Oh, how I wish I had a teacher in philosophy like you! Your enthusiasm is contagious, and your ability to break it all down in a rather simple/easily understandable level. (By for ex. still presenting the many different and often rather daunting 'concepts'(latin phrases) in a an easily understandable every-day language!). I'm a computer-programmer - but is rather much more interested in philosophy, religion, history and to a certain extent scholasticism these days....Your videos are simply great! Kudos and thanks!
Isn't he marvelous ! Thankfully my philosophy professors - most of the - were humorous..animated...and not so deadly serious to bore the pants off many in the classes....I was fortunate...but Dr. Kaplan shines. .
Thank you for your work Prof. This is some of the best stuff Ive seen, I just started studying Nietzsche and some of your videos made it easier to digest although I still struggle at times. This series on Descartes is just what I needed to get some of the fundmentals down. I am a self teacher(so to speak), your vids have thrown many doors open in my mind, I share and recommend you to everyone, youre awesome, again, thank you.
Great video Jeffrey. I’m a university student majoring in English and lately I’ve been thinking of getting into philosophy ever since I took a theory course and learned some of the basics (Kant, Hegel, Foucault, Butler etc). Philosophy seems very daunting but also interesting. Anyways, thanks for the video! Subscribed!
Thanks a lot for all your work! It is really helpful and extremely interesting! This will be my go-to recommendation if anyone wants to know more about the subjects discussed.
My comment is more about "Cogito ergo sum" but applies here as well, perhaps. Some clever student might suggest, "What if i'm thinking in a dream?" I would encourage that student to change the word "thinking" to "doubting". As in, "I doubt therefore I am." For example, doubt that none of this exists - not my hands, this body, the sky, etc. But now try to doubt that you doubt - not conceptually, i mean actually do this. Say to yourself. "I doubt that I doubt." For me, there is a buzz like sensation in my head when i do this. It's the actual personal intimate discovery of That Which Is (in my opinion, God). One simply cannot doubt that they are doubting. And then, even before you doubted, the doubter was there.Thank you for these great presentations!
Thanks for this clear exposition of an important topic. I knew that Descartes was a founding figure of modern philosophy and a departure point from the Greek philosophical tradition. But I never knew why. but now I do.
Descartes is the father of "a brain in a vat". Proof of Descartes genus is when an amputee feels pain in the limb that was amputated. Although the pain is subjective to an observer, it is objective to the one experiencing the phantom limb syndrome.
The fact that i'm french myself and understood everything is hilarious. Thank you ! My philosophy teacher didn't explained anything at all and made us write an essay about meditation 1 and 2 , i was so lost 😭.
Thx man, im enjoying this series so far. Im glad to have someone teaching for me cause i am a type of listening learning, and also the notes is helpful. Again thx so much
Ok, the order of the meditations seems to about face somewhat. As I mentioned in Meditations 1, mathematical (/logical) principles need to be established first… to distinguish between, say, “I think therefore I am” and “I am therefore I think”. The certainty of “therefore” needs to be established in this instance. Secondly, just because he thinks doesn’t necessarily mean that he exists. It does, but that’s not the point. He can only be certain of his existence if he is AWARE of his thoughts. Otherwise “I think” could be equivalent to “it’s raining”. The rain certainly exists, but it doesn’t KNOW that it exists. Only a being capable of being aware of its thoughts can know that it exists. Otherwise, yes, a god or demon could be setting the thinking in motion (as in a computer program) and then how “real” (or “certain”) is a computer program? I think that’s where it starts to become messy. Does a song exist? Yes, but what makes it exist for sure? The singer? The tape or disc or file that the song is recorded on? The mind of the songwriter? All of these are true, but perhaps not so clearcut. Yes, we live in a Cartesian world; but methinks Aristotle was also right (says little ol’ me). It seems to me that neurologists anyway know that there is no soul. They have an explanation for Descartes’ imagination and it’s basically a function of the material (brain) and of form (the neural networks) and sensations are derived from physical signals from nerves or chemical receptors (triggered by hormones and blood sugar/salt levels and the diffusion or exchange of chemicals and chemical charges across cell membranes). Sensations need not be real of course, but they are caused by physical triggers, whether from sensors in the body or from activity within the brain itself. In fact, ALL sensations are brain functions: a signal travels to the brain via a nerve or chemical messenger and then the brain starts a chain of “thought” that is identical whether triggered from outside the brain or inside the brain. (I mean “thoughts” in the sense of brain activity, most thoughts are subconscious and we may not be aware of them. In fact we’re not aware of most of what goes on in our bodies or brains. I think Descartes meant “conscious thought” when he wrote about “thinking”.)
