Meditation Three

Analyze the meaning of Descartes' "Thinking Thing" 

While you're at it, learn some quotes. 

Meditations Three

What does Descartes say about his awareness w.r.t. the corporeal objects he has in his mind?

He says about that the images he has in his mind that, while they may be nothing at all apart from him, and nothing at all in themselves,  he is  still sure that those modes of consciousness that he calls images, exist in his awareness.

In short, while he is still not sure that "things" really exist, he IS sure that they exist in the awareness of his mind. 

Meditations 3:4

Can 2 + 3 = 5 be taken as a universal truth? 

Yes, unless Deity is a deceiver. But at this point he is still attempring to prove the very existence of God, so that question will have to wait.

Important distinction here: If the fire and the paper do not exist, it may be a demon that is deceiving him,  or a dream.

But the 2+3<>5, then God is deceiving him. Cf. Einstein e.a. 

Meditations 3:5

What kinds of thoughts does Descartes enumerate? 

1. IDEAS. These are things (whether concrete of abstract) such as a man, the sky or God.
2. Abstract throughs such as volitions on judgements.

Meditations 3:6

When can ideas, volitions or judgements be false - where do errors occur? 

Thoughts can almost never be erroneous in themselves when they are NOT referred to external object.

The image of a chimera is just as true in my awareness, in itself, as the image of a goat.

My wanting a certain thing is true, because the thought of wanting it stands by itself.

But in the realm of judgement, most errors occur. This happens when I judge a mental image to refer to something that exists. 

Conversely, errors can hardly ever occur when images are not referred to external objects. Mental images exist in themselves. 

Meditations 3:7-8

What types of IDEAS does he enumerate? What is the role of the will?

Ideas can be innate, adventitious or factitious (made by himself).

1. INNATE ideas he calls things seen by "the natural light"
2. FACTITIOUS ideas are made by yourself, i.e. your imaginations, such as monsters or angels. You can will to think these things.
3. ADVENTITIOUS ideas are "pushed" on one by nature. You feel the heat of the sun whether you will it or not.

Meditations 3:9

What is "the natural light"?     

The "natural light" is a thought or awareness that affords a knowledge of its truth by its own light, i.e. not from any external source.

What the natural light shows cannot be doubted, e.g. that I am because I doubt, etc. (Lat. exeo quòd dubitem).

Meditations 3:11

Explain with an example how one object can be represented by two widely differing ideas.

The sun, for example, can be represented in the mind by two widely divergent ideas:

1. Adventitious: one observes the sun, and it looks very small. This is fed by your senses.
2. Factitious: the sun is many times larger than the earth - an idea framed (made) by myself.
   
   Since both suns cannot be true, reason dictates that the idea that emanated immediately from the sun (i.e. I saw the sun and immediately fromed the idea that it was small) is the less reliable.

Meditations 3:19

What does the term "participate by representation in higher degrees of being or perfection" mean?

Descartes posits a "participation" of the properties of a concept in a hierarchical structure of the "being of perfection" in the human awarenes.

Since everybody has the innate "being or perfection" - or God - in our awareness, the more properties an image shares with this inborn image of God in us, the truer that idea will be.

Meditations 3:14

Talk about the sources and "emanations" of ideas. 

Every thought, even those of corporeal objects, are emanated by a cause. The thought of a stone is caused by the idea of a perfect stone, (i.e. one that participates higher in the being or perfection).

In other words, my idea of a stone comes from an innate idea of the perfect stone that has the same, and better, properties.  

Is this purely Platonic? 

Meditations 3:15

Can the fact that an idea can rise to another idea, and that to another idea, cause an infinite regress? 

No, because when you trace back, you have to reach the original idea (the unmoved mover?).

Thus, the natural light teaches that ideas (of objects) exist in me as pictures or images. However, these images fall far short of the the perfection of the objects from which they are taken.

Meditations 3:16 

How can I know whether I am alone in the world or not? WHo says I am not the only being in the world? 

If the objective reality of an idea in me is so perfect and clear that I could not have manufactured it by myself, then there must be a source outside myself, and that means I am not alone in the world.

On the other hand, if I can find no idea of an object in my mind that is perfect and clear, and is one that had to have come from a source outside myself, then I cannot be sure of the existence of any other being beside myself.

Meditations 3:17-18

What is one way in which our ideas of animals, other men or angels could have been formed?     

Meditation 3:19

Name some factors that make it difficult to evaluate the truth of the ideas of coporeal objects. 

