Kant: Natural science

Kant explains that natural science or physics is a synthetic A priori judgment. he also asks the question of natural science being pure. if he means can you just know about a science then no you must learn and be taught by someone or you must experience some type of thing to know about science.

Kant: Synthetic judgments

Kant says that you can not use synthetic judgments because you will lapse in your principal purpose. An this will make metaphysics contradict itself. Since a synthetic judgment is something that is informative i think that right there Kant contradicts himself. He is implying that if you start to expand your mind and start to see more things then you will start to realize that all things over lap some place. I think that maybe Kant could have used Analytic judgments as an example. He could have said that if you listen to analytic judgments the things you are hearing may or may not be true and it also may not have any new meaning.

Kant: pure mathematics

Kant asks the question "How is pure mathematic possible?". I think that he when he says that you need to know A priori information to know any kind of mathematics. So i think the answer would be no mathematics is not pure someone is always going to have to figure it out. You cant just know what the answers are.

Also you cant just have math in your head. You have to at least have some type of picture before you can figure out what the answers to the questions are.

"Contrary" to what Hume says about Miracles

According to Hume a miracle is “a violation of a natural law”. Thus, miracles do not exist since there cannot be a violation of a natural law without the natural law being adjusted to fit the violation. Violation, however, could mean contrary to. Thus, one can say a miracle is “contrary to a law of nature.” If miracle is defined with “contrary to” rather than “violation” then miracles can occur. Miracles are occurrences caused by nonnatural forces and hence, contrary to natural laws. This is a different way to think about it. It is a bit less cynical than Hume's thinking that miracles do not exist. To learn more about this go to....http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

Kant Section 18 and 19 (from in class discussions)

Kant says there are two types of judgments, which are polarities. There are judgments and perception and judgments of experience. Judgments of perception are ordinary sense impressions, are subjectively valid and synthetic a posteriori. Hume and Locke feel these judgments are the centerpiece of our knowledge and do not investigate any further than this. Thus, judgments of perception are not controversial to the empiricist. However, judgments of experience are. Kant says judgments of experience are the bringing together of sensory information into categories, which is synthetic a priori and objectively valid (meaning everyone else agrees that is what is seen, heard, felt, etc. )

Kant on natural science (from in class discussions)

As pointed out in earlier posts Kant believes the basis of all knowledge is synthetic a priori. People may think to themselves how in the world can arithmetic and geometry to synthetic a priori. Aren’t we taught in school how to add, subtract and what different shapes are. Kant would argue that teachers are more like guides. They help you realize the knowledge you already have. If you think about a little kid, he intuitively knows the patterns of mathematics; he just doesn’t know the system (i.e the names of the numbers, and which number is higher or lower) by which it is applied on this earth. However, the patterns are there and they are a priori. Just as a child can sense time and space he is able to add and subtract once guided in the right direction. Kant also argues that natural sciences (mostly physics) are synthetic a priori. However, Hume uses an example that contradicts this statement with the pool ball example. According to Hume, we do not know a priori which direction the pool ball will go until we observe it. Thus, this knowledge is synthetic a posteriori. It is easier to dispute that the natural sciences are not synthetic a priori than it is arithmetic and geometry due to its relation to space and time.

Kant on space and time (from in class discussions)

As for arithmetic Kant believes numbers have no meaning. Numbers can be replaced by any other symbols and as long as the pattern is known one can calculate the answer. Addition has a pattern in that it is the succession of items. Kant argues that the same operation occurs when one talks about time. Time is also the succession of items (knowing this occurred first, second, third, etc.) On the other hand, Kant argues that geometry is the relation of items and so is space. Time and space are not a posteriori but are a priori. They are pure intuitions. If time is related to arithmetic and space is related to geometry, geometry and arithmetic should also be a priori knowledge. The knowledge of space and time is definitely not analytic but rather synthetic. Having the knowledge of space and time is very informative.

