Why couldn't the evil demon deceive Descartes' senses to the point where he believes that he is thinking, but in fact he is just being manipulated by the demon? Also, why couldn't Descartes' strong convictions about perfection be results of the evil demon's manipulation of his senses?
ive honestly thought this before.. but i was on alot of mushrooms or acid..i drew some wild stuff.. i wrote my thoughts down the next day, that what if this is all a dream.. or schizophrenic reality.... or what if this is afterlife?
Great video! Easy to understand and short enough to remember! I hope Descartes will show up for tomorrows exam, so that I can use this as an inspiration for what I'm writing! Thanks!
@alifeofreason His influence is probably less known or harder to pinpoint because Spinozas work was largely banned after he died. But there's no doubt he's had a major influence on modern philosophy despite this, more than descartes though? Hard to say, but I'dd love to hear your opinion :) I'm writing a paper on the two philosophers and their infuence on philosophy and modern science.
Rene was ahead of his times... He foresaw how the leaders of our present control system of thinking are possessed by demons... He tapped into the future philosophy
in order to teach those of his original philosophy... I doubt he would agree with my own view point, I now doubt what I have written, now I'm going back in time...
Great video! Easy to listen to: Clear and Concise. Myself personally I might have mentioned the empiricists while touching base with the idea of rationalism. I just wonder where Descartes came up with the idea of perfection as being the explanation for god? I personally might argue that perfection is merely in the mind of the beholder, as I somehow feel you might agree with. Sounds almost like he was trying to not get in trouble with the church :-p
@boardfu As a matter of fact, Descartes was trying to use reason and philosophy to provide a foundation for faith and for belief in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately for him, even though he was trying to defend Catholicism, his theories were not universally welcomed by the Catholic Church.
Great video. I'm currently in an intro to philosophy class and we are currently reading the meditations going through each one daily. This video has, without a doubt, helped me raise some interesting questions in class. Thanks and I hope you make some more videos.
I came across this problem that I could not solve. Descartes is famous for the phrase, cogito ergo sum. But Descartes was French, and wrote his books in french. Why would his most famous phrase be most known in Latin? I couldn't find an answer anywhere. thank you in advance for an answer, if you have one.
@Brandonduboff This is a good question. In point of fact, the phrase "I think, therefore I am" was first written in French ("Je pense, donc je suis") and is found in Descartes' treatise called "Discourse on Method" which was written in French and published in 1637. His "Meditations on First Philosophy" were published in Latin in 1641, and later in French (1647), but he does not used that exact phrase in that work
@Brandonduboff The phrase "Cogito ergo sum" finally appears in Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy," which were written in Latin and published in 1644. Since this phrase summarizes his point, and since philosophers like to shorten it to just "the Cogito" when referring to this argument, the Latin version has become the most widely known version of the phrase.
Question: is something feeling logically clear and distinct any grounds for believing it actually is ? Do u agree that u make the case that Descartes WAS using this idea as central justification of a CONCLUSION. ? if so i understood u fully. if not, then not so. The confusion, is, if i understood u, i didn't get how this was framed as something as a mitigator in his defense.
@Hythloday71 I will try one last time to clarify my point. Descartes did not say initially that all "clear and distinct" ideas are true. He said the Cogito was true, and secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true. Descartes felt that this proved God's existence. Therefore, since God is not an evil demon, THEN, as a result, our rational thinking can be trusted. This is not circular reasoning.
So, Descartes is not saying, initially, that all clear and distinct ideas can be trusted. It is only after he "proves" God's existence that he says that, THEREFORE, we can now trust our clear and distinct rational thoughts. Most philosophers do not agree with Descartes' logic regarding his proof for God's existence. Neither am I defending that position. I am only stating that FROM DESCARTES' POINT OF VIEW, he felt that he had proved God's existence, and therefore could trust rational thought.
