Talk:Meditations on First Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Invalid Argument

In the section on the first meditation, the article contains an argument

  1. If I am dreaming/deceived, then my beliefs are not true.
  2. I don't know whether I am dreaming/deceived.
  3. Therefore, I don't know whether my beliefs are true.

Which is invalid (compare with the following situation in which I see John eat some nuts, and go into an allergic reaction:

  1. If John is in anaphylaxic shock, he has eaten some nuts (this is true)
  2. I don't know whether John is in anaphylaxic shock (This is true: I don't even know what that means)
  3. Therefore, I don't know whether John ate any nuts (false - I saw him eat them)

) I'm pretty sure Descartes didn't make this argument.--NoizHed 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. If John is in shock he has eaten nuts
2. I cant tell if John is in shock
3. Therefore I don't know if he has eaten nuts
This type of argument seems logical. All Descartes is saying is that, for the individual, dreaming and non-dreaming are indistinguishable while they are occurring but he later goes on to say that this doesn't matter - you can describe the content of experience in the same way whether it is a dream or not. Cogito ergo sum, not "I am awake therefore I am". Geometer 11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

---a note--- : Please remember that the Discussion section is for discussion on the Wikipedia page, NOT what the article is that Wikipedia has made a page for. Your objections to Descartes have been voiced many times and, while appreciated, do not belong in this section. Kenji000 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

I'm a bit confused. This article says in one spot that Meditations on First Philosophy was written after Discourse on Method. In another spot, it seems to apply that "Cogito Ergo Sum" was written as a response to criticism on Meditations. Specifically, the article states: "In one of Descartes' replies to objections to the book, he summed this up in the now-famous phrase, I think, therefore I am..."

Every other article regarding Descartes says that Cogito was first written in Discourse (Four years before Meditations!!)? - Patrick95350 04:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think therefore I am was written in Discourse....

[edit] Not in the book

I changed the quote containing the (approximation of) the cogito to reflect what is actually said in the version of the Meditiations that is linked to at the bottom of the page (Meditation 2, paragraph 3). Baffledexpert 16:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content Expansion

I've begun a major content expansion here. I plan on continuing with Meditations 3-6 later. uriah923(talk) 03:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) The summaries of the Meditations are finished. I may add a section to discuss the alleged accomplishments of the work and some issues, but I wonder if those should be saved for the article on Descartes. Thoughts? uriah923(talk) 06:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objections & replies

It would be great to expand this wikientry to include the a summary of the Objections & Replies. We could start with a summary of the Seven philosophers who submitted their objections...

I second that wholeheartedly. If it has not yet been added once I have given them deeper study, I'll do what I can.Kai 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai Miller (talk • contribs) 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
This just in: I'm an idiot. It was already there. Tee-hee?Kai 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are still none of Descartes' replies, though. Surely that makes the whole thing a bit one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.204.118 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

I've just read the article, and think there is a certain judgmental undertone to it. It feels like some author voices a rather disparaging opinion on the quality of Descartes' thinking and conclusion, for example the sentence "Along the way, he 'stumbles' upon another claimed logical proof of God's existence." and similar examples.

Any other opinions on that? If you agree with me, it might be a good idea to add a NPOV flag to the article. --TheOtherStephan 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "stumbles" accurately represents the way he describes the process in the book. uriah923(talk) 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree - his purpose isn't to lay out an established argument, but to discover (both himself and the reader) the truth. "Stumble" would be the appropriate word to go along with both his writing style and his description of the discovery process. --Tim4christ17 06:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
'Stumbles' is not NPOV, but 'claimed logical' is. A better sentence would be "Along the way, he 'stumbles' upon another proof of God's existence."

[edit] I think, therefore I am

I changed, "I think, therefore I exist," to "I think, therefore I am." First, you can either go with the French to Latin to English translation of: "I am thinking, therefore I exist," or, more properly, the French to English translation of: "I think, therefore I am." The previous one was a mix of the two. Unsuspected 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing article

Probably the best I've read on the Wikipedia. I'd submit it as a Featured Article candidate, but am afraid it'd be destroyed in the process. --Tim4christ17 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not actual translations

This page entitled "meditations of First Pholosophy" is really a discussion of Descartes works. While we normally expect that an encyclopedia really is just a discussion or treatise on a subject, there is already a wikipedia section with the actual direct translations for many of Descartes works.