Kant compared to Rationalists and Empiricists (as discussed in class)

Kant believed both rationalist and empiricist are mistaken and thus, Descartes, Hume and Locke had fallacy in their thinking. Kant believes in synthetic a priori knowledge. This may sound strange and would surely be disputed by Descartes, Hume and Locke. Kant argues that arithmetic, geometry, science (mostly physics) and metaphysics are synthetic a priori. As explained in my previous post on Kant, Kant uses the arithmetic example of 7 + 5 = 12 to demonstrate why arithmetic is synthetic a priori (see my previous post for more information on this).
The empiricists, Hume and Locke, would argue that the basis of all knowledge is a posteriori, but agree that the basis of all knowledge is synthetic. They believe knowledge is obtained by observation. And would refute the idea that synthetic knowledge (or informative knowledge) is intuitively known (a priori). Rather they would say informative knowledge must be obtained through observation (meaning a posteriori). Unlike the empiricists, the rationalist, Descartes, would agree with Kant that the basis of all knowledge is a priori, but disagree that synthetic knowledge can be a priori. As with the wax example Descartes used, one does not have to learn information as to what is happening (thus not informative) it is intuitively known the properties of wax.

Kant: Preface, Section 1 & 2

Kant speaks of Hume in a positive way, but questions Hume on the origin of cause and effect knowledge. Hume believed all cause and effect are a posteriori. However, Kant takes the opposing position, that cause and effect is a priori. Not only is cause and effect a priori but also metaphysical concepts. “…Metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles must never be derived from experience…It is therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure reason.” (Section 1, p. 9)
Kant thoroughly explained his belief concerning analytic and synthetic judgments. Unlike other philosophers, Kant believed that synthetic judgments could either be a posteriori (judgments from experience) or a priori (mathematical judgments). However, analytic judgments are always a priori and apply the principle of contradiction. For example, I can say females are women and to say females are men would be contradictory. Kant uses the example, “all bodies are extended.” To say all bodies not are extended would be contradictory. However, “all bodies have weight” would be a synthetic judgment. To say all bodies do not have weight is not necessarily contradictory, although, it may be false. For instance, I could say females are good at English. To say they are not is not contradictory since these judgments come from experience. Kant also argues that mathematical judgments are synthetic but a priori. Using as an example 7 + 5 = 12, Kant states, “The concept of twelve is by no means thought by merely thinking of the combination of seven and five…we must go beyond these concepts by calling to our aid some intuition corresponding to one of them.” (Section 2, p. 11) Not only is arithmetic a priori synthetic but so is geometry. For example, the proposition that a straight line is the shortest way to go between two points requires intuition. The concept of a straight line gives no intimation of quantity, only quality.

Introduction to Kant

From Hume’s empiricism and other philosopher’s contributions, Kant developed his own philosophy. Unlike Hume he did not believe cause and effect was primarily from experience. For example, if one feels that a room is warm (subjective order of cognitions) and then notices the stove is on, the person would rightly assume the stove being on caused the room to be warm. One perceives this by applying their objective time relations. Just because one felt the room was warm and then noticed the stove is on, one would not assume that the warm room caused the stove to turn on. That would be an incorrect statement (Introduction, xii).
Hume believed for one event to be considered the cause of another there are three conditions that must be met. First off, the cause must come before the effect in time. Secondly, “the cause and effect are contiguous in space.” Lastly, the cause and effect are found constantly next to the other in experience. Kant argued against these arguments. The cause does not have to necessarily come before the effect in time. The cause and effect can occur at the same time, such as when the cause of boiling water. Water boils when the water reaches 100 degrees C. Contrary to Hume, Kant believed the “causal ordering of cognitions is what makes experience and is not an ordering derived from experience.” (Introduction, xiii) He believed our perceptions are only possible through the sensible intuitions, space and time. Kant believed there is an a priori synthetic and that Geometry and Arithmetic would be classified as this (Introduction, xi).