😬 Kinda worried about Meditations 3 - As I remember from the introduction, proving god was his goal. I wonder if Descartes is the all powerful, evil entity tricking me into thinking things that aren't true.
Descartes did not write "cogito ergo sum", he wrote "je pense donc je suis". This appears in his work: Discours de la Méthode (Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences) which was first published anonymously (in French) in 1637. It was later translated and published into Latin in 1644. Les Méditations was written in Latin and then later translated into French. In both cases the translations were not by Descartes but were carried out under the guidance of Descartes. The Latin for his conclusion that he necessarily exists each time that he conceives or expresses anything is "Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum". As professor Kaplan intimates, Descartes must have had strong reasons for avoiding the more catchy "cogito ergo sum".
Very entertaining and informative lecture! I do have a question though. Do we really need to follow Descartes for the concept of soul to make sense? What about Plato’s dualism?
What the holy Hell? How could I have a degree in Philosophy-with courses in both Ancient and Modern Philosophy-and never have heard this distinction between Aristotle's and Descartes' conception of mind, and that Descartes creates the conception of mind we still have?? (Nevermind that I think Aristotle's, as you describe it, is more accurate-that's a whole 'nother story.)
I was surprised, as well. I have to wonder if people really used Aristotle's idea of the soul in the middle ages and before Descartes, because if so, then Christians couldn't believe in a soul that is separate from the body and that goes to heaven after its demise. Yet I believe they did believe so? It's unfortunate that I know nothing about scholasticism and how its thinkers explained the soul.
Christianity in the Middle Ages apparently combined Aristotelianism and Platonism in pretty complicated ways due to historical reasons, but for the conception of mind the dominant theory seems to have been more platonic. That immaterial something which is immortal and can have direct access to ideas/forms etcetc. With that said Aristotle makes a distinction between active and passive intellect, of which the former is supposed to be immaterial and immortal. What exactly he meant seems to be a very contentious issue, but some philosophers (past and present) think it's not part of a human but is accessible somehow, others think it is (like Thomas Aquinas). And do we really think in terms of Descartes' philosophy of mind? I'm Asian so I can't comment much on the nitty-gritty details of how Europeans and/or Americans think about this but from my experience a lot of people don't really seem to be ready to accept the Cartesian mind in full (even though the mind-body problem is a classic problem in philosophy).
How does Aristotelian and Cartesian metaphysics relate to panpsychism? i feel like panpsychism did take something away from Aristotle. Mainly that indeed sensory experiences were inextricably linked to the body. Mental and physical properties are deeply intertwined. And the "form" or organization of matter does indeed effect the faculties or functions it possesses. But it still preserves that conceptual distinction between phenomenal and the physical and doesn't reduce phenomenal properties or the faculties of the mind as simply resulting from the form of an object.
It's a good question. It really depends on how we understand panpsychism. If we understand it merely as the doctrine that every, or almost every, physical thing in the universe has a mind or some mental aspect, then it is not true that according to panpsychism "sensory experiences are inextricably linked to the body". After all, rocks and plants can have conscious states without it being true that all conscious states need to be attached to physical objects.
Not sure that one needs Descartes to believe in a soul (life) apart from a body. There is an ancient text discussing how God breathed life into the body of man. The life, or soul was separate, then was breathed into the body that had been without life. That was a little before Descartes. Further, the Christian belief in life of the soul after the death of the body predates Descartes a smidge as well.
One major problem with Descartes, "I think therefore I am", is if you drive an axe through the brain, it can no longer think. Philosophy took a bad turn with Descartes' dualism. Not to mention that his, "I will doubt everything" in Meditation 1 is a massive fail.
