DOCSLIB.ORG

A Defense of Cartesian Certainty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Defense of Cartesian Certainty A DEFENSE OF CARTESIAN CERTAINTY by STEPHANIE LARSEN WYKSTRA A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in the Philosophy Department Written under the direction of Ernest Sosa And approved by _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey October 2008 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION A Defense of Cartesian Certainty By STEPHANIE LARSEN WYKSTRA Dissertation Director: Ernest Sosa This dissertation examines Rene Descartes’ view of certainty and defends the view that Cartesian certainty is possible. The first half of the dissertation includes an interpretation of Descartes’ epistemology as well as an examination of other interpreters’ readings. The second half of the dissertation is a defense of the claim that Cartesian certainty of a particular kind is possible; it includes a variety of contemporary objections and replies in defense of the possibility of certainty. ii Acknowledgments My thanks to Martha Bolton and Ernie Sosa as well as members of the epistemology dissertation group: Matthew Benton, Pavel Davydov, Carl Feierabend, Jonathan Ichikawa, Alex Jackson and Josh Orozco. For ongoing conversation about Descartes and philosophy in general, I am very grateful to Geoff Anders. iii Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Descartes’ View of Certainty......................................................................5 Chapter 2: Other Interpretations Considered ...........................................................29 Chapter 3: Memory.....................................................................................................53 Chapter 4: The Creation of the Eternal Truths .........................................................63 Chapter 5: On the Meaning of “Cartesian Certainty” ..............................................84 Chapter 6: A Defense of Cartesian Certainty ..........................................................107 Chapter 7: When Not to Avoid Begging the Question .............................................128 Chapter 8: Objections to the Possibility of Certainty..............................................141 Chapter 9: The Possibility of Strong Rationalism....................................................162 Bibliography ..............................................................................................................184 iv 1 Introduction All roads in philosophy lead to epistemology. When one asks questions in ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, or another area, sooner or later epistemology rears its head: how do I justify any of my claims? Do I know any of the things I think I know? What is the right way to go about answering philosophical questions? I began with metaphysics. Soon into my studies, methodological questions morphed into methodological discontents. Contemporary analytic philosophy favored and still favors common sense mixed with philosophical intuitions of unknown provenance. I found little to assuage my worry that hunches were not to be trusted, that disagreement points to unreliability, and that metaphysics built on such a foundation is unlikely to last. Such was my preparation for Descartes. Aware of the need for a method I could count on if I was to continue philosophizing in good faith, I found myself drawn to an epistemology promising certainty. My thought on undertaking a study of Descartes’ method was as follows. If certainty turned out to be possible, then I would have found a way out of my worries. If not, this would also be good to find out. In neither case would I be wasting time on the project. My project is two-fold. In the first half of the dissertation, I interpret Descartes’ epistemology – specifically, his view of certainty. I have tried to be faithful to the text while being as charitable to Descartes as possible. There are two main features of my 2 reading that I want to mention here. First, there is no “circle” in the Meditations (this is essential to any good reading of Descartes). Second, I interpret Descartes as having two distinct concepts of knowledge, which I call cognitio and scientia. Cognitio is the concept that I focus on, because unlike scientia, it does not require any successful proof of God’s existence and non-deception. The “Cartesian certainty” that I am interested in is, as Michael Della Rocca has put it, epistemology without God.1 In the second half of the dissertation, I defend cognitio – which I call certainty – against contemporary objections. Many contemporary epistemologists are anti-skeptics in the sense that they defend “knowledge” and repudiate Cartesian skepticism. Many are also skeptical, however, in the sense that they would deny the possibility of Cartesian certainty, which is different from what they call “knowledge” in that it’s infallible.2 It is my aim in the second half to answer their objections. A brief chapter summary will set the stage for what is to come. In the first four chapters, I lay out my interpretation of Descartes. Chapter 1 lays out my two-concept interpretation of “certainty” and uses the text to defend such the reading. Chapter 2 includes synopses of five competing interpretations- those of Edwin Curley, Janet Broughton, Louis Loeb, Harry Frankfurt and James Van Cleve- and presents textual and philosophical evidence against each of them. Chapter 3 is an explanation of Descartes’ view of memory. Chapter 4 deals with the issue of the eternal truths; I argue that 1 Della Rocca “Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology without God” 2 See chapter 5 for elaboration on what I mean by Cartesian certainty. 