Aristotle's Life and Work

I have posted some online links where you could find out some more biographical and
historical information about Aristotle' life and times.  Aristotle was a student at Plato's
Academy where he not only studied  Platonic/Socratic dialogues with great care he also
both greatly expanded upon them and critiqued certain fundamental aspects of the
Socratic epistemology. He later founded his own intellectual academy; the
Lyceum. Aristotle's initial primary interests were more empirical and scientific; studying
animal and plant biology, the classification of the different biological orders etc. As
Stevenson notes ( and this can not be stressed strongly enough) the more 'empirical',
'this-worldly' approach is something that is always present in Aristotle's texts - -even the
ones dealing with more metaphysical lines of investigation. This is one of the main area
of divergence and split from the earlier Platonic quest for the 'transcendent forms';
Aristotle even in his most metaphysical always exhibits a type of materialism or
empiricism which favors the concrete sensed world, the world that is give to us via
observation as the starting point for knowledge. This does not mean he ONLY remains
in this concrete world of material existences -- not at all -- but  rather the affirmation
here is that our sense-based knowledge of that world is real and true. This as you can
see is in a stark contrast with how Plato referred to our life of 'sensory-perception' as a
life which is, metaphorically speaking, lived in the shadows; where we only see the
outline or silhouettes of the true nature of things. Keep this in mind as you read different
sections of his works.
Far beyond his initial works on biology Aristotle has left us with a massive range of
intellectual works spanning from Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics, Astronomy, Physics etc. In
all of his works, another key aspect which stands out as a main difference from Plato's
philosophical approach is not just the content/subject matter but the method of
investigation and, more importantly writing. While they both stressed rigorous rational
discourse for investigation, whereas Plato's work is mainly in the form of Socratic
Dialogues, Aristotle's work is of a much more systematic and technical nature. and is
regarded by some as the first Philosopher to systematically and thoroughly outline his
ideas, thoughts,  principles in a rigorous, detailed manner. 

The main area we are focusing on for this class is Aristotle's work on human nature,
ethics, virtues etc most of which can be found in his two main works in the area,
namely The Nicomachean Ethics and De Anima. In the Readings section for this
module, I have included links to full online translations of both these texts, so you can
follow along with Stevenson's analysis.
Metaphysical Background: The Forms and The Four Kinds of Questions
A quick peek into Aristotle's rich and complex metaphysics, will give us some
background material to think about prior to examining his views on Human Nature more
specifically. Aristotle, as Stevenson notes, believed in a divine God-like figure described
as the Unmoved Mover. One of the key themes in Aristotle's Physics and Astronomy
(and which will be picked up by Medieval philosopher over a millennia later) is the
notion that at its core one of the fundamental principles of reality is Motion and Change.
The entire universe, is a continuous process of change, movement, and
generation/regeneration. Aristotle had argued that the very possibility of such motion,
whereby things 'move/affect/change' one another, can only be explained if there were in
reality some unmoved, unchanging, thing which was itself responsible for all ensuing
change-motion in the universe. This God-figure is not, as Stevenson notes some sort of
divine entity which is a personal God - - a god who shows care for for humanity and the
god we pray to. That is the Abrahamic traditions perspective of and about God.
Aristotle's God is more akin to principle which is borne out of scientific inquiry about the
nature of the world; where it is affirmed that the world can only be the way it is re; in a
state of change/motion, if there exists a thing (be it what it may) which itself is NOT
subject to change and movement. This is important to keep in mind as we move
forwards here to discuss other aspects of his philosophical thoughts.

The realism and concreteness of Aristotle's 'this-worldly' thought, is most strongly felt - -
at least in relation to Platonic Philosophy - -  in his own theory of Forms. We recall that
this issue centers around the pursuit for a true Idea/Concept which fully and completely
defines a thing in the most complete and definitive manner. The Form of a Chair, Man,
Justice, Beauty, Love etc, is that which fully and completely expresses their absolute
nature and reality. Aristotle like his teacher before him was adamantly committed to this
same line of investigation, but, with one very important conceptual difference. We recall
that the abstract/transcendent aspect of Platonic philosophy renders these Forms as
'separate' entities so to speak. The chair in-front of me 'participates' in mimicking or
shadowing the Pure Form of Chair - - 'of Chairness' - - and in this respect the Form of
Chair is, ontologically, something entirely separate from the chair.  This detachedness
of the Form from its object is something that Aristotle could accept. For Aristotle the
From of a thing, or, rather, what makes a think the kind of thing that it is, is not
something separate but instead belongs to it.  Whatever the Form of a chair is,
whatever it is which makes this particular chair a chair, is not something to be found in a
transcendent reality detached from the chair, but instead exists in the chair itself. As
Stevenson notes the Cave Analogy in Plato is inappropriate for Aristotle, for it suggests
that we need to come out of the cave and into the light in-order to move beyond the
shadows. The analogy is a metaphor, we recall, whereby Plato suggest that we cannot
get to the True Form of things be examining appearances; since theses appearance are
but shadows. For Aristotle we need not step out of the cave i.e. move beyond what is
given to our senses to a transcendent realm of The Forms, but instead we need to study
carefully and rigorously what our senses give us. It is is from this sense-based
knowledge that we can come to know the forms of things as they exist in these things
proper. [See Stevenson Pg 98-99]
Aristotle realized that the spirit of Plato/Socrates' aim at arriving at what is common
Truths pertaining to things is a fundamental and important aspect of investigation and
he realized that his own approach of making these truths 'part of the thing questioned'
carried its own set of difficulties. How do we speak of the Form of a thing as both
defining that thing and being PART OF that thing yet not the exact same. The Form of
the Chair makes it what it is but is NOT itself the chair. Furthermore to speak of the
Form of a particular substance-thing like a chair and the Form Goodnes/Justice etc
leads us to two different lines of investigation. Aristotle realized that in order to clarify
this difficulty issue to first filter through the different categories of things and then to
study each carefully according the particular line investigation suitable to each kind of
thing. Instead of their always being just ONE particular Form/Truth of a thing in
question, certain things can have a multitude of forms depending on which angle we
examine them.
The most important aspect of his employed methodology is what we now call The Four
Aristotlean Causes. Aristotle believed that when we examine the reality (FORM) of a
thing, anything, there are four (causal) questions that we can ask of it. See Stevenson
Pg 100-101 for more detailed analysis of these!

 What is it made of - - the 'matter' it is made of. This is known as a thing's

Material Cause
 What is it? What kind of a thing is it? This is known as a things' Formal
Cause
 What explains the 'coming into existence' of this thing? What has caused it
to exist? What created it? etc. This we call the thing's Efficient Cause
 What is its purpose? What is it for? What is the function of this thing. This is
called the Final Cause
Theory of Human Nature: The Soul as a Set of Faculties, Including Rationality
When Plato examined the essence or Form of the Human Being, his philosophical
position brought forth what we called a substance dualism. For Plato human nature is
such that the Soul - - as a separate immaterial substance - - existed apart from the
human material body.  Hence, the Self, the complete sense of the word was a union of
TWO distinct and different types of things - - a material body and and immaterial soul.
Here again, we will see that, in taking a more scientific/biological approach, Aristotle
cannot accept such a transcendent view of human nature. Instead he examined the
human being from a biological angle - - thinking of the human being as an Animal. Not
just any animal, of course but a special kind or class of animals with unique set of
faculties -- most important of which was the capacity for Reason/Rational thought.
What is fascinating about Aristotle's approach is how modern and advanced it was for
its time; as Stevenson notes, this ordering/classifying of things -- especially living things
such as plants and animals --  is something we now take for granted in a post
renaissance world and, especially, in a post Darwinian world. Yet we must always keep
in mind that Aristotle is writing nearly 2000 years prior to any of that.

In his classification then, the distinguishing feature of living things in general is

the anima - a soul. We have to always be aware, as Stevenson stresses, that the Greek
use of the word SOUL should not carry with it either the Platonic image of an immaterial
thing nor the Judaeo-christian connotation of a soul. Here, in Aristotle, the claim is still
on the side of biology. What differentiates living things from other things is the Soul by
which Aristotle means a 'mind'. Going back to the Four Causal Questions, we can think
of the Soul as the Formal Cause of any living thing, that is to say when we ask 'what
kind of a thing' is it, or what makes it the kind of thing that it is re; a living thing we can
answer it is a thing with a MIND. We can filter through what this MIND entails more
specifically (see page 102) and when we go a bit deeper we can further outline the
types of things that differentiate between the different kinds of living ensouled things re;
difference between plants and animals (ibid page 102)
The big question for us of at the moment is what, if anything, differentiates us HUMANS
from the rest of the living animals. All living things have a mind, and animals have a
particular kind of mind with certain faculties, but, there is something in our animal soul
that is unique to us; we not only have a soul, or mind, we have a mind capable of
REASON and rational thinking, something no other animal can exhibit.
Reason/Intellectual Thinking is in a sense a unique FORM or Formal Cause of the
human being. We see the complication in comparing and contrasting with the Platonic
view on human nature whereby just like Plato, Aristotle will claim that Rational
Mind/Soul is the FORM of the Human Being but, he means something completely
different from Plato. As Stevenson stresses, in Aristotle FORM here means  "....what
makes something the fundamental sort of thing it is..." [Pg 102] In us, this 'fundamental
sort of thing' refers to Reason/Thinking/Contemplation. But the key difference to always
be aware of is that this thing Aristotle calls mind as the Formal Cause of a living being is
not really a thing in the hard sense of the word. In Aristotle the Mind does not describe a
thing proper but rather the set of capacities or facilities that make up a living being.
There are different capacities in different animals and OUR most important and
distinguishing CAPACITY is the ability to reason.
Another key aspect of Aristotle's position  - - more inline with Plato's own views this
time- - is that,. apart from REASONING, another uniquely human capacity is our
inherently social and political nature. We are rational but not in a detached, isolated,
individuated sense but, rather, our nature is to be social and political creatures. But we
need to be careful here to clarify what this means exactly in relation to other living
beings. As Stevenson notes, Aristotle's biological classification system recognizes that
certain other animals are also social creatures in that they interact in that the have a
certain kind of common-bond dynamic, with communal interactions. However our form
of political/social nature takes this to a more sophisticated level in terms of our
RATIONALITY.  Our interaction with each other, governed by reason, has a moral
component to it unseen in other animals - - this moral component is the ability to
understand The Good or The Just( and their opposites). We don't merely organize, (as
certain other animals do) what makes our political life organized is the fact that 'justice'
rests as its foundation. along with the recognition of the injustice(s) which are to be
avoided. As Stevenson notes and, what we can think of human nature as reaching its
most developed and expressive form when - - via the use of reason - - we organize
societies that are grounded up  justice.  [See Pg 104-105]

There are a couple of points of difficulties in Aristotle's description of the rational beings
and the socialized just society they build, something which Stevenson correctly points
out at the end of this section..  These should not detract from recognizing the
importance of Aristotle's approach but they need to at least be recognized as
problematic.  it is not always clear why this notion of the 'rational beings' which
presumably applies to ALL OF US biological humans, often takes a very dominating,
male-centered and, at times paternalistic and even racist tone. For example though the
capacity to REASON is supposed to be our distinguishing feature as humans in general,
there is certainly in Aristotle the approach that men are more capable of adequate
advanced reasoning; women were thus seen as inferior thinkers to state it in another
way. This was also stated with respect to the classes, certain classes of people and
other Peoples in general - - meaning non-Greeks - - were often  called/treated as
'barbarians' where the implications was that they lacked the RATIONAL abilities of the
Greeks.  [SEE 105] 

Let us move then to examine how this notion of Human Social Reason comes to light
interns of our fulfillment.
Ideal and Diagnosis: Human Fulfillment, Virtues and Vices
One of the most essential aspects of Aristotle's ethical writings is the fundamental
question he asks regarding the ultimate goal of Human Life. Given that our nature is to
be 'rational social beings who are aware of justice and injustice', Aristotle what is the
purpose of  our life or, rather, what is the main aim and final goal of our human actions
within this political-rational society we have constructed for our selves. The answer,
says Aristotle is eudaimonia -- Happiness.  Note the importance to understand here
what Happiness entails and, more importunately what it does not entail. Here happiness
does not refer to a contentment along the lines of either physiological pleasures, or
even emotional ones. Happiness refers to a kind of moral fulfillment and flourishing in
our actions and this flourishing, naturally, relates to our flourishing as rational
creatures. This means that the goal of our life is the kind of Happiness which results
from acting rationally or, stated differently, acting in accordance with our rational
capacities. 
Aristotle's ethics approach this issue of the 'fulfilled life', in a practical this-worldly tone.
His main interest in elaborating on this kind of Reason-Based happiness is not so much
about intellectual use of contemplative reason (though this is clearly important) but
rather the use of reason in the lived, concrete social world.  The 'excellence' of human
actions in the world, are what we can call the VIRTUES. We can think of the virtues as
traits or dispositions which allow a person to live as good, moral and RATIONAL human
being. These include courage, temperance, truthfulness, friendliness etc. The heart of
his ethical work, the Nicamochean Ethics is a study into the correct employment of
these virtues where the main goal or aim  - - for the sake of our fulfillment in society - -
is neither excess nor lack or but rather a balance or a mean/average. Too much or too
little of particular trait can be understood as a vice, or a negative aspect of said train
whereas the fulfilled rational individual aims at achieving just the right balance between
excess and lack

Descartes
Introduction: The Scope and Methodology of this Unit
The progression and structure of this unit/module on Descartes will be quite different
from what you might have already become accustomed too. Unlike preceding chapters
where most of my course notes and, the primary readings, were based on the
Stevenson textbook with occasional reference to the primary source readings, for this
unit we will be looking directly at the source material - - Descartes first two Meditations
from his masterpiece work Meditations on First Philosophy. I will also refer briefly to
sections from the final 6th Meditation.

