DOCSLIB.ORG

Descartes Discussion Points 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Descartes Discussion Points 1 Descartes Discussion Points 1. Foundations (p.95) Descartes believes that real knowledge is only possible if it is built on fixed foundations, which he compares to a fulcrum needed for a huge lever. Nowadays the search for foundations is challenged by those who believe justification is either external (e.g. reliabilism) or is internal coherence. Neurath's Boat, which has no anchor but stays afloat because its planks fit together nicely, is the alternative model. Most foundationalists rely on basic sense experience, so Descartes is unusual in looking for a rational foundation. Maybe any search for rational foundations is doomed to end in solipsism. 2. Sceptical method (95) As a way of discovering totally certain foundations, Descartes invents a technique of ruthless doubt. If there is any doubt, a belief must be rejected. Maybe he doesn't distinguish enough between scepticism as a method and as a doctrine. It is a good method, which goes back to Socrates, and is the basis of modern science as well as philosophy. As a doctrine it is probably too demanding, and he should have relaxed a bit once he found that none of his beliefs could be fully justified. The doctrine demands total certainty, and this may be beyond human beings (or even a logical impossibility for God!). 3. Senses deceiving us (96) His first sceptical argument is that if senses have once deceived you, that proves they are not reliable, so they must be rejected. (This deception could be either uncertain information from the world, or false information generated by the senses, or a misinterpretation of what is experienced.) It may be correct that we should be cautious about sense experience (as illusions repeatedly prove), but it is not clear what the argument proves. Surely we should be cautious about senses before they even deceive us once? And if they deceive you once, what should you conclude? Don't trust your ears because your eyes deceived you? Don't trust your senses when looking at distant objects? Don't trust your senses if mine have deceived me ? A sceptic won't even be sure that his senses have deceived him. 4. Dreams (96) He suggests that rejecting sense experience is madness, but then realises that we believe mad experiences every day, when we dream. Near the end (p.168) he decides that we are not dreaming, because we cannot connect the parts of dreams together coherently. His rejection of dreams near the end seems optimistic, based on the demon being severely limited by the existence of a non- deceiving god. He needs some concept like a 'super-dream' to explain why our waking lives are so vivid and consistent. The truth is we can never escape the dream argument; if we 'woke up' now, it might just be into another level of dreaming. 5. Ultimate reality (97) Descartes’ investigations are aiming at establishing some ultimate reality (perhaps the physical world) which is beyond doubt. His whole aim, in the first meditation, may be misconceived. Even by the end of the book he isn't totally certain about any features of reality, because he admits that we make some errors. He thinks that if we agree that physical objects are there then most of our problems are solved, but there remain questions about secondary qualities, quantum physics etc. 6. Uncertainty of maths (98-9) At first he thinks that maths may be something which is totally certain, but then realises that some powerful force could delude him about maths, and make him foolishly over-confident. If pure luck has created him, then maths is even less reliable. It is arguable that simple arithmetic is more self-evident to us than any arguments about powerful forces or the luck of nature. If we can't get the right answer to 2+3, should we waste our time trying to reason about reality? The theory of evolution offers an account of nature which might produce reliable maths (as a way of thinking that results in survival). If God could deceive us about maths, presumably the demon could deceive us about the Ontological Argument. 7. Mental Interference (98, 100) The possibility of a powerful force interfering with his mind is one of his major sceptical arguments. At first he thinks God might do this, but then thinks an Evil Demon would have a better motivation. We might suggest an evil scientist, or ‘The Matrix’. This is argument is also hard to deny. Every thought that appears in my mind could be a projection by aliens or a hypnotist. Descartes eventually says that something is self-evident even if my mind is a receiving station (because it is clear and distinct), but we could take that further and say that arithmetic is also self-evident, and even that consistent sense experience must self- evidently be accepted. 8. Memory (102) He realises that his memory might be unreliable, so even if he did find the truth, he might not be able to hang on to it. He is probably not sceptical enough about memory, and he underestimates its importance. Bertrand Russell said the universe might have been created five minutes ago, in which case most of our memories are fiction. If he can't trust his memory he can't accept the Ontological Argument, because he must hold all the steps of the argument simultaneously in his mind. 9. Solipsism (103) The realisation that he himself might be creating a delusion that the world exists (instead of an outside force causing it) implies the possibility that nothing exists at all except his own mind – a view which is now known as ‘solipsism’. The horrible logic of solipsism is hard to escape. Descartes uses the Ontological Argument to prove that something exists outside his own mind. The best known modern attempt is Wittgenstein's Private Language argument, which claims that a solitary language is a logical impossibility, because a rule-following language has to be a community activity. Empiricists have less trouble with solipsism, though Berkeley thought existence was nothing but perception, which seems to create a mental prison of sense experiences. Solipsism may be a logical possibility, but it hardly looks like the best explanation of our experiences. 10. The Cogito (103) He realises that the proposition “I exist” has to be true whenever he is thinking. Even if all his thoughts are wrong, he must exist to be wrong. This is true only when he is actually thinking, and it is then a necessary truth (which couldn’t be false). The argument does not seem to be an abduction from evidence, or a deduction following logical steps, but a claim that a truth is self-evident. Since the alternative seems to be that nothing exists, Descartes obviously has a point. If thoughts could exist without a thinker (and Plato's theory of Forms encourages this possibility) then the argument would fail, but it would then be hard to see what connects sequences of thought. We could suggest that he has pointed out an obvious presupposition of all our thinking and language, and that it is just a dull tautology, but he could fairly reply that the idea that we must exist is hardly an arbitrary idea; it is a totally inescapable idea, and therefore very significant. We could say that he is over-optimistic about the stability of the "I" he has proved (the Cartesian Ego), and on p.127 he himself recognises that his self could be fragmentary, especially if his thoughts are fragmentary. Hume's 'bundle' theory of the self is of a fluctuating thing which couldn't form the basis for Descartes' philosophy. Indeed, it is hard to see how the addition of "I" to his observation that there are thoughts actually explains anything, so Ockham's Razor might suggest that we leave it out. However, if his Cogito does no more than show the limits of possible scepticism, that would make it an important idea. 11. A Thinking Thing (105) Once he is sure he exists (when thinking), he wonders what he is. He rejects Aristotle’s ‘rational animal’, and decides he is only the minimum required for thinking, which he calls a ‘thinking thing’ (res cogitans). His idea of his self is extremely narrow and lacking in individuality, and there seems to be no evidence for this 'thing' apart from the thinking. However, it is a good commitment for a rationalist to make, because it means he can trust the existence and stability of his understanding, which is the basis of all his other ideas. His belief in dualism seems an inevitable next step. 12. Imagination (106) Once he is certain of himself as a thinking thing, he wants to expand his understanding to the external world. He considers whether imagination might provide the necessary bridge, but realises that is no more reliable than dreams. Later (150) he uses the chiliagon example to prove that imagination is far less important than his understanding. He seriously underestimates the importance of imagination. It may not link him to reality, and he may be right that we can understand things we can't imagine (God? infinity?), but imagination is surely an essential and integral part of our ability to reason and understand. Doesn't he use his imagination when he is deciding that the molten wax is still wax? 13. Phenomenalism (107) As he realises the difficulty of finding a bridge from his mind to the external world, he begins to wonder whether he can only ever be certain of his experiences, and can never say for sure what the experiences are of.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM
    Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM Western Pre-Socratics Fanon Heraclitus- Greek 535-475 Bayle Panta rhei Marshall Mcluhan • "Everything flows" Roman Jakobson • "No man ever steps in the same river twice" Saussure • Doctrine of flux Butler Logos Harris • "Reason" or "Argument" • "All entities come to be in accordance with the Logos" Dike eris • "Strife is justice" • Oppositional process of dissolving and generating known as strife "The Obscure" and "The Weeping Philosopher" "The path up and down are one and the same" • Theory about unity of opposites • Bow and lyre Native of Ephesus "Follow the common" "Character is fate" "Lighting steers the universe" Neitzshce said he was "eternally right" for "declaring that Being was an empty illusion" and embracing "becoming" Subject of Heideggar and Eugen Fink's lecture Fire was the origin of everything Influenced the Stoics Protagoras- Greek 490-420 BCE Most influential of the Sophists • Derided by Plato and Socrates for being mere rhetoricians "Man is the measure of all things" • Found many things to be unknowable • What is true for one person is not for another Could "make the worse case better" • Focused on persuasiveness of an argument Names a Socratic dialogue about whether virtue can be taught Pythagoras of Samos- Greek 570-495 BCE Metempsychosis • "Transmigration of souls" • Every soul is immortal and upon death enters a new body Pythagorean Theorem Pythagorean Tuning • System of musical tuning where frequency rations are on intervals based on ration 3:2 • "Pure" perfect fifth • Inspired