3 Descartes’ stance on the creation of the eternal truths is inconsistent with other parts of his system, and argue that several attempts to render his views consistent fail. In the second part of the dissertation, I begin by explaining my view of “Cartesian certainty” in Chapter 5, first describing what my concept of certainty is not, and then drawing on Richard Fumerton’s work to explain what it is. In Chapter 6, I take on the skeptic who demands that we fulfill certain criteria in order to attain Cartesian certainty by arguing that such a skeptic is not justified in his claims. In Chapter 7, I argue that begging the question against the skeptic is not only acceptable but good, in cases of certainty. In Chapter 8, I respond to contemporary objections taken from the work of Keith Lehrer, Bruce Aune, and Timothy Williamson. In Chapter 9, I respond to further objections made by Laurence Bonjour and Ernie Sosa. In the course of writing this dissertation, I have had the opportunity to learn a lot about philosophy. In the end, I have ceased to ask some questions and have begun to ask others. I have come to believe that many questions of the form “What is X?” have little to offer us even if we could answer them definitively.3 In their stead, however, I have discovered many other questions pertaining to what is valuable in philosophy and in life. Though I am critical of Descartes in some regards, studying his philosophy has also made me more optimistic. I have come to believe that certainty is possible (and, to a very limited extent in my own case, actual). Objections which once seemed devastating are no longer devastating. As a result, I am hopeful that there is a way to make progress 3 See the final section of chapter 9. 4 in philosophy and move beyond the “inextricable darkness” of the problems that we cannot and should not avoid. 5 Chapter 1: Descartes’ View of Certainty Interpreters of Descartes have struggled to attribute to him a view which fits with the Meditations and his other writings, while also avoiding the Cartesian circle. In this chapter, I will present an interpretation which fulfills both criteria. 4 On my interpretation, “certainty” for Descartes picks out two philosophically valuable types of knowledge, which I will refer to as cognitio and scientia.5 The two types of knowledge have very different requirements, and play different roles in Descartes’ method. I will argue that whereas cognitio is the type of knowledge one has when one infallibly connects with the truth, scientia is the state of securing this knowledge in place. In the first section, I will briefly explain the problem of the Cartesian circle. In the second section, I will give Descartes’ reply to the circle objection (made by Arnauld and Mersenne), and explain how my interpretation of Descartes coheres with his reply. In the third section, I will look at the passages which seem to conflict with my interpretation. I will then give a reading on which the passages and my reading are compatible. In the fourth section, I will raise a possible philosophical difficulty for the view I propose, and suggest two ways in Descartes could respond to it. 4 Anthony Kenny’s view (Ch 8, Descartes, 1968) is probably the most similar to mine, though we differ in some regards. Michael Della Rocca (“Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology Without God”), and James Van Cleve (“Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles, and the Cartesian Circle”) also have similar views, though we diverge at certain key points (see Ch 2 and Ch 4 for examples). 5 I will use the terms “certainty” and “knowledge” interchangeably throughout the dissertation; where
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Fideism Through the Lens of Wittgenstein's Engineering Outlook
    University of Dayton eCommons Religious Studies Faculty Publications Department of Religious Studies 2012 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad Kallenberg University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons eCommons Citation Kallenberg, Brad, "Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook" (2012). Religious Studies Faculty Publications. 82. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/rel_fac_pub/82 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Note: This is the accepted manuscript for the following article: Kallenberg, Brad J. “Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 71, no. 1 (2012): 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11153-011-9327-0 Rethinking Fideism through the Lens of Wittgenstein’s Engineering Outlook Brad J. Kallenberg University of Dayton, 2011 In an otherwise superbly edited compilation of student notes from Wittgenstein’s 1939 Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cora Diamond makes an false step that reveals to us our own tendencies to misread Wittgenstein. The student notes she collated attributed the following remark to a student named Watson: “The point is that these [data] tables do not by themselves determine that one builds the bridge in this way: only the tables together with certain scientific theory determine that.”1 But Diamond thinks this a mistake, presuming instead to change the manuscript and put these words into the mouth of Wittgenstein.