They are low on the scale of perfection. The multitude of properties make it difficult to determine their truth. Apart from measurements (height, length, weight etc.)  there are also less objective properties such as color, smell etc. For example, is cold just deprication of heat, and heat deprivation of cold, or are there different measurements?

These ideas are not clear and distinc, and too low on the scale of perfection ot be seen by the "natural light." 

Meditations 3:20

Do I need to assign any author besides myself to corporeal ideas? 

Meditations 3:21

Can I transfer properties from my self awareness to the ideas of corporeal objects?    

Yes. Corporeal objects are substances as I myself am substance. I am aware that I existed before and that I exist now - so a stone existed before and exists now (temporal dimension).

In this way I can transfer my notions of existence, duration and dimensions to as many objects as I want.

In this way coporeal images may be contained in me eminently. 

Meditations 3:22-23

Discuss the idea of God. Did that idea orginiate within myself? 

The properties of God (infinity, all-goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, eternal, immutable etc., also the fact that He is creator of all) are so great and excellent that I cannot imagine that the idea I have of them originated in me alone.

Also, being a finite being, I could not have originated the idea of an infinite being, unless that idea were given to me by some substance that is in reality infinite.

Meditations 3:24

Do I apprehend the infinite only by negation of the finite? ("If it's not finite, then I guess it has to be inifinite")

• I do apprehend the infinite by a true idea. 
• I do not apprehend the infinite just through the negation of the finite (the same way darkness is for me not-light).
• This is beacuse I realize that there is  more reality in the infinite substance than in the finite.
• Therefore I posess the perception of inifinity before that of the finite.
• In other words, I posses the perception of God before the perception of myself.
• How do I know that I possessed the perception of God first? Because I could not have been aware of my own doubting, or desire, or that something is wanting in me if I posessed no idea that there is a more perfect being than myself.
• Only by comparing myself to that concept of perfection can I know the deficiencies in myself.

Meditations 3:25

Can the finite ever understand the infinite? (Can humans understand God?)

Meditations 3:26

Could it be that I might be something more than I suppose myself to be? (asks Descartes). 

Yes, perhaps, and it might be that all those perfections that I attribute to God, potentially exist in me.

For example, I am conscious that my knowledge is gradually increasing, and I see no reason why it cannot continue increasing until I eventually possess all of those qualities of perfection that I perceive to be in God. 

(But this satement is refuted in the next paragraph) 

Meditations 3:27

So, can I become perfect like God? 

No.

1. Even if my knowledge were increasing by degrees, this does not even begin to approach my idea of the perfection of God. Because God's perfection is not potential, but actual.
2. I'm not even sure that my knowledge is actually increasing by degrees. On the other hand, God is already infinite, so his perfection cannot be increased.
3. The objective being of an idea cannot be produce by a being which is merely potentially existent; potential being is as good as not being.

Meditation 3:28-29

Could I, who have this idea of God in me, exist supposing that there were NO God?

No. If there were no God for me to derive my arareness from, I would be aware of no doubt or imperfection in myself, and I would, in fact, be God.

It is harder for me, as a thinking being, to posit that there is no God, than there is to believe that there IS a God. 

If I were God, I would not have denied myself all the knowledge in the world (which I am now lacking).

Quote: The things I know are the "accidents of a thinking substance." 

Meditations 3:31-32

How does the phenomenon of duration prove God's existence?

To make anything endure, it must be recreated by some force in every new moment.

If I had the power to make myself exist a moment from now, I would have been aware of it. But I am not, so there must be something else that makes me exist.

Meditations 3:33

Could it be that the being upon whom I am dependent is not God? Maybe I was produced by my parents, or by something less perfect than God.

Meditations 3:33-34

Could it be that the being that produced me was itself produced by God, perhaps by a regress of causes? 

Meditations 3:35

Could we argue that several perfect causes concurred in my production? That one of these is God, but that other causes exist in the universe?

Meditations 3:36

Did I spring from my parents? 

Meditations 3:37

In what way did I receive the idea of God from God? 

• I did not get this idea through my senses
• It wasn't presented to me unexpectedly
• It is not a pure production or fiction of my mind, for I am unable to alter it
• The only option that remains is that it is innate, as is my idea of myself.(my self-awareness).

Meditations 3:38

How did the idea of God become innate in me? 

At my creation, he implanted this idea in me as the workman places his seal, ehich is separate from the product itself, upon his product.

God probably fashioned me in some way after his own likeness, therefore I can perceive the likeness of God by the same faculty I use to perceive myself.

When I reflect upon myself, I not only see my own defects, but I also see those same properties as being perfect in God.  

Meditations 3:39

Why can God not be a deceiver?