PHI212 Lecture Three

2014.02.12

NOTE:

·         20 February 2014 MSQ Test 20 Questions

·         Pencil and eraser for the test, come earlier rather than later in order to find yourself a desk.

THE LECTURE:

·        - Descartes aims to differentiate between what is knowledge and what is not, he therefore creates the Method of Doubt in order to do this.

·         - Trademark Argument, was the argument Descartes poses about the existence of God, the idea of perfection, where he proves Gods existence. Descartes believes in a God that is veracious; honest and true. This is in fact the weakness in Descartes argument on the whole.

I don’t really know why I can’t focus in this class, I’m hoping that this method will be more worth my while, maybe keep me awake. I don’t think the fact that I almost couldn’t keep myself from doping up on some painkillers helped, but I do think the fact that I will spend the entire lecture typing might keep me awake. Or might get the attention of the rest of the class, but gosh what do I care what they think anyway, I like the idea that typing more will eventually help my typing speed, but I don’t know if I could actually pay attention to this lecturer and type at the same time. Right now, it’s pretty silent because he’s struggling to make his projector work, I’m writing a test next week and what I hate is that I’m nervous about it, because the first time in ages, I actually have to give a shit and study for something. For two reasons, both of which have nothing and everything to do with my own well-being, for one it’s going to make my dad really happy if I ace the two subjects I’m doing this semester, but on the other hand, acing it would put me on a good footing in terms of getting my dad to start saving so that I can spend my December holidays with Dain in New York when he goes to school there.

·      - Descartes believes that in his idea of his ‘self’ there is an idea of perfection, and this perfection is in fact divine. He believes that he is a soul, he is a mind, and he thinks. Descartes aims to find a foundation for human knowledge, and by proving the existence of God, he believes he has found this foundation. 

·      - The idea of this ‘self’ and its perfection must have a cause, and this cause must be at least as real as the idea of perfection, and therefore, the cause itself must be perfect in itself, and that could only be God.

I sometimes wish I could stupidly believe, and I hate that to some extent I think that there are things that people should not ask questions about. My brother would be very unhappy with me saying that, being a budding philosopher, he goes out of his way to question as much as he can, and here I’m thinking that we should just accept, appreciate and live in this world. Maybe asking the questions, helps enhance the experience, helps to better it, but sometimes, when we receive the answers, they sort of damn us. That’s the thing about knowledge and thought, I sometimes wish I’d never started asking questions, that I could remain completely in ignorant bliss, but instead I’m stuck with knowledge, and a certain kind of truth as to how sick and broken this world really is.

 
- Descartes believes that God has left this idea of perfection, and a perfect and divine cause, in Descartes mind as a mark of his workmanship. He also believes that the Evil Demon, who aims to deceive him, and stop him from reaching true knowledge, has been defeated by this divine power.

- This God is truthful rather than deceptive, as the Evil Demon is. 
  
- Sometimes, one is able to make use of deception in order to create perfection, Prof Abrahams makes use of the example of Lionel Messi, who fakes left but then goes right in order to then create the perfect goal, this is an example of a deception that leads to perfection.

He talks a lot, this Professor, but this way it seems a bit more interesting, I mean it’s better to have all my thoughts coming out of me, instead of swirling around my head and eventually making me so drowsy I fall asleep. He just spoke about a soccer player for Liverpool called St. John, I don’t really know what the point was, maybe it was just some joke he threw in for comic relief. This is another thing about philosophy lecturers, their jokes, its so intellectually higher grade that usually the class find themselves staring back at them; baffled, or confused rather, because they tell these jokes and then carry on their merry way, as if they never had. Unless, it’s my other Professor, Prof Beck, who giggles at every joke he tells, usually nudging those around him into the realm of his joke, maybe it comes from a life time of people not getting his jokes.

CRITICISM

·         - Theological objection; humanity has no idea, cannot in fact fathom, the perfection of God.

Note: Read “Think” and figure out whether or not Descartes aims to fathom the idea of God, or rather just uses God as his cause, and leaves it at that. But maybe in attempting to place God as the cause, Descartes is by default trying to fathom God.

·        -  Must Descartes idea of perfection necessarily have a cause? Can events not just take place?

-       In his solipsistic position, can there be anything that can be a cause of his idea?

-       If yes, then the demon might be deceiving him.

-       If no, then the argument fails right there.

·         

      - Does ones idea of ‘punctuality’ actually have to be cause by someone who is perfectly punctual? This idea is a metaphor, stemming from the question of whether or not it is entirely necessary to have to know what perfection is, in order to define something as perfect, or could we rather just use our own perception.

Note: But if we are using our own perception in order to define what is perfect, aren’t we once again falling into the trap of the Evil Demon, who is able to deceive us. We learn things, and form our perceptions from our senses, our senses that could be deceived.

·         

            -  The preferred analogy then goes on to speak about the perfect mathematician.

-       Someone who never makes mistakes

-       Someone who is creative and inventive

Note: But then how is it that this mathematician learnt to be this way? Isn’t it plausible that the perfect mathematician would be one who does make mistakes, in order to learn from them and recreate formulae? And are mathematicians creative at all, that the work they learn, are simply subjects of logic and reasoning that they haven’t imposed but rather learned from the world.

I can’t ask the questions I want to, because I don’t know if they actually make enough sense, this is why I need to read before I come to these classes. I reckon I do somehow need to find these answers on my own instead though, in order to formulate my own opinions, for when the essay writing eventually comes. Blind faith, but visible truth is what I see Christianity as. I believe that  I will never in fact lay eyes on God, but I do see him in everything around me, as He is and was always everything in this world, He has created everything. I want people to believe that, to stop the trying to break apart each aspect, and just believe, that He is. I understand though, that faith needs to come with foundation, but once again that’s another thing my brother and I disagree on, he says that he doesn’t agree with people when they say that God has no rules, no borders, that God and religion comes with constructions and purpose. I believe in the purpose, but the idea of creating a perimeter for my Almighty seems pretty strange to me, I don’t like the idea that He is fathomable, because He is not. Every time I finish writing and look up, Prof Koosie is saying the same thing, as if repeating it will get people to understand “Descartes believed that God would not make him believe anything defective”. I understand this, but can’t we allow ourselves to believe that just like the deception in order to create perception, God has created things that deceive us in order to teach us and then deliver us to a state of higher grace? This isn’t actually a spiritual argument, but how do I stem away from my Christianity when I’m trying to understand this perfection that Descartes calls God. Fuck, what am I saying, I wouldn’t be able to understand God in anyway.

I asked the questions, periods done, I’m buggering off.