narrowing of pores in the brain so as to direct the animals spirits to various muscles and make them move. For example, the sensation of heat is produced by the imperceptible particles in the pot of boiling water, which caused the movement of the animal spirits in the nerves terminating at the end of the hand.
These animal spirits then move the fibers extending to the brain through the tube of nerves causing the sensation of pain. This then causes various pores to widen or narrow in the brain so as to direct the animals spirits to the muscles of the arm and cause it to quickly move the hand away from the heat in order to remove it from harm.
This is the model for how all sensations occur. These sensations may also cause certain emotions or passions in the mind. However, different sensations do not give rise to different passions because of the difference in objects but only in regards to the various ways these things are beneficial, harmful or important for us. Accordingly, the function of the passions is to dispose the soul to want things that are useful and to persist in this desire Moreover, the same animal spirits causing these passions also dispose the body to move in order to attain them.
For example, the sight of an ice cream parlor, caused by the movement of the animal spirits in the eye and through the nerves to the brain and pineal gland, might also cause the passion of desire to arise. These same animal spirits would then dispose the body to move for example, toward the ice cream parlor in order to attain the goal of eating ice cream thereby satisfying this desire. Descartes goes on to argue that there are only six primitive passions, namely wonder, love, hatred, desire, joy and sadness.
All other passions are either composed of some combination of these primitives or are species of one of these six genera. Much of the rest of parts 2 and 3 of the Passions of the Soul is devoted to detailed explications of these six primitive passions and their respective species. In Part 3 of the Discourse on Method , Descartes lays out a provisional moral code by which he plans to live while engaged in his methodological doubt in search of absolute certainty.
These maxims can be paraphrased as follows:. The main thrust of the first maxim is to live a moderate and sensible life while his previously held beliefs have been discarded due to their uncertainty. Accordingly, it makes sense to defer judgment about such matters until certainty is found. Presumably Descartes defers to the laws and customs of the country in which he lives because of the improbability of them leading him onto the wrong path while his own moral beliefs have been suspended.
Also, the actions of sensible people, who avoid the extremes and take the middle road, can provide a temporary guide to action until his moral beliefs have been established with absolute certainty. Moreover, although Descartes does seems to bring his religious beliefs into doubt in the Meditations , he does not do so in the Discourse. Since religious beliefs can be accepted on faith without absolutely certain rational justification, they are not subject to methodological doubt as employed in the Discourse.
Accordingly, his religious beliefs can also serve as guides for moral conduct during this period of doubt. Therefore, the first maxim is intended to provide Descartes with guides or touchstones that will most likely lead to the performance of morally good actions.
The second maxim expresses a firmness of action so as to avoid the inaction produced by hesitation and uncertainty. Descartes uses the example of a traveler lost in a forest. This traveler should not wander about or even stand still for then he will never find his way. Instead, he should keep walking in a straight line and should never change his direction for slight reasons. Hence, although the traveler may not end up where he wants, at least he will be better off than in the middle of a forest.
Similarly, since practical action must usually be performed without delay, there usually is not time to discover the truest or most certain course of action, but one must follow the most probable route. Moreover, even if no route seems most probable, some route must be chosen and resolutely acted upon and treated as the most true and certain. By following this maxim, Descartes hopes to avoid the regrets experienced by those who set out on a supposedly good course that they later judge to be bad.
The third maxim enjoins Descartes to master himself and not fortune. This is based on the realization that all that is in his control are his own thoughts and nothing else. Hence, most things are out of his control. This has several implications. First, if he has done his best but fails to achieve something, then it follows that it was not within his power to achieve it.
This is because his own best efforts were not sufficient to achieve that end, and so whatever effort would be sufficient is beyond his abilities. The second implication is that he should desire only those things that are within his power to obtain, and so he should control his desires rather than try to master things beyond his control. In this way, Descartes hopes to avoid the regret experienced by those who have desires that cannot be satisfied, because this satisfaction lies beyond their grasp so that one should not desire health when ill nor freedom when imprisoned.
It is difficult to see why the fourth maxim is included. This seems to imply the correct choice of occupation can ensure a degree of contentedness that could not be otherwise achieved if one is engaged in an occupation for which one is not suited.