Hume: Miracles.

According to Hume a miracle is something that changes or alter a "natural law".

I think that there can not be a set way to explain a miracle. I think it really depends on what the person is thinking, how they view the situation and if they think God or a higher being was the thing making this miracle or very special thing happen.

people call there child little miracles but really having a baby is one of the most natural things that could happen. Unless its a situation that someone is unable to have children then what would you call that? A super miracle?

So really a miracle could be anything it all has to do with the circumstance.

Hume: The missing Blue.

Hume discusses the idea that there what we may not be seeing a certain color or shade of blue.

This is a very difficult topic to image to place because who is to say that one shade of a certain color has another shade from one to the next. i feel that this is something that no one could really decide and could really ever distinguish with out a huge debate. I also think it is a very strange thing to think about.

Hume: Sec IV

Hume believed that there are two different kinds of thinking and humans must keep these two types distinct in the mind. When humans fail to do this that is when people begin to make errors in their thinking. The two types of thinking are “relation of ideas” and “matter of facts”. “Relation of ideas demonstrates a truth “a priori”. Hume explains how mathematicians use relation of ideas constantly. If one knows what a circle and a straight line are, one is likely to agree with the theorems of Euclid’s geometry. If you disagree than it is a self-contradiction. For instance, if a man is a husband, he must have a wife. Just by knowing that a man is a husband, you can infer he has a wife. If you do not then you are being contradictory. The same goes for other words, such as being a mother or father infers that that individual has children. This is a priori, since you know the information before actually seeing or experiencing it. However, one does not know whether there are actual husbands, wives or circles in the world unless you go out and look for it. Thus, to determine their existence you are not using “relation of ideas” but rather “matter of facts”. “Matter of facts” can only be discovered as false or true by observation and not by just looking at the implications of a word. “Matter of facts” cannot be self-contradictory. As Hume states, “That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise.” (Sec IV. Part 1)
Hume’s general proposition is that all cause and effect knowledge is not from a priori, but from experience or a posteriori. One example of this proposition is how Adam “could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him.” (Sec. IV Part 1) Thus, only through experience are cause and effects discovered and not by reason. The effect is not related to the cause of any event and you cannot infer anything unless you have experienced it. Just seeing an object does not give us any clues to what will happen when we throw it or step on it. What will the effect be? One cannot know a priori.

Hume: Section II: Origin of Ideas

Hume states, “The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.” (Sec II.11) He explains that one can be in a “fit of anger” and recall a memory of being angry. However, being in a “fit of anger” is much more powerful than the recollection or thought of anger. The same goes for being in love. The passion of love is so powerful to the senses, however, when one thinks of another being in love the thought is inferior yet still conceived. Thus, Hume classifies perceptions of the mind as thoughts or ideas, those that are “less forcible and lively” and impressions, meaning “when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will.” (Sec II.12) Hume further explains how when he have the idea or thought of a golden mountain we conceive gold and we conceive a mountain and thus, we can think of a golden mountain from past impressions. He states, “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.” (Sec II.13) He makes two arguments to prove his point. He claims that when we rethink where our thoughts and ideas came from, they can be broken down into simple ideas “copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment.” (Sec II.14) He then goes into the idea of God, which he believes is as well from the mind increasing to no boundaries “goodness and wisdom.” (Sec II.14) His second argument is that if one were to be missing one of the senses, such as sight or hearing, then that individual would not be able to conceive colours or sound. And due to this, that individual would not come to certain ideas as others with those senses would. He goes further to say it also works for subjective manners, such that “a man of mild manners can form no idea of inveterate revenge or cruelty; nor can a selfish heart easily conceive the heights of friendship and generosity.” (Sec II.15) However, after attempting to convince the reader that thoughts and ideas are copies of impressions, he stubbles upon a problem: the missing blue problem. As Professor Thompson explained in class, how can one explain a “missing shade of blue”, in a blue color scheme from light to dark, that one intuitively knows is there, however had no impression of this blue in the past? This is a big problem for the empiricist and Hume acknowledges it to be so. However, he dismisses it as “singular" and not part of any general pattern and thus, not worth worrying about.

