DQ11

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From Dorota:

According to Descartes we learn about physical objects by the intellect. Since he states that mind is better known (i do not understand that exactly) then the body therefor through intellect we can comprehend our surranding.

>rm says: This is right about the first part of the question, but I disagree with your second sentence. I agree that he says that the mind is better known than the body (see the title of the Second Meditiation). Since his Archimedean starting point is the Cogito, he's at least argued that the mind is known before the body, in some way. Maybe your difficulty arises from his apparent inference that it is thus better known. Perhaps, there is more to that argument. In any case, I think this is a bit off track, and that the answer to the second part of this question is more straightforward. (See my comments in Question 7 for a hint.)

>From anna grier: through clear and distintive understanding of the
intellect regarding the physical object in question. In other words how the mind percieves the physical object. No one can know our mind better than we can as an individual,but it is important that we also
have understanding that we may percieve things with clarity and distinctiveness

rm says: And all of this perception of the mind is thinking. So, it all leads us to a better understanding of ourselves, as thinking things.

>From anna grier:

Through clear and distinctive understanding of the intellect regarding the physical object in question. In other words, how the mind percieves the physical object and whether it is true or false.

> rm says: We do need a clear and distinct understanding of anything we might call knowledge. Can an object be true or false?

Descartes Reading Guide 11. According to Descartes at the end of the second meditation, how do we learn about physical objects? How does this support his view that knowledge of ourselves is most certain?		Back to Descartes Reading Guide Back to Philosophy 101 Home Next Question
Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.	Class Responses and Instructor Comments >From Dorota: According to Descartes we learn about physical objects by the intellect. Since he states that mind is better known (i do not understand that exactly) then the body therefor through intellect we can comprehend our surranding. >rm says: This is right about the first part of the question, but I disagree with your second sentence. I agree that he says that the mind is better known than the body (see the title of the Second Meditiation). Since his Archimedean starting point is the Cogito, he's at least argued that the mind is known before the body, in some way. Maybe your difficulty arises from his apparent inference that it is thus better known. Perhaps, there is more to that argument. In any case, I think this is a bit off track, and that the answer to the second part of this question is more straightforward. (See my comments in Question 7 for a hint.) >From anna grier: through clear and distintive understanding of the intellect regarding the physical object in question. In other words how the mind percieves the physical object. No one can know our mind better than we can as an individual,but it is important that we also have understanding that we may percieve things with clarity and distinctiveness rm says: And all of this perception of the mind is thinking. So, it all leads us to a better understanding of ourselves, as thinking things. >From anna grier: Through clear and distinctive understanding of the intellect regarding the physical object in question. In other words, how the mind percieves the physical object and whether it is true or false. > rm says: We do need a clear and distinct understanding of anything we might call knowledge. Can an object be true or false?
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: