Meditations on First Philosophy
1. Reconstruct the 3 stages of doubt as motivated by Descartes’s epistemological constraint? Descartes’ epistemological constraint is “if I know that P then that P cannot be doubted.” According to Descartes “undermining the foundations will cause whatever has been built upon them to crumble of its own accord (pg.14)” which is a big part of Descartes’ beliefs. This method leads to the first stage of doubt which is the fallinist argument, the argument against the senses. “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive (pg.14). “The senses aren’t always correct. However the senses don not deceive you when you are next “To the fire, wearing my winter dressing gown (pg. 14).” Your senses aren’t always deceiving you in this situation unless you were crazy or maybe have mental problems. This rejoinder leads to the second stage of doubt, which is the dream argument. This argument explains how “there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from being asleep (pg. 14).” Sometimes in our dreams we feel pain and pleasure the same way as in reality. Sometimes we can’t even tell the difference between dreams and reality. However in a dream or reality the limitation is arithmetic and geometric. Whether you’re awake or asleep “two plus three makes five and a square does not have more than four sides (pg. 15).” So this concludes the math and geometry is always right whether in a dream or reality. This leads to the third stage of doubt, which is the voluntarist argument. One that “Namely that there exist a God (pg. 15).” Does good exist or does he deceive us? “But perhaps god has not willed that I be deceived in this way, for he is said to be supremely good (pg. 15-16).” However he is said to be omnipotent as well. Which leaves the question do I exist? This is also known as skepticism.

2.How does Descartes’s establish that he is estentially a “thinking thing”?
Descartes essentially establishes the fact the he is essentially a “thinking thing”, by proving his existence. “I am, I exist is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind (pg. 18).” So Descartes’ proves he does exist in the phrase “I exist” is protected from the three stages of doubt. In order to doubt we must exist. What isn’t essential to our existence is the body. I cannot doubt that I exist, but I can doubt that my actual body exists. Therefore I’m not Identical to my body, so my existence is not to my body.

3. According to Descartes’s, what is the nature of the mind such that the errors can occur?
What is known as the substantial view, that the mind is a single entity, having its base in the brain but distinct from it. Descartes proposed two arguments against reference and resemblance, the dream and the demon.Knowing that the context of our dreams are often life-like, he hypothesized that humans can only believe that they are awake. He reasoned that our very own experience may very well be controlled by an evil demon of sorts. This demon, or genius, is powerful enough to control anybody.

4. Reconstruct Descartes’s proof of existence
5. Reconstruct Descartes’s of Dualism

Writing Assignment II: Empircism

1.What does Berkeley mean by that “esse is percipi”- and how does he argue for this claim? What Berkeley means by that “ esse is percipi” is that if X exists then someone can conceive of X or in other words to be (exist) is to be perceived. Primary qualities exist regardless if anyone has ideas about them. In contrast, Secondary qualities do not exist unless someone has ideas about them. Matter is made up of primary qualities. Therefore matter exists regardless whether or not anybody has ideas of it. If primary qualities exist then someone can perceive primary qualities. No one can perceive primary qualities without the idea of some secondary quality. The argument from the Rejection of Abstract Ideas is that matter exists independently of perception. If X exists then someone can conceive of X. So material existence is not possible because material existence relies on abstract ideas. The argument from Ignorance of Material Substance is if I know that “P” then I have ideas of “P”. By definition matter is not a perceivable substance and I cannot therefore I have no ideas about material substance so I cannot know of material substance. What Berkeley means when saying “When we do utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas” is that given his constraint any ideas he has of perception we cannot think of matter without ideas of perception. If you believe in Berkeley’s constraint then you must believe in the anti materialist .

2. Reconstruct Berekely’s first proof of gods existence According to Berkeley ideas do not possess any cause or power. “All our ideas, sensations, or the things we perceive, by whatsoever names they may be distinguished, are visibly in active (pg. 34 Berkeley).” An example of an in active idea can be ice. There is no proof that ice causes coldness. In order for ideas to exist something must exist to cause them. But according to Berkeley, ideas cannot be the cause of other ideas. The only clear notion we have is the will. The sort of power exercised by my will. Is when I manipulate things inside my head? Therefore the only cause or power is my will. However in an earthquake I cannot will it and someone else like me cannot will it. Then something else must be able to will it. Therefore God exist and he can create “real things.” Which are ideas created by God. Ideas caused by God are objective and can be seen by everyone.

3. What does hume mean by the “association of ideas”?
What Hume means by Association of Ideas is that it’s the basic rules that connect impressions and ideas. Impressions are more vivid than ideas. Furthermore, according to Hume impressions are the basis of ideas. Impressions come before ideas. Therefore you can’t have an idea before an impression. For example in order to think of a pink elephant you have to have seen a elephant and also seen the color pink to imagine it. There are according to Hume three principles of Association which are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. Resemblance is identifying a new idea and being able to name it because new impression resembles an idea you already had in your head. For example if a new type of shoe comes out you knows it’s a shoe because you know what a shoe looks like since you’ve seen shoes and have an idea of them. Contiguity is a way of associating through similarities (comparisons). Such as to the left of, next to, before or after. For instance me saying I’m going to dance and then doing it. What Hume means by Cause and effect is that if A is the cause of B than A must perceive B in time or if A is the cause of B then A is temporally prior to B. For Example, the domino effect , pushing the first domino is the cause and the effect is the rest of the dominos falling because the first domino caused the rest of them to fall.

5. How does Hume’s conception of causation lead to his skepticism?
The problem explains making inductive inferences. Hume notices that we tend to believe that things behave in a regular manner; i.e., that patterns in the behavior of objects will persist into the future, and throughout the unobserved present. Hume had to explain the perception of causality as internally formed, rather than an event observed as an external force. He did this by explaining causality as a formed association, learned through habit.

1 . reconstruct lockes theory of physical individuation and identity
2. reconstruct lockes theory of organic individuation and identity
3. reconstruct lockes theory of personal individuation and identity
4. what does Locke mean by “person”?

5. explain the “wonderful mistake” that Butler attributes to Locke
Butler accuses Locke of a wonderful mistake. Which is that he failed to recognize that the relation of consciousness presupposes identity, and thus cannot constitute it.

6. What is Butler’s argument for his own substantialist theory of personal identity?
Locke begins by stating that there are three substances that exist: God, material substance, and finite intelligences,

7. What does Reid mean that, the conviction in one’s own personal identity “is indispensely necessary to all exercise of reason”?
8. Reconstruct the “ brave officer’s paradox” to show how, according to Reid, Locke winds up having to say that, “a man may be, and at the same time not be, the person that did a particular action”
9.Reconnect Hume’s TWO argument that there is no such thing as personal identity