Real Exsience

Locke says we have no real knoweldge of what "real exsience" is. At first i didnt understand what he meant by this but then realized he was talking about a higher being (ex. God). I guess he means that we cant really understand the higher being since he earlier said we all can imagine a God. I can totally see how he would think this since his idea is seeing something is the only way you can get that image in your mind. So maybe he is right we really dont have a good understand of what god really is or how great he is.

Knowledge of Gods Existence.

Locke talks about how we are all capable to be able to perceive a God. But do we all think of God in the same way? No of course we don't so how is "God" such a widely understood/accepted subject? Maybe its because everyone need to see a higher being as Descarte did that there has to be something perfect. Locke also talks about how enthusiasm and discovering religion:
"Because the Mind, not being certain of the Truth of that it evidently does not know, but only yielding to the Probability that appears to it, is bound to give up its assent to such Testimony, which, it is satisfied, comes from one who cannot err, and will not deceive. But yet, it still belongs to Reason, to judge of the truth of its being a Revelation, and of the significance of the Words, wherein it is delivered. (IV. 18. 8 pg. 694)"

The Problem of Truth: Locke: The Empiricist—Book II

Epistemology is a sector of philosophy that attempts to figure out how to gain knowledge. Both Descartes and Locke, in their writings, addressed epistemology. However, Locke took the empiricist view. The empiricist believes knowledge is gained through the experiences one has. Locke believes we must use the “faculties of the mind” to get to the truth. The faculties are what humans use to discover the truth. One faculty of the mind is perception. Locke rejects that what we see the material world, but we see certain images and representations (what we perceive). He also states that judgment can alter perception (II.ix.8). For example, one can perceive something from their senses but the input from other people may alter their perceptions. Another faculty is “of discerning and distinguishing.” Locke stated, “Unless the mind had a distinct perception of different objects and their qualities, it would be capable of very little knowledge.” (II.xi.1) Thus, if one cannot use the faculty of discerning one will never get at the truth, and live in a falsehood. Locke also explains what is good and evil is determined by pleasure and pain. Good is defined as increased pleasure or decreased pain; evil is defined as decreased pleasure or increased pain (II.xx.2). He further explains if someone loves grapes they love them because they taste good and increase pleasure (II.xx.4).

Locke: idea of God

Locke States that the idea of God varies from man to man. This seems to me to be very true since there are so many different ways to have views of what and who god is. Each person may have a slightly different way to worship or how they picture God but in general people have the same idea of what God is.  "Our knowledge of material things is probabilistic and thus opinion rather than knowledge. Thus our “knowledge” of external objects is inferior to our knowledge of mathematics and morality, of ourselves, and of God." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. 

The God Problem: Information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Book II & IV
***God is an idea of substance and not an idea of modes. This means God exists independently rather than dependently. Things that exist dependently, such as language, would be an idea of modes****
***James Tyrell claims the reason why Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was to discuss "about the principles of morality and revealed religion"***
***Locke believed individuals use their reason first and foremost; when reason can not explain an event they look to their faith (and "what is revealed is above reason"). So original revelations come from God and traditional revelations are the original revelations passed down to others. Revelations cannot be the opposite of what is true. Thus, one can have revelations about angels, the heavens or hell, but not about things known to be true by reason.***
***Reason and faith have "strict boundaries"***
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

modes of pleasure and pain

we catagorize pleasure and pain by what we believe is good and evil. then we catagorize good and evil with a reference to pleasure and pain. pain and pleasure are said to only be a state of mind we put things in. he's saying that love changes just as abrubtly as is may of started, for the thought if love may be pleasurable something can alter for this delight to now cause pain. which changes the thought or state of mind about love. love and hatred only stem frome the pain or pleasure something gives us. like any other feeling, hatred is only a state of mind. it may be caused from a bad experience we have had. depending on what kind of effect something had on us, determins the way we classify it into love or hatred. I have to agree with this because as we are young little kids don't hate anything... thats because they haven't lived long enough for something to have a negative inpact on them. and when that does happen, it's going to turn into the state of mind as they hate it. this is all about experiences that the mind and body have in the course of a lifetime that begin the love hate beliefs.