    [Show full text]
  • Christofidou Final
    Behavior and Philosophy, 44, 6-17 (2016). ©2016 Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies JOSÉ E. BURGOS (2015) ANTIDUALISM AND ANTIMENTALISM IN RADICAL BEHAVIORISM: A CRITICAL DISCUSSION Andrea Christofidou Keble College, Oxford As the title makes clear, José Burgos’ (2015) is an ambitious paper, attempting to tackle a number of positions spanning three centuries or so in the philosophy of mind, and over a century in non-philosophical areas such as behaviourism, cognitive psychology, and other psychological accounts. It tries to draw on and include philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant, none of whom is easy, as he acknowledges, each meriting a separate paper. Burgos’s paper is clear and well argued and achieves what it sets out to do, namely, to show the problems facing the various physicalist and behaviourist positions that he considers. In particular, I admire his painstaking examination of the non-philosophical positions that he discusses. My main aim is not to comment on such positions, though at the end of my discussion I shall offer some brief remarks. I am mainly concerned to raise a few points concerning the discussions Burgos has woven into his account. Three stand out that are of the first importance for metaphysics, which I shall take in turn: Descartes’ dualism; the metaphysics of causality; and Kant’s thesis of the self. I shall finish with some brief general comments on behaviourism. Descartes’ Dualism It is an intellectual duty of anyone who embarks on an exposition and discussion of another thinker to start by presenting as clearly as possible the positions and arguments of that thinker.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume and the Origin of Modern Rationalism Donald Livingston Emory University
    A Symposium: Morality Reconsidered David Hume and the Origin of Modern Rationalism Donald Livingston Emory University In “How Desperate Should We Be?” Claes Ryn argues that “morality” in modern societies is generally understood to be a form of moral rationalism, a matter of applying preconceived moral principles to particular situations in much the same way one talks of “pure” and “applied” geometry. Ryn finds a num- ber of pernicious consequences to follow from this rationalist model of morals. First, the purity of the principles, untainted by the particularities of tradition, creates a great distance between what the principles demand and what is possible in actual experience. The iridescent beauty and demands of the moral ideal distract the mind from what is before experience.1 The practical barriers to idealistically demanded change are oc- cluded from perception, and what realistically can and ought to be done is dismissed as insufficient. And “moral indignation is deemed sufficient”2 to carry the day in disputes over policy. Further, the destruction wrought by misplaced idealistic change is not acknowledged to be the result of bad policy but is ascribed to insufficient effort or to wicked persons or groups who have derailed it. A special point Ryn wants to make is that, “One of the dangers of moral rationalism and idealism is DONAL D LIVINGSTON is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Emory Univer- sity. 1 Claes Ryn, “How Desperate Should We Be?” Humanitas, Vol. XXVIII, Nos. 1 & 2 (2015), 9. 2 Ibid., 18. 44 • Volume XXVIII, Nos. 1 and 2, 2015 Donald Livingston that they set human beings up for desperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Using the Term “Reasonable Scientific Certainty”
    NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE Testimony Using the Term “Reasonable Scientific Certainty” Subcommittee Reporting and Testimony Type of Work Product Views Document Statement of the Issue It is the view of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) that legal professionals should not require that forensic discipline testimony be admitted conditioned upon the expert witness testifying that a conclusion is held to a “reasonable scientific certainty,” a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” or a “reasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.” The legal community should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts. Such terms have no scientific meaning and may mislead factfinders [jurors or judges] when deciding whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Forensic science service providers should not endorse or promote the use of this