This lecture would focus on the following
topics - we will discuss the Cartesian
philosophy Descartes.
The method of philosophy because Descartes
is so peculiar is one
very important philosopher who introduces
the concern for a method for philosophy, like
mathematics, like sciences.
Particularly as it is there in mathematics
because
mathematical method is a method which enables
one to arrive at absolute certainty then
the concept of doubt that is another very
important aspect of Cartesian philosophy and
then his conception of indubitable knowledge
which is actually working as a guiding
force in this entire philosophy.
So, I have already discussed the passage to
modern philosophy and Descartes is also
known as the father of modern philosophy.
Of course, this status of Descartes has a
very
important thinker is undoubted and unquestioned,
but at the same time we should also
understand that in the contemporary period
there are no much takers for Descartes
methodology approaches and his philosophical
positions, but at the same time is one of
the very important philosophers in the history
of episteme philosophy.
Now, when we talk about modern philosophy
as such before we really try to understand
Cartesian contributions, let us have a very
briefly introduction about the important
concerns of modern philosophy and here we
could see that suddenly there is a focus on
epistemological questions, we could see that
the Greek philosophers by and large were
concerned more about ontology more about metaphysics.
So, you have this philosophers,
the great system builders Plato and Aristotle,
they were all philosophers who are
concerned about metaphysical or dialogical
issues of course, they also had their
epistemology, but the central focus was on
the questions of reality, metaphysics what
is
reality.
Now with modern philosophy the shift is to
knowledge; what is knowledge, so the shift
is to epistemology we could see that by 20th
century there is another shift it is to
language linguistic philosophy.
Now philosophies objective in the modern period
has to be understood very clearly.
It is
always concerned about knowledge, the source
of knowledge, the kinds of knowledge,
the purpose of knowledge the limitations of
knowledge and as I already mentioned none
of the deals with the questions of ultimate
reality.
Philosophy deals with knowledge the
nature kinds limitations and sources of knowledge
and with this very important
phenomena, a cultural phenomena which happens
simultaneously with this is the rise of
modern science as a cultural institution,
the spread of the scientific temperament in
Europe.
So, this is also very peculiar because any
philosophy is situated in a historical context
and modern philosophy is also to understand
modern philosophy we should know the
historical context, the important historical
events that took place during that period.
So,
one of the very important factors is the rise
of modern science as a cultural institution.
When we talk about this development in science
there are several developments in
sciences; various sciences this period has
witnessed.
What happens was the Catholic
Church is now no longer the only source of
authority.
So, gradually scientists have
started understanding the world and they could
able to do that with greater levels of
certainty and success.
So, this is actually resulted in the Catholic
Church losing its control over culture.
Again
scientific rationality raises a strong claim
of authority in culture and human life.
So,
science has this claim to understand the world
scientist could better understand the world
than anyone else.
Then science exposed many dogmas that prevailed
for centuries as
unquestioned again everything needs to be
questioned.
So this is another very important
feature of scientific temperament, nothing
is accepted in its face value; everything
needs
to be questioned and thoroughly interrogated
before we accept it as valid or true.
So, this scientific temperament had its impact
on philosophy as well, philosophers also
rejected the value of what you call the scholastic
period it was revelation authority.
So,
science or scientific rationality has become
the sole authority for all knowledge.
Nothing
can be affirmed as true without critical examination,
so faith has no role in culture or
rather it has very little role in culture
rather reason gains prominence.
So these are some of the peculiar features
of modern philosophy associated with the
developments in science to place during this
period.
Now, when we talk about science the emergence
of modern science is a very important
event in human history and when we talk about
science, there are two important elements
in scientific method.
We have to discuss this because we are also
going to deal with a
question of method, how the question of method
has become important in philosophy
this is what we are going to see.
So, there are two elements of scientific method;
empirical element and the rational
element.
The empirical element deals with sense observation,
there is the question what
is there in front of us.
So several equipments; sophisticated equipment
could be
developed in order to observe the world, both
the microscopes and the telescopes were
discovered to understand the world in a better
way.
