YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Descartes Meditation IV: Of the True and the False

Descartes Meditation IV: Of the True and the False
hello and welcome to philosophy vibe the channel where we discuss and debate different philosophical ideas today we're going to be carrying on with bake-offs

meditation

s on First Philosophy and looking into the fourth

meditation

entitled of the

true

and the force fantastic so then just to recap by the end of

meditation

three

descartes

has now concluded that he exists and is a thinking thing and also that God exists correct but now they caught Ponder's a very interesting point if my life
descartes meditation iv of the true and the false
my thoughts my consciousness and everything else in me has come from God then why am i subject to errors and so here lies the problem we all are of course subject to errors and

false

hoods if their class has concluded that God does exist and the concepts of God being a perfect being why then do we experience such errors if God is perfectly good why has he created us so that we should be immersed with such problems with so many forces this is the question that's asked indeed this is a very
good question so how does they can't look to answer this well they can't begins thinking about us as thinking beings and realizes that our existence is in fact in the middle of two extremes what do you mean well dicot agrees that God exists so God being the most perfect being ever possible would sit on one end of the spectrum then on the other end would be the polar opposite and what is the polar opposite of perfection well that would be nothingness complete non-existence I say so we sit
in the middle we know we exist so therefore we are not nothing but we also know we are not complete perfection we are not on one side of the spectrum nor on the other we sit in the middle so what does this mean this means we are limited beings we are finite and with this calms existence but also comes our limitations and the necessity of committing errors and following

false

hoods these become privations it is the nothingness we experience because of the lack of perfection okay I understand but I
still do not feel satisfied in this as human beings we make a lot of errors we believe a lot of

false

hoods then he comes home

meditation

so far has been to doubt every bit of knowledge we have ever attained by the senses this seems like an immense amount of error force her to be thrown into why would such a perfect God have created life this way surely God could have created a reality with less error on

false

hood if we are in the middle of the spectrum between perfection and nothingness why
can't we move slightly closer to perfection without necessarily reaching it fully then I can't explains there for you to question this means you were trying to understand the creation of a perfect being you will not and cannot ever fully understand this we are limited beings we are finite beings we cannot fully comprehend the mind of an infinitely perfect being if you could see things through the eyes of a perfect being then maybe you would fully understand and it would make sense but
you cannot hmm also they caught argues that in the grand scheme of things the errors we make could in fact equal to total perfection if we look at the totality of things our errors might be necessary for the perfect bigger picture consider the mechanics of a car you may pick apart a certain nuts or bolt on its own this may seem like a useless object and there are many things that cannot do and cannot function weathers however in the totality of the car there's specific nuts with all its
descartes meditation iv of the true and the false
flaws functions perfectly for what it is meant to do so in the totality of reality our errors may be necessary for a perfect reality yes I understand what you're saying but there is still a problem here I appreciate we are limited beings but why must the limitations lead to errors and faucets there are things we do not know what things we cannot do but how are they responsible for all the errors we make as people surely a limitation cannot be responsible for an error very good point and

Descartes

does indeed address this so we agree we are limited beings they caught us noticed two gifts that have been given to us by God our understanding and our free will our understanding is that of our knowledge what we know about the world and our capacity to learn our free will is the ability to act upon our desires to move or not to move to affirm or to deny yes they can't notices that our understanding is in fact limited as finite beings there is limitations on how much we understand
on how much we know this is evident no person knows everything and it seems reasonable to say no person can ever know everything I agree however they can't notices our freewill is not limited in the same way our freewill is in fact infinite it is not limited at all so we may be restricted in our memory or knowledge or understanding but we can always make our choices we can always say yes or no act or not act etc etc interesting sodenkal concludes that we experience errors or follow

false

hoods because our will exceeds our understanding we act on limited knowledge and when we do this we are prone to committing errors consider the person lost in the forest and comes across two paths one will lead home and the other will lead to a deep dark dangerous area of the forest they are lost their understanding is limited but they need to choose their will is not limited they choose a path they choose the wrong path then gets eaten by wolves they made an error they followed a