Do not feel intimidated about delving right into the text - - Descartes and his
contemporary fellow Rationalist thinkers have throughout history of modern philosophy
been regarded as the most clear, direct and uncomplicated writers. This is especially
that case with Descartes, he writes in a way that is incredibly easy to follow along with
straight, to-the-point wording without any roundabout obscure styles of phrasing - - he
always tells us directly and succinctly what he is thinking and what he believes it means
or, implies which makes the general experience of reading his work a great pleasure - -
even if we completely disagree with him.  This also becomes evident in the length of
these two Meditations - - while the second is longer and more involved then the second,
take together there Descartes manages to condense an impressive amount of ideas
and thoughts in less than 10 pages. 

Take your time reading these carefully and reread them several times. They should both
be read in their entirety but whereas the first meditation will require to pay attention to
ALL of its components, there are key areas of the second meditation that are, for our
purposes more important then the rest of the text. I will clarify that as we get to it.  My
following notes will attempt to first clarify  what is taking place in each meditation and,
second, to reflect on what Descartes approach and conclusions mean for us in terms of
Human Nature. As in the preceding chapters, these notes bellow will only fully makes
sense if you have read the text already. 

Descartes' Enterprise Part 1: Method of Doubt (Meditation I) 

The main goal of Descartes' enterprise in this work as a whole is a way of arriving at a
kind of 'Certainty' that is so absolute and fundamental that it will serve as the backbone
of the sciences. As a man of science and a rigorous mathematicians Descartes would
typically answer that the truth and certainty of either immediate sensory given
knowledge OR mathematical evidence were the standard for what we call certainty.  If
someone asks what is your utmost perfect measure for absolute certainty, Descartes
could answer something like "the fact that these are my hands in front of me writing, is
certain and not open to doubt". Or, perhaps even a more robust claim about certainty
could be the self evident claim  "2+3=5" These are, as probably most of you would
agree, examples of such simple and  immediate truths that it is hard to think of
anythings more 'Certain' than such claims. 

What we see taking place in the First Meditation is Descartes attempt to put aside all
that he claim to have learned as 'true knowledge' be it from his parents, his teachers,
university, life as scientist/mathematician etc and examine - - from the ground up  -- with
great scrutiny to discover which area or sort of knowledge is indeed UN-DOUBTABLE.
This is what we now call Descartes Method of Doubt. In this quest for radical absolute
certainty what he is looking is something cannot be doubted under ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES; as he says, if a certain area of knowledge exhibits even the
smallest bit of doubt he will treat it as false. This might seem like a very extreme
measure but, as you would have noted, the task itself is quite extreme. If the sciences
are the be established on TRUE KNOWLEDGE then we must seek to find that one
absolute moment of unshakable certainty and see where it is found; be it in/through
math or sensory knowledge etc.

The Method of doubt is divided into three main components. Sensory Deception
Hypothesis, Madness/Dreaming Hypothesis, and The Evil Genius (Radical Doubt)
Hypothesis. 