So, sense observation is so integral
for scientific method to progress and this
is the most obvious thing that what is there
in
front of us, try to understand it, by seeing
it, by observing it, it is a very obvious
procedure in all knowledge acquisition which
is nothing, but a part of common sense.
So, in that sense science would also claim
to be an extension of our commonsensical
approaches, but of course, it is a very significant
extension commonsense does not
employ any method, but science employs a systematic
method, so it is a systematic
extension of common sense we can say and again
this is to also highlight the inductive
element, observation what is happening evens
one by one has to be observed, so the
inductive element is also affirmed.
Now when we come to the rational element,
it is based completely on reason human
mind has that capacity to know things rationally
and that aspect is highlighted.
No one
would be able to deny this and it supplements
the common sense which we mentioned
earlier.
So, in one sense scientific method demands
a kind of collaboration between these
two elements; the empirical element with the
rational element or in one sense we can say
that the inductive element as well as the
deductive element, the inductive approach
and
the deductive approach.
Based on these two approaches there are two
important schools of modern philosophy
empiricism and rationalism and the two important
schools and the division of these
schools they distinguish each other because
whether the question the division is based
on
the question of the source of knowledge, what
is the source of human knowledge that is
the question.
Empirics would say that it is experience sense
experience is the
fundamental source of knowledge or every knowledge
begins with sense experience,
later on we have a reason plays a very important
role later on that even emprises would
accept, but as far as the starting point of
knowledge is concerned, as far as the
fundamental source of knowledge is concerned;
emprises would claim that it is
experience sense observation.
While on the other hand rationalism would
claim that all knowledge depends on the
innate structures of the mind.
So, in one sense you can see an infuse of
Platonism here.
This lecture is dedicated to understand Descartes
philosophy who is a prominent
rationalist philosopher.
Rationalism is the view that genuine knowledge
consists of
universal and necessary judgments; the goal
of thought is a system of truth in which the
different propositions are logically related
to one another.
So, this aspect is emphasized by all rationalist,
genuine knowledge consists of universal
and necessary judgments and they are inter
connected logically inter connected
propositions and this ultimately points to
a conception of knowledge which is presented
in mathematics.
In mathematics what happens is that we begins
with a set of axioms
which have self-evidence, we never question
them.
These axioms are supposed to be
self-evident and everything else is deducted
from this axioms.
So a similar or the same method is applied
to the domain of knowledge, epistemology by
the rationalist and they claim that is the
ideal model of knowledge and mathematical
conception.
So, they would eventually affirm that, the
origin of knowledge needs to be
surged not in sense perception, but it has
its foundation in reason in human rationality
as
such.
So, reason needs to be understood as a complex
structure, rational structure and
this is located in the human mind that is
the basic assumption.
So, the concept of innate
ideas is derived from this notion.
Certain truths are natural or native innate
to reason and are a priori, so this emphasis
on
the a priori conception of knowledge.
There are certain truths which are natural
to the
mind, natural to the reason, they are native
or innate to the mind is a fundamental
assumption of rationalism where we can see
the shapes of Platonism.
Again, reason and intuition are treated as
sources of genuine knowledge and not
sensation and experience and it considers
all or most ideas are innate rather than
adventitious and then again the goal of enquiry
is certain knowledge and not something
which is merely probable.
So this is where the rationalist should criticize
the empiricist,
in empiricism which emphasizes on sense perception;
what happens is that we
completely rely on our sensations.
So I would say that there is a computer in
front of me,
a black computer in front of me, but then
again where I say a black computer this is
not
absolutely certain knowledge; this depends
on several factors the light in this room
and
various other limitation of my sensory perception
all these are factors that probably play
a very important role in sensations.
So, they think that this cannot be considered
as ultimate, so certain knowledge or
ultimately the goal of enquiries, certain
knowledge and not something which is merely
probable and three philosophers we would be
discussing in these lecture series are Rene
Descartes 1596 to 1650, then it is Spinoza
1632 to 1677, Leibniz; 1646 to 1716, they
are
the most important philosophers.
