 వ్ధనినిండ్సీవని. వ్ప్నిగా. వాిండ్సీవిబె150 earliest. త్పాస్సీథి వాత్సీత్ఫ్సీ. మ్త్సీ వాక్పిటా న్న్సులిఆ పాచ్ త్పిక్పఽికా. contemplation of the key areas of philosophy.ё antibioticsي are electrical problems are the problems which discusses the notion of essence, the underlying essence of reality, that is what is the underlying principle ofолuminess, the underlying essence of the reality as I have discussed earlier about it.  bracken                                                                      fungi º Team Guild  actress ica nd who is initiating this debate in modern philosophy is saying that mind and body are considered as two independent substances in Descartes philosophy. Mind is a substance and the body is also another substance. So far as mind is concerned it does not need the existence of the body and so far as the body is concerned the existence of the body is concerned it does not require the existence of mind. In this case Descartes is raising a philosophical problem and for which he has been criticized that if there are two independent substances then the interaction between the two is impossible. Now the question arises are they categorically independent of each other and what is that defines the notion of substance etc etc. Now let us talk about Descartes substance dualism and according to Descartes substance is something which is simple which is clear and distinct. In other words substance must have a clear distinct existence. Now the clarity, simplicity, distinctness are the three fundamental characteristics of substance according to Descartes. Now how do we talk about substance? According to Descartes we need to define substance as something which is unchangeable, something which is simple and clearly available to us. That is the concept of substance then Descartes metaphysics of mind must go back to Descartes epistemological enquiry. Now why Descartes is interested to talk about substance that which is clear and distinct. Now his interest, his main concern is an epistemological concern because for Descartes knowledge must be simple, distinct, clear and certain. Certainity is something very significant for Descartes. Now if mind exists, if mind is a substance then it must be certain. By certain he means that it is indivitable, it cannot be doubted, we cannot doubt the existence of mind and it is this concept of certainty that Descartes was looking for. Now what kind of method Descartes holds to talk about the nature of substance? Now what kind of epistemological method Descartes is holding? Now epistemology is one of the branches of philosophy as I mentioned earlier that metaphysics is one of the branches of philosophy. Epistemology is another bunch of philosophy. Now when we talk about substance dualism which is metaphysical in nature we need to talk about the epistemological method or Descartes epistemological concern which has a larger influence on developing this theory called substance dualism. Now Descartes epistemology as I mentioned earlier is discussed in meditation on first philosophy. Now here Descartes is trying to prove that if something exists then it must have certainty as one of the essential characteristics of knowledge. Now the question is does the external world exist? Do I exist? Is there something called real about me and the external world? Now these questions are the main question for Descartes. Descartes questioned the reality of our existence. Not only the existence of the external world but also the existence of me as a being in the world. Now this concept of being exist is a metaphysical question. As you know Aristotle discusses this concept of being. Now for Aristotle being refers to the metaphysical or the ontological existence of the reality. Now when Descartes is raising the concept of being whether the world exist or the mind exist he is certainly concerned with this Aristotle in notion of being. This is the essence of this being and how do we know about its existence? How do we rather conform its existence with proper justification that this is something real and therefore this is an epistemological concern for Descartes. And for Descartes epistemology and the metaphysics in fact are related when we talk about his philosophy of mind. Now Descartes while talking about the nature of mind while talking about the concept of certainty of the mind gives us two hypothesis. And this hypothesis are the dream hypothesis and the demon hypothesis. Now the dream hypothesis talks about that am I dreaming about my existence that I am here talking to you is just a mere dream experience of mind. As you know when we dream during our sleep we do not really make any distinction between dream and the real life. Dream experiences and real experiences are all found same during the sleep. So Descartes dream hypothesis tells us is it the case that we are all dreaming because dream experiences are as good as our real life experiences. Now Descartes says I am not aware of things which are there during the sleep because during sleep I do as I am