I hope this answers your question, because I do not know how to make my point any clearer. It is obvious to most people that simply because we think an idea is "clear and distinct," that does not make the idea true. Descartes also was suspicious of rational thought as well. But in the end, he was a rationalist, and he believed his "proof" of God's existence was logically irrefutable, and for him, this was sufficient to convince him that he could, from that point, trust his reason.
@wmiller24 - "secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true" - this conjunction in the antecedent is problematic for me. A def of circular reasoning is the containment of the premise in the conclusion .. is it not? For me this assumption, means he can NEVER logicall infer the existence of god, which is as u state in ur vid at least part of his goal. I accept in the above form the guilt is not circ but one of faulty assumption.
Great vid except for the end, i don't think u explained 'what he really meant' as apposed to the opposition he faces. For me it is straight forward faulty logic. The properties of 'clear and distinct' do not endow truth on anything.
@Hythloday71 I was not defending Descartes’ argument about God’s existence. I was simply trying to explain that he was not using circular reasoning. Some have claimed that he was saying: “I know God exists because I have this clear and distinct idea, and I know that I can trust clear and distinct ideas because God exists.” This is not what Descartes was saying.
Descartes felt that his initial idea, Cogito ergo sum, was so logically clear and distinct that it was irrefutable. So then he asked himself if he had any other such ideas which could be trusted. He then said that he had in his mind the concept of perfection. It was clear to him that, since he was not perfect, only a perfect being could have placed this concept in his mind.
Descartes saw this as the same kind of irrefutable logic as the Cogito and felt that this proved God’s existence. He went on to say that, if God exists, then God would not deceive us, and we should therefore be able to trust our clear and distinct (logical) ideas and, for the most part, our perceptions as well. If one accepts his proof of God's existence, then the corollary (we can trust our logic and senses) also is plausible, and, at the very least, is not a case of circular reasoning.
There are two problems with Descartes' reasoning here. One is that most people do not find his proof of God's existence to be convincing. The second problem is that, even if God exists, and even if God created us, that does not rule out the possible existence of the evil demon. Hence, even if God does exist, there might still be an evil demon who fills our minds with bizarre thoughts and perceptions but also makes us think that those thoughts and perceptions are logically "clear and distinct."
@wmiller24 - It seems to me your saying 'A'. I'm sorry ur still unclear to me. What matters, i guess, is i am pressing the point that he was guilty of fallicious reasoning. I need to be explicit and ask, do u think not ? I guess i need to clarify why i think so, i have given strong indictation i feel, i will clarify if u think u can defend the position. Ok, re-read again, a little clearer, but still, I AM NOT SAYING .... bla bla, still interested in ur position of his logic
the "I" In I think there for I am is a bit of an assumption ,also The concept of perfection stuff ... well where do you start on the flaws there :) but saying all that he was well ahead of his time .good video you're obviously well read .
@Hythloday71 lol good point, i actually saw that after i posted the comment, and wondered if anyone would pick up on it. I find it difficult to write it elegently except there is nothing necessarily preventing the demon from planting the delusion of a sense of 'self', of distinct existence, in Descartes is there? So how does Descartes know he is not a figment of the demons imagination, and the demon has invested a delusion of self in his mental construct? Also the demon exists is moot anyway?
@intermender - that certainly takes the philisophical point a little deeper. The question now on the table is the requirements for distinct existence. Consider 'THAT I AM NOT REAL', just a fragmentation in your mind. You can question me and probe my sentience, my agency, and challenge my existence beyond urself. But this is parradoxical since i can EQUALLY level the same charges at u. So in one way we could be part of something larger, but that larger would not exibit our qualities of the self.
@Hythloday7 - but this completely re-iterates Descartes point. You can know nothing about the existence of other 'I' s . Only urself. I won't try to convince u that u R a figure of my mind, since it is actually beyond reasoning possibility for me to show. Like wise u 2 i. But, we can surmise, perhaps?, that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. I can probably say it is a duck. I am trying to say, that if minds are so convoluted that they create other minds, how decide which is primary
@Hythloday71 But aren't you just describing in effect a multiple personality disorder. By your reasoning wouldn't it mean the other personalities are 'valid individuals'? In this instance we have sequestered use of the same cognitive infrastructure not individual minds?
