Foundation
In Descartes Meditation VI Of the existence of material things, and of the real
distinction between the real soul and body of man, he explains he reasoning for
believing that the mind is better known than any body.
Descartes states his reasoning through various assumptions that he has made in
his search for knowledge. Descartes is a philosopher, who through thinking
comes to these conclusions.
In the reading of Descartes he interprets his understanding of how and why the
mind is better known than the body. He states that, “Myself in my entirety in
as much as I am formed of body and soul (mind) taught by nature, sun, stars,
and sky. Descartes realized that he could learn things from his body. Things
like pain if he touches a flame or pleasure if he drinks a cup of wine. With
senses Descartes could see textures and beautiful landscapes. This made
Descartes realize that from this generalization that he has made, what he
learns from his body does not exceed what he already knows in his mind. I think
Descartes point is well made in his quote above. I come to understand this
though, through the fact that the minds common sense is what tells me I should
not touch a flame, because of the pain it will bring me.
Through Descartes studies of himself, he also came to the conclusion that,
“…Mind alone, not mind and body in conjunction, is a requisite to a knowledge
of the truth in regard to such things.”(376) He explains this premise with the
analogy, “…Although stars make no larger an impression on my eye than the flame
of a little candle there is yet in me no real or positive propensity impelling
me to believe that it is not greater than the flame; but I have judged it to be
from my earliest years, without any rational foundation.” This analogy
interprets that, just because there is no direct effect upon his the body or
physical senses it does not mean that nothing exists. The mind is more
important to think and realize the possibilities even though his body cannot
sense them. So even though the flame looks the same size as the star his mind
know it in fact is not. I can only understand so much of this statement by
Descartes. I understand that that his mind can differentiate the star from the
star, but this is not preconceived knowledge given to him at birth. I disagree
with the fact that he new this fact since he was a child. I believe that you
learn any knowledge from either watching others or being taught it from
someone. To disprove Descartes I use the analogy, “If I were born and no on
spoke any kind of language to me I would not know how to speak.”
The next philosophy Descartes comes up with deals with the actual difference
between mind and body. He explains this principal with this knowledge, “There
is a great difference between mind and body in as much as body is by nature
always divisible and the mind is entirely indivisible.” Descartes clearly
explains this analogy by saying that, “he is only a thinking thing, he cannot
distinguish in himself any parts, but apprehend himself to be clearly one and
entire; although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet if a
foot, or an arm, or some other part, is separated from his body, he is aware
that nothing has been taken away from the mind.” I agree with these facts that
the mind (soul) is not indivisible. To me it seems very unlikely that I could
separate my soul from my actual body. Also Descartes brings up a great point
that if someone cut our foot off, this would not affect our inner being. So for
instance if you lost a toe, this would not mean you lose a piece of your soul.
I believe Descartes states well the ideas of how the mind is better known then
the body. He does this through many analogies with feasible thoughts that I can
understand. His arguments presented are well defended and supported.
Descartes makes clear most of his principles and premises by using logic. In
logical thought one can understand how the mind can tell the difference between
a star and flames size and distance. Descartes is unclear about is the fact
that not certain common knowledge is known from the time we are children. This
is a pretty hard to comprehend considering the premises I have been taught by
the sciences. If I see a star when I’m a kid I cannot perceive that I know what
it is if I have never seen one before. I would have to ask someone who new what
that object was and learn that this object I saw was in fact a star.
I think this is the only problem with this meditation by Descartes. His idea of
knowing an object in your mind just because seeing it is ludicrous to me.
Logically, it is impossible to know something you never seen before. I say that
any of his philosophies are supported well enough to come to this conclusion.