terminology. The Commission recognizes the right of each jurisdiction to determine admissibility standards but expresses this view as part of its mandate to “develop proposed guidance concerning the intersection of forensic science and the courtroom.” Forensics experts are often required to testify that the opinions or facts stated are offered “to a reasonable scientific certainty” or to a “reasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.” Outside of the courts, this phrasing is not routinely used in scientific disciplines, a point acknowledged in the Daubert decision (“it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony must be ‘known’ to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science.”). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View
    R ené Descartes (1596-1650) is generally regarded as the “father of modern philosophy.” He stands as one of the most important figures in Western intellectual history. His work in mathematics and his writings on science proved to be foundational for further development in these fields. Our understanding of “scientific method” can be traced back to the work of Francis Bacon and to Descartes’ Discourse on Method. His groundbreaking approach to philosophy in his Meditations on First Philosophy determine the course of subsequent philosophy. The very problems with which much of modern philosophy has been primarily concerned arise only as a consequence of Descartes’thought. Descartes’ philosophy must be understood in the context of his times. The Medieval world was in the process of disintegration. The authoritarianism that had dominated the Medieval period was called into question by the rise of the Protestant revolt and advances in the development of science. Martin Luther’s emphasis that salvation was a matter of “faith” and not “works” undermined papal authority in asserting that each individual has a channel to God. The Copernican revolution undermined the authority of the Catholic Church in directly contradicting the established church doctrine of a geocentric universe. The rise of the sciences directly challenged the Church and seemed to put science and religion in opposition. A mathematician and scientist as well as a devout Catholic, Descartes was concerned primarily with establishing certain foundations for science and philosophy, and yet also with bridging the gap between the “new science” and religion. Descartes’ Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View 1) Descartes’ disbelief in authoritarianism: Descartes’ belief that all individuals possess the “natural light of reason,” the belief that each individual has the capacity for the discovery of truth, undermined Roman Catholic authoritarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • METAPHYSICS and the WORLD CRISIS Victor B
    METAPHYSICS AND THE WORLD CRISIS Victor B. Brezik, CSB (The Basilian Teacher, Vol. VI, No. 2, November, 1961) Several years ago on one of his visits to Toronto, M. Jacques Maritain, when he was informed that I was teaching a course in Metaphysics, turned to me and inquired with an obvious mixture of humor and irony indicated by a twinkle in the eyes: “Are there some students here interested in Metaphysics?” The implication was that he himself was finding fewer and fewer university students with such an interest. The full import of M. Maritain’s question did not dawn upon me until later. In fact, only recently did I examine it in a wider context and realize its bearing upon the present world situation. By a series of causes ranging from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in the 18th century and the rise of Positive Science in the 19th century, to the influence of Pragmatism, Logical Positivism and an absorbing preoccupation with technology in the 20th century, devotion to metaphysical studies has steadily waned in our universities. The fact that today so few voices are raised to deplore this trend is indicative of the desuetude into which Metaphysics has fallen. Indeed, a new school of philosophers, having come to regard the study of being as an entirely barren field, has chosen to concern itself with an analysis of the meaning of language. (Volume XXXIV of Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association deals with Analytical Philosophy.) Yet, paradoxically, while an increasing number of scholars seem to be losing serious interest in metaphysical studies, the world crisis we are experiencing today appears to be basically a crisis in Metaphysics.