modes of pleasure and pain

Locke II.III.--> book two chapter 3

ideas enter our minds using not one, but several sences. some sences are particularly made to recieve certain ideas. If a particular sence isn't working correctly, that idea will not be "viewed" or will have no way of being understood. each sence creats many different simple ideas for that sence. i believe Locke is saying that after an undisclosed amout of time we don't even recognize or have to think about the simple ideas any more because they have become so routine. But it is because of these countless simple ideas we can put together complex ideas.

Locke: what is Knowledge?

"The perception of the connexion and agreement or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our Ideas" This is how Locke defined knowledge.  This is an interesting definition because he is saying that things that have been debated are knowledge more or less. I like this concept and i have never really looked at this way. Since we have always been taught that the definition of a word is just what ever webster has to say. Looking at this definition i see that there is more then one right way to look at things. Descarte looks at knowledge through dreaming was a large part of knowledge but his idea is nothing like lockes take on it. I find that this a much clearer idea then what Descarte was speaking of.

The Idea of God ... Locke pg 44

Not innate? According to Locke he thought that since people have to learn what and who God is that he is innate. "...since it is hard to conceive how there should be innate morals principles without an innate idea of a deity." This just shows that he thinks that god is only linked to some kind of religion has to be attached to the idea of God. And i think that in some way he is right and wrong. yes most people put god and religion together but other people may just believe in some sort of god to have something higher to look to for guidance or spiritual help.

The Problem of Truth: How do we acquire truths?

Although Locke argues against the idea of innate truths, he does admit that some truths do appear very early in the mind. Our mind obtains truth by using our sense organs. “The senses at first let in particular ideas, and furnish the yet empty cabinet” (I ii 15, pg 17). And as we start filling the “empty cabinet” with ideas and language we begin to use reason more. Locke argues that before a child can speak or use reason he or she can distinguish between bitter and sweet. The child is acquiring truth but not using reason to do so. He also argues that a child does not know that four and three are equal to seven until he or she learns how to count. In Section 16 of Book 1 Chap 2 (page 18) Locke says, “but the truth of it appears to him (the child) as soon as he has settled in his mind the clear and distinct ideas that these names stand for; and then he knows the truth of that proposition upon the same grounds, and by the same means, that he knew before, that a rod and cherry are not the same thing.” Locke is definitely in opposition to the idea of having any innate ideas and even innate truths. His opposition proves even stronger when later in Book I he opposes the idea of God as being innate.

The Problem of Truth: Innate or Acquired

Descartes believed God enabled human beings to know all the truths of the world but only through the use of reason. However, Locke opposes Descartes view. Locke believes “it is false that reason discovers them” (them referring to truths) (I. ii 9, pg 15). A little bit later in Section 9 on page 15 Locke says, “if men have those innate impressed truths originally, and before the use of reason, and yet are always ignorant of them till they come to the use of reason, it is in effect to say that men know, and know them not, at the same time.” This is an excellent point Locke makes. How can you know something and not know it simultaneously? As Locke points out, it doesn’t make sense. The Stanford Encyclopedia also mentioned, “Locke's first point is that if propositions were innate they should be immediately perceived — by infants and idiots (and indeed everyone else) — but there is no evidence that they are.” So obviously Locke strongly argues against Descartes philosophy of innate truths.

Locke Book 1: Why is God not innate?

