Post by Dragon_Stalker on Mar 26, 2008 10:21:52 GMT -5
Christopher Hines
March 26, 2008
Degrees of Reality: Hobbes Objects
Descartes was an early modern philosopher who embarked on a philosophical journey in his most influential work called Mediations on First Philosophy. In his meditations, Descartes establishes foundations for his system of philosophy with specific emphasis on both metaphysical and epistemic issues. In his first two meditations he addresses what can be known, deducing that he knows at least that he exists and that he is a thinking thing. This knowledge claim is verified through what he calls clear and distinct perceptions, a theory that was highly contended among his philosophical peers. British empiricist Thomas Hobbes provides the most clear and adamant opposition to Descartes theory. In particular, Hobbes finds Descartes argument to be lacking with respect to his proof of the existence of God, and he points out inconsistencies within Descartes own philosophical framework in light of this proof.
In his first and second meditation, Descartes investigates knowledge in general and guides the reader along as he gives his account of epistemology. In these meditations, he begins with the only claim that can be known a priori with certainty (the only claim that he cannot doubt), which is that he exists because he thinks. From this premise, Descartes also claims that he is a thinking thing (Descartes 31). Using thought experiments, Descartes explains that the mental is distinct from the physical for several reasons. He can conceive, for example, of his existence without a body but not without a mind. According to Leibniz’s Law, anything that lacks a quality of something else cannot be identical to it; thus, the mental is something that is non-physical. Descartes also adds to this argument by asserting that the body is divisible while the mind is not, which leaves us with a dualist view in which the mind and body are separate but still causally related. Hobbes, being a monist, objects to this view and questions how Descartes is able to assume that he knows he is a thinking thing. Descartes argues in his third meditation that he is certain of it because he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be true. According to Descartes, not even a God with the intent to deceive as much as possible could rob him of this fact.
Descartes wants to be able to make more claims of knowledge aside from these two foundational truths. In order to do this, Descartes intends to prove that a perfect, infinite God exists who would not allow us to be deceived about our clear and distinct perceptions. Descartes’ proof for the existence of God is in his third meditation where he introduces notions of formal and objective reality. He describes formal reality as the amount of reality or substance that corresponds to a given object that exists in the real world (this implies that Descartes is a realist). Furthermore, our ideas have degrees of existence by virtue of the things that they pick out or refer to, which is a matter of objective reality (Descartes 34). In light of these terms we come to understand that we cannot conceive of an idea from our own design if we do not have sufficient objective reality to match the formal reality corresponding to the referent of that idea. Hobbes doesn’t object outright to the notion of some ideas being more complex than others, but he finds Descartes view of varying degrees of reality to be quite troubling. It is upon this main objection that we will focus.
In order to make the drastic jump from knowledge of our existence to knowledge of everything that we clearly and distinctly perceive, Descartes forces the idea of an infinite, perfect God who would not allow our clear and distinct perceptions to be false. According to Descartes, the notion of substance (external objects) is innate in us because we are substances ourselves, and “that [this] fact is not sufficient to explain my having the idea of an infinite substance…unless this idea proceeded from some substance which really was infinite” (qtd. from Descartes 38). In short, Descartes believes it is impossible for us to have an idea of God that is caused by our own internal substance because we are finite and thus have insufficient objective reality to conceive of the infinite on our own. If this idea is not caused internally, then it must be caused by an external substance, one with at least as much formal reality as the idea of God. Thus, Descartes concludes that God must exist by the virtue of us having an idea of Him and that we are incapable of producing this idea on our own. Hobbes denies that it is even possible to have an idea of God, which is made quite clear in his seventh objection to Descartes’ meditations. However, further criticizes Descartes theory of reality being admitted by degrees. He objects questioning, “Does reality admit of degrees?” (qtd. from 68). Thus, Hobbes entertains the notion that we can have an idea of God for sake of argument, but he questions Descartes assumption that an infinite being would have “more reality” than a finite substance.