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    INDEX N.B: italicized page numbers indicate figures 9/11, 3 anarchy, 257–260 coordination problem Abigail through objection to, 259–260 time, 157 anatta, 176 Adams, Douglas, 84 Anselm of Canterbury, 69 afterlife, 89–91 Aquinas, Thomas, 73, 78 agent causation, 133–135, Aristotle see also free will, cosmological argument, 75 dilemma argument ethical views, 52–54, 56–57 magic objection to, 135 function argument, 56–57 mystery objection to, 134 on agent causation, 133 vs. event causation, 135 on future contingents, agnosticism 116–117 definition of, 92 pinnacle of philosophical Aldrin, Buzz, 188 reason for Luther, 63 alien hand, 174 sea battle argument, Alighieri, Dante, 152 116–117 Allah, 6, 91, 95 zoon politikon, 261 altruism, 11 Armstrong, Neil, 188 examplesCOPYRIGHTED of, 12–13 Aspect, MATERIAL Alain, 127 Amish, 57–58 atheism analytical engine, 206 definition of, 92 This Is Philosophy: An Introduction, Second Edition. Steven D. Hales. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. bindex.indd 286 2/12/2021 5:37:33 PM Index 287 atheists Book of Mormon, 66 distrust of, 93 Boyle’s law, 94 percentage, 93 brain Atman, 151 corpus callosum, 173–175 Autrey, Wesley, 104 fission, 174–175 fusion, 175 Babbage, Charles, 206 hemispheres, 173–174 balancing positive evidence, 229 seat of psychology, 163 balancing zero evidence, 229 structure, 196 barber paradox, 94–95 switching, 161–163 Barry, Sue, 199–200, see also the transplants, 161–163 knowledge argument brave officer paradox, 166–168, beer see also clos- comparative ratings
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan R. Fagan Submitted to the Graduate De
    Re-grounding the Cogito: Descartes and the Problem of the Baroque By [Copyright 2015] Ryan R. Fagan Submitted to the graduate degree program in History and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ________________________________ Chairperson Benjamin C. Sax ________________________________ Luis Corteguera ________________________________ Steven Epstein ________________________________ George Gale _________________________________ Geraldo Sousa Date Defended: 12 May 2015 The Dissertation Committee for Ryan R Fagan certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Re-grounding the Cogito: Descartes and the Problem of the Baroque __________________________ Chairperson Benjamin C. Sax Date approved: 15 May 2015 ii Abstract: The dissertation offers a historically-based critique of the foundations of modernity in view of the truth claims it struggled to articulate and which continue to dominate the West.At the very core of this problem are the natural sciences, and it is from them that the dominant definition of truth in modernity emanates. Since the entrenchment of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, this definition has extended into an entire "worldview" occasioning and determining the modern mode of existence. I argue that to understand the modern foundation of science and truth (and by extension, medicine and all theoretically grounded bodies of knowledge), it is necessary to turn once again to Descartes' seminal role in the histories of philosophy and science. Recognizing Descartes' philosophy as a conceptual point of departure, I give a critical re-reading of his formulation of the Ego cogito-ego sum not only within the internal history of metaphysics (of which science is a part), but as a cultural-historical phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Cinematic Affect
    Post-Cinematic Affect Steven Shaviro 0 BOO KS Winchester, UK Washington, USA r First published by 0-Books, 2010 O Books ls an imprint of John Hunt Publishing Ltd., The Bothy, Deershot Lodge, Park Lane, Ropley, CONTENTS Hants, S024 OBE, UK [email protected] www.o-books.com For distributor details and how to order please visit the 'Ordering' section on oUr website. Text copyright Steven Shaviro 2009 Preface vii ISBN: 978 1 84694 431 4 1 Introduction All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of 1 this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from 2 Corporate Cannibal the publishers. 11 3 Boarding Gate The rights of Steven Shaviro as author have been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, 35 1988. 4 Designs and Patents Act Southland Tales 64 5 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Gamer 93 6 Coda Design: Stuart Davies 131 Printed In the UK by CPI Antony Rowe Works Cited 140 Endnotes 153 We operate a distinctive and ethical publishing philosophy in all areas of its business, from its global network of authors to production and worldwide distribution. Preface This book is an expanded version of an essay that originally appeared in the online journal Film-Philosophy. Earlier versions of portions of this book were delivered as talks sponsored by the Affective Publics Reading Group at the University of Chicago, by the film and media departments at Goldsmiths College, Anglia Ruskin University, University of the West of England, and Salford University, by the "Emerging Encounters in Film Theory" conference at Kings College, by the Experience Music Project Pop Conference, by the Nordic Summer University, by the Reality Hackers lecture series at Trinity University, San Antonio, and by the War and Media Symposium and the Humanities Center at Wayne State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • On Chuang Tzu As a Deconstructionist with a Difference
    robert e. allinson ON CHUANG TZU AS A DECONSTRUCTIONIST WITH A DIFFERENCE In an attempt to bring the Chuang-Tzu into dialogue with contem- porary philosophy, I wish to demonstrate that Chuang Tzu was a deconstructionist with a purpose.1 It is well known that his decon- structionism was aimed at destroying rigid patterns of thinking, think- ing which relied heavily on eristic logic and thinking which relied upon conventional beliefs. But Chuang Tzu’s deconstructionism goes farther than the deconstruction of conventional thinking patterns and conventional beliefs. His deconstructionism embraces the decon- struction of the self. His objective was to achieve a spiritual state of awareness that was a higher awareness of life. This higher awareness is referred to below as a reconstruction. It is not a reconstruction of a self but rather of a higher state. This higher state may be referred to as the Tao. The higher awareness that one attempts to reach is a level of insight, understanding, or knowledge. It is not epistemological skep- ticism. There is textual evidence that a higher understanding can be reached if one can only possess the appropriate level of insight. Con- sider the passages from the opening chapter of the Chuang-Tzu:“We can’t expect a blind man to appreciate beautiful patterns or a deaf man to listen to bells and drums.2 And blindness and deafness are not confined to the body alone—the understanding has them too, as your words just now have shown.” And, again, “Little understanding cannot come up to great understanding.”3 While there is a paradox in the project of self-deconstruction, nev- ertheless this project is ultimately explicable in principle.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is Philosophy: an Introduction Steven D
    This is Philosophy: An Introduction Steven D. Hales Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2013 Table of Contents Dedication Table of contents How to use this book Preface Chapter one. Ethics: Preliminary Theories I. The normative universe II. Is morality just acting on principles? III. Divine Command Theory (Is morality just what God tells me to do?) IV. Egoism (Is morality just my own personal code?) A. psychological and ethical egoism B. objections a. horrible consequences b. subjectivity c. equal treatment V. Moral relativism (Is morality just how society says we should act?) A. descriptive and moral relativism B. criticism objection VI. Annotated bibliography Chapter two. Ethics: The Big Three Theories I. Utilitarianism (Is morality doing what I can to make this the best world possible?) A. consequentialism and hedonism B. measuring pains and pleasures C. quality and quantity D. objections a. practicality b. invasiveness c. supererogation d. Simpson’s paradox e. agent-relative intuitions f. nothing is absolutely wrong II. Deontology, or Kantianism (Is there an absolute moral law?) A. imperatives and good motives B. categorical imperative, version 1 a. ways a principle of action can violate the categorical imperative i. inconsistency ii. inconsistent willing C. categorical imperative, version 2 D. objections a. generality b. agent-neutral intuitions c. horrible consequences III. Virtue Ethics (Is morality all about having a virtuous character?) A. what is virtue? B. what is character? C. objections a. virtue is compatible with evil b. clashing virtues c. relativism about virtues d. there is no such thing as character IV. Conclusion V. Annotated bibliography Chapter three. God I.
    [Show full text]
  • Fichte and the Dream Argument
    Fichte and the Dream Argument Dietmar H. Heidemann Introduction There can be no doubt that the dream argument is one of those philoso- phical arguments that at first glance seem to be equally straightforward and simple but turn out to be most complicated and tenacious. The dream argument essentially consists of two interconnected claims: first, dreaming states are not a reliable source of the epistemic justification of beliefs, and, secondly, there is no criterion to distinguish waking states from dreaming states. Whereas the first claim can be regarded as unproblematic, since we in fact do not take dreams to be an acceptable source of epistemic justifi- cation of our beliefs, the second claim turns out to be the real philosophi- cal problem. For if there is no criterion to distinguish waking states from dreaming states, we can never know whether our beliefs are true, because dreaming states do not provide a reliable basis to justify them. Descartes’ Meditations represent the locus classicus of the dream argu- ment. The reason for this is that Descartes does not consider the dream ar- gument to be merely a philosophical idea of somewhat general interest. He rather presents a paradigmatic analysis of the dream argument. The Cartesian analysis is even the reason why the dream argument is still a controversially debated topic in contemporary epistemology and philo- sophy of mind. Also Fichte takes it to be a particular philosophical chal- lenge. To Descartes the dream argument comes in form of the so called skep- tical hypothesis, i.e., an abstract description of a non-excludable skeptical 358 Dietmar H.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Ghazali and Descartes from Doubt to Certainty: a Phenomenological Approach
