Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, advocates some radical views about woman in Chapter 7 of the Republic . In particular, he argues not only that women can be guardians, but that they can have equal duties (more or less) and an identical education. The only exception he makes is for physical difference between the sexes. These views are in stark contrast to a woman's place in 5th century Athens, in which a woman was prohibited from a political life and confined to the domestic household (and had a similarly limited education). Does it make sense to call Plato a feminist (and does it depend on your notion of feminism)? Or does Plato still miss something important about women? Furthermore, have we in 21st century America realized his ideas?
This is very similar to my other blog posts, but I do believe that Antoine Arnauld is correct. Descartes uses his arguments in a very circular way, by pretending that each point proves itself without needing any other confirmation from anything else. This essentially creates a circle that Descartes can use to point out that, well because both of these work thanks to each other, both of these points can stand on their own. In fact after the fourth objection in the Onenote notebook that we read stated that “... the author avoids reasoning in a circle when he says we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists… can we be sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this. Hence, before we can be sure God exists, we ought to be able to be sure that whatever we perceive clearly and evidently is true”, Descartes response is that because I proved that God is not a deceiver (which I have some doubts about) then your point is invalid because I made the distinction between remembering things distinctly and clearly and seeing things distinctly and clearly. He then admits that, “This would not be sufficient if we did not know that God exists and is not a deceiver”.
ReplyDeleteI wish to break down his argument about God and then contradict some of his points to cast doubt on the first argument to prove why Descartes needed to create a second argument to help back up the first argument. First, Descartes assumption of God is that he is “... a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful” (Descartes 30), and claiming that “... nothing [is] more perfect than God...” (Descartes 32). Since existence (versus non-existence) is perfection, then God must exist as he is perfect. Therefore God must exist because he is perfection and as existence is perfection, God must exist. First, where I believe he fails is the fact that he does not wish to comprehend that God may or may not exist. He does not give any solid proof of God existing, at best he has conditional arguments as there is no substantial proof that God exists through his reasoning. He applies his ‘knowledge’ to a perfect being, and in my opinion this is an impossible task. If God were really perfect and was truly infinite as Descartes claims, then we (as humans with limited knowledge and limited reasoning) would not be able to comprehend God as an infinite source. While that is just my opinion on the interpretation of the infinite source, there are other issues with Descartes argument that God exists. There is still no proof that there is not an all powerful deity that is convincing him of falsities. I believe that Descartes knew this and because of these ineffectual arguments that Descartes tried to use to prove that God existed, he does backtrack by trying to change how he proved that God exists, saying “... I cannot think of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists” (Descartes 44). His only proof that his memory isn’t falsified is that God must exist because he can see things distinctly and clearly and since he can see things distinctly and clearly, God has to exist. To simplify Descartes argument to the base points, God lets us see things distinctly and clearly. Then, we know that God exists because we can remember that we see things distinctly and clearly, which obviously relies upon the fact that we can see things distinctly and clearly. At the very least, there is doubt that his first argument could be wrong, and since his second argument was connected to his first, this also casts doubt on the second argument. Furthermore, Descartes argument for the proof that God exists seems to be lead into a loop concerning seeing things distinctly and clearly, which leads me to the conclusion that Arnauld is indeed correct.
I believe Antoine Arnauld is right, and that Descartes is arguing in a circle for his clear and distinct rule. Descartes argues than anything someone clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Descartes proves this by saying that because God exists, and that God does not wish to deceive him, so anything he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. However there is a flaw in this argument. In order for this to work, Descartes must prove that God exists, and the way Descartes proves God exists is by use of the clear and distinct rule. Some may argue that maybe God does not exist, or that instead of a perfect God like this, there may be some evil omnipotent being manipulating you and deceiving you. This omnipotent being may make it seem like whatever you clearly and distinctly perceive is true, but it actually is not. But Descartes says that there is no evil omnipotent being playing tricks on us, and that God is good and perfect because he clearly and distinctly perceives God as this. Clearly this is circular reasoning because Descartes is trying to prove that anything someone clearly and distinctly perceives is true. And in response the argument that there could be some evil being deceiving us; Descartes says that this cannot be true because he clearly and distinctly perceives God as someone who would not deceive us. So yes, Antoine Arnauld is correct when he says that Descartes is arguing in a circle.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Antoine Arnauld is indeed correct in accusing Descartes of arguing in a circle. While both of Descartes' statements could be considered true, to an extent, they rely inversely on one another for validation - and thus create a never ending circle argument, in which the argument is weak and would not be highly effective at persuading others because if you don't believe in just one of the parts, the entire argument falls apart. The other aspect that makes this a circular argument, is that it doesn't have a defined stopping point - for either point you would have to relate over to the other point to justify it.
ReplyDeleteI believe Arnauld to be correct, as Descartes’ argument for clear and distinct perception is contingent on the existence of a god, and vice versa. Within his argumentation against skepticism, Descartes asserts that, “as a general rule… everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (24). While seemingly an intuitive argument, the justifications for why this must be so fall flat. Descartes has already proven that sensory perception does not hold sufficient proof for the existence of the objects of perception. This means that, according to his logic, there must be some external force that makes perception sufficient justification for knowledge. In Meditation One, Descartes discussed the possibility that he is living in a dream, or that his entire life is the trick of an evil genius. This must also be sufficiently responded to in order to assert the verity of the general rule. In other words, all that we perceive could be a chimera that has no basis in reality. In moving forward through his project of methodic doubt, Descartes must refute the potential of deception in order to state definitively that we can trust the world around us and our senses to be valid and accurate.
ReplyDeleteDescartes turns primarily to theology in order to explain why our perceptions are trustworthy. The skeptical arguments he proposes are based on the principles of an evil being or a system of deception intended to trick. As a benevolent, omnipotent God would put these systems into place, proving the existence of this God would prove the general rule true. However, it is at this point where Descartes’ logic becomes most flawed. Though he is using this theistic argument for proof of the truth of perception, he reasons the proof using the premise he is intending to prove. “Of all the ideas that are in me, the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct” (31), Descartes writes. Essentially, since Descartes strongly believes God to be good, and he is completely committed to this belief being true, and has not seen any evidence to contradict it, Descartes possesses a clear and distinct perception of God’s existence. He then concludes this to be a sufficient proof for God’s goodness. Since that is the case, and God is no deceiver, then the general rule may be accepted as true. In other words, he has used the general rule to prove the general rule. As this is the definition of circular reasoning- beginning with the conclusion that one intends to prove- Arnauld has offered a valid critique of Descartes.
This has an incredibly large impact on Descartes’ foundational project, as it returns us to the question of skepticism. Even if we can agree that we are a thinking thing that exists, every other aspect of our lives could be a lie. No matter how much our perceptions may seem completely true and reliable to us, we cannot establish that they are true without an independent argument proving otherwise.