Strictly speaking, Hobbes also rejects this notion of substance, but he once again accepts Descartes premise to make another objection. Hobbes argues that the objective reality of accidents and modes of existence is at least equal to that of substances, and requests that Descartes illuminate on how this difference in degrees of reality is even a possibility. Descartes responds to this by affirming that substances are real and subsequently remarking that it is self-evident how “…a substance is a thing to a greater degree than is a mode” (qtd. from Descartes 68). This lack of effort to clarify his position in lieu of Hobbes direct request seems to speak against Descartes favor with respect to argumentation. Further, although Hobbes disagrees with several of Descartes premises (namely that we have an idea of God or of substance), his criticism is made more effective by granting them as true and finding contradictions within Descartes own theory. Thus, it appears Hobbes has taken the upper hand with respect to his objection to Descartes theory. At this point, though, we have no real reason to accept either view over the other unless we further investigate the legitimacy of each perspective a bit more.
Descartes theory undoubtedly includes some major primary assumptions; Hobbes successfully identifies one when he questions Descartes notion of reality being admitted by degree. To prove that Hobbes objection is successful, though, we must derive a contradiction from Descartes view as a result of his own theory. Perhaps it really is self-evident, as Descartes claims, that substances are more real than modes. However, Descartes project is to give a complete account of knowledge, and in order to do that he is not permitted to make any assumption of truth that is not derived from something foundational. He claims to know that his idea of God is undoubtedly true because he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be true, yet this claim is only possible if there is no deceiver God who is intent on making our perceptions false. In this sense, Descartes argument is circular, meaning that he relies upon premises in his second meditation which are not yet proved until his third meditation. Hobbes points out that he cannot know that reality admits of degrees unless Descartes account of clear and distinct perceptions is true, which problematically relies upon the possibility that reality can be admitted by degrees. In this sense, Descartes response is inadequate when he claims that he had previously addressed how there can be varying degrees of reality because his previous account relied upon assumption which were not taken to be true until he has succeeded in his proof for the existence of God.
Another sense in which Hobbes objection is problematic to Descartes view pertains to his original Cogito early on in his meditations. Hobbes suggestion that reality is, in fact, not a matter of degree would allow Descartes argument to work. After all, if reality was not a matter of degree, then either something exists or it does not, which allows Descartes to affirm his own existence because things that do not exist cannot think. In fact, Descartes argument works exactly along these lines because he reasons that he must exist to think. However, if it were possible for things to exist by being more or less, then it is possible that thinking things have some degree of existence that is not complete. Thus, Descartes assumption that reality can come in degrees undercuts much of the groundwork he made in his early arguments. Without Descartes claim to have knowledge of his own existence, there is no foundational truth upon which to build his system of philosophy. Thus, Hobbes was quite right to point out this inconsistency in Descartes theory.
Hobbes objection to Descartes assumptions about the nature of reality makes it quite clear that Descartes project relies heavily upon some major assumptions that have been unsuccessfully proven. Specifically, Hobbes shows that Descartes’ assumption about clear and distinct perception relies on an argument of circularity. Further, even upon accepting Descartes primary assumptions as true, it appears that his framework for epistemology falls apart if reality is allowed to be admitted in degrees. The consequence of such a claim renders his Cogito argument invalid, which subsequently makes his entire philosophical view problematic. In light of Hobbes’ objection, we can accept that reality is not a matter of degree, thus regaining knowledge of our own existence. However, it is unclear that Descartes succeeds in making his inductive jump from this knowledge claim to claims about clear and distinct perceptions being true, particularly without his proof of the existence of an undeceiving God.
PLEASE don't be shy to object or to point out errors. I need criticism! Also, if anything is unclear let me know.