There are many others, but we would be concentrating
our lecture series would be concentrating
on these three important thinkers.
When you talk about empiricisms, as I already
mentioned the source of knowledge is
sense perception and they deny the possibility
of innate ideas.
There are no propositions
that yield necessary or absolute knowledge,
everything is based on sensation according
to them and the three important philosophers
which we are going to consider in this
lecture series are John Locke; 1632 to 1704,
George Berkeley; 1685 to 1753 and David
Hume; 1711 to 1776.
These two schools rationalism and empiricism
both of them accept reason as a faculty of
the mind through which truths about reality
are known.
So, they both agree that reason is paramount
this is acceptable to both the schools with
regard to the question of the source of knowledge
there is a disagreement and neither
affirmed that all knowledge comes from experience.
So, one should not confuse that
rationalism emphasizes only on reason and
empiricism asserts only the value of sense
experience; no for empiricist also reason
is very important, even they do not say that
all
knowledge come from experience.
They say that it begins the source of knowledge,
there
are some knowledge that does not derive from
experience even the empiricist also accept
it, so during our discussion we will explore
these aspects.
Now, let us straight away come to Rene Descartes,
the celebrated father of modern
philosophy, one of the most important philosophers
probably the most important
philosopher after Aristotle in the western
world according to many many thinkers.
The
question for Descartes is the following, how
to attain philosophical truth by the use of
reason.
So, the paramount drawl reason place is asserted
taken for granted.
So, his question is how to attain philosophical
truth by the use of reason and then how do
I get clear and distinct knowledge.
According to him genuine knowledge should
be clear
and distinct, so how is it possible?
Now, when we consider the broader objectives
of Cartesian philosophy, he would rather
look for developing a system of true propositions
in which nothing is presupposed which
was not self-evident and indubitable.
There should not be any presuppositions, the
beginning of knowledge; the starting point
of knowledge should be self-evident and
indubitable, it should be absolutely certain,
so absolute certainty is the catch word.
So,
knowledge should be absolutely certain, it
should not presuppose what was not selfevident
and indubitable.
Now again this points to system with very
solid foundations, your starting point of
knowledge should be absolutely indubitable
which means that they are very strong
foundations and in that sense it is absolutely
completely free from scepticism.
Now again
to find for philosophy, the certainty of a
mathematical proof, sometime back I mentioned
about this that the kind of a certainty which
we find in mathematics is not found
anywhere else.
Mathematics is the absolutely certain because
there are two important reasons for that;
one reason is that it does not depend on what
is the fact in the world because the factual
world is contingent.
Since it is not depend on it does not bother
about the facts in the
world, it is free from all contingencies,
it is absolute it deals with absolute certainty
and
also it employs deductive method where it
begins with a set of self-evident axioms and
deduct everything from that.
So, to find philosophy the certainty as mathematical
proof is
one of the major objectives and again to build
a system of philosophy based upon
intuition and deduction which would remain
as certain and as imperishable as geometry.
So you can see repeatedly he refers to mathematics
and geometry, these are sciences
which do not depend on factual reality, they
deal with intuition, they deal with ideas
which are the result of intuition, so in that
sense they are absolutely certain.
Very
comprehensive notion of philosophy that includes
metaphysics, natural sciences,
mechanics and morals, to some extent it is
a very pre modern approach to have a
conception of knowledge that includes everything
and notion of knowledge that talks
about everything in this world.
So, Descartes also advocates a similar conception
of knowledge which is an allencompassing notion
like many of his predecessors, but we can
see that you know while
recognizing that there is knowledge should
be all encompassing, it should be absolutely
comprehensive at the same time he recognizes
the different aspects of knowledge.
So, I will come to that with the help of a
figure, but before that will enumerate some
of
the important points.
Number one it is clear and distinct the foundational
belief the belief
or the knowledge from where we can start all
our other enquiries should be clear and
distinct, it is self-evident to reason, it
is impossible to doubt it, something which
is
impossible to be doubt it.
