Meditations Study Questions

Philosophy 210/310
Early Modern Philosophy

Study Questions for Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy

Meditation I

Describe any differences between the following claims:

Martha believes that Franklin is in the den.
Martha knows that Franklin is in the den.
Martha is certain that Franklin is in the den.

In the normal course of life, is it desirable to believe only what is certain, or is it acceptable to believe claims that are less than certain? Why? Is Descartes advocating that we only believe what is certain?
Why does Descartes need the Dream Argument to show that he cannot trust the deliverances of his senses if he already has established that his senses sometimes deceive him?
What sorts of beliefs would seem to survive the Dream Argument as indubitable?
Is the existence of God and the notion that God created Descartes essential to Descartes' claim that he has reason to doubt his belief that 2+3=5 and that a square has at most four sides? Can he establish a reason to doubt these things without an appeal to God?
For what reason does Descartes pretend that all his opinions are false? What does this reveal about the difference between claims that are certain and claims that are reasonable to believe?

Meditation II

Why is Descartes certain that he exists? Has he proven that anyone else exists?
Just before concluding that he himself exists, Descartes says this: "I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies." Then he goes on to say that he exists. Has he contradicted himself? In claiming that he exists has he taken something back from his first claim? Or is there a way to reconcile these two claims?
In ¶6, Descartes claims that he cannot be certain that he has sense perception since sense perception "surely does not occur without a body". But at ¶8 when Descartes summarizes what he knows and is certain about himself, he says that he is a thing that, inter alia, has sensory perceptions. Has he contradicted himself? Has he changed his mind? Or is there a way to render these two claims compatible?
Explain the difference in meaning between

I'm certain that I'm only a thinking thing.
I'm certain only that I'm a thinking thing.

What does Descartes mean by ‘thinking'? Is this how you understand the term? Can you think of a case that Descartes would consider a case of thinking but you would not? Does dreaming count as a case of thinking? Does being in pain count as a case of thinking? Does listening to music turned all the way up count as a case of thinking? Compare your answer to these questions to Descartes'.
What is the point of Descartes' discussion of the piece of wax? That is, why does he talk about it? What apparent problem or difficulty or surprising fact is the discussion meant to solve or allay?
At the end of ¶12 Descartes says something absolutely shocking. He says that the perception he has of the wax "is not a case of vision or touch or imagination--nor has it ever been, despite previous appearances--but of purely mental scrutiny." Descartes is saying that he perceives the wax only with his mind, and not with any of his senses nor with his imagination. This should surely shock and surprise you, for this is true not only of wax but of every physical object. How does Descartes arrive at this shocking conclusion? What is his argument?

Meditation III

What is the problem with the "general rule" that Descartes proposes at the end of the second paragraph that "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true"?
Why does Descartes believe the questions of God's existence and nature must be resolved before one can be certain of anything?
"Now as far as ideas are concerned, provided they are considered solely in themselves and I do not refer them to anything else, they cannot strictly speaking be false." Why not?
Why is the fact that certain ideas seem to come to Descartes against his will not a sufficient reason for establishing the truth of those ideas?
In paragraph 13, Descartes draws a distinction between two ways of considering ideas--as modes of thought and as images which represent different things. What is this distinction? According to which way of considering ideas are all ideas the same? According to which way are ideas different from each other?
Paragraph 14 is very important, but very difficult. Study it closely. Two sentences that you should try the hardest to understand are these: "....there must be at least as much <reality> in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause." and "...in order for a given idea to contain such and such objective reality, it must surely derive it from some cause which contains at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea."
What are Descartes' reasons for thinking that the idea of God is not a fiction which he himself has conjured up? Is his reasoning sound?

Meditation VI

Paragraph 9 is in many ways the central paragraph of this meditation. Read it carefully, and try to reconstruct Descartes' reasoning for his conclusion that he is "really distinct from his body, and can exist without it." Do you find his reasoning sound?
How does Descartes prove the existence of things other than himself and God? How does the fact that God is not a deciever support this argument of Descartes (in Paragraph 10)?
Descartes claims that while he has reason to believe that bodies exist, they may not exist in just the way he conceives them to be. What does this mean? When he says, in the final sentence, that he can be confident that they possess all the properties which are comprised within the subject-matter of pure mathematics, what does that mean? What sorts of properties are those?