Why Study Early Modern Philosophy? a) academic--steppingstone for later phil. studies. Nec. niche in humanities degree. b) philosophically interesting—touch on fundamental themes: 1) problem of reality 2) problem of mind 3) problem of knowledge

[why study early modern phil continued:] c) "transcendental" significance of modern philosophical 'fundamental frameworks' (i.e. ways of organizing the world and attempting to explain it). Three of these operating since the 1600s: –1) common sense approach: ignore origins or 'basic nature,' just focus on immediate properties and uses, rely on perception chiefly (the manifest image). –2) scientific approach: look beyond the manifest image to some underlying nature or structure which accounts for the surface properties of the thing. –3) religious/theological approach: explain by appeal to divine causes/ends.

How do you explain the table from within each of these frameworks? Give the sufficient reason for the table according to each. [why study early mod. phil continued:] d) it is necessary to understand the early modern period of philosophy if one is to understand the origins of the modern world.

The Frameworks Clash in the Meditations Meditations as an UR text (grounding/fund'l/originating text) in philosophy: –privileges the scientific framework –twists the religious framework –attacks the common sense framework

▸ b) Watch both the content & the literary structure of the Meditations: –1) first-person perspective –2) confessional format: "I lost my faith, but then found it again" –3) 6 meditations is a trade on the religious framework in Genesis: it took God six days to create the world, and Descartes six meditations to establish a firm foundation for our knowledge of it. c) RD's 'epiphany' (Nov. 10, 1619)....spent 3 days in a hut ("stove")....his vision of the "mathesis universalis" = philosophy, queen of the sciences.

Meditation One What is the objective of the Meditations? Hint: look at second sentence of Med. I.

How do we know he is after Absolute Knowledge (K*)? How do we get K*? How do we know when we have it? RD’s Answer: ‘certainty of belief’

1) JP: what is this "certainty"? Confidence? Lots of extreme confidence? 2) Then does certain belief = "verified belief"? Maybe, but what provides verification that overcomes the possibility of error? RD: one way of getting at certainty is to show what abs. knowl. looks like, then say "that's what certainty gets at." The via negativa: first look at what abs. knowl is not. – i) It is not false (truth seems to be a property of known assertions). – ii) It is not what I do not believe. But is true belief knowledge? – iii) No. Is justified true belief knowledge? – iv) No, since my belief that it was 2:51 last Thursday was justified, and true, but we decided it was not K*.

3) What more do we need in order to convert JTB into knowledge? Well, it must be some additional property of the belief. Call this property X. So K* = JTB + X. 4) How do we discover what "X" is? Well, RD thinks certainty is the mark of K*, and it seems like certainty is just 'indubitability of belief', so perhaps X = 'indubitability of the justified true belief'.

5) Is this indubitability just the name for a psychological state we fall into when believing some things...an inability to bring ourselves to the psychological attitude of doubting? – No. The inability to doubt must be something arising in the intellect alone. It is not a psychological state, but rather a property of a belief such that it is conceptually beyond doubting, for example. The impossibility of this doubt is rather more like the impossibility of completing the concept of a round square (RD has argument for the claim that any indubitable belief is true)

RD’s Method of Doubt Find some principles which are indubitable, then derive, as in a geometric deduction, the rest of the true beliefs about the world from these. Method of doubt acts as a filter for our dubitable beliefs. Note that RD finds actual geometry dubitable (Meditation #1). RD generates general doubt about our common beliefs with a Three Step sceptical attack that comes in Two Phases

Phase 1 Generate a fully general doubt about all sensory beliefs. (i) ordinary (insecure) sense beliefs—perceptual errors and perceptual illusions (ii) secure sense beliefs—vivid dreams (the dream hypothesis) Does this place all sensory beliefs in doubt? NO. The Dreamer’s Palette remains (what’s that?)

Phase 2 Generate a fully general doubt about all sensory beliefs that remain unchallenged by the dream hypothesis AND a fully general doubt about all mathematical beliefs (iii) beliefs about simple natures/general things (i.e., our dream-immune beliefs about the ‘sensory palette’ and all mathematical / geometrical beliefs— Evil Demon Hypothesis

What beliefs remain intact? NONE. Epistemic Vertigo. Maximus scepticus. Cognitive despair sets in.

The Plan of the Meditations 1. Use the method of doubt (EDH) to find a criterion for absolute knowledge (by isolating some belief that cannot be doubted) 2. Use that criterion to discover some true beliefs that can be joined in arguments that logically establish conclusions that defeat evil demon skepticism skepticism. How to do That: A. prove God exists as the creator of the world and my mind and all its powers. (Med. III) B. prove that God is not a deceiver (is not an Evil Demon that would mislead me in my belief-forming practices) (Med IV) C. prove that all mathematical truths are instances of absolute knowledge. (Med V) D. prove that these truths describe the real nature of any possible world consisting of bodies in space. (Med V) E. prove that there is a world of bodies in space. (Med VI)