Meditation I

General Questions

1. Descartes begins Meditation I by looking to question all his former beliefs in the hope of finding something certain. What name is generally given to this method of seeking knowledge, and what does it involve? (2 marks) - Answer
2. The different stages of doubt which Descartes goes through in this Meditation have become known as the waves of doubt. How many arguments are there, and what are they generally known as? (3 marks) - Answer

The name usually given it is Descartes's method of doubt or Cartesian doubt (1 mark), and it involves withholding from believing anything for which he has the least doubt (1 mark). There are three stages: the argument from illusion or argument from the senses (1 mark); the argument from dreaming or dreaming argument; and the malignant demon, or any common translation of the same phrase – e.g. malicious demon, evil genius, etc. – or argument from deception (1 mark). If you said argument from deception, then give yourself half a mark, as this can mean either sensory illusion or wilful deception (so best to avoid it). However, you shouldn’t really get any marks for getting this right, as the arguments are actually the subsection headings! The Argument from Illusion

1. What reason does Descartes give for not completely trusting the senses? (2 marks) - Answer
2. What two examples does Descartes briefly suggest as to how the senses may occasionally misled us? (2 marks) - Answer
3. What is his conclusion regarding the senses? Can he doubt everything he experiences? (1 mark) - Answer
4. Give three other examples of sensory illusion that Descartes might have used here. (3 marks) - Answer
5. Descartes doesn’t really make a very detailed case against the senses here, he merely notes that they have mislead him in the past. But is this enough of a reason to not trust them? Make points for and against. (4 marks) - Answer

They have deceived him in the past (1 mark). If you also said, “…because anything which has once deceived us should not be absolutely trusted, and cannot form a basis for certainty” – or something along those lines – then give yourself a bonus (1 mark). He says that the senses may occasionally mislead us as to the nature of “minute objects” (1 mark) and objects which are “far removed from us” (1 mark). No, for to do that he would have to be mad! (1 mark) There are lots of possible examples that traditionally come up in philosophy, but you might have chosen from: the straight stick that appears bent in water, a mirage, hallucinations, that the Sun goes round the earth, that we see a star as it actually is (whereas in truth its light may take millions of years to reach us), that tepid water may seem hot to a cold hand and cold to a warm hand, or any other reasonable example. Give your self one mark for each valid point you make up to a maximum of 4 (2 for each side). For example:

Against Descartes: Some philosophers have argued that merely to be occasionally mistaken is not sufficient reason to doubt all sense data. Therefore, you might have argued that the senses generally prove to be trustworthy in most cases – and if they were not, we would soon find out. (1 mark) You also might have argued that being mistaken is part of learning, and that we correct the errors of the senses with further sense experiences. (1 mark). You could also, of course, make the more general point that in order to be mistaken in the first place, you have to take some things on trust. (1 mark).

For Descartes: Sceptics might point out that, even if being mistaken also requires being right sometimes, we have no way of telling which of our perceptions are correct. (1 mark) That something is ‘trustworthy’ or ‘reliable’ is not necessarily a sign of being true – a friend who lies all the time is consistent. (1 mark) Just because our errors ‘correct’ one another, that does not mean that we are getting closer to truth, merely that some perceptions agree with others – they might all still be wrong. (1 mark) The Dreaming Argument

1. After introducing the possibility that he might be dreaming, Descartes initially rejects this idea? Why is this? (1 mark) - Answer
2. However, he then goes on to consider a further doubt concerning whether he knows that he is dreaming or not – what is this, and what does he conclude from it? (2 marks) - Answer
3. What consolation does Descartes take regarding the content of dreams? Can everything be completely illusory? Illustrate your answer. (2 marks) - Answer
4. As a result, Descartes considers certain sciences to be more certain than others. List them (the certain and the uncertain ones), and consider why he considers each group certain or uncertain. (7 marks) - Answer
5. As regards dreaming, Descartes has concluded that he cannot tell waking from dreaming. But is this too strong an argument? What possible reasons might there be to reject it? List points for and against. (4 marks) - Answer