See for example, when I say that the color
of this computer is
black; this can be legitimately doubted by
another person probably either my eyes or
his
eyes, we do not know might be defective.
So, this knowledge is based on several other
factors again the light in this room is
another important factor.
So, it depends on several other factors, but
the foundational
knowledge which Descartes talks about should
not be based on or depended on other
factors, it should be absolutely independent
and it would be impossible to doubt it.
Number two its certainty must be ultimate
and not dependent upon the certainty of any
other belief.
This is what I said; it should be absolutely
independent and number three it
must be about something which exists hence
it is possible to deduce from its belief about
the existence of other thing.
It should be the existence of something and
once you have
that something that exists then from that
you can deduct everything else.
Apply the
mathematical deduction, the method of mathematical
deduction and deduct everything
else.
So, in this way you can build up a system
of knowledge which is absolutely certain
foundation or the beginning should be absolutely
certain and it should employ the
method of mathematical deduction so that you
will get a system; as system of knowledge
which is absolutely certain.
Now the question is how to arrive at foundational
beliefs here Descartes employs what is
known as a method of doubt.
Modernity challenges old beliefs, systems
and methods of
knowledge; whatever is available to us all
that is given by the tradition, by our
predecessors; all our predecessors believe
to be true and valid are questioned by modern
philosophers.
Doubt everything in order to arrive at absolute
certainty that is another
slogan of modernity as far as Descartes is
concerned.
You should employ this doubt, you
should not trust anything, you should not
believe anything blindly; doubt everything
that
can be doubted.
Finally you might reach a point where it is
not possible to doubt and that point is
probably your ultimate starting point.
Again this application of this method is known
as
methodical or methodological scepticism, the
use of doubt methodically in order to
arrive at true knowledge which is beyond doubt,
so employment of doubt in order to
reach a point which is indubitable, to reach
a point which is beyond; all doubts.
Now let us have a look at this figure, here
is a tree and this tree is known as the tree
of
wisdom.
So this is where, what I said is presenting
a very comprehensive conception of
knowledge here the roots are metaphysics.
So metaphysics according to him is a roots,
from it is from the roots you get the nourishment,
a tree derives its nourishment from the
roots and it is the roots which situates the
tree firmly on the ground, so in that sense
they
are the foundations.
Now comes the trunk; the trunk is constituted
of physics; physical sciences or physics
and the tree of knowledge will have three
important branches.
Branch one is medicine,
branch two is mechanics and branch three is
morals.
So, everything else all human other
human concerns fall under one of these three;
this is Cartesian conception of wisdom, of
human knowledge systems.
Now science reason and wisdom, so we have
seen these terms, we began this lecture by
pointing out the importance of science.
Science gaining importance in human culture,
human society then simultaneously the notion
of reason also being prominent and then
naturally the conception of wisdom, all the
sciences taken together are identical with
human wisdom which always remains one and
the same.
I have just mentioned a very
peculiar Cartesian conception of human knowledge,
as I mentioned he has a very
comprehensive notion all-encompassing conception.
So, he says that all the sciences taken together
are identical with the human wisdom
which always remains one and the same and
then there is only one kind of knowledge
certain and evident knowledge absolutely certain
and self-evident kind of knowledge,
other pieces of information are mere opinions.
I can have opinion about many things, I
can say that this room is warm, but that could
be my opinion another person who is
sitting in this room might feel that it is
not warm.
There is only then ultimately there is only
one science though it possesses interconnected
branches.
So, this is what I have shown with the help
of that figure, so basically only one
science and there are different branches to
this science.
This is typical of early
modernity’s conception of knowledge which
later on exchanged; once we discuss a
manual can we can see that you know one of
the major concerns in ancient philosophy is
the segmentation of human society or segmentation
of knowledge.
Now, let us see some of the basic assumptions
about human rationality or reason this is
from Descartes book very famous celebrated
book discourse on method he says that
reason is the most evenly distributed thing
in the world.
