FeynPhilosophy - Sapere aude!

Posts

Do Physical Things Really Exist? Descartes' Surprising Answer in His Sixth Meditation

Is the world around us real? Do physical things truly exist? This question seems absurd, but it plays a fundamental role in Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy , specifically the Sixth Meditation. His goal? To find a foundation of knowledge that is absolutely certain. Why question physical reality? This question is born in the search for indubitable foundations of knowledge. The hyperbolic and methodological doubt of Descartes has put into question the existence of physical things. He imagined the possibility that everything he experiences could be a dream or a deception by an evil demon. However, if physical things do not exist, we need to acknowledge that physics, astronomy, and all other sciences with physical things as their objects are doubtful. Descartes’ scepticism has led him to conclude one thing for certain: “ I am, I exist ” (often known by the slightly different formulation cogito, ergo sum ). That’s not enough! Descartes also wants to rebuild all knowledge on t...

What is truth? An absurd question?

Philosophers are seekers of truth. They are supposed to love wisdom and, by extension, love truth. It seems only logical that any philosopher should ask the question , What is truth? Surprisingly, Kant argues that this question might not even make sense in the first place. In The Critique of Pure Reason , Kant tackles the problem of truth in the third section of his Introduction to Transcendental Logic , titled “On the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic”. His conclusion: there is no universal and sufficient criterion of truth because such a criterion is inherently contradictory. The sceptics’ challenge Kant wants to critique the sceptics who used to challenge logicians by demanding, “What is truth?” The logicians of Kant's time studied Aristotle's Organon , in which Aristotle exposed his system of formal logic. This logic studies the correctness of thinking and uses true and false propositions. Because logicians constantly talk about true propositions, the s...

What are synthetic a priori judgements?

Good philosophers provide new solutions to problems. Great philosophers provide new problems that demand solutions. Kant indubitably falls into the second category. The leading question of the Critique of Pure Reason: how are synthetic a priori judgements possible? It is up to the introduction to pose this question and to properly explain the difference between synthetic and analytical judgements and the difference between a priori and a posteriori judgements. A good understanding of these two distinctions is essential to understanding the first critique. Let us first understand what is meant by a judgement. All judgements have the same form: “subject is predicate”. The subject is what we talk about; the predicate is what is said about the subject. Take, for example, the judgement “this dog is black”. In this judgement “this dog” is the subject; we are talking about this dog. “Black” is the predicate of this judgement; we add the property of being black to the dog. Kant distinguis...

Is metaphysics a science?

Is metaphysics a science? This question is answered by Kant in the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason . The goal of the preface is to explore whether metaphysics, at the time Kant is writing, is a science, whether it can be a science and what would be needed for metaphysics to be a science. In order to understand what Kant has to say about metaphysics, let’s first understand what metaphysics is! Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that asks big questions about things that go further than our experience alone. These questions cannot be answered by science. For example, in the time of Kant, metaphysicians were mainly working on 4 questions: Does God exist? What is a soul? Do we have freedom? What is being? This branch of philosophy dates back to Aristotle and his work Metaphysics, even though Aristotle did not name this work himself. In this work Aristotle seeks a science which he calls first philosophy. This science is occupied with first principle...

Descartes' second meditation: 2. A thinking thing.

What is this, I? Having established that he exists (as discussed in my previous post ), Descartes wants to further understand who this I, that exists, is. Seeing as the existence of this ‘I’ is the only thing that is given up until now as indubitable truth, then the only logical continuation is examining this thing that exists. Descartes proposes a certain methodology for investigating who this ‘I’ is. According to Descartes: “I shall therefore meditate once again about what I formerly believed I was [...] I will subtract anything that can be weakened.” This means that every potential knowledge as to what he might be will be tested against the hypothesis of an all-powerful demon trying to deceive him. This hypothesis gives a sufficient condition for truth. If something survives this hypothesis, then it is true. Could it be that my pen is not blue? Yes, and therefore I doubt it; could it be that nothing physical exists? Yes, and therefore I doubt it; could it be that I do not exist...

Descartes' second meditation: 1. "I am, I exist"

The second meditation is arguably the most important meditation of all. Continuing where he left off the day before, Descartes reinstates his radical doubt of the first meditation and tries to find any indubitable knowledge. According to Descartes, he is looking for an Archimedean point. This refers to Archimedes, who claimed he could lift the Earth if he had one solid point. In the same way, if we draw out the analogy, Descartes hopes to find any first truth that is so solid that he can build his entire system of knowledge on it. It is here that Descartes develops, for the second time in his oeuvre, his cogito, commonly expressed as “I think, therefore I am”. Cogito, ergo sum? Descartes starts the second meditation by reinstating the doubt he developed in the first meditation. Imagine there is an all-powerful and cunning evil demon who puts all his efforts into deceiving us; is there anything that can be true? Descartes seems to have some new insights, as he states, “He [the dem...