The concept of perfection can come from the imagination, and does not necessarily need to come from some divine realm. I do think that this is a nice, well thought out video.
Why couldn't the evil demon deceive Descartes' senses to the point where he believes that he is thinking, but in fact he is just being manipulated by the demon? Also, why couldn't Descartes' strong convictions about perfection be results of the evil demon's manipulation of his senses?
Gruenders 1 week ago
Im taking a Philosophy call right now, I really enjoy this particular topic of Epistemology.
hiphopfish88 3 weeks ago
His island is his subjective thoughs and views. How does he work out their is objective truths or facts.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
Very informative! Thank you for explaining this!!
Msncgal 1 month ago
ive honestly thought this before.. but i was on alot of mushrooms or acid..i drew some wild stuff.. i wrote my thoughts down the next day, that what if this is all a dream.. or schizophrenic reality.... or what if this is afterlife?
88roro11 2 months ago in playlist Spiritual - Gnosis
Very good! Helped me a lot. :)
RobFS1 2 months ago
Great video! Easy to understand and short enough to remember! I hope Descartes will show up for tomorrows exam, so that I can use this as an inspiration for what I'm writing! Thanks!
NickoDrummer 2 months ago
hyper bollocks hahahah
thisisacunt 3 months ago
Spinoza really started modern philosophy.
alifeofreason 4 months ago
@alifeofreason His influence is probably less known or harder to pinpoint because Spinozas work was largely banned after he died. But there's no doubt he's had a major influence on modern philosophy despite this, more than descartes though? Hard to say, but I'dd love to hear your opinion :) I'm writing a paper on the two philosophers and their infuence on philosophy and modern science.
cl1mbat1ze 3 months ago
@alifeofreason ..who?
ArkansasHarvest 2 months ago
@ArkansasHarvest Baruch de Spinoza, the greatest philosopher to ever live.
alifeofreason 2 months ago
Rene was ahead of his times... He foresaw how the leaders of our present control system of thinking are possessed by demons... He tapped into the future philosophy
in order to teach those of his original philosophy... I doubt he would agree with my own view point, I now doubt what I have written, now I'm going back in time...
Blodwen0404 5 months ago
Doubt everything... That's my kind of philosophy... I doubt I even exist if I do I'm not typing this message to know I'm existing...
Blodwen0404 5 months ago
thanks alot of help!!!
skaballtheory 7 months ago
Great video! Easy to listen to: Clear and Concise. Myself personally I might have mentioned the empiricists while touching base with the idea of rationalism. I just wonder where Descartes came up with the idea of perfection as being the explanation for god? I personally might argue that perfection is merely in the mind of the beholder, as I somehow feel you might agree with. Sounds almost like he was trying to not get in trouble with the church :-p
boardfu 7 months ago
@boardfu As a matter of fact, Descartes was trying to use reason and philosophy to provide a foundation for faith and for belief in Catholic doctrine. Unfortunately for him, even though he was trying to defend Catholicism, his theories were not universally welcomed by the Catholic Church.
wmiller24 7 months ago
@wmiller24
Probably a bit more well received than anything Luther had to say hm?
boardfu 7 months ago
Thanks a lot, Sir ! It really helped me a lot in understanding his logic much better.
MrFlyingeclipse 9 months ago
i have an exam on the meditations of descartes. i hope that it goes well =D
93CuteGurl 9 months ago
@93CuteGurl lol i have an exam on Thursday too about the same stuff. Good Luck !!!
MrFlyingeclipse 9 months ago
@MrFlyingeclipse gl then =D
93CuteGurl 9 months ago
yay finally a new video!!
Jalenxx 9 months ago
Great video. I'm currently in an intro to philosophy class and we are currently reading the meditations going through each one daily. This video has, without a doubt, helped me raise some interesting questions in class. Thanks and I hope you make some more videos.
nollek 11 months ago
Comment removed
nollek 11 months ago
I came across this problem that I could not solve. Descartes is famous for the phrase, cogito ergo sum. But Descartes was French, and wrote his books in french. Why would his most famous phrase be most known in Latin? I couldn't find an answer anywhere. thank you in advance for an answer, if you have one.
Brandonduboff 11 months ago
@Brandonduboff This is a good question. In point of fact, the phrase "I think, therefore I am" was first written in French ("Je pense, donc je suis") and is found in Descartes' treatise called "Discourse on Method" which was written in French and published in 1637. His "Meditations on First Philosophy" were published in Latin in 1641, and later in French (1647), but he does not used that exact phrase in that work
wmiller24 11 months ago
@Brandonduboff The phrase "Cogito ergo sum" finally appears in Descartes' "Principles of Philosophy," which were written in Latin and published in 1644. Since this phrase summarizes his point, and since philosophers like to shorten it to just "the Cogito" when referring to this argument, the Latin version has become the most widely known version of the phrase.
wmiller24 11 months ago
Question: is something feeling logically clear and distinct any grounds for believing it actually is ? Do u agree that u make the case that Descartes WAS using this idea as central justification of a CONCLUSION. ? if so i understood u fully. if not, then not so. The confusion, is, if i understood u, i didn't get how this was framed as something as a mitigator in his defense.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 I will try one last time to clarify my point. Descartes did not say initially that all "clear and distinct" ideas are true. He said the Cogito was true, and secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true. Descartes felt that this proved God's existence. Therefore, since God is not an evil demon, THEN, as a result, our rational thinking can be trusted. This is not circular reasoning.
wmiller24 1 year ago
So, Descartes is not saying, initially, that all clear and distinct ideas can be trusted. It is only after he "proves" God's existence that he says that, THEREFORE, we can now trust our clear and distinct rational thoughts. Most philosophers do not agree with Descartes' logic regarding his proof for God's existence. Neither am I defending that position. I am only stating that FROM DESCARTES' POINT OF VIEW, he felt that he had proved God's existence, and therefore could trust rational thought.
wmiller24 1 year ago
I hope this answers your question, because I do not know how to make my point any clearer. It is obvious to most people that simply because we think an idea is "clear and distinct," that does not make the idea true. Descartes also was suspicious of rational thought as well. But in the end, he was a rationalist, and he believed his "proof" of God's existence was logically irrefutable, and for him, this was sufficient to convince him that he could, from that point, trust his reason.
wmiller24 1 year ago
@wmiller24 - "secondly, the idea that only a perfect being could implant the notion of perfection was also self-evidently true" - this conjunction in the antecedent is problematic for me. A def of circular reasoning is the containment of the premise in the conclusion .. is it not? For me this assumption, means he can NEVER logicall infer the existence of god, which is as u state in ur vid at least part of his goal. I accept in the above form the guilt is not circ but one of faulty assumption.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 I didn't say I agreed with Descartes. I just said he was not guilty of circular reasoning.
wmiller24 1 year ago
Concise, well done. Descartes' influence has been tremendous. This talk helps understand why his thought is relevant today.
charleskannal 1 year ago
Great vid except for the end, i don't think u explained 'what he really meant' as apposed to the opposition he faces. For me it is straight forward faulty logic. The properties of 'clear and distinct' do not endow truth on anything.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 I was not defending Descartes’ argument about God’s existence. I was simply trying to explain that he was not using circular reasoning. Some have claimed that he was saying: “I know God exists because I have this clear and distinct idea, and I know that I can trust clear and distinct ideas because God exists.” This is not what Descartes was saying.
wmiller24 1 year ago
Descartes felt that his initial idea, Cogito ergo sum, was so logically clear and distinct that it was irrefutable. So then he asked himself if he had any other such ideas which could be trusted. He then said that he had in his mind the concept of perfection. It was clear to him that, since he was not perfect, only a perfect being could have placed this concept in his mind.