Descartes also claims that his current occupation is the basis of the other three maxims, because it is his current plan to continue his instruction that gave rise to them. He concludes with a brief discussion of how his occupational path leads to the acquisition of knowledge, which, in turn, will lead to all the true goods within his grasp.
His final point is that learning how best to judge what is good and bad makes it possible to act well and achieve all attainable virtues and goods. Happiness is assured when this point is reached with certainty. After the Discourse of , Descartes did not take up the issue of morality in any significant way again until his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth in , which culminated in his remarks about generosity in part 3 of the Passions of the Soul.
Given the temporal distance between his main reflections on morality, it is easy to attribute to Descartes two moral systems — the provisional moral code and the ethics of generosity. Notice that both components of generosity relate to the second and third maxim of the earlier provisional moral code.
The second component relates to the second maxim in that both pertain to firm and resolute action. Generosity requires a resolute conviction to use free will correctly, while the second maxim is a resolution to stick to the judgment most likely to lead to a good action absent a significant reason for changing course.
However, a difference between these two moral codes is that the provisional moral code of the Discourse focuses on the correct use and resolute enactment of probable judgments, while the later ethics of generosity emphasizes a firm resolution to use free will correctly.
Hence, in both moral systems, the correct use of mental faculties, namely judgment and free will, and the resolute pursuit of what is judged to be good is to be enacted. This, in turn, should lead us to a true state of generosity so as to legitimately esteem ourselves as having correctly used those faculties through which humans are most in the likeness of God.
Justin Skirry Email: jskirry yahoo. The Modern Turn a. The Mind a. Here, Descartes pauses from his methodological doubt to examine a particular piece of wax fresh from the honeycomb: It has not yet quite lost the taste of the honey; it retains some of the scent of flowers from which it was gathered; its color shape and size are plain to see; it is hard, cold and can be handled without difficulty; if you rap it with your knuckle it makes a sound.
God a. The Ontological Argument The ontological argument is found in the Fifth Meditation and follows a more straightforwardly geometrical line of reasoning. The Epistemological Foundation a. Absolute Certainty and the Cartesian Circle Recall that in the First Meditation Descartes supposed that an evil demon was deceiving him. Mind-Body Relation a. Body and the Physical Sciences a. Existence of the External World In the Sixth Meditation , Descartes recognizes that sensation is a passive faculty that receives sensory ideas from something else.
The Nature of Body In part II of the Principles , Descartes argues that the entire physical universe is corporeal substance indefinitely extended in length, breadth, and depth. The most telling piece of textual evidence is found in a letter to Gibeuf: From the simple fact that I consider two halves of a part of matter, however small it may be, as two complete substances. AT III CSMK These considerations in general, and this quotation in particular, lead to another distinct feature of Cartesian body, namely that extension is infinitely divisible.
AT VIIIA CSM I Since the matter constituting the physical universe and its divisibility were previously discussed, a brief explanation of the circular motion of bodies and the preservation of motion is in order. Animal and Human Bodies In part five of the Discourse on Method , Descartes examines the nature of animals and how they are to be distinguished from human beings.
Sensations and Passions In his last published work, Passions of the Soul , Descartes provides accounts of how various motions in the body cause sensations and passions to arise in the soul. Morality a. The Provisional Moral Code In Part 3 of the Discourse on Method , Descartes lays out a provisional moral code by which he plans to live while engaged in his methodological doubt in search of absolute certainty. These maxims can be paraphrased as follows: To obey the laws and customs of my country, holding constantly to the Catholic religion, and governing myself in all other matters according to the most moderate opinions accepted in practice by the most sensible people.
To be as firm and decisive in action as possible and to follow even the most doubtful opinions once they have been adopted. Try to master myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world. Generosity After the Discourse of , Descartes did not take up the issue of morality in any significant way again until his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth in , which culminated in his remarks about generosity in part 3 of the Passions of the Soul.
References and Further Reading a. Cited in the text as AT volume, page. This is the standard English translation of Descartes philosophical works and correspondence. Provides a detailed account of Cartesian science and its metaphysical foundations.
0コメント