He examines his current perceptions (sitting by the fire, etc.), and concludes that “the occurrences in sleep are not so distinct as all this.” In other words, waking perceptions seem more vivid that dream ones. He realises that he has had similar illusions (of being awake) in dreams previously (1 mark), and that therefore “there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep”. (1 mark) No, certain aspects of ideas – such as mathematical principles and geometric figures – must have some reality, even if the objects that they represent do not. (1 mark) For instance – to use Descartes’s example – if a painter were to create an imaginary creature, then the parts that that creature was composed of (its legs, eyes, arms, etc.) would need to be based on something real. (1 mark) However, any example which illustrates this point (that even illusory ideas contain certain simple truths) will do. Descartes considers such sciences as physics (1 mark), astronomy (1 mark), and medicine (1 mark) to be less certain, because they involve the “composite objects” of physical reality (and not the simple primary qualities perceived by the mind) – you don’t have to have the exact wording here, but you must convey the general reason why certain studies are more uncertain. (1 mark) However, such studies as arithmetic (1 mark) and geometry (1 mark) do involve simple rational ideas, and so involve certain truths. (1 mark) Give your self one mark for each valid point you make up to a maximum of 4 (2 for each side). For example:

Against the Dreaming Argument: Firstly, we might argue that the notion of dreaming is dependent on the notion of being awake – so, even to have a coherent idea of dreaming, it must be true that one has experience of being awake; therefore, everything cannot be a dream. (1 mark) Also (the argument that Descartes will ultimately accept in Meditation VI), dreams are less coherent than waking experiences: dream reality is chaotic and non-sequential, locations change suddenly, impossible events happen. (1 mark)

For the Dreaming Argument: The sceptic might reply that, even if our understanding of what dreams are is reliant upon there being such a state as waking, this is not to say that we can tell which is which (this is similar to the sceptic’s position as regards the senses – see the answer to question 5 on the Argument from Illusion). (1 mark) Secondly, couldn’t we be mistaken about the notion of coherence? If he can dream he is awake, then surely he can dream that something seems coherent (when in fact it isn’t)? (1 mark) The Malignant Demon

1. In what two ways does Descartes consider that God might be deceiving him? (2 marks) - Answer
2. Descartes then considers that God would not deceive him because He is good, but then considers a problem for this view – what is it? (1 mark) - Answer
3. What does Descartes consider important about the question of who is responsible for creating him, and what does he conclude from it? (2 marks) - Answer
4. Despite having concluded that it is possible God might deceive him, Descartes finally puts forward the possibility that it is a “malignant demon” that is responsible for deceiving him. Just before this, he states that “I will become my own deceiver”. The malignant demon is therefore just a mental fiction, a thought experiment used by Descartes to ‘deceive’ himself. But why does Descartes choose to express his doubts in this way? What is wrong with supposing that God is a deceiver? (2 marks) - Answer

Firstly, that there is no external reality (“there should be neither earth, nor sky, nor any extended thing, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor place”) as he conceives it. (1 mark) Secondly, that he should be mistaken about apparently certain truths – such as 2+2=4, squares have four sides, etc. (1 mark) The problem is that, even if he considers that he is not wholly deceived, it is at least true that he is occasionally mistaken about things. So, if God allows these occasional mistakes (which, being all good, you’d think he would not), then perhaps it is in fact possible that God may deceive him about bigger issues (such as the existence of the world). He reasons that the more powerful the being that created him, the less likely it is that he (Descartes) is prone to being deceived. Thus, he is implying that if God created him, then he is less likely to be deceived. (1 mark) However, since it is possible to doubt even this question (of the existence of God, and that He created him), then he decides to withhold his assent from all his former beliefs. (1 mark) Firstly, there are the possible accusations of blasphemy that such a move would have opened Descartes up to. So, fear of the power of the Church would have been the first reason. (1 mark) However, there is also the reason earlier stated that a being who was all powerful and all good would not allow such a deception. This will later become a central theme in Descarte's argument, so to guarantee knowledge he merely proves that a perfect, all-good being exists (because such a being could not be a deceiver). However, until he is able to rationally prove God’s existence, he will use the malignant demon hypothesis. (1 mark)

How Did You Do?

0-15: Self-Deceiver. Hmm. You have a fair bit of work to do in order to get a sound understanding of what’s going on in this Meditation. Read through the arguments again, and try to get a sense of where each step comes and what it means.

16-30: Dreamer. Not bad, but not great either: your answers obviously contain some truths, but they can’t be completely relied upon. Don’t move onto the next Meditation yet, but look again at the questions you didn’t score so well on, and try to identify where you can improve. Is it in comprehension of the main arguments? Knowledge of details? Critical response?

31-40: Evil Genius. You obviously know your stuff. You have a pretty thorough understanding of this Meditation and just need to tighten up to get a perfect score. You are ready to move on to the next Meditation.

Share this Page

Click on one of the icons below to share this page using any of the listed sharing sites (it inserts the link for you, so you don't need to add it manually). Let me know if any sharing sites you commonly use aren't here, and I will add them.