Good sense or reason is the
ability to judge and distinguish true from
the false.
So, it is a very peculiar and unique
and universally present human ability, it
is there in all human beings and it is very
unique
because it enables human beings to distinguish
between what is true and what is false.
It
is equally distributed this is another very
interesting observation of Descartes; we cannot
say that some people are more rational and
some people are less rational.
Probably some
people fail to employ the rationality in the
sense some others could do that; that is only
a
failure which depends on certain condition,
once those conditions are either met removed
everyone should be able to employ that reason
this is fundamental Cartesian assumption.
See modernity is very progressive in that
sense, it identifies a universal feature or
a
universal faculty that determines the very
fact that we are humans and it recognizes
the
presence of this faculty in all human beings,
irrespective of whether you are a European
or an American or an African or an Asian.
It is the only thing that makes us human and
differentiate; us from animals and again hence
it is entirely present in each of us.
Then now we will raise the question of method
because we have been discussing about
we have been mentioning about this whole notion
of method from the beginning.
So, reason is the means to acquire a clear
and certain knowledge of all that is useful
in
life.
So, I have mentioned in the previous slide
that it is the ability to judge and
distinguish the true from the false.
Now what I am saying is, it is the means to
acquire a
clear and certain knowledge of all that is
useful in life.
So, I would remind you about
first or second slide in which I have shown
Descartes objectives.
Descartes says that how
to get clear and distinct knowledge about
everything, that is one of his primary concerns
and here he says that reason enables us to
do that; that is one reason why the one reason
for the superiority of reason our common sense
and other things is that reason employs a
method, a definite method which everyone can
follow which can be universally
followed.
Where to search for a method that is the question
and here these are very
important questions in modern philosophy.
Philosophy consists of an organically connected
system of scientifically established
truth, this we have already seen.
If that is a case then we have to deal with
absolutely
certain and clear knowledge, truths are ordered
where the mind passes from fundamental
self-evident truths to other evident truths
implied by the former.
Since we are dealing
with the question of method, what should be
the method, the method aims at arriving at
absolute certainty which we have already seen
and explain what it is.
Now how is it done with the employment of
a method, what is this method, how does it
proceed?
It says that truths are ordered where the
mind passes from fundamental selfevident truths
to other evident truths implied by the former.
So, what you basically do is
you deduct you have a self-evident starting
point, from there you deduct the second
another proposition.
Since the first one is absolutely self-evident
and the second one is a
derivative from the first, the second one
is also bound to be absolutely self-evident
and
from there another one, in this way you develop
a whole system of knowledge, the whole
system of science which is self-evident and
absolutely certain.
Such truths are present in mathematics, so
mathematics in that sense is an ideal science
for Descartes as well.
Now what is the method of mathematics, I am
already mentioned since there is only one
science method must be common.
Hence there can be only one scientific method,
since
the method which is applicable in mathematics
is the most rewarding method, it must be
the method of all sciences this is the fundamental
contention of Descartes and the
deductive method.
Now, what is so peculiar to the Cartesian
approach; Descartes says that what he does
is
he broke with the past we have seen, the past
as to be doubted it is given to us, but I
am
not taking it as such.
So, there is a break with the past and start
again from the beginning
without trusting the authority of any previous
philosophy.
So, modern philosophy
envisages a new beginning with record, opposed
to the Greeks and the Aristotelians,
distanced from the scholastics these are all
predecessors previous thinkers and there is
a
disbelief in past philosophers attached little
to book learning in general because basically
if you read and try to understand the philosophical
positions of other philosophers, you
are a bookworm, you are basically focusing
on book learning.
But Descartes says that I am going to discard
all the books, I am going to learn it directly
from nature, how do I do that by employing
a faculty which I have, by virtue of being
a
human being, I possess this faculty; the faculty
of reason.
By the employment of this
faculty I am going to encounter the nature
directly, reality directly and try to understand
it.
