If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The meaning of intuition and deduction
- Intuitions are not known through “the fluctuating testimony of the senses”
- Instead, an intuition is a direct or non-inferential awareness of a self-evident
truth which has been discovered by the “light of reason”
- Genuine intuitions are perceived clearly and distinctly by the "clear and
attentive mind which proceeds solely from the light of reason"
- This means that intuitions must be ‘open and present to the attending mind’
and must not only be clear but precise and separated from other ideas so
that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain intuitions as indubitable.
- An intuition is therefore a foundational piece of knowledge
- An intuition is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’ rational
foundationalism as a direct or non-inferential awareness of a truth is an
absolute, self-evident starting point that pure reason requires to build an
indubitable system of knowledge.
- A deduction is also not known through “the fluctuating testimony of the
senses”
- It is an indirect, inferential awareness of the truth which is discovered by
inferring something that follows necessarily from other propositions already
known with certainty
- It builds upon foundational truths gained through pure mental intuition.
- Intuition establishes the foundations but deduction builds the system of
knowledge from those foundations.
-
,The notion of clear and distinct ideas
- To be clear an idea must be ‘open and present to the attending mind.’
- A clear idea is one that is sufficiently present to the attentive mind that it is
recognised without confusion or doubt.
- The clarity of an idea comes from its being well-defined and immediately
obvious.
- To be distinct it must not only be clear but precise and separated from other
ideas so that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- All distinct ideas are clear, but not all clear ideas are distinct.
- Clear and distinct ideas are perceived by the "clear and attentive mind which
proceeds solely from the light of reason" and directly apprehends or ‘grasps’
clear and distinct truths rather than arriving at them through sensory
experience or inference.
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain truths as indubitable.
- A clear and distinct idea is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’
rational foundationalism as a self-evident, indubitable starting point that
pure reason requires to build a secure system of knowledge.
- We can trust clear and distinct ideas because an omnibenevolent God exists
- God is, due to his omnibenevolence, not a deceiver.
- Therefore, God gave us a faculty of reason which - when used properly to
perceive things clearly and distinctly - therefore cannot deceive us and lead
us into error
The cogito as an example of an a priori intuition
- The cogito is Descartes’ claim that he necessarily exists as a thinking being : “I
am, I exist”
- Descartes’ points out that we cannot doubt that we exist since that
presupposes that we exist in order to do the doubting.
- Moreover, even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of
synthetic a posteriori knowledge - along with knowledge of mathematical
truths (a priori knowledge) - the evil demon cannot deceive him about his
, own existence since, if the evil demon is deceiving him, he must exist to be
deceived
- He, therefore claims “I think, therefore I am”
- In the cogito Descartes therefore understands himself as a thinking thing
that is clear and distinct (and is therefore not necessarily identical to his
body)
- The cogito is a true belief that is indubitable and therefore counts as
knowledge.
- Descartes characterises the cogito as an a priori intuition.
- Intuitions like the cogito are not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
- Instead, the cogito is a direct or non-inferential awareness of a self-evident
truth which has been discovered by reason
- Genuine intuitions are perceived clearly and distinctly by the "clear and
attentive mind which proceeds solely from the light of reason"
- This means that the cogito must be ‘open and present to the attending mind’
and must not only be clear but precise and separated from other ideas so
that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain intuitions as indubitable.
- The cogito is therefore a foundational piece of knowledge
- The cogito is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’ rational
foundationalism as a direct or non-inferential awareness of a truth is an
absolute, self-evident starting point that pure reason requires to build an
indubitable system of knowledge.
Descartes proof for the existence of God as an example of an a priori deduction
P1: I exist
- Descartes’ points out that we cannot doubt that we exist since that
presupposes that we exist in order to do the doubting.
- Moreover, even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of
synthetic a posteriori knowledge - along with knowledge of mathematical
truths (a priori knowledge) - the evil demon cannot deceive him about his
, own existence since, if the evil demon is deceiving him, he must exist to be
deceived
- He, therefore claims “I think, therefore I am”
P2: I have the idea of God, which is that of a perfect being
- God is conceived as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
P3: My ideas must be caused by something
- He thought that something cannot come from nothing
P4: There must be as much reality in the cause as there is in its effect (the causal
adequacy principle).