HIDDEN ANSWERS:
B
D
D
B
A
C
B
A
D
C
B
B
A
D
D
C
A
D
B
C
D
A
C
D
MYSTIC ROBES
DRAGON GUARD
FARCE
OWL BREATH
FENTON MAGUS
EMPEROR
March 26, 2008
Degrees of Reality: Hobbes Objects
Descartes was an early modern philosopher who embarked on a philosophical journey in his most influential work called Mediations on First Philosophy. In his meditations, Descartes establishes foundations for his system of philosophy with specific emphasis on both metaphysical and epistemic issues. In his first two meditations he addresses what can be known, deducing that he knows at least that he exists and that he is a thinking thing. This knowledge claim is verified through what he calls clear and distinct perceptions, a theory that was highly contended among his philosophical peers. British empiricist Thomas Hobbes provides the most clear and adamant opposition to Descartes theory. In particular, Hobbes finds Descartes argument to be lacking with respect to his proof of the existence of God, and he points out inconsistencies within Descartes own philosophical framework in light of this proof.
In his first and second meditation, Descartes investigates knowledge in general and guides the reader along as he gives his account of epistemology. In these meditations, he begins with the only claim that can be known a priori with certainty (the only claim that he cannot doubt), which is that he exists because he thinks. From this premise, Descartes also claims that he is a thinking thing (Descartes 31). Using thought experiments, Descartes explains that the mental is distinct from the physical for several reasons. He can conceive, for example, of his existence without a body but not without a mind. According to Leibniz’s Law, anything that lacks a quality of something else cannot be identical to it; thus, the mental is something that is non-physical. Descartes also adds to this argument by asserting that the body is divisible while the mind is not, which leaves us with a dualist view in which the mind and body are separate but still causally related. Hobbes, being a monist, objects to this view and questions how Descartes is able to assume that he knows he is a thinking thing. Descartes argues in his third meditation that he is certain of it because he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be true. According to Descartes, not even a God with the intent to deceive as much as possible could rob him of this fact.
Descartes wants to be able to make more claims of knowledge aside from these two foundational truths. In order to do this, Descartes intends to prove that a perfect, infinite God exists who would not allow us to be deceived about our clear and distinct perceptions. Descartes’ proof for the existence of God is in his third meditation where he introduces notions of formal and objective reality. He describes formal reality as the amount of reality or substance that corresponds to a given object that exists in the real world (this implies that Descartes is a realist). Furthermore, our ideas have degrees of existence by virtue of the things that they pick out or refer to, which is a matter of objective reality (Descartes 34). In light of these terms we come to understand that we cannot conceive of an idea from our own design if we do not have sufficient objective reality to match the formal reality corresponding to the referent of that idea. Hobbes doesn’t object outright to the notion of some ideas being more complex than others, but he finds Descartes view of varying degrees of reality to be quite troubling. It is upon this main objection that we will focus.
In order to make the drastic jump from knowledge of our existence to knowledge of everything that we clearly and distinctly perceive, Descartes forces the idea of an infinite, perfect God who would not allow our clear and distinct perceptions to be false. According to Descartes, the notion of substance (external objects) is innate in us because we are substances ourselves, and “that [this] fact is not sufficient to explain my having the idea of an infinite substance…unless this idea proceeded from some substance which really was infinite” (qtd. from Descartes 38). In short, Descartes believes it is impossible for us to have an idea of God that is caused by our own internal substance because we are finite and thus have insufficient objective reality to conceive of the infinite on our own. If this idea is not caused internally, then it must be caused by an external substance, one with at least as much formal reality as the idea of God. Thus, Descartes concludes that God must exist by the virtue of us having an idea of Him and that we are incapable of producing this idea on our own. Hobbes denies that it is even possible to have an idea of God, which is made quite clear in his seventh objection to Descartes’ meditations. However, further criticizes Descartes theory of reality being admitted by degrees. He objects questioning, “Does reality admit of degrees?” (qtd. from 68). Thus, Hobbes entertains the notion that we can have an idea of God for sake of argument, but he questions Descartes assumption that an infinite being would have “more reality” than a finite substance.
