Descartes thoughts

Hi all
I’m going to be honest and say that i’m studying for a final right now but i’m just still confused as to Descartes and his arguments…i was wondering if anyone could maybe explain what he thought about our mental states and how we had infallible access to it in simple terms so that i finally get it…
to me, i’m pretty sure i’m totally wrong here…but it seems to me from readings that Descartes believes that we have any control over our mental states??? Is he basically trying to say that our own mental states are fullproof and are never wrong??? Is that what he means about having infallible access to our mental states??? So is he refuting dreams and mental problems and such???

As you can tell…i’m so confused…i don’t think i’m reading things right at all…

Hey!
Do you go to SFU? Are you taking Phil 100 with Dr Mc???
Its very funny, I was googling for the same question and your post was on top of the results. So I came here and guessed you must be from my class…

Have you found any answers? I have some idea but looking for better evidence to the question. I will let you know if I found anything…

Descartes wanted to establish a satisfactory basis for knowledge against which all knowledge could be justified. In examining dreams, he states that his dream experience is so real that he is forced to examine if that is not the reality and the other an illusion, or that, his whole experience might be part of a dream, a “continuous dream world,” as living while awake and dreaming while asleep, both seem so real.

Moreover, he says that, when he sees people being deceived and deceiving themselves, there could be a possibility that he is deceived in the innate things coming from God perhaps. That means that if God, as an “evil genius” is deceiving humanity, then we are completely lost because even the innate knowledge that comes from God Himself would be false. Therefore, we would have no solid knowledge base that could be used as a foundation for refuting all false knowledge and false information.

Then he introduces his, “Cogito, ergo sum” in Latin or, “I think, therefore I am” or, ‘I think, therefore I exist.’ In saying that he suggests that just the fact that he thinks means that he must exist because even the possibility that the statement could be false implies that he thinks and therefore exists. Now, I feel that since Descartes already assumes the I, otherwise, who is thinking, therefore, he has already assumed his conclusion and has committed the fallacy of circular argumentation which is, assuming what he’s trying to prove.

As for reality and illusion, I’d say look at your experience, what is more real? The awake world or the sleeping world? Obviously I’d say it’s the awake world. Therefore, that is the reality and the dream must be considered an illusion. I was going to say something else too, but it went out of my mind.

Personally I think that since our brain cannot and must not stop thinking or we would wake up not knowing who we are anymore, so the night time thinking comes up as dreams because while we are awake when we think, we only think in terms of images. In the night these images are dreams. We must dream all the time while asleep but don’t remember most of it. And sleep is a must to re-charge the brain cells, just like rest is a must for the body.

I don’t really understand your questions regarding Descartes, like who has formed those questions? Perhaps I don’t know Descartes so well. Whatever. :wink:

Her exact questions is this:

Descartes thought we had infallible access to our own mental states. What does this mean, is he right, and, if he were wrong, what effect would that have on his project?

I found this website which is very useful
webhost1.inspire.net.nz/~bestor/ … week5.html

When you say project, do you mean the various tests he ran for the reliability of knowledge, but encountered failure? To further the conversation above, Descartes emphasizes that, ‘clarity and distinctness are necessary for establishing truth.’ I feel in saying that he is right because anything crystal clear is truth because we don’t need to verify it. Ah! Ha! So, my dear, if you don’t need to verify something, it must be the truth. But in his, “Cogito, ergo sum” Descartes does not establish the truth as I stated above why. By the way it is not possible that God not have the ability to be an evil genius because I think God and the Devil are God’s two sides and he’s the coin, but it is highly probable that He chooses to be just and righteous and so perfect, unless there is a dire reason why He should be otherwise. Descartes says that since God being God would be perfect, therefore, He would not deceive us. So all knowledge coming from Him can be considered reliable.

In all, according to Descartes, all knowledge coming from God is reliable, all innate ideas related to math are true. But regarding stuff that is unclear and indistinct, we can draw wrong conclusions because God does not make us conclude anything but we do on our own, and so that knowledge may not be reliable. Essentially Descartes emphasized that, reasoning alone is sufficient to discover knowlege that will not be false.

I feel that, if only Descartes had focussed more upon the heart and the soul and not the brain and the mind, he’d have figured that, where it’s easy to fool the mind, it is very hard to fool the heart. Therefore, I’d say that we definately need a heart and soul to know that we exist. In essence, we know that we exist because we have a heart and we have a brain. Perhaps that is why I feel that plants don’t know that they exist because they don’t have a heart and they don’t have a brain. They do have a mind that makes them perform just like the liver and the heart do in our body. But because they don’t have a heart that can perceive the mind, they don’t know that they exist. Dexcartes did not understand that existing and knowing that you exist are two different things. My heart exists, but it doesn’t know that it exists, I exist and I know that I exist. The more I try to run away from my theory that we live inside somebody’s body as germs, harmless ones but which can become harmful, which is why we need to be environmentally friendly, the more life takes me towards it. I’m going to stop running away because I want to prove it false. Ugh! I want to run away from it. It’s possible we are in exhile because we originally sinned. I want to believe that and only that.

Other philosophers also like Plato, including Descartes, have tried to establish that, ‘Abosutely certain knowledge which will not be proven false, can be established by using our rational faculties.’ When you mention, ‘infallible access to mental states’ I don’t know what you mean. I’m also confused like you. :smiley: (My jet lag isn’t over yet)