Term
| 1. What does Montaigne mean when he writes, “I may happen to contradict myself…but I never contradict truth” (p.233, “On Repenting”)? |
|
Definition
I shall start from the consequences Montaigne draws from the very explicit claim that in the essays supporting the fact that God is absolutely transcendent and is above all human understanding. Thus, since truth belongs to the scope of the divine and being possessed by God, it cannot belong to the scope of human reason, the dimension that can be classifies in the domain of knowledge; instead he means that he cannot contradict the metaphysic dimension.
Montaigne is suggesting that truth is fluid through time. In this sense, he is arguing that as he grows as a person, his thoughts and understandings of truth may also shift. |
|
|
Term
| 2. What is Montaigne’s problem with people who don’t believe in ghosts (“That it is Madness…”)? What does this tell us about his skepticism? |
|
Definition
| Montaigne holds that we should live in the mean, not in excess of either complete acceptance of something, nor complete denial. His skepticism is one of mediation. He cannot know there are not ghosts for certain, so he cannot deny their existence. Conviction is a failure of human rationality. So, be skeptical, but do not be quick too believe or deny. |
|
|
Term
| 3. In his essay, “On the Lame.” Montaigne writes, “Truth and falsehood are both alike in form of face and have identical stances, tastes and demeanors…. I find that we are not merely slack about guarding ourselves from dupery, but we actually want to fall on its sword” (p.353). What does this statement mean, in the context of Montaigne’s discussion of skepticism? |
|
Definition
A natural tendency for humans to not know the truth but make inferences about what they believe to be true. The truth can be turned into many opinions based and how the truth extended is from its staring point. People tend to stick with what they believe to be true rather than forming or staying true to their own thoughts.
He claims that the distance between truth and falsehood are so approximate that a wise man should not commit to either. But, he argues it is in our human nature to be convinced of the truth or falsity of a given claim, and in doing so, is ‘duped’ by our own lack of skepticism regarding both sides. |
|
|
Term
| 4. In his essay, “On the Lame,” Montaigne describes several threats to careful thinking, rooted in human nature and our social upbringing. Identify and explain one threat he discusses. |
|
Definition
| He argues that it is difficult for own to restrain from believing that which is believed by the masses. We are inclined to believe and retell an account of truth without questioning its origin or falsifiability. He claims there is no better reason to believe 100 men than there is to believe one. We should be equally skeptical as he further elaborates in his skepticism of the power of witches. (He is in the minority on that subject at the time) |
|
|
Term
| 5. In the essay, “That it is madness…” Montaigne discusses stories of ghosts, noting that some people are quick to believe fantastic stories, and some reject them simply because they tell of something unusual. Bacon also recognizes this tendency. Under what category of idols does Bacon put this tendency? Briefly describe this category’s characteristic features. |
|
Definition
| Bacon describes this feature in his idols of the tribe. This tendency is of human nature. Humans are often influenced by emotion, our senses are limited and they can deceive us, and we will often seek to confirm our own beliefs. |
|
|
Term
| 6. What was Bacon’s concern with Aristotelian deductive arguments? Why does he think inductive arguments are the right path for the future of natural science? |
|
Definition
Bacon believes that Aristotelian deductive arguments often vaguely define that which we have little understanding of. He believes inductive thought processes will allow us to manipulate nature in order to learn from it. This will entail both precision and accuracy. The Aristotelian argument also appears to provide absolute answers no matter how vague, which may over look certain contingencies
Although Aristotle provided specific axioms for every scientific discipline, what Bacon found lacking in the Greek philosopher's work was a master principle or general theory of science, which could be applied to all branches of natural history and philosophy. He believes inductive thought processes will allow us to manipulate nature in order to learn from it. This will entail both precision and accuracy |
|
|
Term
| 7. Briefly explain Bacon’s four “idols” and his purpose in describing them |
|
Definition
| An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substances in it. Francis Bacon distinguished 4 types such as idols of tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater. Bacon did not regards idol as symbol but as fixations. In this perspective, he anticipated modern psychology, his purpose of describing them. |
|
|
Term
| 8. Explain Bacon’s Idol of the Tribe. What does the term refer to? What are examples of the biases in this category? |
|
Definition
o Idols of the tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstraction in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration distortion and disproportion. Thus, men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world but not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen.
