Meditation II

The Cogito

1. At the beginning of this Meditation, what does Descartes state as the ultimate purpose of his method of doubt? (1 mark) - Answer
2. What hypothesis does Descartes use to suppose that he might be mistaken as to the nature or existence of everything that he perceives? (1 mark) - Answer
3. Why is the Cogito argument called that, and what does it argue? (2 marks) - Answer
4. One of Descartes’s critics (Thomas Hobbes) suggested that Descartes might just have said, ‘I walk therefore I am’. Why do you think that Descartes rejected this suggestion? (2 marks). - Answer
5. Is the Cogito argument as certain as Descartes likes to think it is? Does it prove what he thinks it proves? List three possible criticisms. (3 marks) - Answer

To find something which is beyond doubt (absolutely certain), and which can in turn act as a foundation for other knowledge. That there is some ‘malignant demon’ who purposely deceives him as to the true nature of the world. “Cogito” comes from the Latin phrase, “cogtio ergo sum”, ‘I think therefore I am’. (1 mark) This basically argues that even if the malignant demon argument were true (even if he were constantly mistaken about everything), it would at least be true that he exists. This is because in order to be deceived, one must at least be existing, and so even such an all-powerful being cannot deceive him as to the fact that he exists. (1 mark) There would have been a few problems for Descartes had he made this argument: firstly, since it is possible that Descartes is only dreaming (or is otherwise deceived) that he has a body, then any one physical activity cannot be used as justification for his existence (1 mark). Secondly, if it turned out that he couldn’t walk, or that he had some other form of existence (as an immaterial mind, maybe), then it would mean that he didn’t exist! (1 mark). If you have any other reasonable point, then you can give yourself a mark. Hmm, but how do you know it is a reasonable point…? It seems there is a flaw in my system here. Perhaps put it on the discussion board and see what others think. You might choose from any number of criticisms here, but most will focus on the assumptions involved in Descartes’s famous assertion. For instance, you might argue that just because there are thoughts, it does not mean that those thoughts prove the existence of a single self or ‘I’ – there might be a collection of different selves, or none at all. (1 mark) Others have argued that even if these thoughts must have a cause, this could in fact be a physical one (i.e. the brain); therefore, Descartes’s assumption that he is purely a thinking thing might be wrong. (1 mark) Finally, even if the Cogito is true, it may only be true whilst he is thinking; so, when he is asleep, unconscious, etc., does that mean he doesn’t exist? (1 mark) Once again, any relevant objection here is fine. A Thinking Thing

1. In trying to decide what he is, why is Descartes not satisfied with the idea that he is a ‘man’? (1 mark) - Answer
2. Descartes then goes on to define what he understands by the idea of his own body and of physical objects in general. What four qualities does he list? (4 marks) - Answer
3. After this, he lists the activities that he associates with the mind (understanding, willing, etc.). However, he concludes that the faculty of imagination cannot give him a clear picture of what he truly is – why is this? (2 marks) - Answer
4. At this stage of his argument, Descartes concludes that he is a thinking thing, because he can doubt the existence of the body, and conceive of himself as existing without it (the conceivability argument). However, is he right to conclude this? Is it enough to be able to doubt the existence of the body, and to conceive of himself as a separate soul, in order for those things to be true? Give two objections to this argument. (2 marks) - Answer

Because, basically, such definitions lead to the need for further definitions, and do not get us any closer to understanding our true nature. Bodies have a certain shape or ‘figure’ (1 mark); they occupy a certain space and position, so that no two physical objects can share the same place (1 mark); they can be perceived by the five senses (1 mark); and that they have no power of ‘self-motion’, but must be caused to move by something else (1 mark). This last quality is one that will need explaining by Descartes, for – as he notes here – there are indeed some bodies which appear to move of their own accord. However, apart from humans (who have power of self-movement), other physical bodies are merely ‘machines’, whose motion is automatic and has been ‘designed’ for them by God. Since imagination relies on images which are formed from physical objects (at least, he thinks they are real physical objects – he has yet to decide), it cannot be used to picture thought, or that aspect of his nature which is a ‘thinking thing’. (1 mark) Furthermore, such ideas (images) are not as clear and distinct as other truths (such as logical and mathematical certainties – of which the Cogito is one of the best examples). (1 mark) Firstly, as regards the doubting the existence of the physical body, we could ask why merely being able to do this leads us to conclude anything. I might be able to doubt that my body is essential to ‘me’, but then find out that – actually – my body (or my brain) is essential to the existence of my self. This would only prove that I did not know the relevant facts, and therefore suggest that being able to doubt or conceive something is neither here nor there – as a well-known phrase has it: “Thinking so don’t make it so.” (1 mark). Another critic might point out that, actually, a materialist might argue that, ‘I can conceive of myself as existing without my mind’. Imagine, for example, that you were in a coma, and your organs, etc., were still functioning, but that you were irreversibly unconscious. You could argue that you were still ‘you’, even though you could not think. (1 mark) The Wax

1. What qualities does Descartes note in the wax when he first examines it? What do you notice about these qualities? (2 marks) - Answer
2. Once the wax is melted, the qualities completely change. What does this lead Descartes to conclude about the nature of the wax, and of the roles of understanding, imagination and the senses? (2 marks) - Answer
3. Given his conclusions regarding the wax, what does Descartes conclude regarding his knowledge of his own existence? (2 marks) - Answer
4. Is Descartes right to decide that it is rational ideas that play the central role in the search for knowledge? Has he underestimated the role of the senses? Give two possible objections to his approach. (2 marks) - Answer

To answer the last part of the question first: the qualities are each associated with the five senses. (1 mark) The qualities are: it has “sweetness” (taste); an “odour of the flowers” it was made from (smell); it has “colour, figure, size” (sight); is “hard, cold, easily handled” (touch); and makes a sound “when struck upon the finger” (hearing). (1 mark for all of them). He concludes that the wax cannot be comprehended by the senses, or using the imagination (which relies upon sense experience). (1 mark) He therefore concludes that it is “the faculty of judgement alone” that is responsible for arriving at a clear knowledge of the true nature of the wax. (1 mark) He decides that, firstly, all sense impressions (whether true or not) give him a greater certainty that he exists (which is simply the Cogito argument restated). (1 mark) However, he also concludes that, since his understanding of the wax is based on grasping its nature intellectually, how much more certain is his knowledge of his own mind, since it only involves the apprehension of such purely rational ideas (and no sense impressions). (1 mark) Firstly, it is possible to question whether in fact what Descartes thinks of as rational principles do not in fact originate with information from the senses. So, we might argue that such mathematical, geometrical and logical knowledge as Descartes uses to explain the true nature of the wax, are in fact derived at some stage from sense experience. For instance, we might argue that the rationalist principle that ‘every cause has an effect’ is actually an assumption based upon experience (as David Hume argued). (1 mark)

Secondly, we might argue that Descartes’s method does not actually give us certain knowledge, but merely a possible understanding of physical objects which needs to be checked against sense experience. So, for instance, we do not arrive at the final understanding of a physical phenomenon, but merely an explanation which new information (further sense experience) might overturn. (1 mark)

How Did You Do?

0-9: Wax On, Wax Off. Back to basics, I’m afraid. Read the arguments again carefully, and see where you went wrong.

10-19: I Work Therefore I Pass. Not bad. You’ve got a reasonably good grasp of things, just a little more work needed.

20-26: A Thinking Thing. Excellent work. You’re pretty much on top of this Meditation – on to the next!

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.