Renaissance → Modern Period (modernity)

 2 Characteristics of Modernity
o Anthropocentric (man to man, man to himself)  BEFORE
 Who am I? How do I know? How do I gain knowledge?
o Epistemicentric (man to self-knowledge) NOW
 What do I know? What can we know?
 We can only determine self by determining knowledge
 In order to know self, we have to know what we can.

Practices or Disciplines of the Modern Period

1. Rationalists
 Knowledge is gained through reasoning
 Carry the torch of philosophy
 Provide a clear foundation that cannot be doubted
 Based on Mathematics and Logic because it is certain
 Universal
 System with rational principles
 Rational principles are clear and is able to ground knowledge
 A priori (learn something without experience)
2. Empiricists 
 Knowledge is gained through the sense - experience
 Aposterism - experience

RATIONALISTS
 Three Assumptions
o Man has innate ideas (mathematical and logical principles) (Ideas that are already embedded in our minds).
o Those ideas determine physical events (everything in this world can be reduced to numbers) (calculate events).
o These ideas we think do in fact exist outside the mind. (We make sense of the world because of these ideas)(how the world actually works).

 Rene Descartes
o Philosophies are complicated as these are things we want to solve.
o Truth is always based to the function of reason
o He broke away the previous philosophies to provide a new foundation.
o There is a problem of intellectual capacity or intellectual certainty → there are flaws to arrive at something certain → Foundationalism 
o Everything he has heard and believe has flaws
 Foundationalism 
 All knowledge is based on principles that no longer need further foundation.
 On mathematical principles, at the very lowest level of knowledge.
 Meditations 1 and 2
 Philosophical diary where he wrote his thoughts in a personal manner.
 Symbolic writing of his recollection of Plato ← similar ← philosophy
 Method of Doubt 
 Doubt knowledge like a bulldozer analogy
 Demolishes epistemic grounds of knowledge
 Descartes use this method to find the ground for knowledge which can be the basis for everything

 Method of Doubt
o Skeptic
 The ancient had this quote, “We can never be certain at anything”. Rene said that by saying this, we are certain that we can never
be certain at anything. This is why we have to doubt everything we know of.
 Discover new insights → Clear, indubitable, undoubtable
 He is skeptic because he is a foundationalist
o Two Classifications
1. Universal - Descartes doubts everything to start somewhere.
2. Hyperbolic - Question things to the point our questions are ridiculous because he wants to further and further prove his points
and ideas. 

 Meditation 1
o Focuses on the body
o He admits defeat and he admits that he cannot answer these questions (here)
o Things that can be doubted: senses, clarity & obviousness, logic and math
o “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful”
 “I was convinced that I must once for all seriously undertake to rid myself of all the opinions which I had formerly accepted, and
commence to build anew from the foundation, if I wanted to establish any firm and permanent structure in the sciences.”
 Foundationalism = to find a concept that no longer requires further foundation
 “...if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole.”
 EXPLANATION: He was an OC, perfectionist. No matter how small the dent, this must be corrected. He’s always finding flaws

 “”...the destruction of the foundations of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest of the edifice.”
 EXPLANATION: He wanted to attack the foundation so that everything else will crumble and fall instead of attacking the
concepts and principles one by one. Systems are enclosed, complete, and absolute but Rene sees flaws. He finds flaws and asks
why these flaws were there in the first place so there must be something wrong with the foundation. 

o Argument from Perception

 “All that...I have learned either from the senses or through the senses… sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive,
and it is wiser not to trust entirely to any thing by which we have once been deceived.”
 EXPLANATION: Senses deceive us and so we reject is as a whole as it is fraud and doubtful. It cannot question mathematical
and logical ideas. If the senses have already deceived us, we have the justification not to trust it again. Why should we trust and
give the senses a second chance if it is flawed.
  “However, “how could [one] deny that these hands and this body are mine, were it not perhaps that I compare myself to certain
persons, devoid of sense…”
 EXPLANATION: How can we deny that we see it so clearly. Usually senses are so obvious and clear to not deny it. 

o Descartes Retorts to Himself

 “At the same time I must remember that I am a man, and that consequently I am in the habit of sleeping, and in my dreams
representing to myself the same things or sometimes even less probable things, than do those who are insane in their waking
moments.”
 EXPLANATION: Perhaps, clearness in reality is nothing but a dream. Obviousness and clarity of sensation cannot be
distinguished if it is a reality or a dream.

o Argument from Dreaming

 “I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep.”
 “At the same time we must at least confess that the things which are represented to us in sleep are like painted representations
which can only have been formed as the counterparts of something real and true, and that in this way those general things at least,
i.e., eyes, a head, hands, and a whole body, are not imaginary things, but things really existent.”
 Perhaps this clearness and obviousness is just a dream
 EXPLANATION: All sciences are dubious and uncertain. Science is uncertain compared to math. We can be sure of numbers.

