Philosophy Exam 2

Philosophy Exam Essay
Question 1: Earnestly, Descartes ponders over the course of Meditation IV how an all-powerful and seemingly benevolent God could allow man to believe errors and falsehoods. In Meditation IV, Descartes compared God to a master craftsman, so wouldn’t it seem that his craft would be without mistake. Undoubtedly, Descartes is befuddled by the concept of sometimes believing in falsehoods although he was created by an infinitely perfect being, isn’t believing in falsehoods supposed to be a bad thing? If that is the case then who is to blame? However, Descartes perceives that it would be impossible for God to deceive him and would neither desire too because God is simply perfect in all ways. God had given a faculty that would not lead man to error as long as it was used correctly, thus it is the fault of man for believing in falsehoods. In my notes, the understanding is summarized as when one chooses to believe a claim that does not have sufficient evidence then one is to blame for rushing to judgment. In a perfect world, it would seem that man should never fall to error because of the faculty given by God, but continuously we give rise to an infinitude of imperfections. Descartes further presses on to understand why God allows falsehoods or flaws innately within man that lead to error; he attributes it to two things: faculty of understanding and faculty of free will. Because we can choose to question, seek answers, believe in what we want to believe, that is the reason for error. Descartes says that he does not question the mysterious ways of God, although he does seem to ponder his actions for these faculties alone testify to the tenacious and insatiable curiosity of man. At the end of Meditation IV, Descartes comes into an understanding about his perceptions since he had discovered the source of falsity and error that for as long as he is diligent of will and restraint within the bounds of his own knowledge, he will never be deceived. I do believe that Descartes reasoning’s against the questions that he raises are good arguments. Personally, I don’t believe the end result is God, but Descartes continually raises the fact that God is all perfect so how could he lead us to error? If he did create us why would he want us to error, obviously the fault doesn’t lie with God it’s innately within us. One of the points that Descartes makes within Meditation IV states that “nevertheless [one] cannot deny that in some sense it is a greater perfection in the whole universe that certain parts should not be exempt from error as others are than that all parts should be exactly similar”, I don’t believe that there is a greater truth that anyone could speak (pg 62). Conclusively, I believe that Descartes Meditation IV that covers points concerning falsehoods and the realization of the source of error are exceptional arguments.
Question 2: Unlike Descartes, Locke believed that our ideas and experiences comprised of the interactions that we gain through our senses and without them we could have no knowledge of the world. Skeptics believe that someone may or may not be in the position to know anything outside of our own minds. Solipsists believe that the only things that exist are one’s mind and thoughts. Realist (what John Locke believes) thinks that there is a physical world of objects that exist independently of our own minds and also believe that human being do have some knowledge of the physical objects. Locke rejects skepticism and solipsism, he cannot believe that one could be aware an independent world when there is so much proof, he goes on to describe an example where he describes a candle flame and then urges one to put their finger through the flame, most would react in pain thus Locke assures that there is no greater evidence than those of one’s own actions and reactions. Locke is basically stating put money where your mouth is. Furthermore, all of our ideas are a combination of what Locke calls simple and complex ideas. Locke describes that a simple idea is an idea that is broken down into its basest form and cannot be divided any further; for example the idea of color. Complex ideas are purely combinations of simple ideas. Now Locke’s casual theory of perception centers around two concepts, primary and secondary qualities; Locke describes that all objects have qualities that fall within these two categories. Primary qualities are defined as having qualities that can be measured by science, an objective attribute that draws a general consensus from most people. For example:
Extension
Figure
Solidity
Motion/ Rest
Number
To continue, secondary qualities are the experience and perception of the individual, a subjective view of the world defined by our senses or lack thereof. For example:
Color
Sound
Taste
Smell
Touch
Locke conveys that our very world and mind are shaped by these qualities and the distinction between the two is vital to the role in his theory. I do believe that Locke’s representative realism theory is an acceptable claim because all of things that he dictates I cannot dispute. He elegantly conveys that the way of the world of how things really are and how we perceive them is the causation of ideas; that the reason why we have primary ideas is because we have secondary ideas. Without one we cannot have the other, the understanding of how most people experience the world objectively and subjectively is right on the mark. The combination and extraction between the two qualities are the building blocks for all ideas and that all we know when we see, smell, touch, or hear unless broken down through science is only perceived as an idea.
Question 3: Fundamentally, idealism is the concept that the reality surrounding us is constructed purely in our minds and that physical objects are nothing but ideas. Simply, it’s the same concept of the Matrix that we can have knowledge of the objects around us, but the objects themselves are still of our minds. Berkeley defends this claim by describing a collection of senses that form in itself to create one thing, an apple. `Describing taste, smell, touch, which ultimately lead up to the description of an apple, an object that most have encountered and can easily picture. The same happens within Matrix where we have knowledge of objects our senses interpret them as physical object, yet Berkeley claim concludes that it is simply within the walls of our mind. So essentially, Berkeley claim could be possible and almost seems a bit skeptical, skepticism states that one believes that theirs is the only mind that exist, yet idealism centers around the notion that there not a single mind, but many. Both claims can agree that there is nothing independent of the mind. Further on, Berkeley criticizes that Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities are merely extensions of the mind, that an idea can be like nothing but another idea. Berkeley believes that if one believes in Locke’s theory that it will ultimately lead to skepticism and from there atheism. He seems to allude that one without the understanding of God can never have an understanding of the world and themselves; it can be describes like this:
1. There must be a cause or explanation for my ideas of physical objects (my sensory ideas)
2. Physical objects themselves are not the cause or explanation for my ideas of physical objects
3. Human minds, individually or collectively, are not the cause or explanation for my idea of physical objects/ human minds are too limited
4. Conclusion: God is the cause or explanation for my ideas of physical objects
This is Berkeley’s explanation for where our sensory ideas come from, so it seems that there is really no mind-independent material objects at all just minds and God. Albeit Berkeley does support his views with good arguments and the Matrix is proof that this concept is mind bending, but not as far-fetched as it could seem, I’m kind of on the fence with this one. Berkeley has really good arguments concerning the apple in how the way the apple is, but how differently we perceive it to be, so how do we actually know of the apple? Yet, it’s how for me to imagine a world that is not actually corporeal only my imagination, it’s almost beyond my comprehension and that’s why it’s hard for me to believe it. Overall, Bekerely does present a good argument for his claim and the Matrix is an example that is proof of that.