 The Sensory Deception Hypothesis: As you examine Descartes' desire to

sieve through the knowledge he has up to this point assumed to be true and
certain, with the hopes of seeing which one is NOT susceptible to doubt, you
will notice that he cannot afford the time to look at every single piece of
 knowledge he has acquired. Not only will this be endlessly time-consuming it
is also unnecessary; all knowledge, says Descartes falls either under two
domains; either that of the senses -- that which know from and through the
senses --  or the domain of abstract/absolute knowledge claims which are
mathematical/logical in nature and do not depend on external outward
experience. What Descartes insist is that, if he can show even a single
moment, instance, or example where a specific knowledge claim from either
one of these domains is shown to be 'possibly false' then the whole domain
collapses. If this seems like an extreme approach it is because at is, as I
had stressed above. The method of doubt is an intellectual exercise. As you
read the doubting process you will note that Descartes realizes at all stages
that the likelihood of certain aspects of our sensory actually being false or
uncertain is very low, what he is after is something that is absolutely certain,
with no possible way of being uncertain. Hence the extreme measures.
In the early phases of this doubting-method, Descartes begins with what he has taken
almost for granted as true and certain; what our senses give us; our sensory experience
of the world and the different knowledge claims we make based on this sensory
experience. Descartes agrees that our natural 'common sense' approach to what
constitutes KNOWLEDGE  in general is to assume that what my eyes see and what my
ears hear etc is true and certain. The world that is given to me, the world I perceive is in
fact exactly as I perceived it. But immediately as he makes this claim he affirms that our
senses 'often deceive' us in terms of the detail of what we 'think' we see and how that
actually corresponds to reality. For example when we see a mirage in the desert or
when we sense an object being far/close to in a manner that doesn't correspond to the
actual true distance between us because of trickery perspective. We can also think of
optical illusions in a drawing/painting where it is truly unclear what exactly we are
seeing. There are many other examples.

The point of all of this says Descartes is that because the senses often deceive us we
should not trust them to be the source for Certainty and TRUE knowledge. At first
glance he seems here to be wanting to cast doubt on the validity of of all sense based
knowledge but he immediately realizes that this 'deceptive' senses approaches can not
be strong enough to apply to sensation/sensory knowledge in general. It is true there
can be deception about specifics details, like the ones illustrated above but clearly, says
our meditator, there are certain sense-based claims I can make that can no be
subjected to this type 'deception'. For example the fact that this is my hands and fingers
I am now looking at as I type this essay and that this is my wife sitting next to me and
that there is a light emanating from a lamp on my desk and so on. These kind of
immediately sensed pieces of knowledge are not susceptible to the kind of deception
we were just mentioning, this leads us to the second hypothesis

 The Madness and Dreaming Hypothesis: Recognizing that not all sense-

perception claims can be subjected to the possibility of sensory deception
Descartes first asks the following question. Is it possible that even thought I
cannot be deceived physiologically about these being my hands, based on
vision/sight/light rays etc, could it still nevertheless be the case that I am
delusional and that I only think that I see an object -- X -- when infact no
 such thing exists. This is often called the 'madness' hypothesis since
Descartes as you have noticed uses that terminology; that if he were
perhaps 'mad' or mentally delusional he would be fabricating images in his
mind that could be though of as real sensations but, infact they were
delusions. Now, Descartes is willing to accept that this could be the case
were he indeed under such delusions BUT he sees no reason to compare
himself to people who are indeed in a state of madness an thus he rejects
this possibilty. But instead of outrigh rejecting it he tweaks to make more
sense to his particular situation. Instead of suggesting the possibility of
madness, he asks whether it is possible that he is in a dream-reality and not
awake.
In general, you should think of the Dreaming Hypothesis as serving the same function
as the Madness hypothesis. Desscartes is now at the stage where is willing to accept
that his sensory experience of immediate things (these hands in front of me ) is not
open for deception, but, it is possible that what I claim to be sensing is infact not
sensation at all but mental images of  dream-like reality.  Now there is subtle thing that
we need to notice here in terms of the order of comparison of the Dreaming State to
Waking Life. It is not the case that we can never distinguish a dream from reality but,
instead, what Descartes says, we cannot distinguish reality from a dream. What does
this mean?

There are many instances where there are things that occur in our dreams that we can
clearly state are not part of sensed lived reality -- when for example I am character in a
dream who has certain impossible physiological abilities; flying, shooting lasers out of
my eyes etc ;-). As real as our dreams sometimes feel we know that when we reflect on
those fantastical/fictional kind of a dreams that they don't portray an image of our
sensed world and environment. BUT, asks Descartes is it true the other way around; is
there anything in our supposed 'awake' sensory-experience domain that could not also
be part of a dream reality? He does not think so! Or, another way of asking this, is it not
possible that all that I call my sense-experience life in the 'awake' state is part of a
dream reality, where I am only under the illusion that there is a lived non-dream reality
when in fact ALL sensory experience is but a dream? Descartes concedes that this
could be possible. Where does the Dreaming Hypothesis leave us?

