Eylül Nurcan Geçer

11923018

SOC 446
MIDTERM
TAKEHOME EXAM
DATE DUE: 03/12/2021

Please answer both questions

1. Describe how Descartes defines, in Rules for the Direction of the Mind, truth and universal
human wisdom and the ends that makes one stray from the direction towards them.

Discuss how these definitions represent a break with the ancient Greek conception of truth
and wisdom.

To begin with Descartes’ definition of truth, he says that the truth should be certain and valid in
every time and every circumstances. So, this mean’s the truth should be independent from
experience, because experience comes with senses. According to Descartes, senses can mislead,
and generally mislead human mind, that’s why things that perceived by the senses do not have
the quality of knowledge, because it is not provable and reliable. For example, when a thirsty
person in the desert sees a mirage, what he sees is very realistic, he believes he sees water there
or we can think of dreams. If our minds could distinguish the real from the unreal, people
wouldn't have wet dreams. Since the mind cannot distinguish between dream and reality, it
encodes the body as in reality, allowing it to get wet and have an orgasm. This indicates that the
senses of the mind will not be reliable. Because of that, Descartes suggested more scientific,
more reliable method to reach truth which called as cartesian method. Descartes explains
mathematic more reliable because it is more abstract, so, more independent from senses. When
he started his process of thought, he eliminated everything that has a second option, doubtable
and what remained was the doubting as the only thing that could not be doubted. So, doubting is
the one way of the thinking that has to have a subject. In that point, If he cannot doubt that he is
doubting, and since doubt is a way of thinking, he will continue to think, proving his own
existence as a doubter. Then, he reaches his equation, firstly he said “I think therefore, I am”
then, he deleted “therefore” because it indicates a presuming. In the end of this equation, the
existing one is here is the soul, as a substance which does not need anything other than itself to
exist. In that point, we saw Descartes proved his existence with cartesian method, then, he
continued with understanding external world and the other substance which is the God. To sum
up, the truth for Descartes, is undubitable, clear and valid in every time. It should be independent
from experience because senses are misleading us, it should be totally scientific with an
undubitable evidence and if we can reach that truth, we will be wisdom. On the other hand, in
ancient Greek philosophy, there are different approaches to truth and the reason that is thought to
provide reach to truth. For example, according to Socrates there is nothing but beliefs, we
believe some of them are good and others are bad. For example, If someone cuts someone you
love with a knife, it would be bad, but if the “bad” person is a doctor, it would be a surgery and
it’s good. Socrates claims that we presume things which should be questioned. In the end of the
Eylül Nurcan Geçer
11923018
consideration, we give a decision about the belief as good or bad. We do this through reason.
According to ancient Greek philosophers, there is two features of reason. First is the reason has
own desires and needs and the second is reason makes assumptions and while doing this, the
main aim is reaching certain, basic knowledge. To compare, Descartes claims that the subject as
a thinker, as a reacher to truth is soul as a substance, but in ancient Greek philosophy it is the
reason. In both sides, they eliminates things that stray from the reaching the truth, things that
disrupts thinking process. In Descartes, they are senses and in ancient Greek, they are
changeable. For example, Socrates rejects separating beliefs and emotions, because emotions are
based on beliefs but Aristotle supports that we don’t know anything about the world when we
born, so, our mind is empty but the reason has some knowledge and Stoics gives example from
children and their irrational behaviors and they asked that how do irrational children become
rational people. Also, thinking on thinking which leaded Descartes to construct his equation is
ancient Greek tradition. Greeks did that to understand the notion of reason. To sum up, with
these two points, we can say that Descartes and the ancient Greek philosophers did not proceed
very differently from each other, they only differed in the method. In both parts, the main goal is
to find the certain truth that is external, belonging to the world. so, humanity achieve universal
human wisdom.

2. Describe Immanuel Kant’s classifications of cognition and judgement and discuss how his theory of
knowledge goes beyond representationalism.

To begin with cognition, Kant claims that there are two types of cognition. The first is a priori
cognition that we know them true independently from experience, universal and necessary. For
instance, all humans breathe lungs or there is nothing tangible without volume. The second is a
posteriori cognition which is dependent on experiment and empiric like the hours of day and
night are equal. no, this is not true in all parts of the universe and at all times. On the other hand,
Kant made another classification in the judgement. He says that there are two types of judgement
called as analytic and synthetic judgements. Analytical judgements are identified judgements like
red+blue=purple, so, red is already in purple. This type of judgements gives clarification.
Moreover, synthetic judgements give amplification, they increase knowledge. For example, all
humans have feet smaller than 65 number, because there is no such thing as having a foot smaller
than 65 in the definition of human. A is not contained in B. If we combine classes of judgement
and the cognition there would be four types of knowledge: analytic a priori knowledge, analytic a
posteriori knowledge, synthetic a posteriori knowledge and synthetic a priori knowledge.
According to Kant, synthetic a priori knowledge provides new knowledge about world. In other
words, the knowledge that exists independently and gives amplification rather than
identification, it will increase our knowledge about world. We can think gravity law for synthetic
a priori knowledge. To continue with representationalism, Kant suggests that knowledge is a
direct representation of reality and there is a one-to-one correspondence between reality and our
representations. The process begins with perceiving reality and thinking, then matching them
with symbols like letters, language and thus, the reality gains representation through language
with its reflection in our minds. According to Kant, human mind is not a mirror, so, our
consciouses, imaginations are totally different than each other, that’s why, representation does
not show knowledge, it’s pointing. Therefore, we create our worlds with our perceiving and
things which are representations, become facts in our worlds. Consequently, we can understand
Eylül Nurcan Geçer
11923018
why Kant linked world knowledge to synthetic a priori knowledge because the knowledge that
exists independently of experience and perception will be valid for everyone, so it will not differ
from person to person and Kant’s other theory says that synthetic a priori knowledge is lying in
our pure reason which is state of mind that has not started any perception. He said, if we can
understand which mechanisms of the mind are working before perception, we can reach the pure
reason. To sum up, judgement and cognition combination is equal to knowledge, matches among
themselves show the diversity of knowledge, and a representative process occurs in the
emergence of knowledge that depends on experience, which depends on the mind in Kantian
philosophy.