- Descartes believed that (1) something cannot come from nothing, and (2)
that the total nature of an effect must be derived from its cause. Therefore, if
an effect had more reality than its cause, part of that effect would have
popped into existence from nothing. He thought this is impossible. So, he
thought there must be as much reality in the cause as there is in its effect
P5: I am imperfect being
- Humans experience doubt, limitation and have a capacity for error
- Descartes argues that these premises are direct or non-inferential
awarenesses of self-evident truths which has been discovered by the “natural
light” of reason
C1: So, I am not causally adequate to create the idea of a supremely perfect being,
only a supremely perfect being is.
C2: Therefore, I cannot be the cause of my idea of God
C3: God must be the cause of my idea of God
C4: God must exist
- Descartes characterises this argument as an a priori deduction
- As a deduction, this proof is not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
- Instead, this proof is an indirect, inferential awareness of the truth which is
discovered by inferring something that follows necessarily from other
propositions already known with certainty
- Each conclusion is a deduction which was inferred from the premises - each
of which was an an indubitable intuition
- Hence, this proof builds upon foundational truths gained through pure
mental intuition.
, - Intuition establishes the foundations but this deduction builds the system of
knowledge from those foundations (e.g the addition of the existence of God).
Descartes proof for the existence of the external world as an example of an a priori
deduction
P1: My perceptions are involuntary
- Ideas pop into my head against my will
C1: Thus, they cannot come from my own mind
- This is because we have voluntary control over our minds.
P2: God exists.
- This is an indubitable deduction which Descartes inferred necessarily from
various intuitions
P3: But I also have a clear and distinct idea of an involuntarily perceived, physical
substance
- Something which has extension and is changeable which when perceived,
pops ideas into my head against my will
P4: So, there are three options for the origin of my perceptions: physical objects,
God, or a tendency to have false beliefs that I cannot correct.
P5: The source of these perceptions cannot be God, nor would God create me with
a strong tendency to believe something false which I cannot correct.
- This is because in either case God would be deceiving me, yet it is a clear and
distinct idea that deception involves fault or imperfection, and God is perfect.
- Descartes argues that these premises are direct or non-inferential
awarenesses of self-evident truths which has been discovered by the “natural
light” of reason
C2: Therefore, through process of elimination, the source of my perceptions must
be physical objects
C3: Therefore, an external world exists.
- Descartes characterises this argument as an a priori deduction
- As a deduction, this proof is not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The meaning of intuition and deduction
- Intuitions are not known through “the fluctuating testimony of the senses”
- Instead, an intuition is a direct or non-inferential awareness of a self-evident
truth which has been discovered by the “light of reason”
- Genuine intuitions are perceived clearly and distinctly by the "clear and
attentive mind which proceeds solely from the light of reason"
- This means that intuitions must be ‘open and present to the attending mind’
and must not only be clear but precise and separated from other ideas so
that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain intuitions as indubitable.
- An intuition is therefore a foundational piece of knowledge
- An intuition is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’ rational
foundationalism as a direct or non-inferential awareness of a truth is an
absolute, self-evident starting point that pure reason requires to build an
indubitable system of knowledge.
- A deduction is also not known through “the fluctuating testimony of the
senses”
- It is an indirect, inferential awareness of the truth which is discovered by
inferring something that follows necessarily from other propositions already
known with certainty
- It builds upon foundational truths gained through pure mental intuition.
- Intuition establishes the foundations but deduction builds the system of
knowledge from those foundations.
-
,The notion of clear and distinct ideas
- To be clear an idea must be ‘open and present to the attending mind.’
- A clear idea is one that is sufficiently present to the attentive mind that it is
recognised without confusion or doubt.
- The clarity of an idea comes from its being well-defined and immediately
obvious.
- To be distinct it must not only be clear but precise and separated from other
ideas so that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- All distinct ideas are clear, but not all clear ideas are distinct.
- Clear and distinct ideas are perceived by the "clear and attentive mind which
proceeds solely from the light of reason" and directly apprehends or ‘grasps’
clear and distinct truths rather than arriving at them through sensory
experience or inference.
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain truths as indubitable.
- A clear and distinct idea is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’
rational foundationalism as a self-evident, indubitable starting point that
pure reason requires to build a secure system of knowledge.
- We can trust clear and distinct ideas because an omnibenevolent God exists
- God is, due to his omnibenevolence, not a deceiver.
- Therefore, God gave us a faculty of reason which - when used properly to
perceive things clearly and distinctly - therefore cannot deceive us and lead
us into error
The cogito as an example of an a priori intuition
- The cogito is Descartes’ claim that he necessarily exists as a thinking being : “I
am, I exist”
- Descartes’ points out that we cannot doubt that we exist since that
presupposes that we exist in order to do the doubting.