dreaming. I am not doing different or performing different actions right now. So there is no distinction between dream experiences, dream activities and the real life activities for Descartes. On the other hand when he talks about the demon hypothesis he says that is there a demon who is deceiving me all the time, who is creating this illusion that there is nothing called a real knowledge. Now Descartes skepticism is certainly a very important thesis for all of us. Skepticism talks about doubt. Skepticism holds this method of doubt as one of the important means of achieving knowledge. One of the important means of realizing what is truth. But Descartes is not a very strong skeptic because there are skeptics who advocates that knowledge is impossible meaning thereby we cannot be certain about any knowledge. Now this kind of skepticism was prevalent during Descartes time but Descartes was not a skeptic in the strong sense of the term skepticism. Descartes skepticism is called methodological skepticism. Descartes is skeptic because he wants to adopt this method of doubt as one of the methods which would have the potential to take us to certainty. So realizing the potentiality of skepticism Descartes probably is bringing methodological skepticism into the discourse of mind to prove that there are substances and the substances are real. So methodological skepticism rules out that these experiences are not illusory. Now how does Descartes do that? As you all know there are many sources of knowledge. So for example sense experiential knowledge. I perceive that there are 50 chairs in this room. I sense that there are 50 students sitting in the class and listening to my lectures. Now these are all about the sense experiences. So I have sense experiences, sense experiential knowledge. Now similar way my sense experiences are not certain all the time. I cannot be certain about my sense experiential knowledge. Rather we cannot be certain about the sense experiential knowledge. The kind of certainty which Descartes was looking for is something very significant. He was talking about pure certainty. Quote and quote this notion of purity is something very specific to the rationalist. Now all rationalist thinkers believe that if something is true and genuinely true then it must be grounded. If it is grounded on reason, sense experience is not the only source of knowledge. It could be faulty, it could be debatable, it could be doubted. Now how does then one overcome this that sense experience and knowledge are indubitable knowledge? What are the cases where sense experiences go wrong? Say for example, when I am experiencing mirrors it gives me this impression that there is water in front of me if I am working on the desert and the shining lights, sun rays creates this impression that there is water in front of me. Now this impression is a kind of an illusion. This is an illusory experiences. So all sense experiences are not therefore correct. So what is correct or what is a kind of a genuine sense experience is something to be discussed, something to be thought about. There is a possibility that I am living in the hallucination all the time. If there is one possibility of living in the state of hallucination there is also a possibility that I am all the time hallucinating about things. In hallucination we can imagine about the existence of something which is there but in reality that may not be there. In hallucination I find that there is a ghost sitting before me and talking to me. There is a chameleon which is sitting before me and dancing. So those kind of hallucinations or hallucinated experiences are quite possible but is it the case that we are all the time hallucinating? Descartes is really throwing a great puzzle to all of us. We need to think about that how the certainty can be achieved, how we can thought about the certainty of our knowledge claims. Descartes also believed that my intuitive knowledge, the knowledge which depends on my mental ability can also be wrong. Say for example when he talks about calculations, a long mathematical calculation if I am given the series to calculate then sometimes we go wrong. We cannot be really certain about it that we have did all correct. So our mental ability can also be proved faulty and therefore dupitable. Now Descartes says testimony is also dupitable. There are testimonial knowledge which are also dupitable in the sense that I do not know, when I am born, I am told rather that you are born on this date, this and this month and this and this year. I am sure all of you might have experienced this that your parents might have told you that yes, this is when you are born. Say 14th august 1972 you were born at the time. Now I have not experienced, it is certainly a case where I have to rely on others, particularly my peers to believe that it is true. And most of the time we took advice from the peers, some of them are correct, some of them are incorrect meaning thereby some of them are wrong. Now therefore Descartes says testimonial knowledge are