 “That  is possibly why our reasoning is not unjust when we conclude from this that Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, and all the
other sciences which have as their end the consideration of composite things, are very dubious and uncertain; but that Arithmetic,
Geometry, and other  sciences of that kind which only treat of things that are very simple and very general… Contain some
measure of certainty and an element of the indubitable.”
 EXPLANATION: Method is senses and experiences and this is deceptive. Compared to sciences, math is universal and certain.
There are still general and universal ideas even when we are awake or asleep

o Evil Genius Argument

 “Nevertheless I have long had fixed my mind the belief that an all-powerful God existed by whom I have been created such as I
am. But how do I know that He has not brought it to pass that there is [nothing at all].. How do I know that I am not deceived
every time that I add two and three?”
 EXPLANATION: Math is stimulated in our brains to think like that as they are certain. How do we know they are inputted on
us? How do you know God is not deceiving you? What if these concepts are reprogrammed inside our heads by someone else?

 “But possibly God has not desired that I should be thus deceived, for He is said to be supremely good. If, however, it is contrary
to His goodness to have made me such that I constantly deceive myself, it would also appear to be contrary to His goodness to
permit me to be sometimes deceived, and nevertheless, I cannot doubt that He does permit this.”
 EXPLANATION: It would be contrary to God’s goodness if He always deceives us.

 “I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than
deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me.”
 EXPLANATION: He believes in God. It cannot be God but an evil genius. It will be contradictory in nature of being God. How
can you be certain of reality when you wake up? If we know that an evil genius is controlling then, we know we are dreaming.

 “And just as a captive who in sleep enjoys an imaginary liberty, when he begins to suspect that his liberty is but a dream, fears to
awaken, and conspires with these agreeable illusions that the deception may be prolonged, so insensibly of my own accord I fall
back into my former opinions, and I dread awakening from this slumber, lest the laborious wakefulness which would follow the
tranquility of this repose should have to be spent not in daylight, but in the excessive darkness of the difficulties which have just
been discussed.”
 EXPLANATION: He could not answer.

 Meditation 2
o The meditation that is able to answer his questions
o Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind: That It is Better Known Than the Body
 “I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false; I persuade myself that nothing has ever existed of all that my fallacious
memory represents to me. I consider that I possess no senses; I imagine that body, figure, extension, movement and place are but
fictions of my mind.”
 EXPLANATION: It looks into the mind. All that we knew are now fictions. 

 “What, then, can be esteemed as true? Perhaps nothing at all, unless that there is nothing in the world that is certain.”
 EXPLANATION: There is nothing certain in the world but this is the only certain thing in the world.

 “Is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, who puts these reflections into my mind? That is not
necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself? I myself, am I not at least something? But I have
already denied that I had senses and body.”
 EXPLANATION: It is not necessary it is God but I am thinking of myself. A Person thinks on the basis of what he knows. We
determine the world depending on what we think. The world should be → I exist because the world exists → The world exists
because I exist.
 Since Descartes is a rationalist, which means that he is of the position that our access to the world and the things in
the world is through our innate ideas in our mind, then for him the world is according to what *one thinks* the world
is.
 Thus, we cannot have any direct or immediate perception of the world, for we can only perceive things if we
understand that we are, and judge ourselves to be, perceiving. Our perceptions, then, are always mediated by the acts
of our mind.
 The difference between the ancient paradigm of the human being and the modern paradigm of the human being is the
following:

 Ancient: World -> I (I exist because the world exists. This is an affirmation of the ancient period's cosmocentrism,
where man is viewed in relation to a metaphysical reality. Thus, metaphysical concepts, like form or substance,
determine man. The representative definition of man in the ancient period is a "rational animal.")

 Modern: I -> World (The world exists because I exist and that I understand that the world exists. This is an
affirmation of the modern period's anthropocentrism and episteme centrism, where man is viewed in relation to
 himself and what he knows. Thus, the acts of the mind are the access to the world. The representative definition of
man in the modern period is a "subject," "cogito," or "thinking thing.")

