In Descartes second meditation, he gives an example of "seeing" men across a square. What is it that he actually sees with his eyes? How is this different than seeing "a man"? What does this say about the mind (particularly when we investigate objects in the world)?
13 comments:
What he "sees" is his opinion on what he is viewing with his senses. In other words, he is seeing what he THINKS he sees. This is like the superman situation where superman is far away, and you don't know exactly what it is. It could be a bird, or a plane, or a locomotive. The reason he says that he sees what he thinks he sees is that he knows that he can doubt everything. However, he can also take what he sees to be true. Since he knows he can be wrong, he just says that he is seeing what he thinks he sees. This says a lot about a mind, and how it can perceive things. This is different than seeing "a man". What he actually sees is a figure that looks like a man, which is what he thinks he sees! When you investigate objects in the world, you only see what your perspective of it is, using your own knowledge. However, it could be anything to anyone else. You could be false, you could be right, but you would never know because everything can be doubted. Therefore, you see what you THINK you see.
Furthermore, you can doubt everything because of the evil genius. Lets say he really was there, and controlling you and feeding images into you. Then, you REALLY HAVE TO ASSUME that you see what you THINK you see, not the actual TRUTH!
When he "sees" the men crossing the square, what he is actually saying is that he believes that there are men crossing the square. This is related to the "Superman situation", where everyone mistakes Superman to be something else because he is so far. So when he "sees" the men it is far more probable that he is seeing the pencil in his hand than he is seeing the men. This is because that the farther the object is the less likely are the chances that the objects are actually there.
Now about investigating the object. As we learn about objects around us we're actually learning about ourselves and the judgments they have. This is explained in story #2, which we established in class that there was something else involved in the examination other than our mind and the object. Then we stated that this other factor in our investigations was judgment, and the definition for this is the interactions of what we "know", or believe to be true, or to think (true/false) in our mind
To comment on patricks comment on the superman situation, it doesnt make it any less likely that the object is there. :)
To comment on Alex's posts and his opinions on the evil genius, I think that he forgot that Descartes used the evil genius only as a scenario. This was used to subtely change his train of thought, if he was to radically state that no god exist(as a scenario or in real life) he would have been executed. Also I forgot to mention that even though the Evil Genius MAY EXIST he can't control the power of our thinking even though he may deceive if our thoughts would be true or not
Patrick, i think you are forgetting that the scenario applies very well, and how everyone thinks of a higher power. The scenario would work very well in this situation. FURTHERMORE, we could use ANY situation and come up with an answer like this.
You could have any number of solutions! however, we are talking about the EVIL GENIUS solution! this is the one that applies to all of decartes theories! WE EXIST, we know that because if there IS an evil genius then WE must exist. Yeah patrick. yeah.
Very true Alex but the scenario was used to receive a conclusion, but only a temporary solution!!!! From the whole evil genius solution Descartes clearly moves on to his experiment that we can know that our thoughts exist (true/false) and that we are all "thinking things" and this gives him his title of the book, "A mind in the world" the mind is a thinking thing that is amidst an enviorment of objects to investigate
When Descartes metions the example of "seeing" a man across a square he is dissscussing two aspects. One of the aspects is physically seeing the person or physical form of a man with his eyes. The other is the mind interpreting the raw data that the eye precieves, and calling it man. When he is seeing "a man" his mind is understand the form of the man. This means that when the mind sees something it is using the information of the object and the information is collected by our receptors(senses). The data is then judged by our mind, the properties or different aspects are judged by our mind. So our knowledge orginates from judgements of our mind. So when the man is judged by the mind and what the senses percieve, thats when we are truly seeing the object. This says that the mind learns from judgements and these judgements not only help us understand the object, but our own mind and how it works.
Arman
...were you two very bored one day...and i assume your in the library at this time posting back and forth?
and yeah you two covered basically everything
In the example of "seeing" the man, Descartes proves that our senses lead us to "believe", instead of "know". He believed them to be men, but did not know they were men. Our senses should be doubted to a certain degree, as they do not provide facts. In fact, what Descartes "sees" may not even exist. What he does have knowledge of and what does exist, is the concept of "men" in his mind. This can not be disputed. What this tells us is our minds use "judgement" to make determinations. But when we judge an object in the world, we ironically learn more about our minds than anything else. Our mind is better known than any object.
When Descartes gives the example of "seeing" a man across a square, he is "seeing" what he judges to be a man based on its properties and what his senses are telling him. The judgment is caused by the interaction of things in his mind, where he puts certain aspects of what he sees together and comes up with the idea that it might be a man. Therefore, what he's actually seeing with his eyes is a series of properties that allows him to come to the conclusion that what he is seeing is a man. This is different than actually seeing a man because it is impossible for Descartes to know for certain whether or not anything is real, so he cannot assume that what he is seeing is a man. This shows that it is never possible to know that something is what it is believed to be for certain, because there may be something (such as an "evil genius") deceiving you whenever you see something. However, you can assume that something is what you believe it to be based on what past experiences and knowing of its properties.
What he sees is only what his senses tell him and he only persives them to be. So it is like being told something that you think is definite and your mnd will only focus on what that certain description fits. This is also a sort of illusion from how your senses can have you recongize a scent and yo smell it but it turns out as a completely different object. this says a lot bout how the sense percieve a man. What we believe to be a man is simply the form of him and nothing more.However we cannot know for certain if it is a man. We only know it from instinct and prior knowledge. if this is the case han the mind is just a simple recording device that can only absorb "knowledge" like a sponge not knowing whether that may be the truth or a false haven.
Post a Comment