dupitable, they do not give us certainty. Now doubting all this Descartes prepares a kind of a method and it is this methodological survey which we can tell us what is the certain knowledge. Now as I mentioned that rationalist epistemology believes that reason is the foundation of knowledge and all knowledge, particularly the highest and pure knowledge must be grounded on reason. The rationalist epistemology also believes that there are certain innate ideas which are not derived from experiences. But they are real. For example, the idea of God is one of the innate ideas and we do not derive it from our experience, rather we intuitively gain this knowledge, we intuitively know that there is God. So, rationalist epistemology when talks about certainty, it emphasizes that reason can provide adequate ground to justify what is true knowledge, what is certain knowledge. Now this idea of certainty and truth is something important when we talk about Descartes methodological skepticism. Now as we find Descartes keeps on doubting all varieties of knowledge, so therefore we can say Descartes is preparing a set, a set which includes all doubt and that can be called a universal doubt. This set includes all varieties of doubt, all varieties of knowledge claims which are dupitably, hence it is called a universal doubt. When we doubt things, we can say that there is no doubt, there is no doubt, there is no doubt, there is no doubt. Now in these things, we are unclear about the certainty of knowledge. I am pointing out again and again that certainty is something which Descartes emphasized in his discourse that there must be certainty. Descartes overcomes skepticism, giving priority to certainty, giving priority to truth, so epistemological priority is something very significant to Descartes where Descartes differs from other skeptics. For other skeptics as I mentioned that knowledge is impossible, meaning thereby everything is dupitable. Skeptics do not have this idea that whether there can be a knowledge at all, so Descartes is not that kind of skeptics, rather Descartes gives primacy to epistemological. The epistemological is what I am calling the knowledge which is certain and indubitable knowledge. So, how does Descartes provide the ground to the skeptics? To this epistemological issues. Now, let us see what are the important questions Descartes is encountering when he talks about the certainty. Now, there are three important questions which Descartes finds very significant. They are, who is the author of my thoughts? Is there a God who puts thoughts into me? Am I so bound by my body and to sense that I cannot exist without them? What is the question that Descartes finds? What is my existence? What is my being? Is something significant? Because what constitutes my existence? And how do I know that there is God? Is it just an innate idea? Is it there before my birth, before having any experience? No. Descartes is not simply jumping into conclusions. Hence, the first question is very important. How do I have these thoughts? Who is the author of these thoughts? Is God, the author of these thoughts? . Par ? වඩය සබරල්ගක් now වඩ්ල, වධි වඪතු ලඳහා වඩයල්ල්ල්ල, වනය,වෙල්ලය වනන්ල්ල්ල්ලක්, හසබයු, සම්ලයු, වහයනල්ල්ෆයරටසම වඪතු, වතු, සම්ල්ලන, වන What is next to the method of doubt, keeping these three questions in mind? Now, Dekar says, when I am doubting, can I doubt this doubt, can I doubt my doubting itself? What kind of activity is doubt is? What kind of activity it is when I say that I am doubting, that what I see before me is illusory, it is an hallucination, it is not really correct. Now, how do I say that? Now, there are two kinds of activities. One, let us say physical activities, activities which are performed by certain physical organism. Say for example, you all know plants, they grow, they bear fruits, flowers, they all grow old, they all grow tall and finally, there is a decay. So, when we talk about the biology of life, the biology of the organic beings, we certainly see there is a process involved in it and this is the process, which we are talking about is an activity, is a kind of a natural activity and all natural activities follow a crevice process because nature as a whole follows this principle called the uniformity principle. It is true to all objects that there is a growth and there is a decay and between these two points, there are certain natural processes and these processes are can be called the physical activities of a biological being or a physical being. Now, there are another kind of activities, which is Descartes is concerned with and that activity is called mental activity. Thinking is mental activity, dreaming is mental activity, doubting is mental activity, experiencing is mental activity, but these activities and the division of these activities is it so simple that there are physical activities and there are mental activities. Now, Descartes, how does Descartes conclude that there are two activities? Descartes concludes it when he asks these questions, can I doubt this fact that I am doubting and how do I doubt? Do I doubt because I am a physical being or do I doubt that I am a mental being? My being is something to do with my existence of a mind. So, there is a mind. Now, how does Descartes prove that there is mind? Now, after having this whole set of doubt in his hand, how does Descartes prove that there is mind? Now, doubting is a mental activity and it is different from the physical activities like say walking, talking, dancing, digestion. Now, digestion is certainly a natural process. Working could also be considered as one of the natural processes, blood circulation, palpitations, etc. These are natural processes. Now, whether I know them happening or not it goes on inside my body, so in that sense there are purely some activities which are considered as physical activities and there are certain activities which are considered as mental activities. So, doubting is a mental activities and working is not purely a mental activity. Working is a physical activity. Now, Descartes is saying that it is physical because from this I cannot influence the physical activity. Now, if that is so, then Descartes says I cannot doubt my doubt because it presupposes another doubt which is part of this universal set called doubt, the universal doubt. Now, when he says this, he says that I am doubting cannot be derived from my working. I work therefore, I doubt that seems very ridiculous. Now, what is that? I am doubting. I am doubting. I am doubting. I am doubting. I am doubting. I am doubting. I am doubting. I cannot be derived from my working. I work therefore, I doubt. That seems very ridiculous. Now, what is that? Descartes is inferring. Descartes says when I doubt, I think that I doubt. I am aware of this, that I am doubting. Now, this awareness is something very significant for Descartes. It is this awareness which Descartes says is a mental ability that conforms this, that I am doubting. So now, this famous dictum of Descartes, Dibito, Ergo-Cosito, Ergo-Som says I doubt, therefore I think that I am doubting. I am doubting. This is very important for Descartes. I am doubting. I am doubting. I am dubbing. I am doubting. I am doubting. This is very important for Descartes. So, now this famous dictum of Decart's Divito, Ergo Cosito, some says, I doubt, therefore, I think, therefore, I am. So, from doubting, Decart goes to thinking, because thinking is a mental activity, I am aware of this fact, that I am doubting. It is with this Decart says  ändern 。                                                                                                                                      f pector provides the certainty and it cannot be derived from physical activities. So, for example, I am walking when he is replying to Gesendi, one of the contemporary for Descartes. He says that from my walking thinking does not follow, because I can walk and think about something else. When I walk that many ways, ഭോ pomoc 對 Personally I didn യവ് person for 12 years and came to my office. I was all the time thinking about how do I give this lecture to all of you, so working and thinking about my lectures are two different activities and they can go simultaneously. There is no logical connection between them with you to I sounded little good, strange, but of course when I work I decide to work. I am aware, if somebody says are you aware of the fact that you are working, probably it takes me some time to think about it that yes I am aware of I am working. But logically speaking that when I work, I can think of something else, at thesan ​​​ ​ spacecraft​, Grant had an ​ ​​A teldon — since it is a竹 , ttas  glare i—— ñ ​ ​ ​ ​​​ ​ ​ 이지 certains  admitsackna Secondly the essential feature of my bi n drawing the question coming to what the eventual feature of my body is if doubting thoughts imagining understanding are all logically differen from the bodily activities are they do not essentially constitute the physical existence Than what is that constitute the ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ ڈ ڤ ڤ forgiveness ڤ ڤ ڤ ڤ the physical existence of my body . ڤ What is the essential feature of my body? ڤ Thinking is not of course. ڤ Then Dakar says that it is extension. ڤ Extension is the essence of the body. ڤ My body has a shape. ڈ It has a weight. ڈ It has so many other features and all these features In invari pri pro 就kie 在所ğothin campete Oxcedented is something essential accordingly when we talk about the existence of the body. so existence of the body and the existence of mind are two independent existences they are independent because they are not having same essential features. the essential features of the body is extension and the essential features of the mind which is a thinking substance is thought. thought and extensions are essentially two different features. now it is thinking which causes actions. All actions are not caused by thoughts, as I mentioned earlier, that all actions are not essentially physical or essentially mental, meaning thereby thinking does not cause all the actions. Nutrition, self-movement, like blood circulations, digestions, the growth of the body, they are different. But when it comes to physical, mental, mental, physical, physical, physical, physical, mental, but when it comes to the mental actions, when I decide that I need to give this lecture to all of you, now this decision brings me here, this decision is causing certain physical actions. I am talking to you is a physical action and it is a voluntary action. So, voluntary actions are intentional, but when it comes to mental actions, when I decide that I need to give this lecture to all of you, now this decision brings me here, this decision is causing certain physical actions. I am talking to you is a physical action and it is a voluntary action. So, voluntary actions are intentional and voluntary actions are conscious actions. I am aware of this fact that I am talking to you. I am aware of this fact that I am engaging all of you to listen my lectures. So, these kind of activities flow from my consciousness, my thinking that we are mental being and we can perform certain actions which are voluntary. So, Descartes was certainly interested to know that how we can be certain about our actions, how we can conform that is what I am doing is not wrong, what we are doing can not be debatable. It is because it is based on this proposition that I think. So, thinking is essentially a kind of an axiom. So, it is a kind of an axiom. From which we can derive all kinds of knowledge claims and it is thinking which provides a kind of an objectivity to our knowledge claims. So, and Descartes was certain about it. So, this certainty or objectivity Descartes was trying to achieve, it was through his method of methodological skepticism and Descartes says I am aware of this fact that I am thinking and this knowledge is very personal to all of us that I am aware of this fact that I am thinking. So, what I am precisely is a thinking thing according to Descartes quote unquote what I am is a thinking thing and all that who thinks exist and that conforms my existence. My existence as a physical being depends on my existence that I am thinking. So, I am or I exist is derived from this proposition that I think. So, both are logically related. If I cease to think, then for Descartes I do not exist anymore. So, the suggestion of the thinking would tell me that I am not a physical being anymore. I am an embodied being when I am thinking and performing voluntary actions. Now, this embodiment is a very peculiar kind of embodiment for Descartes. Descartes says that which thinks is the soul and it exists at the center of the pineal gland in the brain and that controls all my voluntary actions that controls my voluntary actions in the sense that I not only sense things, but also reacts according to these impressions. Descartes just talk about the soul which is there at the center of the pineal gland and that controls my physical activities. Now, that is something significant. Now, how Descartes locates that soul as the source of my thinking which is independent of my bodily movement, which is the source of my thinking. Descartes does not control my body movements, but the source of causing voluntary actions. Soul has the power to control my bodily movements. And this idea of soul being at the center can cause many philosophical debates. We will come back to these debates, but what is important for us that to know how Descartes arrived at this certainty following this method of doubt. So, methodological skepticism, which was an epistemological enterprise for Descartes, proved that there are metaphysical realities. There are two substances. Mind is one substance and body is another substance. Mind and body are two independent substances, because mental activities are not controlled by physical activities. Whether when we talk about interaction in the next class, I will come back to this debate that how does mind interact with the body? How does these two substances interact? Can there be an interaction with the body? It is possible if we assume that there are two independent substances and they are categorically different. But it was certainly interesting that Descartes is posing a great problem to all of us to think that mind is logically independent of the body. The existence of mind is something very unique and it is located at the center of the brain. And that is the source of all my voluntary actions. And that can conform all kind of certainty. And I would have a clear and discerned distinct ideas about its existence. The existence does not depend on my sense experiences. This existence rather is something very unique. It is the ability of the mind that conforms, that sense, the presence of this fact that I am thinking. That is something very unique. And I think we should come back to this debate How the modern philosophers like Janet and Searle are opposing to this idea of the centrality of the self or the I or I as a thinking being exist will come back. Thank you very much.