I need Philosophy help! (intro-class)

College Majors
1

<p>I’m trying to work through a couple of practice problems studying for my introduction philosophy class. I was wondering if anyone (hopefully a philosophy expert) could help me out with a few questions:</p>

<p>(Descartes - Meditations)</p>

<li> Descartes’ goal in the Meditations is to discover a kind of truth which is:
(A) very likely to be accurate
(B) continually changing
(C) unshakeable and incontestably certain</li>
</ol>

<p>( i’m leaning towards C)</p>

<li><p>In the 3rd Meditation Descartes says that the cause of our idea of God must be:
(A) God himself
(B) the physical world
(C) observing great people and imaging infinite greatness</p></li>
<li><p>In the 5th Meditation, Descartes says that God must exist since He is:
(A) the cause of all things
(B) the same thing as nature or the world
(C) perfect</p></li>
<li><p>Some critics say that Descartes’ reasoning is circular, assuming the very thing he wants to prove in order to prove it.
(A) true
(B) false</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Thanks for the help!</p>

2

<p>I read meditations a while ago, but I would say:
1) B (Remember that Descartes is a skeptic, and that is the only reason why I would not pick C, though C would be my other choice.)
2) A (I would say definitely not C, because in Meditation Descartes says that human reasoning cannot comprehend god, as he is infinite, while humans can only perceive a finite objects. I am leaning away from B, because to prove so, Descartes would have to extrapolate.)
3) C
4) A</p>

<p>Again, I have read Meditations a while ago, and I could not finish it, but from what I know, this is what <em>I</em> would answer. Though, if a philosophy student has different answers, I would go with his.</p>

3

<p>i read the meditations a while ago, and i don't quite agree with these answers. Although Descartes is a skeptic, he is in effect trying to find one irrefutable premise from which he can deduce an entire new body of truths, hence his legacy as the first Rationalist. Descartes' approach is to do away with all prior assumptions, all preconceived knowledge (the skepticism) and rebuild something which is logically sound</p>

<p>Thus, #1 has to be (C). What is "I think, therefore I am"? Just that, a truth which he feels to be incontestably certain and from which he can safely rebuild a body of knowledge. It is his first, irrefutable premise, intended to support everything he reasons thereafter.</p>

<h1>2 (A) is a major trick question, and the answer lies between A and C. Joshhmgs is probably right though. Descartes considers both of these possibilities. First he states that God is an innate idea. Perhaps we observe great qualities in people around us, and project them on a single being, but to an infinite degree. In other words, our watered-down reality somehow implies the existence of a hightened, even more perfect, infinite reality. This, however, Descartes decides to be impossible. How could human beings as imperfect and limited as ourselves conceive of something so great and perfect? Infinitude is a notion that can only arise from itself; implication is not enough. Thus the answer is A, but don't be so quick to dismiss C as it's a very important step in Descartes' reasoning.</h1>

<h1>3 another trick question, but even worse :) Descartes gives several explanations for the existence of God, the first of which is that it is more perfect to exist than not to exist, and since God is a perfect being, he therefore exists. So that proves (C) is correct. (this is Cartesian circular reasoning at its worst). Second, Descartes likes to say that there must exist as much cause as there exists effect. The effect is our belief in/idea of God. Since this effect manifests itself, there must be a cause just as real that precedes it. The effect therefore proves the cause, that God is real. That in a sense proves (A). (this is really where i begin to hate Descartes....) So (C), and (A) to some extent, are correct.</h1>

<h1>4 ABSOLUTELY (AAAAAAAAAAAA). This man makes more assumptions than he proves claims. (trying to be equitable now...) But the good thing about Descartes, or what redeems him from burning for eternity in philosophical hell, is that he is the father of Rationalism and one of first to recognize the value of deductive logic and apply it as a means of rebuilding knowledge after skepticism mercilessly tore it all down.</h1>

<p>i mean, the first time i read him, i was like "this is a bunch of BS", but you need to evaluate his context in order to appreciate him really.....</p>

4

<p>man i can't wait till i can study philo. Are you guys planning to major in it?</p>

5

<p>i'm planning to go into astrophysics AND/OR theatre tech.</p>

<p>weird combo!</p>

6

<p>Well, I don't have to commit to any major for two years (I start college in the fall), but I might major in philosophy. I also might major in physics, math, political economy, classics, or any one of my other interests. So, I have no clue on how to answer definitely. </p>

<p>If it is still not too late, I would follow ontolome's suggestions, as I only picked up Meditations and read through most of it quickly. My reasoning to the first question is worth bunk. It is good to know, though, that my memory still works, despite the summer drain :-D</p>

<p>Ontolome, did you ever study philosophy formally?</p>

7

<p>wow joshjmgs, that's quite an array! i think i'll most likely go into philo, but otherwise history, classics, visual art, perhaps even linguistics seem interesting.</p>

<p>i've never studied philosophy formally, i'm just crazy about it in general. i read stuff whenever i can. i guess the length of my response was evidence of this....disorder...of mine.</p>

<p>the meditations can easily be misinterpreted/misremembered, i guess, because of their deceptive simplicity. sometimes it's just beyond me how a major philosopher could so obviously mess up, and i can perfectly understand that one might be tempted to make unconscious corrections, heh. </p>

<p>It's sort of like watching classic movies; they seem banal, like nothing spectacular, simply because they're being viewed out of context- without regard for their historical origin, their innovation in the genre etc (also the fact that they've been copied and improved upon a zillion times before you see them....)</p>

<p>So it should be kept in mind that we're standing on the shoulders of giants when we read this guy. Descartes is like a cheesy old black and white film by our standards, but he's still Casablanca so to speak :)</p>

<p>so anyway yea, i'll shut up now. Good luck with college, i still have to wait a year till i get there (green with envy). How did you come by Descartes? Or do you have anything more interesting to talk about?</p>

8

<p>More interesting than descartes? maybe nietzsche or kant, but there isn't much else? I kid.</p>

9

<p>nietzsche is my personal favorite.</p>

10

<p>
[QUOTE]
nietzsche is my personal favorite.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Explains alot :D.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
4. Some critics say that Descartes' reasoning is circular, assuming the very thing he wants to prove in order to prove it.
(A) true
(B) false

[/QUOTE]

This is a terrible question. First, it is unclear on which part of the statement has truth called into question. Is it true that critics claim Descartes has circular reasoning? Anyone answering this question can criticize Descartes and call his reasoning circular, even without knowing a thing about it, rendering the question useless beyond all skepticism. Now if the validity of "does Descartes use circular reasoning in his arguments" is questioned, it is really a subjective matter. Proof from reason can only come from assumptions, and if the logic of a proof does not contain errors, the proof must be true, and true only by its assumptions, making all proofs, in a way, inherently circular. If Descartes motivations are called into question, the only one who could really tell you died a long time ago; his writings seem to self-attribute truth. Writings provide evidence, but motivations cannot be proven beyond all skepticism. I don't trust them enough to answer this question "true or false."</p>