    [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 Mohammad Alwahaib Abstract: This paper clarifies the philosophical connection between Al-Ghazali and Descartes, with the goal to articulate similarities and differences in their famous journeys from doubt to certainty. As such, its primary focus is on the chain of their reasoning, starting from their conceptions of truth and doubt arguments, until their arrival at truth. Both philosophers agreed on the ambiguous character of ordinary everyday knowledge and decided to set forth in undermining its foundations. As such, most scholars tend to agree that the doubt arguments used by Descartes and Al-Ghazali are similar, but identify their departures from doubt as radically different: while Descartes found his way out of doubt through the cogito and so reason, Al-Ghazali ended his philosophical journey as a Sufi in a sheer state of passivity, waiting for the truth to be revealed to him by God. This paper proves this is not the case. Under close textual scrutiny and through the use of basic Husserlian-phenomenological concepts, I show that Al-Ghazali's position was misunderstood, thus disclosing his true philosophic nature. I. Introduction This paper clarifies the philosophical relation between Al-Ghazali, a Muslim philosopher (1058--1111), and the French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596--1650), with the objective of articulating the similarities and differences in their famous journeys from doubt to certainty. Historical evidence on whether Descartes did in fact read or had knowledge of Al-Ghazali’s work will not be discussed in this paper. Instead, this paper focuses primarily on the chain of their reasoning, starting from their conceptions of truth and the arguments used by each to destroy or deconstruct the pillars of our knowledge and thus reach truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Scepticism: the Cartesian Approach Luciano Floridi
    Mathematical Scepticism: the Cartesian Approach1 Luciano Floridi Wolfson College, Oxford, OX2 6UD, UK [email protected] - www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi Introduction Paris, 15 February 1665: Molière’s Don Juan is first performed in the Palais-Royal Hall. Third Act, First Scene: the most daring of Don Juan’s intellectual adventures takes place. In a dialogue with his servant Sganarelle, Don Juan makes explicit his atheist philosophy: SGANARELLE. I want to get to the bottom of what you really think. Is it possible that you don’t believe in Heaven at all? D. JUAN. Let that question alone. SGANARELLE. That means you don’t. And Hell? D. JUAN. Enough. SGANARELLE. Ditto. What about the devil then? D. JUAN. Oh, of course. SGANARELLE. As little. Do you believe in an after life? D. JUAN. Ha! ha! ha! SGANARELLE. Here is a man I shall have a job to convert. […] SGANARELLE. But everybody must believe in something. What do you believe in? D. JUAN. What do I believe? SGANARELLE. Yes. D. JUAN. I believe that two and two make four, Sganarelle, and four and four make eight. SGANARELLE. That’s a fine thing to believe! What fine article of faith! Your religion is then nothing but arithmetic. Some people do have queer ideas in their heads, and those that have been educated are often the silliest. I never studied, thank God, and no one can boast he taught me anything. But, to my poor way of thinking, my eyes are better than books. I know very well that this world we see around us is not a mushroom grown up in a single night.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Certainty in Wittgenstein's On
    THE NATURE OF CERTAINTY IN WITTGENSTEIN’S ON CERTAINTY THE NATURE OF CERTAINTY IN WITTGENSTEIN’S ON CERTAINTY By COLIN MCQUAID, B.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts McMaster University © Copyright by Colin McQuaid, March 2012 McMaster University MASTER OF ARTS (2012) Hamilton, Ontario (Philosophy) TITLE: The Nature of Certainty in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty AUTHOR: Colin McQuaid, B.A. (UNBSJ) SUPERVISOR: Professor Ric Arthur NUMBER OF PAGES: iv, 92 ii Abstract In this thesis I examine the concept of certainty in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, with a focus on the collection of remarks entitled On Certainty. In the first part I examine two essays of G.E. Moore that initiated Wittgenstein’s discussion of certainty and critique of Moore’s two essays. As I show, Wittgenstein believes that Moore misunderstood the use of the expression of I know in relation to the propositions of common sense. Instead, Wittgenstein believes that the common sense propositions stand for a certainty that belongs to the language-game itself, a certainty that stands fast for everyone who participates in the language-game, like hinges on which the rest of our knowledge and doubt turn. The rest of my thesis is spent examining three different interpretations of this notion of hinge certainty. The first is hinges as presuppositions to combat skeptical arguments, offered by the philosophers Crispin Wright and H.J. Glock. The second is that hinges are Wittgenstein’s version of foundationalism, serving as the foundational framework of human language, a notion primarily advocated by the philosophers Avrum Stroll and Danièle Moyal-Sharrock.