Can't we just say when you destroy the brain the mind loses the link to the material world? So it survives the destruction of the brain and continues to live in the immaterial realm, which if following Descartes' argument is isolated from other immaterial realms where other minds live? I know this is ridiculous but the beauty of philosophy, or at least part of it is we can free ourselves from the empirical world
@@islaymmm We can also speculate that a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter can write Shakespeare's Hamlet. Fortunately we have such a thing called science that demands evidence before our imagination takes a flight into the absurd...
Nicely done video content. What puzzles me about thinking being separate from the body issue is the question of why people who have brain diseases have altered thinking in many instances, which seems to indicate that a material body part is needed for thinking to take place. Additionally, how would one be able to think if their brain was removed entirely?
18:20 Descartes already explained the concept of the Rubber hand illusion. Sensory perception is just a product of "thinking" we don't necessarily have to "feel" physically.
@@SPCTR0 which words was big to you? All my words are very simple. The error is: sensory perception is just a product of thinking we don’t necessarily have to feel physically. You just said it, so excuse me for not repeating it the first time! But given your seemingly combative attitude. I’m happy to stop this conversation here.
@@MugenTJ by big, i meant vague. My bad. again, a whole lot of nothing. You did not even point out why that is an error? You can't just expect me to understand your point without even a brief explanation.
@@SPCTR0 fair enough. Ok. I appreciate your curiosity. 👍 Well, namely, sensory perception or experience entirely depends on physical stimulus and physical apparatus such as eyes, ears and skin. Only when we gained those experiences that our brain formed a mental representation of them so that we can re-experiencing them via imagining or dreaming, which is now accomplished by the brain, a collection of nerve cells much like the nerves that carried the inputs from eyes and ears. So, Descartes made an error to think that the mind is distinct or separate from the body/brain. Ironically to explain even not 100% clear I have to use big words. Lol. Hopefully that helps! Edit: I bet you that you can’t imagine pain too well. Pain or pleasure is more strongly felt directly from stimulation. Visual imagination is easier, but is it anything like seeing things directly? No! That’s why to claim he can’t tell between dream and reality is very disingenuous.
I have a question. You mention that the cartesian notion of the soul is what led us to belive we have immortal souls. But did not Christian doctrine before Descartes teach the immortality of the soul and how did they then do so on an arestotelian notion of the soul?
I also did a double take when he said that, and wanted to hear what people believed before that. This is a very well-done course, and I hope to work my way through.
When he answers what kind of 'I'exists with "A thinking thing" does he mean that the 'I' is the creator of the thoughts? I ask because, if so, I don't think he's proven that. Sure, there does seem to be an 'I' that is processing the thoughts, but those could be received (demon!) just as much as they could be created.
All that Descartes was able to proof was that there was thinking and that he and thinking are inseparable. It's a jump in saying therefore he was a thinking thing that did the thinking. It's like saying that there's raining therefore there must be a rainer that's doing the raining of rain.
I cannot think that Descartes can be certain of anything! The fact that just becauses he thinks he is thinking and therefore is, can never be 100% true and by his reasoning his thoughts can be manipulated by a malicious demon, or that he is just a character in a book in his dreams!???
I have yet to hear a convincing argument against Cogito. Most of the objections I have heard center on the definitions of 'I' or 'think'. But when you disregard a separate 'I' (an identity is not required for the argument) it is impossible in my mind to deny that perception is occurring. The opposite concept seems so utterly ridiculous it is all but a proof in my mind... how would it be possible to convince something that _doesn't exist_ that it is having an experience that it may or may not really be having? To me, any rebuttal of Cogito has to explain how that can happen.
Descartes got it wrong. He should have said "I feel, therefore I am". _I sentio; ergo sum._ Feeling, not thought, is primordial. Behind each thought, one can find a motivating feeling. Feeling is self-motivating, self-supporting, self-creating -- the exact term escapes me. Feeling is god. It is what it is, and it is a boundless realm -- "larger" than Planet Earth, larger than the universe. The heart is the gateway to this realm, and the mind is the navigator, the compass that enables us to avoid retracing our steps. This is how we reverse entropy -- by going ever deeper into this realm of feeling.
What about Avicenna flying man or suspended man, isn’t that preceded Decarte cogito, isn’t his thought experiment clear indication of mind body dualism
To whom this may concern, One thing I couldn't accept is there is someone out there who doubts their own existence!You can't fool me! You just fucking can't!
They believed it, but they had no proof from which to found it. Since if you can't prove you exist, you can't prove souls exist, and you can't prove their immortality or god in general, even.
Around 19:30 you say that the belief in an immortal soul only makes sense if we adopt the view of Descartes, but a lot of Christian thinkers, like Aquinas and so on, wrestles with this question before and at least attempted to give answers in how we ought to understand humans as physical or at least embodied beings, waiting for their bodily resurrection, but also having an immortal soul that undergoes purgatory. Are you saying that a core doctrine of Christianity was falsely or irrationally held for over 1000 years?
Since when did he say that? He only mentions that it isn’t a universally accepted view today? How does that make it true or false? Your should stop being irrational instead.
I wonder how aphasia would fit into Cartesian model. Does that mean my soul is blind, or something? If that's the case and given the fact that my physical body is capable of sight, wouldn't that imply that the soul has no primacy over the mortal shell? Is there even an actual separation of the two, or is the entire soul concept - an exercise in wishful thinking... Because the cowards are terrified of ceasing to exist?
What he's saying is AT (Adam and Tannery) who published a version of the Meditations. In different editions, certain parts of the text might be on different pages (different translation, different font etc.) so people often refer to the page number it was on in the AT version, so that everyone know which part of the text they are referring to.
That's not his real face and body, that's the reverse of his face and body. He had to so with the camera while editing, so we can read what he writes on the screen. And he is a right handed too.
There are mental illnesses, the affected person holds the delusional belief that they are dead, do not exist. "Cogito Ergo Sum" is doubtful, and this demonstrates that nothing is perfect. Your senses, body, mind are not perfect, but good enough to perform its function.
Exactly 👍 I found all my answers and "not answers" in 🙏 Nisargadatta 🙏 "I know that I don't know"...this is the best👍 ruclips.net/video/MhQqERLElE4/видео.html ☝️Nisargadatta 🙏
Descartes made a fundamental mistake. He presupposed an "I" must exist for there to be thought or sensory experiences. But he never proved the existence or required existence of this "I".
his initial attempt at proving the existence of god, which then leads to proving the existence of himself, seems contradictory to his third doubt. If he disproves fundamental mathematics through a being of malicious intent, does that not prove the existence of a higher power already?
I think it doesn't prove the existence of a higher power. He's only saying that there might be such an evil demon, not that there must be such a being. He probably doesn't even think that the evil demon is likely.
I still lean toward Aristotle. Metaphysics in the proper usage ( after or from nature/physics ) rather than the later "above" the physical I think you downplay Aristotle's genius; after all, he studied under Plato for twenty years, not precisely philosophy 101. he was no comic book figure or computer game hero. He was the real thing. Aristotle would have a dozen Ph.D. in various academic subjects by today's standards. French philosophers are like explorers who put their flag( "I " of ego) in the philosophical landscape and claim the new territory as theirs, and you learn their thoughts and language. Creating a psychological storm rather than a philosophical one. Descartes' breakdown leads later to existential crises ( Sartre) and nihilism. Modern quantum physics uses the old Greek format rather than free-thinking continental thoughts." I do admire Descartes's attempts to marry math and religion with philosophy. This opposing to one has to go to fit the 'I" of ego in ( God and soul are repressed in most modern schools of thought).
We seem to have proved that pineapple can be 'imagined' to belong on a pizza but that this concept, 'pineapple belonging on pizza', might have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, the fact that you can imagine this unlikely combination means that you exist. It is easy to prove the pineapple fallacy: - Pizza and red wine are a match made in heaven. - Therefore pizza ingredients should go with red wine. - Pineapple does not go with red wine, - Therefore pineapple has no business on a pizza. OK, it needs sharpening up a bit. 😉
Oh, how I wish I had a teacher in philosophy like you! Your enthusiasm is contagious, and your ability to break it all down in a rather simple/easily understandable level. (By for ex. still presenting the many different and often rather daunting 'concepts'(latin phrases) in a an easily understandable every-day language!).
I'm a computer-programmer - but is rather much more interested in philosophy, religion, history and to a certain extent scholasticism these days....Your videos are simply great!
Kudos and thanks!
Ikr the way he presents it actually got me interested in philosophy
Isn't he marvelous ! Thankfully my philosophy professors - most of the - were humorous..animated...and not so deadly serious to bore the pants off many in the classes....I was fortunate...but Dr. Kaplan shines. .