When you talk about the conception of absolutely
certain knowledge, what is your major
obstacle because we are been talking about
this absolutely certain knowledge and we
have mention that such knowledge is possible
only when you have, when you apply a
method, but what is that knowledge and when
you talk about it there is definitely we
encounter an obstacle by scepticism.
There is no certainty in what we construe
as
knowledge skeptics would doubt everything
I mean they would you say that I am sitting
and speaking they would say that what is the
certainty that you sit here and speak you
might be dreaming, you might be sleeping and
dreaming that you are engaging a lecture
you are here sitting in front of your computer
and the camera.
All this could be a dream I could be sleeping
and dreaming.
So, scepticism is a valid
philosophic it appears to be a valid philosophical
position which cannot be defeated.
Most of our knowledge is based on uncertain,
assumptions, customs and conventions,
this is another factor we depend a lot on
them we are quite unreflective about the very
important roles these assumptions customs
and conventions play in our life and there
are
no strong foundations hence to systematically
doubt all that could possibly be doubted,
this is what a method and approach which Descartes
finally, adopts that I should
systematically doubt all that could possibly
be doubted.
This would take us to certain
knowledge, so at the end of it when you doubt
everything finally, you reach a point
where something is left which you cannot doubt
that is the absolutely certain knowledge.
So this conception of absolute knowledge,
certain knowledge this conception would be
incomplete if we do not explain or if you
have no clue how to arrive it.
So, the method of
doubt is employed for that.
So, the methodological scepticism the way
in which it is
being designated is employed in order to arrive
at this absolutely certain knowledge.
Let us see the Cartesian path; what the Descartes
does is not to believe too firmly in
anything to which I had been persuaded only
by example and custom.
So, that is the first
thing not to believe in anything which I have
been persuaded only by example or custom
your reason has to be convinced that something
is true.
So, Descartes says thus I freed myself little
by little from many errors which can dim our
natural light and even make us less able to
listen to reason.
There he compares reason
with natural light and all these factors customs,
traditions, examples all what we have
gained from our predecessors everything are
factors that will dim this natural light.
So,
he highlights importance of this natural light
its employment and how to make it possible
that is a real concern.
Again he says, but after I had spent several
years thus studying the book of the world
and
trying to get some experience, I one day resolved
to study my own self and to use all the
powers of my mind to choose the path I should
follow which was much more successful
it seems to me than if I had never left my
country or my books.
So, he has decided to
turn his attention to himself because that
is the most certain thing in one sense, to
turn
your attention towards one yourself rather
than looking around you.
So, these are the four percepts to be followed
in Cartesian method, I will read out them
this is the gist of Cartesian methodology
or Cartesian approach to knowledge, how does
he arrive at it.
Number one, never accept anything as true
which we could not accept as;
obviously, true which means it should be self-evident,
it should be indubitable absolutely
beyond doubt to carefully avoid impulsiveness
and prejudice.
So, we have an impulse to
believe in certain things see for example,
when I say that there are 5 tube lights in
this
room and this is a statement which depends
on the sense observation and I have a
impulse to believe in this sense of observation,
but Descartes reminds us that it could be
false, it could not be true because you might
be even dreaming that possibility cannot be
avoided.
So, anything any information that comes through
sensations can be generally doubted.
So, and avoid impulsiveness and prejudice
and to include nothing in our conclusions,
but
whatever was so clearly presented to our mind;
what we could have no reason to doubt it.
So, something is treated as valid knowledge
only if it is indubitable, only if reason
does
not have any or rather reason could not doubt
it.
Number two, divide each of the problems we
examine in as many parts as we could as
many as should be necessary to solve them.
So, this is again the method of analysis,
you
have a complex problem you divide it into
different simple problems and try to solve
it.
Number three; develop thoughts in order beginning
with the simplest and easiest to
understand matters in order to reach by degrees
little by little to the most complex
knowledge assuming and orderliness among them
which did not at all naturally seem to
follow one from the other.