    [Show full text]
  • On Certainty (Uber Gewissheit) Ed
    Ludwig Wittgenstein On Certainty (Uber Gewissheit) ed. G.E.M.Anscombe and G.H.von Wright Translated by Denis Paul and G.E.M.Anscombe Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1969-1975 Preface What we publish here belongs to the last year and a half of Wittgenstein's life. In the middle of 1949 he visited the United States at the invitation of Norman Malcolm, staying at Malcolm's house in Ithaca. Malcolm acted as a goad to his interest in Moore's 'defence of common sense', that is to say his claim to know a number of propositions for sure, such as "Here is one hand, and here is another", and "The earth existed for a long time before my birth", and "I have never been far from the earth's surface". The first of these comes in Moore's 'Proof of the External World'. The two others are in his 'Defence of Common Sense'; Wittgenstein had long been interested in these and had said to Moore that this was his best article. Moore had agreed. This book contains the whole of what Wittgenstein wrote on this topic from that time until his death. It is all first-draft material, which he did not live to excerpt and polish. The material falls into four parts; we have shown the divisions at #65, #192, #299. What we believe to be the first part was written on twenty loose sheets of lined foolscap, undated. These Wittgenstein left in his room in G.E.M.Anscombe's house in Oxford, where he lived (apart from a visit to Norway in the autumn) from April 1950 to February 1951.
    [Show full text]
  • Readings of Wittgenstein's on Certainty
    CRITICAL NOTICE Readings of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty Edited by Daniele Moyal-Sharrock and William H. Brenner, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2007, pp. 352, £ 20.99 ISBN-13: 978-0-230-53552-7 (paperback) Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall There can be little doubt that had the opportunity been available to him, Wittgenstein would have pruned and rearranged, in this case perhaps to a greater degree than in others, the rough and unrevised notes which Anscombe and von Wright first published in 1969 under the title of On Certainty. Described in their Preface to the work as ‘a single sustained treatment of the topic’, separately marked off in his notebooks, which he ‘apparently took up at four separate periods’ during the last eighteen months of his life, with his last entry only two days before his death, it must appear to even the most casual reader that the same questions arise time and time again, with Wittgenstein often providing only slight variations in his numerous approaches to them. For that reason, it is only natural to assume that he would have with time selected and organised his remarks with the sole aim of directing the reader’s attention to the identifiable goal towards which he must surely have intended them to point. But what can that goal have been ? This is the moot question which this, for the most part outstanding selection of essays attempts to answer, and these answers may seem as much at odds with one another as the bewilderment provoked by the work itself might lead one to expect, a bewilderment which the editors see as integral to the ‘distance and deference’ with which it has so often been regarded: clearly recognising the ‘unpolished gem’ which On Certainty is, readers have been unable to reach agreement on the nature of the message they naturally assume that it must be attempting to convey.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Academic Research and Dissertations Maine State Library Special Collections 2018 Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/academic Recommended Citation Sweeney, Taryn, "Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm" (2018). Academic Research and Dissertations. 21. https://digitalmaine.com/academic/21 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Maine State Library Special Collections at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic Research and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AESTHESIS UNIVERSALIS: RECONCILING AESTHETIC PHILOSOPHY AND THE CARTESIAN PARADIGM Taryn M Sweeney Submitted to the faculty of The Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy November, 2018 ii Accepted by the faculty of the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee Chair: Don Wehrs, Ph.D. Hargis Professor of English Literature Auburn University, Auburn Committee Member: Merle Williams, Ph.D. Personal Professor of English University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Committee Member: Kathe Hicks Albrecht, Ph.D. Independent Studies Director Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts, Portland iii © 2018 Taryn M Sweeney ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a profound gratitude to my advisor, Don Wehrs, for his tremendous patience, sympathy, and acceptance of my completely un-academic self as I approached this most ambitious and academic of undertakings.
    [Show full text]