 Body: “all that which can be defined by a certain figure: something which can be confined in a certain place, and which can fill a
given space in such a way that every other body will be excluded from it; which can be perceived either by touch, or by sight, or
by hearing, or by taste, or by smell: which can be moved in many ways not, in truth, by itself, but by something which is foreign
to it, by which it is touched [and from which it receives impressions.”
 EXPLANATION: Aristotle believes that Man is a rational animal but in coming up with this, we have to deny and question what
a rational or an animal is. I am a rational animal but this presupposes I. It is self-evident. 

 “[O]f surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something [or merely because I thought of something].” But what
about being deceived by an evil genius?
 “Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be
nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally
conceive it.”
 Thus, thinking “is an attribute that belongs to me; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am, I exist, that is certain.”
 EXPLANATION: Thinking is what justifies one’s existence. The fact that you are thinking and with the very act of doubt, then
someone is thinking. I know least because what if I am thinking that I know I exist to be, I am thinking. What if I am deceived
into thinking that I know I exist because I am thinking? Something can’t be deceived unless there is something to be deceived.
The fact that you are deceived means you are there to be deceived.
 “I think, therefore I am.”
 “I don’t exist.”
 “I doubt my existence.”

 “Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist.”
 EXPLANATION: If you don’t think, therefore, you don’t think you exist.

 Man, therefore, for Descartes, is “a thing which thinks... A thing which doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills,
refuses, which also imagines and feels.”
 Man is “not a collection of members which we call the human body.”
 EXPLANATION: Man is a subject. Compared to the Ancient, man is a rational animal, therefore, it is I and the world. It is in the
world that how human beings are related to reality as they are connected to the world. In the modern, man is detached to the
world through doubting oneself.

 “I can only give judgment on things that are known to me. I know that I exist, and I inquire what I am, whom I know to exist.”
 “For it is so evident of itself that it is I who doubts, who understands, and who desires, that there is no reason here to add
anything to explain it.”
 “[A]ll things that relate to the nature of the body are nothing but dreams [and chimeras].”
 EXPLANATION: We cannot have an immediate perception of things. No immediate access to the world but to the mind. We
have innate ideas and these ideas determine physical things. Our access to the world of physical objects is indicated by our
minds. 

 “From this time I begin to know what I am with a little more clearness and distinction than before; but nevertheless it still seems
to me... that corporeal things, whose images are framed by thought, which are tested by the senses, are much more distinctly
known than that obscure part of me which does not come under the imagination.”
 EXPLANATION: I can only give judgement. The way to have access to the world is through the mind and not the senses.

o Wax Argument
 “What then did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax? It could certainly be nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice,
since all these things which fall under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing, are found to be changed, and yet the same wax
remains.”
 EXPLANATION: He made this argument in order to justify how his mind can be an access to the world.   I am not my body but
there is a hesitance that I am my mind.

 “Certainly nothing remains excepting a certain extended thing which is flexible and movable.”
 EXPLANATION: Candle Wax (solid, form, and it is bound to change) ~ Melted One (liquid, hot) We perceive it changing.
Sensation is deceitful. We cannot justify things through our perceptions. Perception is deceitful.

 “[S]ince I imagine it admits of an infinitude of similar changes... I nevertheless do not know how to compass the infinitude by
my imagination, and consequently this conception which I have of the wax is not brought about by the faculty of imagination.”
 “We must then grant that I could not even understand through the imagination what this piece of wax is, and that it is my mind
alone which perceives it... It is certainly the same that I see, touch, imagine, and finally it is the same which I have always
believed it to be from the beginning.”
 EXPLANATION: Because we cannot sense imagination, we cannot justify imagination because it cannot be experienced. We
can have many infinite imaginations of ways on how it will melt. We cannot do it since we cannot imagine what we have not
seen.

 It must be “only an intuition of the mind.”

 “[S]olely by the faculty of judgment which rests in my mind, I comprehend that which I believed I saw with my eyes.”
 “[I]f I judge that the wax is or exists from the fact that I see it, it certainly follows much more clearly that I am or that I exist
myself from the fact that I see it.”
 “So if I judge that the wax exists from the fact that I touch it, the same thing will follow, to wit, that I am... And what I have here
remarked of wax may be applied to all other things which are external to me [and which are met with outside of me].”
 Thus, “since [bodies] are not known from the fact that they are seen or touched, but only because they are understood, I see
clearly that there is nothing which is easier for me to know than my mind.”
 EXPLANATION: We perceive it changing. We must understand first that we are perceiving. We can judge, understand, and
reason. We have to understand the acts of the mind. It is only with the faculty of judgement because it is only then we know we
perceive it. We cannot perceive unless we understand we are perceiving in the first place. Also because we are able to judge - an
act of thinking, affirms that I exist