A teacher who knows his subject well can clearly explain it and you certainly can explain this material very well indeed.
I'm in my nerd arc and these videos are keeping along the path
You are insanely articulate and intelligent. One of the best RUclips channels on philosophy out there!
I'm enjoying these lectures tremendously, thanks so much!
Thank u so much for this, it's funny I how I hated his classes when I was in school but now in my 30s I find it fascinating
Thank you for your work Prof. This is some of the best stuff Ive seen, I just started studying Nietzsche and some of your videos made it easier to digest although I still struggle at times. This series on Descartes is just what I needed to get some of the fundmentals down. I am a self teacher(so to speak), your vids have thrown many doors open in my mind, I share and recommend you to everyone, youre awesome, again, thank you.
Genius!!! Thank you for these lectures. I cannot stop watching them.
I have an asynchronous class at my University and Ill gladly use your videos as my professor this semester. Thank you so much!!!
Great video Jeffrey. I’m a university student majoring in English and lately I’ve been thinking of getting into philosophy ever since I took a theory course and learned some of the basics (Kant, Hegel, Foucault, Butler etc). Philosophy seems very daunting but also interesting. Anyways, thanks for the video! Subscribed!
Thanks a lot for all your work! It is really helpful and extremely interesting!
This will be my go-to recommendation if anyone wants to know more about the subjects discussed.
My comment is more about "Cogito ergo sum" but applies here as well, perhaps. Some clever student might suggest, "What if i'm thinking in a dream?" I would encourage that student to change the word "thinking" to "doubting". As in, "I doubt therefore I am." For example, doubt that none of this exists - not my hands, this body, the sky, etc. But now try to doubt that you doubt - not conceptually, i mean actually do this. Say to yourself. "I doubt that I doubt." For me, there is a buzz like sensation in my head when i do this. It's the actual personal intimate discovery of That Which Is (in my opinion, God). One simply cannot doubt that they are doubting. And then, even before you doubted, the doubter was there.Thank you for these great presentations!
This is absolutely excellent.
Thanks for this clear exposition of an important topic. I knew that Descartes was a founding figure of modern philosophy and a departure point from the Greek philosophical tradition. But I never knew why. but now I do.
Descartes is the father of "a brain in a vat". Proof of Descartes genus is when an amputee feels pain in the limb that was amputated. Although the pain is subjective to an observer, it is objective to the one experiencing the phantom limb syndrome.
He took it further than that .
The fact that i'm french myself and understood everything is hilarious. Thank you ! My philosophy teacher didn't explained anything at all and made us write an essay about meditation 1 and 2 , i was so lost 😭.
Saving me on the eve of my philosophy exam 🙏
You have just earned yourself a subscriber
Thx man, im enjoying this series so far. Im glad to have someone teaching for me cause i am a type of listening learning, and also the notes is helpful. Again thx so much
These lectures are so much fun...and informative....
i like how he wipes everything off at the end. demolishing that cartesian house.
i love all of your videos thank you
Best explanation!Thanks a lot
You are welcome!
Ok, the order of the meditations seems to about face somewhat. As I mentioned in Meditations 1, mathematical (/logical) principles need to be established first… to distinguish between, say, “I think therefore I am” and “I am therefore I think”. The certainty of “therefore” needs to be established in this instance.
Secondly, just because he thinks doesn’t necessarily mean that he exists. It does, but that’s not the point. He can only be certain of his existence if he is AWARE of his thoughts. Otherwise “I think” could be equivalent to “it’s raining”. The rain certainly exists, but it doesn’t KNOW that it exists. Only a being capable of being aware of its thoughts can know that it exists. Otherwise, yes, a god or demon could be setting the thinking in motion (as in a computer program) and then how “real” (or “certain”) is a computer program? I think that’s where it starts to become messy. Does a song exist? Yes, but what makes it exist for sure? The singer? The tape or disc or file that the song is recorded on? The mind of the songwriter? All of these are true, but perhaps not so clearcut.