So, here the method suggest that one has to
go from one after the other take the easiest
and the simplest as your beginning, as your
starting point and then from there gradually
move on to the next which would equally easiest
and obvious now since the first one is
understood, it is easier for as to understand
the second one, third one, fourth one and
then
like that you develop a whole system of knowledge
with the application of mathematical
method.
Fourth one make enumeration so complete and
reviews so general that we could be
assured that we had not omitted anything.
So, these four percepts would in one sense
summarize Descartes conception of the employment
of reason, it also suggest how a
methodology should actually, work actually
be employed.
These are the meditations which Descartes
has written, meditation I deals with the things
of which we may doubt, meditation II of the
nature if the human mind and that it is more
easily known than the body, meditation III
deals with God that he exists, meditation
IV
concerning the true and the false, meditation
V concerning the essence of material things
and again concerning God that he exists, meditation
VI concerning the existence of
material things and the real distinction between
mind and body.
So, we will start with meditation one to understand
these two stages and the scepticism
in regard to the senses and the refutation
of radical scepticism.
We have already
discussed this; the first aspect that you
should doubt everything that can be doubted.
Scepticism or doubt is being employed as a
method and the second aspect is the second
stage is you reach a stage where this radical
scepticism itself is overcome.
So, doubt is employed in order to arrive at
something which is indubitable, doubt
everything that can be doubted in order to
reach the indubitable that is the proposition
and again this indubitable point is the starting
point of all knowledge that is the
foundation of all knowledge.
So, here I quote Descartes I was convinced
of the necessity of undertaking once in my
life to rid myself of all the opinions I had
adopted and of commencing anew the work of
building from the foundation, if I desired
to establish a firm and abiding superstructure
in
the sciences.
So, this is the precondition and we can see
that in that sense Descartes
represents reflects the very spirit of modernity
not to accept anything that is given, there
is a fundamental scepticism towards authority
and the assertion and affirmation of the
power of reason human rationality.
When you talk about scepticism, can I doubt
the fact that I am in this place.
See I have
already mentioned this that can I doubt the
fact that I am sitting in front of this camera,
delivering a lecture.
Similarly Descartes says that I am sitting
in this place seated by the
fire clothed in a winter dressing gown that
I hold in my hands the piece of paper with
other intimations of the same nature.
I may be in a state of insanity with disordered
brain
it could be possible, I could be a schizophrenic
a schizophrenic could see things which
are not there actually.
So, what is the guarantee that I am not a
brain in a vat or a
schizophrenic, I may be dreaming I could be
deceived in my sleep by illusions.
So, all these are possibilities that would
strengthen a case for scepticism, again another
possible it is that God may cause me to make
mistake or an evil demon may be
misleading me; that is all possible there
is a super power that controls all my thinking
all
my activities and that super power might be
controlling me might be deceiving me.
There could be a God or a demon that is deceiving
me, may be all the things which I see
are false and fictitious these objects I perceive
may not exist, I suppose that I possess no
senses.
Body, figure, extension, motion and place
are merely fictions of my mind;
everything can be doubted.
If a schizophrenic can see things which are
actually not seen
by others; who is right here?
Can you deny the schizophrenic, a reality
which is there in
front of him which he experiences, he experiences
it.
So, one can seriously doubt, if one can seriously
doubt that one can seriously doubt any
piece of information one derives from observation.
So body, figure, extension everything can
be doubted and the process of doubt, beliefs
of
sense perceptions, beliefs in material things
or the belief that a physical world exists
as
they are based upon sense perception.
So, you can genuinely doubt the existence
of a
physical world outside your, what you see
in front of you.
Beliefs from the natural sciences belief based
upon sense all these beliefs natural
sciences also talks about lot of things, but
all those things are based upon sense
perception.
Beliefs in mathematics, the domain of certainties
even here I can doubt
whether I am being deceived by an evil demon,
is it possible that I am always deceived.
So that is the terrible confusion, a skeptic
could have that everything can be doubted
anything can be doubted there is nothing that
one can, not doubt.