    AL-GHAZALI AND DESCARTES FROM DOUBT TO CERTAINTY: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH AL-GHAZALI Y DESCARTES DE LA DUDA A LA CERTEZA: UNA APROXIMACIÓN FENOMENOLÓGICA MOHAMMAD ALWAHAIB* Kuwait University, Kuwait. [email protected] RECIBIDO EL 17 DE JUNIO DE 2017, APROBADO EL 30 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2017 RESUMEN ABSTRACT Este artículo aclara la relación entre This paper clarifies the philosophical Al-Ghazali y René Descartes, para connection between Al-Ghazali and René articular similitudes y diferencias en sus Descartes, to articulate similarities and respectivos periplos desde la duda a la differences in their journeys from doubt certidumbre. Algunos investigadores to certainty. Some scholars agree that concuerdan en que los argumentos de the doubt arguments used by Descartes la duda que emplean Descartes y Al- and Al-Ghazali are similar, but identify Ghazali son similares, pero identifi can sus their departures from doubt as radical- caminos desde la duda como radicalmente ly different: while Descartes found his diferentes: mientras Descartes encontró la way out of doubt through the cogito or superación de la duda mediante el cogito o reason, Al-Ghazali ended his philosoph- la razón, Al-Ghazali fi nalizó su Aventura ical journey as a Sufi , overwhelmed by fi losófi ca como un Sufi , abrumado por su his religious-mystical experience. This experiencia místico-religiosa. Este artículo paper proves the opposite. Under close demuestra lo contrario. Bajo un cuidadoso textual scrutiny and using of basic Hus- escrutinio textual y aprovechando algunos serlian-phenomenological concepts, I conceptos fenomenológicos básicos de show that Al-Ghazali’s position was Husserl, planteo que la posición de Al- misunderstood, and thus disclose his true Ghazali fue malinterpretada, y así revelo philosophic nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche's Theory of Cognition: an Interpretation and Defense of Perspectivism Justin R
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loyola eCommons Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2012 Nietzsche's Theory of Cognition: An Interpretation and Defense of Perspectivism Justin R. Marquis Loyola University Chicago Recommended Citation Marquis, Justin R., "Nietzsche's Theory of Cognition: An Interpretation and Defense of Perspectivism" (2012). Dissertations. Paper 369. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/369 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2012 Justin R. Marquis LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO NIETZSCHE’S THEORY OF COGNITION: AN INTERPRETATION AND DEFENSE OF PERSPECTIVISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY JUSTIN R. MARQUIS CHICAGO, IL AUGUST 2012 Copyright by Justin R. Marquis, 2012 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would, first and foremost, like to thank my family and especially my parents, Rick and Cindy, for encouraging me in all my pursuits. A huge thanks is due to Dr. Jacqueline Scott, my dissertation director, for her mentoring and guidance. I have learned a great deal working under her, and this dissertation represents the fruits of her mentoring. Her encouragement to pursue the connection between Nietzsche’s epistemology and his larger project directly influenced the content of Chapters Two and Six.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoic Account of Apprehension October 2014 (Κατάληψις)
    Philosophers’ volume 14, no. 29 his paper examines the Stoic account of apprehension october 2014 (κατάληψις). Following a seminal article by Michael Frede Imprint T (1983), it is widely thought that the Stoics maintained a purely externalist causal account of apprehension wherein one may apprehend only if one stands in an appropriate causal relation to the object ap- prehended. An important but unanswered challenge to this view has been offered by David Sedley (2002), who offers reasons to suppose that the Stoics (or at least Zeno, the founder of the Stoa) did not make The Stoic Account of such a causal stipulation. I offer a defence of the traditional, causal reading against the challenges raised by Sedley but also argue, against the traditional view, that the Stoic account incorporated an internalist element. On the hybrid account defended here, in order to apprehend, Apprehension not only must the agent stand in an appropriate causal relation to the object apprehended, but the agent’s appearance of the object must also be clear (a feature which is accessible to the epistemic agent). The traditional scholarly view rejects internalist interpretations because it is thought that such interpretations cannot make sense of the Stoics’ discussion of the “automatic assent” produced by kataleptic appear- ances, and a purely externalist view is taken to be charitable insofar as it saves the Stoics from a vicious regress which they would other- wise face (were they internalists). I defend an internalist interpretation against both these charges. The internalist element embraced by the Stoics does not lead to the problems it is often thought to, and the ac- Tamer Nawar count defended here not only does justice to the textual evidence but also sheds light on the Stoic debates with their sceptical opponents University of Oxford and grants the Stoics an epistemic account fit for purpose.
    [Show full text]