Strictly speaking, Hobbes also rejects this notion of substance, but he once again accepts Descartes premise to make another objection. Hobbes argues that the objective reality of accidents and modes of existence is at least equal to that of substances, and requests that Descartes illuminate on how this difference in degrees of reality is even a possibility. Descartes responds to this by affirming that substances are real and subsequently remarking that it is self-evident how “…a substance is a thing to a greater degree than is a mode” (qtd. from Descartes 68). This lack of effort to clarify his position in lieu of Hobbes direct request seems to speak against Descartes favor with respect to argumentation. Further, although Hobbes disagrees with several of Descartes premises (namely that we have an idea of God or of substance), his criticism is made more effective by granting them as true and finding contradictions within Descartes own theory. Thus, it appears Hobbes has taken the upper hand with respect to his objection to Descartes theory. At this point, though, we have no real reason to accept either view over the other unless we further investigate the legitimacy of each perspective a bit more.
Descartes theory undoubtedly includes some major primary assumptions; Hobbes successfully identifies one when he questions Descartes notion of reality being admitted by degree. To prove that Hobbes objection is successful, though, we must derive a contradiction from Descartes view as a result of his own theory. Perhaps it really is self-evident, as Descartes claims, that substances are more real than modes. However, Descartes project is to give a complete account of knowledge, and in order to do that he is not permitted to make any assumption of truth that is not derived from something foundational. He claims to know that his idea of God is undoubtedly true because he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be true, yet this claim is only possible if there is no deceiver God who is intent on making our perceptions false. In this sense, Descartes argument is circular, meaning that he relies upon premises in his second meditation which are not yet proved until his third meditation. Hobbes points out that he cannot know that reality admits of degrees unless Descartes account of clear and distinct perceptions is true, which problematically relies upon the possibility that reality can be admitted by degrees. In this sense, Descartes response is inadequate when he claims that he had previously addressed how there can be varying degrees of reality because his previous account relied upon assumption which were not taken to be true until he has succeeded in his proof for the existence of God.
Another sense in which Hobbes objection is problematic to Descartes view pertains to his original Cogito early on in his meditations. Hobbes suggestion that reality is, in fact, not a matter of degree would allow Descartes argument to work. After all, if reality was not a matter of degree, then either something exists or it does not, which allows Descartes to affirm his own existence because things that do not exist cannot think. In fact, Descartes argument works exactly along these lines because he reasons that he must exist to think. However, if it were possible for things to exist by being more or less, then it is possible that thinking things have some degree of existence that is not complete. Thus, Descartes assumption that reality can come in degrees undercuts much of the groundwork he made in his early arguments. Without Descartes claim to have knowledge of his own existence, there is no foundational truth upon which to build his system of philosophy. Thus, Hobbes was quite right to point out this inconsistency in Descartes theory.
Hobbes objection to Descartes assumptions about the nature of reality makes it quite clear that Descartes project relies heavily upon some major assumptions that have been unsuccessfully proven. Specifically, Hobbes shows that Descartes’ assumption about clear and distinct perception relies on an argument of circularity. Further, even upon accepting Descartes primary assumptions as true, it appears that his framework for epistemology falls apart if reality is allowed to be admitted in degrees. The consequence of such a claim renders his Cogito argument invalid, which subsequently makes his entire philosophical view problematic. In light of Hobbes’ objection, we can accept that reality is not a matter of degree, thus regaining knowledge of our own existence. However, it is unclear that Descartes succeeds in making his inductive jump from this knowledge claim to claims about clear and distinct perceptions being true, particularly without his proof of the existence of an undeceiving God.
PLEASE don't be shy to object or to point out errors. I need criticism! Also, if anything is unclear let me know.
HIDDEN ANSWERS:
B
D
D
B
A
C
B
A
D
C
B
B
A
D
D
C
A
D
B
C
D
A
C
D
MYSTIC ROBES
DRAGON GUARD
FARCE
OWL BREATH
FENTON MAGUS
EMPEROR