Locke’s definition of God is stated on page 46 in Book 1 chapter 4. He states, “God…to express a superior, powerful, wise, invisible Being…must necessarily spread it far and wide and continue it down to all generations.” Thus, the idea of God is passed down from generation to generation. A little bit later he writes on how the idea of God can come about in an individual’s head, “…If a colony of young children should be placed in an island…their apprehensions would be as far removed from any name or notion of a God, till some one amongst them had employed his thoughts, to inquire into the constitution and causes of things, which would easily lead him to the notion of God.” Locke a little later goes into how God is not imprinted in the human mind or is not “stamped on the mind”. If it were, then, the notion or idea of God would be the same across cultures or to every person and it is not. He claims that certain people do not have rational ideas of God. When they explain what God is it is immature and not of truth. Thus, God has not given us an idea of him, but rather he has given us “faculties” that we can use to find out about God through experience with the external world. On page 49 he says, “It seems to me plainly to prove, that the truest and best notions men had of God were not imprinted, but acquired by thought and meditation, and a right use of their faculties; since wise and considerate men of the world, by a right and careful employment of their thoughts and reason, attained true notions in this as well as other things.” And lastly concerning God he says, “If the idea of God be not innate, no other can be supposed innate.”

Locke Book 1 Existence of God

Locke definitely believes in God’s existence. In Book 1 on page 3 he says, “ Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them.” Then later, in Book 4 on page 44, he says, “That “God is to be worshipped” is, without doubt, as great a truth as any can enter into the mind of man, and deserves the first place amongst all principles.” Even though he believes in God’s existence, he does not believe the idea of God is innate. In Book 1 in chapter 4 on pages 44 to 50 he goes into the reasons why God is not innate and due to this why no other can be considered innate. First, he provides information claiming that whole societies had no notion of God. How could whole societies have no notion of God if God is an innate idea? It is impossible. Then he says even if everyone had a notion of God this still would not prove God to be an innate idea. He purposes that names such as sun, fire and heat are names known amongst men as is God, and it may feel like those ideas are innate when they are not.

Final thoughts on Decarte

I found that reading the discourse and the meditaion made my views on life a little more cloudy. When I started reading i thought maybe it would be something to help me understand why we do the things we do, which it is BUT it is also opion based information. I have taken in all this information and have thought about it but i am unsure of what is going to come next hopefully the locke bookwill help me understand better some of these issues.

Occam's Razor

I think I may be overthinking Descartes work. Maybe it is just what it is. There is no hidden meaning to it. Occam's Razor is a principle established by William of Occam. It states, "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Thus, the simplest explanation is the best explanation. So maybe Descartes truly wrote two books (Discourse and Meditations) about God's existence and used what he knew best, mathematics and science, to back it up. Although, in my opinion, he fails to to provide hard evidence for the existence of God, in his mind the evidence he provided was sufficient. What I am basically saying here is that I don't think God is a representation for something else. I think the meaning of God in Descartes' books is just what God is referenced as in the bible, an eternal perfect being. And in the bible it does imply God will "reveal his power, truth and love to those who seek Him". Thus, according to Descartes and the bible the only way to find the truth is to truly seek God and know he exists.

Meditations part 5

I've read this part over several times and still don't exactly know what Descartes is trying to say. He first tries to free himself from doubts in which he previously fell into before. He says he notices things for the first time that were inface in him for a while. He also says, " what i believe must be considered above all". Sounds like he didn't trust any one but himself, and doesn't want to hear about any one else's theories. Descartes believes that if a triangle doesn't exist any where in the world, that it still has a deterninate nature. Even though he may of imagined it, it's still something. That is what i think he's saying. He even goes as far as saying that all he knows is clearly true. For a man of his time, or any time for that matter, it's a very bold statement. It's not evenn clear what he even knows to be true or not.