Having accepted that it is at least a possibility that all of what we call immediate sense
awareness is a dream and NOT real, Descartes has completed in the full sense his
method of doubt towards any object of knowledge obtained through the senses. If all
lived reality is just a dream than what I have called sensory knowledge; the things I see,
and taste, and touch etc all of these are but illusions, they are images in my mind with
no reality to them. But here is where things become very abstract and knowledge shifts
from being referred to as knowledge of sensed-thing to knowledge of simple
mathematical/logical essences. As you read the parts immediately after the Dream
Hypothesis you will notice that Descartes insists that while all these sense-objects might
be false - - as in that they don't exist or, exist only as images/figments in my mind --
not everything about them could in fact be a product of a dream state. There is a
domain of knowledge which must be granted as real and certain and indubitable even if
one is always in lived dream state - - and that is the domain of the pure simple truths of
mathematics, geometry, logic. These are the foundation truths about reality that we
know even if at this point of the Doubt process we have eliminated all material,
corporeal things - - their mathematical essences, the mathematical and logical rules that
govern the reality of these things MUST be real and CANNOT be doubted even in the
dream state.  What does this ultimately mean?
It means that even if all that is given to the senses (what we perceive) is not real the
mathematical foundations or building blocks at the background of our sensations is real
even in the dream - - so, in the dream not only is 2+2=4, it cannot be anything but 4,
meaning that I cannot dream that 2+2=6 or that a thing is X and NOT X at the same
time or that a triangle has more than 180 degrees  etc. These truths cannot be violated
or denied in the dream-state precisely because they have a reality to them that goes
beyond the human subject and his/her dreaming.  So the dreaming hypothesis has both
a negative and a postive aspect to it. The negative shows how far Descartes can push
his doubt about the sense-world where EVERYTHING we experience through sense-
based knowledge can be doubted, including that these are my hands before me and
that this is my dog here ifront of me. All of this has now collapsed under Descartes
doubt.BUT there is a positive aspect to this hypothesis and, that is expressed by
acknowledging its limitations; namely that it does not encompass ALL KNOWING or
KNOWLEDGE, and that the pure truths of logic and math must be still believed to be
real. 

 The Radical Deception/Evil Genius Hypothesis: So, at this point of his

method of doubt we are quite comfortable with claiming that the Mediator
has found that ONE domain or instantiation of absolute unshakable
certainty. These truths of math/logic cannot be inwardly doubted. We can
never engage in the activity of inwardly doubting these truths. BUT here
Descartes clarifies that he wants Certainty in a more radical sense. It is not
enough that I can now admit that these truths to me in my thinking/mind are
impossible to doubt, but instead if they are to be though of as being
absolutely certain in the full sense of the word they should be more than just
certain to me they should be Certain IN REALITY, they should be real
outside of my mind. An absolute truth like 2+2=4 or that a thing cannot both
be and NOT be at the same time is always certain to me in the mind but
does it correspond to a real state of affair in reality. Is there a mind
independent truth to logical and mathematical laws and rules/laws? What
reason do we have to believe that these truths are infact real in both my
mind AND in reality?
Here is where the Doubting process becomes something much more extreme.
Descartes tells us that he has long been accustomed to believe that there is a God
entity out there which is benevolent and kind and loving and, as such will not allow us
humans to be deceived in such a way that even the most pure simple of truths of
mathematics could be said to be false. However, in the spirit of not relying on such an
assumption Descartes asks whether it is not equally possible, even if very unlikely, that
there is not this benevolent loving God but instead another kind of all-powerful entity
who is evil and malevolent and has set itself out to deceive us, about everything,
including mathematics? Descartes conclusion here is that, yes, such radical deceiving
seems highly unlikely BUT it is is possible and, if that possibility is infact real then ALL
knowledge is doubtful and uncertain. Now, let's unpack this, because you might be
reading this and feeling strangely confused or maybe even amused that a serious
mathematician and philosopher will entertain the notion of such a demonic evil deceiver.
And you would be right to think so. Why does he need to retort to such fictional
directions?

A better way of thinking about this hypothesis is not that Descartes actually believes in
such an evil genius deceiver, but rather, we should take the whole thing as a mental
exercise or tool by which Descartes can suggest some kind of external explanation to
how such radical deception can actually be happening. Recall the question here is
whether whether there is something that guarantees that mathematical/logical truths are
not only certain in my mind but 'actually' certain; that is to say correspond to reality.
Descartes with this hypothesis says, NO, there is no such guarantee, we could be
externally deceived ALL the time. Up until this point, what fueled the different stages of
doubt were all inner mental aspects like sensory deception, dreaming, madness. The
limitations of this type of inner doubt was reached when we confronted the truths of
mathematics/logic. But, now when the question reality of these truths if they are indeed
to be doubted there must be something externally explaining this doubt, we cant just
say ' there is not guarantee any of this math is real' we need to give a reason for that.
The evil genius hypothesis is Descartes' way of saying 'here is one possible
explanation' - - that there is some kind of force or law/power etc out there that is
constantly deceiving us and that there fore all of what we call un-doubtable
mathematical truths inwardly in the mind might certain to me BUT they have no
correspondence in reality. What does this mean? It means that though as long as I am
thinking about a triangle having 3 sides or 3+4=7 I can never doubt these truths, they
might no refer to anything in reality. There might not be any triangles, numbers might
not have any reality outside of the mind. Logic will have no reality outside of the mind.
Etc.

