What is the significance, the importance, and the use of Descartes' Meditations?

Asher · October 16, 2003, 02:13

Specificially Meditations 1 and 2.

I've read them several times now and have felt no more educated or enlightened after doing so, in fact I dare say I feel more stupid for doing so.

Some of it is just downright funny...

Quote:

Suppose then that I am dreaming, and that these particulars -- that my eyes are open, that I am moving my head and stretching out my hands -- are not true. Perhaps, indeed, I do not even have such hands or such a body at all.

Quote:

I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.

So the philosophers of Apolyton, I implore you to discuss why these readings are not a gross waste of time.

notyoueither · October 16, 2003, 02:32

Because I said so.

Asher · October 16, 2003, 02:34

I have a critical essay on the first two meditations due friday, so I did the readings tonight and the essay will be tomorrow.

Will probably be one of the easiest paper I'll ever have to write. God bless Philosophy.

notyoueither · October 16, 2003, 02:37

You think it's easy, and then it bites you on the ass.

notyoueither · October 16, 2003, 02:39

Or, maybe it is easy, and you have simply contrived to bite yourself on the ass.

Asher · October 16, 2003, 02:40

I thought my history essays in my freshman year would be easy, and I got As on all of them, too.

Dealing with trite crap like Descartes is loads easier than doing a paper dealing with asymptotic growths and recurrence relations.

notyoueither · October 16, 2003, 02:41

Or, maybe it is all too easy and nobody has any ass at all.

The Mad Monk · October 16, 2003, 03:41

Phenomenology?

Snotty · October 16, 2003, 04:02

Quote:

quote:
Suppose then that I am dreaming, and that these particulars -- that my eyes are open, that I am moving my head and stretching out my hands -- are not true. Perhaps, indeed, I do not even have such hands or such a body at all.

quote:
I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.

How very 'matrix'

Sikander · October 16, 2003, 04:18

He seemed a lot more brilliant and relevant in the 1600s than today.

Asher · October 16, 2003, 13:14

Apparently.

Snotty · October 16, 2003, 13:36

It still an interesting thought, no? The brain in a jar tech blurb from SMAC was along similar lines. How do you know your senses arent being deceived?

The Templar · October 16, 2003, 13:49

Descartes Meditatons are the second great mistake of (western) philosophy ...

Asher · October 16, 2003, 13:52

What was the first?

Kaak · October 16, 2003, 13:57

actually, the matrix is based heavily on the meditations of descartes. The matrix serves as the "evil demon"

The Templar · October 16, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
What was the first?

Plato's cave.

Peano's "axiomization" is the third and final (so far).

And the Matrix is much closer to Plato's cave or a Gettier scenario than it is to Descartes.

JohnT · October 16, 2003, 14:01

...More of Asher's intellectual journey as he continues to plot his 6 year path to his MSCIE certification...

(

)

Asher · October 16, 2003, 14:05

The term is MSCE.

But no thanks, I'm aiming for the MSc route.

BeBro · October 16, 2003, 14:08

Oh yeah, do you hear Agathon coming?

BeBro · October 16, 2003, 14:11

Quote:

quote:
(...) but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.:

And here he clearly speaks about MS....

Giant_Squid · October 16, 2003, 20:45

If I'm thinking of the right thing, the significance is in epistemology and the possibility of having proven knowledge of anything. You can doubt you have a body because maybe you're in the Matrix, or some demon is deceiving you into thinking that you have a body, or you're a spiritual being hallucinating you have a body, or any of a number of things. It's not very likely, but it's possible. You can doubt pretty much anything on the same grounds, so at this point Descartes has proven that none of these things are a legitimate base on which to found a worldview. But what Descartes can't doubt is that he exists, since his doubting is a thought and thought implies existence (at least according to him). Therefore, he uses the statement "I think therefore I am" as a basic axiom, and fudges around a bit to prove everything else in light of that single statement. The significance is that it's one of the first attempts to find an undoubtable statement and to found philosophy on geometry-style self-evident postulates.
Or something. Agathon can proly explain it better.

KrazyHorse · October 16, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

Plato's cave.

Peano's "axiomization" is the third and final (so far).

And the Matrix is much closer to Plato's cave or a Gettier scenario than it is to Descartes.

What's wrong with the Peano axioms?

KrazyHorse · October 16, 2003, 20:47

Anyhow, you can't prove anything from Descarte's axiom. No matter how hard he tries.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Anyhow, you can't prove anything from Descarte's axiom. No matter how hard he tries.

And thus you have proved your own quote. Given Descartes' axiom, you cannot prove anything.

Asher · October 16, 2003, 21:17

This is akin to writing a paper explaining it is impossible for a man to jump from Earth to Pluto merely on his own abilities, then being proclaimed a genius and having people studying your paper for hundreds of years after your death.

Profound.

Drogue · October 16, 2003, 21:36

Just as it's like saying it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light?

I admit, much of Decartes' Meditations could have been thought up by many people today. In the 17th Century, it was pretty new, however (IIRC).