o Idols of the tribe—describes a tendency in human nature to seek information, which confirms our understanding, we often rely on our senses, which are limited and may deceive us, and emotion influences our observations. He argues we may exaggerate our understanding. Looking in to a starry night, we are not content with its order, but may make further claims about its properties that are not observable or empirical |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Idols of Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolic a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously
Modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident |
|
|
Term
| o Idols of The Marketplace are |
|
Definition
| o Idols of The Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. |
|
|
Term
| o Idols of the Theater are |
|
Definition
| o Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are build up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned group are accepted without question by the masses. |
|
|
Term
| 9. How does Descartes prove his own existence? Explain his argument. |
|
Definition
9. How does Descartes prove his own existence? Explain his argument.
“Cogito ergo sum” later translated in French “je pense donce je suis” - Descartes takes himself to be a thing that thinks. What exactly is such a thing? What does Descartes mean by thinking? Are doubting, willing, feeling pain, and smelling all examples of thinking? Descartes is certain that he exists and that he is a thinking thing. With this idea of universal doubt, Rene Descartes proved his own existence. |
|
|
Term
| 10. Briefly explain Descartes’ wax example. What is he using the example to show? |
|
Definition
10. Briefly explain Descartes’ wax example. What is he using the example to show?
a. Makes the argument that we can know things independent of our senses
b. We know that a melted candle is the same thing as the un melted candle because we have an innate understanding of change
c. He is making a claim for rationalism
We know things through the intellect rather than through the senses and that we know the mind better than anything else. Descartes argument focuses on the process of change by which solid wax melts into a liquid puddle |
|
|
Term
| 11. What is the formal reality of my idea of a mermaid, and how does it compare to the formal reality of my idea of a cow? What is the objective reality of each of these ideas? |
|
Definition
| A mermaid is the formal reality of a mode. The idea of what it is to be a mermaid. The formal reality of a cow is also the idea I have of a cow. The objective reality of a cow and a mermaid is a finite material substance if it exists. Objective reality is dependent on the formal reality it would have if it exists. |
|
|
Term
| 12. Explain the difference between innate versus acquired ideas for Descartes, and give an example of each. (Med. 3) |
|
Definition
Innate ideas are ideas, which arise from the mind, independent of experience or memory. Or, ideas, which can be derived purely with ones intellect. Examples could include mathematics or geometry of shapes—he posits that we can come to truths about these things without having been taught them
Acquired ideas are those, which rely on our sense experience and/or memory. So, Acquired ideas may include anything external to our intellect such as learning not to touch a hot stove. |
|
|
Term
| 13. Why is it essential for Descartes’ project that he be able to prove the existence of a non-deceiving God? |
|
Definition
| His truth rule that anything that is clear and distinct concludes that anything that is distinct can be taken as truth; but only after he has proven that there is no deceiver of reality. So, the existence of a good God is the only way he can be certain that anything but his own mind exists. |
|
|
Term
| 14. Descartes makes a distinction between substances themselves and properties that substances may have (also called attributes or modes). How does this distinction help him explain the mind/body distinction in the Sixth Med.? (Note: this isn’t asking about the mind-body problem, just the argument that they are distinct.) |
|
Definition
a. I do have a distinct idea of my body
b. So, a body can exist distinct from the mind
c. My knowledge of myself is only of a thinking thing
i. I can exist (potentially) without my body |
|
|
Term
| 15. Briefly explain Descartes’ “cosmological argument” for the existence of God (the argument that relies on causes), and how this argument helps him disprove the deceiver God worry. |
|
Definition
i. I exist
ii. I am not the cause of myself
iii. There is something else that caused me to exist
iv. There is something that caused itself to exist
v. To be a deceiver is to be at fault
Therefore, God must not be a deceiving |
|
|
Term
| 16. In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes attempts to explain how although we were created by a non-deceiving God, we nevertheless make mistakes and have false beliefs. Very briefly, summarize Descartes’ theory of how this happens (in reference to judgment and the will). |
|
Definition
Reason is finite or limited; so, when we surpass our reason we make mistakes using the will going beyond the limits of reason is where we make judgments, which can make mistakes.
Will—Our will is designed in the image of God. It surpasses our reason |
|
|