false

hood
and it was fatal there makes sense so

Descartes

advice was to focus on the importance of indifference he warned us that we should only act upon our will when we are absolutely certain about our understanding when something is logically certain and here is where he goes back to the concept of clear and distinct ideas however if we feel indifferent about something if we are not sure if it's

true

or

false

either way if there is no logical certainty then we must withhold judgment we must
restrain our will from affirming or denying thing if we do not possess sufficient understanding our choices are prone to error logical certainty should be our guide to truth I think that is a fascinating observation however there is an issue I have with this idea why does they call claim that our will is not restricted by any limits but our understanding or intellect is I would in fact argue that both of these faculties have an equally broad scope it seems more likely that the intellect is at
descartes meditation iv of the true and the false
least as wide as that of the will can our will ever aim at anything that's our intellect is unaware of I don't think so it is only because we understand that we are able to act and make choices if we did not understand something if our intellect was more limited than our will then we would not be in a position to make a judgment I am sorry but this is incorrect if our understanding is more limited than our will we shouldn't make a judgment but it is absolutely the case that we can
make a judgment and we do and that is what leads to errors they cut asks us to consider a poisoned apple you judge that this Apple is nutritious you understand its smell and its color and so on are pleasant but this doesn't mean that you understand that it will be beneficial to eat you judge that it will because you do not understand that it is poisoned with any given object we may have many desires but very little knowledge and I see what you mean there are however still more problems with
the fourth

meditation

like what let's go back to

Descartes

idea that we as thinking beings fall somewhere in the middle of perfection and nothingness if we exist as limited beings we therefore have no concept of perfection or of nothingness how can we attempt to define our existence as falling in the middle with two concepts we cannot even fathom they cause theory is built upon these two ideas and we do not even know or understand what they are now hold on there is a difference between
understanding and idea and experiencing it I would agree as thinking limited beings we cannot experience perfection or nothingness but I think as concepts we can understand them we know loose what we're talking about we may not know the full extent but there is some idea there is there well yes how do these very words exist how are we having this conversation if we have no understanding at all of profession or nothingness we wouldn't be able to attach words to the idea or even discuss
the idea as concepts they would just never arise in our dialogue or thoughts but they have which points to the fact that there is some limited understanding of these ideas I see okay and other points I was not happy with you mentioned that as limited beings we cannot fully understand the mind of a perfect God this seems like running away from the issue you do not need to be a perfect being to understand that errors and

false

hoods are not desirable yes but as I said we know the limited
understanding and in the grand scheme of things the errors we make could in fact equal to perfection we need to consider the totality this is not satisfactory we are talking about a perfect God his creation should be perfect through and through how can something contain imperfect parts but run perfectly as a whole this does not make sense Pierre Gassendi raised this argument he asked would in the universe be more perfect than it is now if all his parts were more perfect than they are now
consider this a republic whose citizens are all good would be more perfect than one in which most or some of them are bad again I would have to disagree here I think it's possible to have individual imperfect parts that constitutes a perfect whole as the saying goes you were not seeing the forest for the trees you may look up closer to tree and think it looks ugly but then take a high up look at the forest as a whole and it may look beautiful hmm they called disagreed with Cassandra's
example of the citizen but rather he said a more appropriate example would be that of the eyes as imagine someone finds the eyes the most beautiful part of the body they call claims someone who thinks that there shouldn't have been any creature in the world who were liable to error can be compared with someone who wanted the whole of the human body to be covered with eyes so as to look more beautiful of course it was not more beautiful it would probably look hideous the eyes are beautiful as
a component of the hole and the hole is beautiful because of all its components even if each component is not as equally beautiful good example but I'm still not convinced a world with either less or no error would be better than our current world and we cannot have a perfect bigger picture with the existence of smaller errors well that's all the time we have for now thank you for watching we hope you enjoyed the vibe the next video will be on dicots fifth

meditation

so make sure you
tune in for that don't forget to Like share and subscribe and we look forward to seeing you all soon bye-bye