Now, in many ways, I believe this page is better, if at least more helpful, than the actual english translation (John Veitch Translation of 1901). Therefore, I would never suggest that this article be proposed for deletion, however, I would want any wikipedia readers who come upon this page to understand that the contents of this page are the post-modern analyses of Descartes work and not actual translations.

So, I'm proposing to the author that he edit the page only to add a short contextual disclaimer informing the reader that this page is a modern interpretaion of Descartes meditations. Then a link should be added to the actual John Veitch Translation of 1901, also found on wikipedia.

So then, the title of Meditation II shouldn't be "OF THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN MIND; AND THAT IT IS MORE EASILY KNOWN THAN THE BODY"?

I suspect the author of the above was referring to the text linked from Wikisources. I found much of this article to be a fairly straightforward summary; I suppose, however, that perhaps mention somewhere that this is the common modern interpretation (as opposed to elimination of any analysis at all) would not be out of line. Comments, convention experts?Kai 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But again this is risky. The question is which one should we have a fully translation. Meditation was written twice by Descartes; the first to "the Dean and Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Theology of Paris" or the second when he added more words after letters were sent to him about his theory? Also the first book was published without him physically being there but the second had his supervision. So which one shall we choose to have the full text? It's hard because the first could have been alter while the second was slightly changed to help the reader. Also remember that old words in Latin does not fully mean the same or translate the same as today. Therefore we can question the old text as well as the new text. But all in all I think that we shouldn't discourage people who are looking for a quick summary of the book with modern analysis.

[edit] Subtitles

The subtitle listed in the first sentence is not a translation of the "original Latin" subtitle. Did the subtitle change at some point, and if so, shouldn't it be mentioned how and why? Otherwise, it looks like a gratuitous change was made in translation, and if that were the case, I would expect Wikipedia to keep with the original consistently. 128.253.231.119 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reference. Objections...

"...in response to Hobbes, “I cannot possibly satisfy those who prefer to attribute a different sense to my words than the one I intended”..." Por favor amplíen la información en la sección Objections and Replies, me parece que necesita muchas referencias. Gracias

[edit] Entry for the Third Meditation: Long and Questionable

Most of this article seems acceptable. However I am very worried about the entry for the third meditation. First, the entry is simply much too long. The third meditation itself is only 39 paragraphs. This entry is nearly as long.

Second, the author of this entry seems to place emphasis on arguments that, in the original text, are quiet insubstantial and unimportant. For instance, why is so much attention paid to the explanation of counting? This is not an example that Descartes uses; the use of this example does not make Descartes' meaning any more clear; the example in this entry is much too long; and it is uncertain to me that the point of the example was a major concern for Descartes.

Finally, and most worryingly, the entry for the third meditation contains no criticism of Descartes' arguments. The proofs for God's existence and Descartes use of the notion of "clear and distinct ideas" in the third meditation are hotly contested and have been highly criticized. Why is this not mentioned? What's more, there is no mention of the Cartesian Circle in relation to the third meditation. (In fact, the circularity of Descartes' arguments are only briefly mentioned in the "Objections" section at the end of the entry.) I would think that the circularity should be emphasized, and a link added to the entry on the Cartesian Circle.

This entry should be flagged.

[edit] On the Third Meditation

There are serious flaws in both arguments. In the first, the "thing" that is infinitely perfect does not have to exist. The "God" that Descartes had in mind was the God in his perception, which does not qualify for existence. As an example, one part of the God is this argument that God exists, which Descartes believe to be true and thus part of a perfect image of God. In the second, Descartes failed to understand the time as a fourth dimension - that the "God" of his image is all the things in his perception, plus infinity. However, without the fourth dimension of "time", he would be indeed created by himself - His argument that he did not create himself was that he would have made himself perfect, which is not true, as the will to make himself perfect is actually "imperfect" - in other words, the imperfect always seek to be perfect, but we do not know that for the perfect. We can use this argument in the opposite way and conclude that we did create ourselves. Aran|heru|nar 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to point d (The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.) to have created himself he must be perfect in order that he might possess the idea of a perfect God. Furthermore the idea that only what is imperfect seeks to become perfect works the same way as that a boxer doesn't seek to become heavyweight champion while he is already in possession of the title.

The argument is pretty shaky and flawed for a variety of reasons, this just happens not to be one of them.

~El Marko~

Ok. I think I may have been way to harsh, and misunderstood the ordering. Nevertheless, I think it would be betteer to rebuild that section up than try to trim the preveous wadge. Larklight (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)