wmiller24 1 year ago
Descartes saw this as the same kind of irrefutable logic as the Cogito and felt that this proved God’s existence. He went on to say that, if God exists, then God would not deceive us, and we should therefore be able to trust our clear and distinct (logical) ideas and, for the most part, our perceptions as well. If one accepts his proof of God's existence, then the corollary (we can trust our logic and senses) also is plausible, and, at the very least, is not a case of circular reasoning.
wmiller24 1 year ago
There are two problems with Descartes' reasoning here. One is that most people do not find his proof of God's existence to be convincing. The second problem is that, even if God exists, and even if God created us, that does not rule out the possible existence of the evil demon. Hence, even if God does exist, there might still be an evil demon who fills our minds with bizarre thoughts and perceptions but also makes us think that those thoughts and perceptions are logically "clear and distinct."
wmiller24 1 year ago
@wmiller24 - It seems to me your saying 'A'. I'm sorry ur still unclear to me. What matters, i guess, is i am pressing the point that he was guilty of fallicious reasoning. I need to be explicit and ask, do u think not ? I guess i need to clarify why i think so, i have given strong indictation i feel, i will clarify if u think u can defend the position. Ok, re-read again, a little clearer, but still, I AM NOT SAYING .... bla bla, still interested in ur position of his logic
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@wmiller24 - I am not saying 'A', Descartes was not saying 'A'
Hythloday71 1 year ago
the "I" In I think there for I am is a bit of an assumption ,also The concept of perfection stuff ... well where do you start on the flaws there :) but saying all that he was well ahead of his time .good video you're obviously well read .
sausage4mash 1 year ago
How could he know that his demon isn't making him think he is thinking?
intermender 1 year ago
@intermender - ur statement STILL 'requires' an 'him', hint, try re-writing without refering to the existence of 'him' / urself etc etc
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 lol good point, i actually saw that after i posted the comment, and wondered if anyone would pick up on it. I find it difficult to write it elegently except there is nothing necessarily preventing the demon from planting the delusion of a sense of 'self', of distinct existence, in Descartes is there? So how does Descartes know he is not a figment of the demons imagination, and the demon has invested a delusion of self in his mental construct? Also the demon exists is moot anyway?
intermender 1 year ago
@intermender - that certainly takes the philisophical point a little deeper. The question now on the table is the requirements for distinct existence. Consider 'THAT I AM NOT REAL', just a fragmentation in your mind. You can question me and probe my sentience, my agency, and challenge my existence beyond urself. But this is parradoxical since i can EQUALLY level the same charges at u. So in one way we could be part of something larger, but that larger would not exibit our qualities of the self.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday7 - but this completely re-iterates Descartes point. You can know nothing about the existence of other 'I' s . Only urself. I won't try to convince u that u R a figure of my mind, since it is actually beyond reasoning possibility for me to show. Like wise u 2 i. But, we can surmise, perhaps?, that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. I can probably say it is a duck. I am trying to say, that if minds are so convoluted that they create other minds, how decide which is primary
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 - it is my contention that they all would EXist and have right to postulate correctly as Descartes does.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 But aren't you just describing in effect a multiple personality disorder. By your reasoning wouldn't it mean the other personalities are 'valid individuals'? In this instance we have sequestered use of the same cognitive infrastructure not individual minds?
intermender 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 yes nor is there any direct demonstration of that something larger therefore how can we directly prove anything exists?
intermender 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for the video! Please make more.
deemzje 1 year ago
Thanks for the video! Please make more.
Redbluegreenman 1 year ago
The concept of perfection can come from the imagination, and does not necessarily need to come from some divine realm. I do think that this is a nice, well thought out video.
Delocrates 1 year ago
Nice to see you again on youtube, after your gap 2 years. I look forward to seeing yet more interesting philosophy videos from you shortly.
danielsondanielson 1 year ago
Great video, and your easy on the ear.
Palfy18 1 year ago
What is your thesis?
AEVautomatic 1 year ago