Stanford Encyclopedia Information

I found this on the Stanford Encyclopedia: This is Descartes Ontological Argument for God’s Existence.
Version A:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Version B:
1. I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists

I also found this…Descartes argument to the thinking that Descartes believed existence to be a property
"Existence is not a perfection either in God or in anything else; it is that without which no perfections can be present"
I got this information from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#1

Med V: Some of my thoughts

Descartes believes what is clear and distinct in the mind is true. God is clear and distinct, a supremely perfect being, existence is a property of perfection and thus, God must exist. I see his point of view, however, I also question it. In my opinion, the rebuttal he provides to the objections of God’s existence was a waste of time. Who cares if he does not think of a mountain and a valley as separate? That does not mean God exists. What would Descartes say concerning religions that believe in more than one God? He is basing his truths on the truths of a monotheist religion. It seems Descartes is a biased man who cannot think in any other way but that of which he believes. What makes him think he is so special that he can discern the truths of the world? How does he even know he is thinking “clearly and distinctly”? Even though his Meditations may not be correct, he sure does make you think!

Med: part 5 Last Paragraph

Here Descarte say how he finally clearly understood everything about every science when he came upon the "true God". Im not really sure if i understand what he meant when he said this because science and God are most of the time not compared to each other. But i can see where he could say something of this nature since he says that God was the one who is responsible for all that has ever exsisted. I think that God and science are conflicting subjects but most of what i have read of descarte has some type of conflicting subject in it.

meti. part 5 para.12 Perception

In paragraph 12 Decarte talks about perception and the way people see the things that he sees. He has an idea that what he understands and perceives clearly are the only things that he really believes. He compared his idea to math once again and how that is easily understood. He also goes on to say how he believes in God so much that he would never say he didn't believe in him. I find this to be a little contradicting since really there is no way for someone to explain all of the things God has done or said to have done. I mean i believe in God and all but its because I just have faith and even somethings i still have a hard time believing some of the things that have been said. Its really hard not to question something that has no real answer. 

Med Para 10 False assumptions vs. True ideas

Descartes does not at all see his belief in God’s existence (or the existence of perfection) as a false assumption but a true idea. He feels what is "clear and distinct" in our minds must be true. “I cannot even fabricate such a thing, so long as I am of a mind to admit only what I clearly and distinctly understand. Consequently, there is a great difference between false assumptions of this sort and true ideas that are inborn in me, the first and chief of which is the idea of God.” To Descartes God’s existence is more real than anything else. Descartes was really trying to find truths that suited him. You can even tell by his writing that he is sorting out the truth as he writes and thinking about arguments against his belief of the truth. Thus, Descartes must also doubt God’s existence since he feels the need to prove it and defend against arguments to the contrary. Why would you feel the need to prove something that you know exists? And my theory is the more he writes about God's existence, the more he believes it. As brought up in the class discussion, one also has to wonder what Descartes meant by God. Was it in a religious sense or something else? But whatever Descartes meant by God, he believed “God” to be perfect and supreme. Then the question is, as I mentioned in my conclusions on paragraphs 7, 8 & 9, what did he mean by perfection?

Med Para 7 & 8 & 9: Explanations to criticisms

Are the existence and essence of God interchangeable? Descartes believes they are not, however, he also recognizes it is easy for someone to be mistaken and separate the two. He compares separating God’s essence from existence like separating a mountain from a valley. The argument is a mountain cannot be separated from a valley just as God’s essence cannot be separated from his existence. God is a perfect being and how can a perfect being not exist since existence is a characteristic of perfection. Can one think of a perfect being without perfection existing? What really is perfection? It doesn’t seem that Descartes really defines what perfection is. To me, perfection is different for everyone. Thus everyone’s “God” would possess differing characteristics. Perfection does not have to be flawless to all; some may see one person’s view of the “perfect” “God” as imperfect. Thus, I am finding it very find to read without questioning his arguments to the criticisms.