- Moreover, even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of
synthetic a posteriori knowledge - along with knowledge of mathematical
truths (a priori knowledge) - the evil demon cannot deceive him about his
, own existence since, if the evil demon is deceiving him, he must exist to be
deceived
- He, therefore claims “I think, therefore I am”
- In the cogito Descartes therefore understands himself as a thinking thing
that is clear and distinct (and is therefore not necessarily identical to his
body)
- The cogito is a true belief that is indubitable and therefore counts as
knowledge.
- Descartes characterises the cogito as an a priori intuition.
- Intuitions like the cogito are not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
- Instead, the cogito is a direct or non-inferential awareness of a self-evident
truth which has been discovered by reason
- Genuine intuitions are perceived clearly and distinctly by the "clear and
attentive mind which proceeds solely from the light of reason"
- This means that the cogito must be ‘open and present to the attending mind’
and must not only be clear but precise and separated from other ideas so
that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing other than what is clear.’
- This is possible because of the ‘natural light’ of reason, which enables the
mind to recognise certain intuitions as indubitable.
- The cogito is therefore a foundational piece of knowledge
- The cogito is therefore an essential starting point in Descartes’ rational
foundationalism as a direct or non-inferential awareness of a truth is an
absolute, self-evident starting point that pure reason requires to build an
indubitable system of knowledge.
Descartes proof for the existence of God as an example of an a priori deduction
P1: I exist
- Descartes’ points out that we cannot doubt that we exist since that
presupposes that we exist in order to do the doubting.
- Moreover, even if an evil demon is deceiving him about the existence of
synthetic a posteriori knowledge - along with knowledge of mathematical
truths (a priori knowledge) - the evil demon cannot deceive him about his
, own existence since, if the evil demon is deceiving him, he must exist to be
deceived
- He, therefore claims “I think, therefore I am”
P2: I have the idea of God, which is that of a perfect being
- God is conceived as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
P3: My ideas must be caused by something
- He thought that something cannot come from nothing
P4: There must be as much reality in the cause as there is in its effect (the causal
adequacy principle).
- Descartes believed that (1) something cannot come from nothing, and (2)
that the total nature of an effect must be derived from its cause. Therefore, if
an effect had more reality than its cause, part of that effect would have
popped into existence from nothing. He thought this is impossible. So, he
thought there must be as much reality in the cause as there is in its effect
P5: I am imperfect being
- Humans experience doubt, limitation and have a capacity for error
- Descartes argues that these premises are direct or non-inferential
awarenesses of self-evident truths which has been discovered by the “natural
light” of reason
C1: So, I am not causally adequate to create the idea of a supremely perfect being,
only a supremely perfect being is.
C2: Therefore, I cannot be the cause of my idea of God
C3: God must be the cause of my idea of God
C4: God must exist
- Descartes characterises this argument as an a priori deduction
- As a deduction, this proof is not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
- Instead, this proof is an indirect, inferential awareness of the truth which is
discovered by inferring something that follows necessarily from other
propositions already known with certainty
- Each conclusion is a deduction which was inferred from the premises - each
of which was an an indubitable intuition
- Hence, this proof builds upon foundational truths gained through pure
mental intuition.
, - Intuition establishes the foundations but this deduction builds the system of
knowledge from those foundations (e.g the addition of the existence of God).
Descartes proof for the existence of the external world as an example of an a priori
deduction
P1: My perceptions are involuntary
- Ideas pop into my head against my will
C1: Thus, they cannot come from my own mind
- This is because we have voluntary control over our minds.
P2: God exists.
- This is an indubitable deduction which Descartes inferred necessarily from
various intuitions
P3: But I also have a clear and distinct idea of an involuntarily perceived, physical
substance
- Something which has extension and is changeable which when perceived,
pops ideas into my head against my will
P4: So, there are three options for the origin of my perceptions: physical objects,
God, or a tendency to have false beliefs that I cannot correct.
P5: The source of these perceptions cannot be God, nor would God create me with
a strong tendency to believe something false which I cannot correct.
- This is because in either case God would be deceiving me, yet it is a clear and
distinct idea that deception involves fault or imperfection, and God is perfect.
- Descartes argues that these premises are direct or non-inferential
awarenesses of self-evident truths which has been discovered by the “natural
light” of reason
C2: Therefore, through process of elimination, the source of my perceptions must
be physical objects
C3: Therefore, an external world exists.
- Descartes characterises this argument as an a priori deduction
- As a deduction, this proof is not known through “the fluctuating testimony of
the senses”
