DQ9

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From W Y Ng:

Not through the senses but through reasoning? Is it you have to think about it and if you sense it, it might not tell you if it is true or not. Confused about the question~ Does this question have to do with pure thought?

>rm says: You have the point of this question exactly right. But the question is how he argues for this conclusion about pure thought, so I'm asking you to sketch, at least, the argument we discussed in class.

>From Dorota:

When Descartes analized wax (physical body) his senses discribe it diferently when the wax was cold and diferently after wax was hot. If the senses gave him two sets of answer about the wax than pure thought was left. Isn't that pure thought based on his previous expirience with the wax?

>rm says: Your question, at the end, is the beginning of an important criticism of Descartes' argument, here. First, let's make sure the argument is clear. Again, I'm asking you to describe in greater detail. what you summarize in your first sentence. (The sketch is right, but thin.)

>From anna grier: well first, Descartes mind will have to accurately
percieve the existence of the wax, ie the color, shape,and size.flexibility and density and of these things he will have to have a clear and distinct understanding of what he sees and if it is true. He cannot grasp this knowledge from the senses,but only from the mind alone.
The senses can only tell him what the wax feels like,whether it is hard or soft,how it smells, sweet like honey, or sour like a lemon.

>rm says: This is all pretty accurate, but incomplete. Why can't the senses give him the complete understanding he seeks? Why is this information, about its smell and taste and other sensory properties, not knowledge?

Descartes Reading Guide 9. How does Descartes argue that he grasps what the wax is "through the mind alone"? Be specific.		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 W Y Ng: Not through the senses but through reasoning? Is it you have to think about it and if you sense it, it might not tell you if it is true or not. Confused about the question~ Does this question have to do with pure thought? >rm says: You have the point of this question exactly right. But the question is how he argues for this conclusion about pure thought, so I'm asking you to sketch, at least, the argument we discussed in class. >From Dorota: When Descartes analized wax (physical body) his senses discribe it diferently when the wax was cold and diferently after wax was hot. If the senses gave him two sets of answer about the wax than pure thought was left. Isn't that pure thought based on his previous expirience with the wax? >rm says: Your question, at the end, is the beginning of an important criticism of Descartes' argument, here. First, let's make sure the argument is clear. Again, I'm asking you to describe in greater detail. what you summarize in your first sentence. (The sketch is right, but thin.) >From anna grier: well first, Descartes mind will have to accurately percieve the existence of the wax, ie the color, shape,and size.flexibility and density and of these things he will have to have a clear and distinct understanding of what he sees and if it is true. He cannot grasp this knowledge from the senses,but only from the mind alone. The senses can only tell him what the wax feels like,whether it is hard or soft,how it smells, sweet like honey, or sour like a lemon. >rm says: This is all pretty accurate, but incomplete. Why can't the senses give him the complete understanding he seeks? Why is this information, about its smell and taste and other sensory properties, not knowledge?
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: