Meditations of Philosophy - Essay Example

Midterm Paper on Meditations of Philosophy Question The first medication begins with looking back at the lies he has listened to in the past and the imperfectness of the body of knowledge he built in the process. He decides to forget about all he thought he knew and began everything anew and on more sure grounds. Solitude is what is necessary at this point in helping him do away with the false knowledge earlier acquired, with much care. The meditator reasons that if a reason presents itself as to why he is to doubt his knowledge, he will be ready to look for more solid foundations for the knowledge he holds. However, he realizes that if he decides to doubt foundations of all the knowledge he holds, then that will mean doubting all the knowledge in him. According to the meditator, believing is only worthwhile when one has undergone some experience to show them whether the knowledge acquired is true or not. It is, therefore, stupid enough for someone to blindly dispute foundations of the knowledge they hold or accept it without having to learn. The meditator also makes the realization that senses though firm can sometimes lie to us, and this is mostly common among insane people who get easily deceived. He however is very sure of himself as not in a position to get deceived very easily and therefore has no reason to have that worrying him. The meditator also believes in dreams as according to him they are much more like paintings from which we derive meaning. As drawings are always imaginary, just like dreams, it is important to note that drawings are a representation of real things; and dreams are not an exception. Whenever we dream, it is always about what exists in our environment. He makes a conclusion that he can doubt composite things like astronomy, medicine, and physics, but studies based on geometry and arithmetic. He further reflects that even simple things have the possibility of being doubted, though has no reason to start doubting God and His deeds. Being that he has a body and mind, there then is a possibility of the one in charge of this body and mind to be in existence, as well as the surroundings of this body. Because he doubts everything about science, because there is nothing to prove its existence then he decides that for science to be considered real, there has to be proof of the existence of God. According to him, something cannot simply exist on their own without some form of support from a greater power. Just as human beings have roots of their existence in God, science is no exception therefore. Descartes believes that for all other things to be real, science also, he has to believe in the existence of God, who he believes can open up his mind to show him that science is real. Question 2 It is in his meditations of first philosophy that Descartes accepts the ideas of innate, adventitious and fictitious. He considers the innate ideas as those that have been induced in us right from birth or our existence in this world, the adventitious as having their origin in the everyday reaction of interest or excitement in us, and the fictitious as those that we always imagine about and therefore exists in our minds. The adventitious ideas are said to lack clarity and distinction as they are those forced on our minds and full of sensations. These ideas, as well as those of adventure, cannot be believed and therefore highly doubted. Innate ideas, on the other hand, are able to have us believing them as their source is God, who places them in our minds immediately we come into existence and can prove themselves right on their own. The ideas in us as a result of our everyday sensations are, therefore, very difficult to believe and it only necessary that reason gets availed for them to get proven as true. His falling a victim of circumstances for having to believe in ideas that did not undergo examination in the first place, makes the meditator advise us against accepting ideas of sense perception without careful and mature examination of the ideas first. He advises that we mostly focus on the innate ideas which can be believed and are distinct. In his start, he begins with the issue of being sure of one self as at least that can be easily understood and believed without much thought. He reminds us that God exists and this he gets evidence from innate idea in us concerning the existence of God. He defends his saying that God exists by reminding us that God being a greater being than any other creature He created, It is not possible for someone like him therefore to have produced the idea as He is finite and cannot anywhere close to God. Having said this, therefore, the fact is that, the origin of the innate idea of Gods existence is God Himself. It is hence no doubt that the perfect and truthful God exists, and being that external things like the world also exists. Then there can be no doubt that God is the one behind their existence. Descartes idea that God exists can be said to have come from the innate ideas in him, of the existence of God; that are clear and need not any examination as they are self-evident. Question 3 In terms of potentiality, Aristotle felt that the soul has the inherent capability to undergo growth and development but also the affections of emotion and fear. He also argues that there is the linkage of the soul to the body and that the motivation to have something happen comes from the soul. In Aristotles sense, the soul can exist and consists of emotions, it is also easily deceived by appearances, which it ends up directing to the body. The knowledge Aristotle had concerning emotions; the body and soul were all from his peers as well as from his theories. He argued that all living things have souls, and animals are not an exception. The idea of only human beings having a soul, according to him, would have had him placing man at the top of all other creatures. In his study of science, everything in him changed and only science could move him and not the knowledge and ideas from other existing rhetoricians. Descartes ideas on the soul, on the other hand, seemed to borrow a lot from the Catholic Church; which he knew since birth, being that this is the environment he grew up. According to the Catholic Church, punishment was always there for those who went against the doctrines of the church. He, therefore, argues that there is no difference between the body and soul and that they are one, as they both work together in terms of thinking, feeling and being together. Descartes stands for duality, something different from what Aristotle believes. Being able to work together, reason and live together is what makes him say that the body and soul live in the same place though serve different functions. Both Aristotle and Descartes believe in senses in their disquisition of the soul. Speaking of senses, Aristotle mentions that in senses, there are perceptions and appearances; where perceptions are usually true and appearances false. In Aristotles study with the peers, he found out that animals could camouflage, human beings lie, and the weather deceive and all these according to him are directed by the soul. The ability of humans to know is as a result of either knowledge or by the soul, and being that soul have emotions, then according to Aristotle, they have bodies too. However, in cases where a thing does not have emotions, this does not mean that it has no body. This, therefore, has him make it clear that the soul is what makes it possible for humans to think, perceive and live. According to Descartes, the soul is never perfect as it is always easily deceived. Through experiments, he realized that he has both senses and emotions and can have them interpreted. Being that man is capable of sin and this sin according to the Catholic Church prevents someone from going to heaven, the church insisted that one received pardon from punishment for them to receive full deliverance of the sin committed. From Descartes meditation on senses and knowledge, it is important to note that God perfect and so are His actions and humans are capable of mistakes. It is the low-order set of human senses that makes it easy enough for them to sin, and he, therefore, blames God for this situation. Being also that the senses of these humans are easy to get deceived, they fall into sin very easily, and their lack of reason makes it difficult for them to differentiate between what is good and the bad. It is, therefore, not right blame humans for their sin, but their poor judgment that drives them to the wrong direction. It is only the help of the senses or the soul that can enable one to know what is right and wrong and be able therefore to do the right thing all the time. Both Descartes and Aristotle have a similar belief in the soul or senses, with the fact that it can easily get deceived; thereby leading us to sin. There is however a major difference that places them apart, and this is the idea of the importance of how one knows about the soul and its effect on the existence. The other is the difference in the idea of senses, where Aristotle sees the soul as being part of the senses while according to Descartes senses do not form part of the soul and that the soul is very easily deceived. Read More