At this stage the doubt method is complete and the meditator must concede  that
nothing can be known with the absolute certainty he was so eagerly looking after. This
is the conclusion of the First Meditation and as we now move to briefly look at the
second you might be asking yourself after reading all of this and, my notes here; what
does any of this have to do with human nature. Well the answer will become much
clearer when we look at Descartes' discovery in the second Meditation, his discovery
about his true essence. BUT even now there are a few things we can take away from
the method of doubt about what the human subject is or rather what we are not! The
method of doubt has forced the meditator to deny the absolute truth of all sense-object
the most important of which is naturally the human physical body. All of this must be
placed under doubt such that we must conclude that we cannot be certain that what we
call our bodies are infact our OR that there even is ANY BODY out there at all. Keep
this in mind now as it should already give you hint as to where Descartes is going with
this. 

Descartes' Enterprise Part 2: The Necessary existence of Mind/Thought as the

Foundation of Human Nature
The Limitation of Radical Doubt: So where are we at this point? Med. II begins with a
recap of the previous conclusion where Descartes reminds himself that he now needs to
accept the possibility that there is no absolute certainty about anything be it sensory
objects/bodies or even mathematical truths; these are all doubtful. But here Descartes
asks, does it follow from all of this that he must also reject HIS OWN existence? No he
says! How can his own existence if the act of denying or doubting is itself an activity of
some kind, an activity which must exist. Clearly I must be a something, he asks? Even if
there is this type of radical deception by the 'evil genius' where I am being deceived at
all times about ALL KNOWLEDGE, it still remains the case that there is the 'I' who is
being deceived regardless of what I think this 'I' . Descartes says: "...But there is a
supremely powerful and cunning deceiver who deliberately deceives me all the time!
Even then, if he is deceiving me I undoubtedly exist: let him deceive me all he can, he
will never bring it about that I am nothing while I think I am something"
We can see the substance of his argument; The very act of external deception applied
to what I might think that I am suggests that even I am wrong I CANNOT be a
NOTHING I must be a something. I therefore exist. In his words" "So after thoroughly
thinking the matter through I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true
whenever I assert it or think it". Here Descartes arrives at his first true moment of
ABSOLUTE certainty - - The existence of the 'I" subject. BUT he cannot quite make this
affirmation in a more robust sense yet, since as he immediately tells us after this
existential discovery, he still does not what the 'I' actually is. The order of this here in the
meditation is crucial. The initial moment of discovery is simply the 'I exist' but at this
point this affirmation is too slippery to hold onto since he cannot say what this
'SUBJECT' I infact means but only make a claim that there is an I. Hence to fully
understand the scope of this discovery, Descartes proceeds in the next couple of
paragraphs to analyze what possible nature this 'I' can be. Note that even before we
move to that analysis you should already get a hint as to what this nature of the subject
truly is - - reason/thought/thinking. 
The Thinking Subject: When Descartes says that as long as he thinks that he is some
sort of thing, he therefore affirms his own existence what does he really refer to here?
He might be wrong about what kind of thing he is because he is being radically
deceived but, as we have just seen, the very fact he is being deceived about what he
thinks he is does not mean that he does not exists since that would contradict the fact
that there is subject being deceived. Hence the very activity of being deceived is what
allows him to understand that there is a subject. BUT what can that subject possibly be.
In the next few paragraphs in the text you will notice that Descartes analyzes what he
has always assumed himself to be with the hopes of finding which of these properties
can escape the forces of the radical doubt he has now cast on anything. He has always
assumed that his nature consists of A BODY and A SOUL, and all the things which can
be attributed to each. Yet we clearly know what the body cannot be it, as ALL bodies
have now been doubted. Hence it must be the soul? But what exactly does that mean
and how is it to be not open to doubt? Here Descartes makes the most important aspect
of his discovery, one which as I have mentioned has already been alluded to - - what is
the one thing that has remained constant in this entire process of doubting or being
deceived? THINKING. At each stage of the argument the one thing which remains even
in the face of radical deception is that THINKING is occurring hence Descartes
concludes that this 'I am I exist' is true of subject whose nature is to be a thinking thing
alone. Now we need to be cautious here; all of this is stated under the rubric of absolute
certainty. Descartes is NOT saying the subject has no body and is only thinking BUT
rather, when we apply the radical doubt hypothesis and look only at what can be known
with absolute certainty (a certainty which could not be shaken even by a potential
external deceiving entity), what can we then defintitvely say? The one absolute truth
that we can state has two components --  first that there is subject and second that this
subject must be a THINKING THING. It is thinking or thought that -- in the face of
radical deception -- defines what the subject means and without which the Subject
would cease to exist precisely because THINKING is not subjected to doubt. Doubting
itself IS a FORM of THINKING.  
Descartes states this discovery in the following section: "...Thinking? At last I have
discovered it—thought! This is the one thing that can’t be separated from me. I am, I
exist—that is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. But perhaps no
longer than that; for it might be that if I stopped thinking I would stop existing" 
Now what does this ultimately amount to? In an attempt to explore the limitations of
radical doubt - - if in fact there were any - - we saw that what Descartes was truly after
was a Certainty which did not apply merely to inward self-evident claims like when we
say that 2+2=4 but that our knowledge was of something TRUE in the sense that it
corresponded to something in reality. We have to put this into perspective of the current
'discovery' he makes about the existence of the THINKING SELF. This is now beyond
the truths of mathematics which we recall might not refer to anything real at all if there is
indeed radical deception occurring. The claim "I Exist" and in the more refined wording,
'A Thinking Thing Exists' is not Certain in the same way that 2+2=4 is certain it is far
MORE certain precisely because there is no possible way, says Descartes, that this can
be externally false even if there were such a powerful deceiving entity out there. What
this means is that the claim 'thinking thing exist' is not only true to me when I say it but
it is true in and for itself. There is in every sense of the word, a 'thinking thing'.
As you continue reading the following few paragraphs in the second meditation, you will
notice that this TRUTH of Descartes' discovery can be known not only when he reflects
upon his own existence but whenever he reflects about any of his ideas no matter how
open to doubt these ideas are. As we reflect upon all of these ideas that we have now
decided could possibly be false (such as that these are my hands, that 2+4=6, etc) no
matter how false they are it is the case that I am thinking of them. The activity of
THINKING is occurring at all times. So, as Descartes states, the evil genius device
might be able to deceive me when I think this is my wife I am currently looking at, HE
CANNOT  make it the case that I am NOT in fact thinking that very thought. Even when
I am deceived about everything, thinking is occurring. 

