Read on Twitter
Alright #twittercartesians, here we go.
*Descartes’ Hidden Defense of the Piety of Heliocentrism*
A few things by way of preface:
1. I don’t think the meditator (the “I” in the meds) is Descartes.
2. Even after going through the Meds, one is not a full Cartesian.
3. Despite what
*Descartes’ Hidden Defense of the Piety of Heliocentrism*
A few things by way of preface:
1. I don’t think the meditator (the “I” in the meds) is Descartes.
2. Even after going through the Meds, one is not a full Cartesian.
3. Despite what
the meditator says in the Meds, D is borrowing from the contemplative/meditative tradition.
3.1 as such, the text rewards repeated engagement.
4. A proper Cartesian would see some of the doubt in the First as nonsense - deceiving God/Evil Demon doubt is incoherent to D.
3.1 as such, the text rewards repeated engagement.
4. A proper Cartesian would see some of the doubt in the First as nonsense - deceiving God/Evil Demon doubt is incoherent to D.
Let’s start back in 1633. Upon hearing of Galileo’s condemnation, D wrote to Mersenne asking him to pull *Le Monde* for fear of reprisal. D says he will turn his attention to setting the groundwork for his physics through another project. Dry run, Discourse
Has similar structural points. Methodological solipsism, method of doubt, and dream argument. No deceiving God or hyperbolic doubt.
Flash forward to Meds. First med has a hidden *structural* defense of the tools necessary to get his physics (from which heliocentrism follows)
Flash forward to Meds. First med has a hidden *structural* defense of the tools necessary to get his physics (from which heliocentrism follows)
up and running. I believe that this is why he introduces the deceiving God/hyperbolic doubt in the Meds (also conspicuously absent from the Principles). But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Basic exegesis we likely already know. Let’s clarify the structure of the first Med.
•open with recognition that being wrong feels an awful lot like being right.
Science is *literally* in crisis. How do we resolve conflicting world views and get stable knowledge?
•method of doubt: it is prudent never to trust any source of knowledge if it has resulted in
Science is *literally* in crisis. How do we resolve conflicting world views and get stable knowledge?
•method of doubt: it is prudent never to trust any source of knowledge if it has resulted in
a false belief, even once.
Note: *reasoned* doubt. Each application of the method is immediately followed by some statement limiting the scope of the skepticism (until hyperbolic).
•foundation metaphor & identifying the senses as the primary source of knowledge.
Note: *reasoned* doubt. Each application of the method is immediately followed by some statement limiting the scope of the skepticism (until hyperbolic).
•foundation metaphor & identifying the senses as the primary source of knowledge.
•First application of MoD: non-optimal sense conditions. (Doubt when things are far away, or small).
•reign it in.
•Madman as set-up for the dream argument.
•Dream Argument. (Doubt physics, astronomy, medicine, and anything purporting to do with “composite bodies”).
•reign it in.
•Madman as set-up for the dream argument.
•Dream Argument. (Doubt physics, astronomy, medicine, and anything purporting to do with “composite bodies”).
•Painter Analogy. (Limit the skepticism: behavior of bodies, shapes of bodies, etc, all doubtful. Mathematics, arithmetic, conceptual truths, & logic all survive the dream argument. Importantly, so does the existence of an external world - though its nature is perhaps unknown)
What else makes it through? God. Specifically Omni-Omni God. No reason to doubt Him, right?
Wrong.
•Problem of Deception (parallel to prob of evil, but epistemic).
•Narrow conception of God is doubtful, followed by rhetorical work on the difficulty of remaining skeptical.
Wrong.
•Problem of Deception (parallel to prob of evil, but epistemic).
•Narrow conception of God is doubtful, followed by rhetorical work on the difficulty of remaining skeptical.
•Evil Deceiver/hyperbolic doubt.
Let’s think about each point. Right away, D is challenging the stability of the traditional (“empiricist”) approach astronomy by pointing out the senses often mislead us about things that are *far* away. The sun and the planets are farther away than anything terrestrial, yet...
folks seem to think observation was going to tell us something about them. But that’s weak, and D knows it. So ramp it up - the dream argument is massively destructive to naïve empiricism.
That the meditator notes that physics and any science involving “composite bodies” is...
That the meditator notes that physics and any science involving “composite bodies” is...
problematic is a hint. Obviously astronomy as such is gone. But it’s not implausible to think by “composite bodies” D (not the meditator) means to include hylomorphic compounds. He hated forms, and found the search for final causes impossible (can discuss more if people want).
But what survived the massively destructive Dream Argument? Only the tools necessary for Cartesian physics: geometry (literally Earth-Measurement), arithmetic, reason, and the existence of something extended.
Descartes’ physics is good, the empiricists? Not so much.
Descartes’ physics is good, the empiricists? Not so much.
But wait! There’s more!
Not only did his physics survive, where “empirical” physics failed... but, remember his fear of reprisal after having seen Galileo get in trouble? Yeah. It’s not just that D’s physics is more stable.
The *only* way to doubt Cartesian physics is...
Not only did his physics survive, where “empirical” physics failed... but, remember his fear of reprisal after having seen Galileo get in trouble? Yeah. It’s not just that D’s physics is more stable.
The *only* way to doubt Cartesian physics is...
You guessed it, by presuming that God is a deceiver (or at any rate is capable of deception).
And if one thinks that God is not all powerful/knowing/morally perfect, then all bets are off.
And if one thinks that God is not all powerful/knowing/morally perfect, then all bets are off.
Remember, D stated that the meditations contained “all the principles of [his] physics.” He also said explicitly that he was turning to ground his physics in epistemically certain principles.
Once we have a C&D perception of God, we see that deception is inconsistent with divine
Once we have a C&D perception of God, we see that deception is inconsistent with divine
nature. So the faulty-cognitive-faculties worry, dissolves (becomes straightforwardly silly).
And Descartes knows that non-Cartesians are going to feel squeamish with the idea of a deceiving God. Yet that’s the only way to doubt his physics... they’re just math, y’all.
And Descartes knows that non-Cartesians are going to feel squeamish with the idea of a deceiving God. Yet that’s the only way to doubt his physics... they’re just math, y’all.
A new meditator wouldn’t catch all this, because they’re too caught up in scholastic nonsense. But somebody thinking clearly... they will see it!
And now you all do too.
And now you all do too.