Here this cannot go on like this, so Descartes
comes with a solution to the problem in
order to counter scepticism he says that I
cannot doubt my existence because I doubt
say
I can doubt everything in front of me, but
there is one thing which I cannot doubt is
the
fact that I am doubting since the fact that
I am doubting, I should exists.
So, that is the Cartesian approach every time
I doubt, I must exist to doubt even if a
being with the highest power and the deepest
cunning may be constantly employing all
his ingenuity in deceiving me, I must exist
since I am deceived, in order to be deceived
I
must exist it.
The fact that I am in doubt cannot be doubted,
I therefore, exist because I
think this is the famous celebrated cogito
ergo sum, I think therefore, I exists; I think
therefore, I am cogito ergo sum the fact that
I am doubting and doubting is a form of
thinking and thinking implies a thinker or
a thinking thing and that thinking thing should
exists I am that thinking thing since I am
doubting.
So, I exists as a thinking thing, the absolutely
certain self-evident and indubitable first
principle in Cartesian philosophy.
The only necessary truth is I think cogito
ergo sum, I
think therefore, I think, I am, I exist are
necessarily true each time it is expressed
by me
or conceived in my mind.
I am and I exist are certain as often as I
think, if I cease to
think then I should at the same time cease
to be.
So, this is the discovery of the cogito is
the zenith is the conclusioning part of scepticism,
the cogito is the self-evident object that
exist self-evident to reason and is in bit
indubitable one cannot escape the cogito by
doubting it, every time I doubt, I affirm
its
existence.
So, the existence of the mind, existence of
the thinking substance is being
arrived at asserted indubitably and for Descartes
that is the starting point which is
indubitable, it independent of any more ultimate
truth.
It is not inferred from the more
ultimate truth all who think exist, it refers
to the existing world the cogito refers to
me
who exist as a thinking thing.
Now, the questions are what is this I, what
am I, I know that I exist because I think
hence
I am only a thinking thing that is a mind.
It is the thing that doubts imagines understands
affirms denies conceives perceives wills refuses
etcetera.
So, Descartes methodology has
actually began with question of doubt or rather
I would put it in this way to summarize,
the first point is he has a very peculiar
conception of knowledge; knowledge should
be
absolutely universal absolutely certain, it
should be indubitable and he has a very
comprehensive conception of knowledge, a very
comprehensive conception of science
where it includes everything, all aspects
of knowledge is included under one umbrella
which is called science and this knowledge
should be absolutely certain, it is a system
of
absolutely certain knowledge.
But the question is how do you arrive at this
system, you arrive at this system by starting
with a self-evident, absolutely self-evident
indubitable point of knowledge.
Once you
have that indubitable point of knowledge,
you can deduct, you can apply mathematical
deduction and deduce the remaining propositions
and finally, arrive at a complex system
of propositions which we today understand
as knowledge.
Now, how do you do that for that Descartes
employs a method I am just summarizing
that employs a method, the method of doubt
which is a methodological or methodical
scepticism where you doubt everything that
can be doubted.
So, in this process basically
Descartes doubt everything fundamental scepticism
with regard to the abilities and
powers of your senses this is what Descartes
does and in this process he arrives at a point
which is indubitable that is the fact that
I am doubting and since I doubt and since
doubt
it to doubt is to think and to think implies
a thinker I must exist as a thinking thing
cogito
ergo sum I think therefore, I am.
So, this is where we stop today this lecture
will stop here and will continue with the
next
topic in the coming lectures.
Now, the important questions to be addressed
are as a domain of reality we know that
you know these philosophers always consider
that the domain of reality includes three
things God, mind and body.
Now we have talked about the mind, the cogito
the existence
of the mind is indubitably proved.
Now the second one, now the question is your
mind is
there, but if you have so far proved only
the existence of your mind, but this entire
reality
in front of you could be a mere creation of
your mind.
So, this leads to a kind of
solipsism; me and my mind alone exist.
So, how to counter this and how to establish
the
fact that a world, an external world of objects
of nature exist, these are the next questions
which we will take up in the next lecture
till then.
Thank you.