Now, let's tie this in with human nature discussion. As I mentioned at the beginning of
the notes here, there is no Prognosis or Prescription element to our current Descartes
discussion as here we are are pursuing things not so much from the practical
perspective of how humans ought to behave in accordance to their nature. In fact we
don't quite really have the full human being at this point do we? Descartes great
discovery in the pursuit for certainty is the necessary existence of a SUBJECT but is it a
human subject - - it cannot be the human subject in a robust sense since as you recall,
this thinking thing that exists at THIS point of the argument is a disembodied thing. All
bodies have been placed under doubt. What we have here then is the beginning of a
DUALISTIC image of the nature of man -- similar to what we have seen in the Greek
Platonic tradition - - where mind and body are taken to be TWO distinct SUBSTANCES
in reality and that it is MIND (or soul) which can be know with absolute certainty
whereas insofar as radical doubt is concerned the BODY is susceptible to doubt. So
does this mean that human nature is ONLY spirit or thought or mind. No, it does not, it
only means that at this point - - when we push doubt to its furthest limits, it is ONLY
thought/mind that we can know with absolute certainty. We are not going to pursue
things here further in the Meditations text itself at this point but it is important to note a
few things about where Descartes ends.  By the time we reach the 6th and final
Meditation of the text Descartes -- by appealing to the goodness of God - - insists that,
radical deception like the one we have seen suggested via the evil genius deceiver is
not possible and that the existence of his body is not something that is open to doubt.
Nevertheless, it still remains the case that the body is not only lesser know than the
MIND - - the two are, as I have just stated,  different things. So, the subject is a UNION
of two radically different types of existing substances --- THOUGHT and MATTER. Not
only are these two things different they are utterly different, and. one of the cornerstone
difficulties inherent to Cartesian philosophy and ensuing philosophies picking up from
Descartes is to explain how is it possible that a human subject is a union or a unity of
TWO different things.