Discourse part 4 par 2&3

Even though he may not have a body, or even may not be in a real place, just the very fact that he doubted the truth clearly showed that he with out a doubt existed. I beleive that he is rite on the money with his concept. Because no one can think for you, so in fact you have to be something, a thinking something. He knew that in order to exist, has no need of any place or any matherial things, it is simply just to think. Because he says i think therefor i am, he assumes that he is speaking the truth, and is very clear to him that in order to think, it is necessary to first exist. For him to think this way, to me is very amazing. By just thinking, he realized that every thing in world may not be what he thinks it is, but no matter all that he is alive and thinking very clearly.

Discourse Part 4 par 1

In the first paragraph in part four, Descartes tries to explain the "foundations" he's laid down. He feels he has to be in search for the truth. instead of finding the truth, he desides to look for the thing that are absolutly false. Descartes says that because our sences decieve us sometimes, nothing was exactly what it seemed, so he was questioning anything and everything. Because people make mistakes all the time, in even the simplest things, he was just as prone to err as any one else. He believes that because when we are sleeping it seems very real, who's to say that the world we're living in now isn't just a dream world. So he thought that the things that entered his mind were no more true than the illusions in his dreams. But then he realized something. He who was thinking had to be something. So he came up with his famous quote, " i think therefor i am". This such discovery was a solid as anything can get.

Discourse part 4 : dreaming

So Descarte things that every thought that is thought of has some points of truth. he says that our thoughts are most complete when they are we are asleep. I find this idea very hard to believe and something that I can hardly even think of. He also says thought that not all of our thoughts can be true since we aren't all perfect. All this kind of confuses me and makes the things that he has already said addressed even more difficult to conceive. 

discourse part 4 page 21-22

In the final part of part for I found that Descarte was really focusing on how God is perfect and exists because we think he does. I find this to be a very confusing concept to comprehend. I feel  that it contradicts what he says earlier in the discourse. He says that everything we think has some type of truth in it, but later says that since we are not perfect we can never be sure about things we think. It seems to me that he talks in circle and in every section of the discourse and in the meditations . 

Paragraph 5: Comparison of God's existence to the existence of a triangle

Descartes's did not just say God is perfect so he must exist. Of course that was one of his reasons but he also reasons God's existence by comparing it to a triangle's existence. Referring to a triangle Descartes says in the middle of paragraph 5, "...a triangle, it was necessary for its three angles to be equal to two right angles, but I did not see anything in all this to assure me that there was any triangle existing in the world......God, who is this perfect being, is or exists, as any demonstration in geometry could be." What Descartes's is trying to demonstrate is that we may have never seen a true triangle out in the world before but we still have the idea of a triangle in our mind and we know what a triangle is. So just because we do not see a triangle does that mean it does not exist? Or just because we do not see God does that mean he does not exist? Thus, he reasons that God exists just as any "demonstration in geometry" exists.
-Lindsay

Paragraph Four: God's perfection and our dependence

Descartes's firmly believed in God's existence and perfection. He thought that since God is perfect in his mind, God has to exist. How could a perfect idea exist in the mind of an imperfect being (Descarte's believed only God to be perfect and everything else imperfect)? The only way "an imperfect being" could think of the idea of a "perfect being" would be if a perfect being existed and enabled our minds to think of perfection. Thus, Descartes reasoned God must exist. Descartes's says in the middle of paragraph 4, "To this I added that, since I knew of some perfections that I did not posess, I was not the only being that existed, but that of necessity there must be something else more perfect, upon which I depended, and from which I had acquired all that I had." This brings up the topic of how Descartes believed every existence is dependent on God. At the end of Paragraph 4 Descartes says, "....if there are bodies in the world, or even intelligences or other natures that were not at all entirely perfect, their being had to depend on God's power in such wise that they could not subsist without God for a single moment." One can definately see how important the truth that God exists was to Descartes's method. His philosophy was dependent on God's existence.
-Lindsay