Yes, we live in a Cartesian world; but methinks Aristotle was also right (says little ol’ me). It seems to me that neurologists anyway know that there is no soul. They have an explanation for Descartes’ imagination and it’s basically a function of the material (brain) and of form (the neural networks) and sensations are derived from physical signals from nerves or chemical receptors (triggered by hormones and blood sugar/salt levels and the diffusion or exchange of chemicals and chemical charges across cell membranes). Sensations need not be real of course, but they are caused by physical triggers, whether from sensors in the body or from activity within the brain itself. In fact, ALL sensations are brain functions: a signal travels to the brain via a nerve or chemical messenger and then the brain starts a chain of “thought” that is identical whether triggered from outside the brain or inside the brain.
(I mean “thoughts” in the sense of brain activity, most thoughts are subconscious and we may not be aware of them. In fact we’re not aware of most of what goes on in our bodies or brains. I think Descartes meant “conscious thought” when he wrote about “thinking”.)
Looking forward to the Advance level course, if I may say so. Thank you!
Also, please make a video on Leibniz MOnadology. Thank you!
You are an outstanding teacher! But, please, no pineapple on pizza! I m italian! BTW.. this Is the best intro to Cartesio ever seen.
😬 Kinda worried about Meditations 3 - As I remember from the introduction, proving god was his goal.
I wonder if Descartes is the all powerful, evil entity tricking me into thinking things that aren't true.
You said there will be questions on the exam. You do these videos for your class?
Well done 👍
Loved it!
Descartes did not write "cogito ergo sum", he wrote "je pense donc je suis". This appears in his work: Discours de la Méthode (Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences) which was first published anonymously (in French) in 1637. It was later translated and published into Latin in 1644.
Les Méditations was written in Latin and then later translated into French. In both cases the translations were not by Descartes but were carried out under the guidance of Descartes. The Latin for his conclusion that he necessarily exists each time that he conceives or expresses anything is "Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum". As professor Kaplan intimates, Descartes must have had strong reasons for avoiding the more catchy "cogito ergo sum".
What Descartes really said was, "Cogito ergo ego Renatus Cartesius." -- "I think, therefore, I am Rene Descartes." Thus are we ALL Rene Descartes.
DesCarte suggests that even if a tree falls in a forest with no one present, it still produces a sound. Cool😮
Very entertaining and informative lecture! I do have a question though. Do we really need to follow Descartes for the concept of soul to make sense? What about Plato’s dualism?
What the holy Hell? How could I have a degree in Philosophy-with courses in both Ancient and Modern Philosophy-and never have heard this distinction between Aristotle's and Descartes' conception of mind, and that Descartes creates the conception of mind we still have??
(Nevermind that I think Aristotle's, as you describe it, is more accurate-that's a whole 'nother story.)
It’s called misinformation! (Descartes idea of the mind) Unfortunately. Lol
@@MugenTJ What do you mean?
I was surprised, as well. I have to wonder if people really used Aristotle's idea of the soul in the middle ages and before Descartes, because if so, then Christians couldn't believe in a soul that is separate from the body and that goes to heaven after its demise. Yet I believe they did believe so? It's unfortunate that I know nothing about scholasticism and how its thinkers explained the soul.
@@AVeryHappyFish the idea that mind is separate from body/brain is utterly made up.
Christianity in the Middle Ages apparently combined Aristotelianism and Platonism in pretty complicated ways due to historical reasons, but for the conception of mind the dominant theory seems to have been more platonic. That immaterial something which is immortal and can have direct access to ideas/forms etcetc. With that said Aristotle makes a distinction between active and passive intellect, of which the former is supposed to be immaterial and immortal. What exactly he meant seems to be a very contentious issue, but some philosophers (past and present) think it's not part of a human but is accessible somehow, others think it is (like Thomas Aquinas). And do we really think in terms of Descartes' philosophy of mind? I'm Asian so I can't comment much on the nitty-gritty details of how Europeans and/or Americans think about this but from my experience a lot of people don't really seem to be ready to accept the Cartesian mind in full (even though the mind-body problem is a classic problem in philosophy).
engaging synthesis
this was so helpful but for the love of god put the audio in mono or something the panning is insane
I really like your way of teaching, just FYI Sanātana Dharma is more than 4000 years old.
How does Aristotelian and Cartesian metaphysics relate to panpsychism? i feel like panpsychism did take something away from Aristotle. Mainly that indeed sensory experiences were inextricably linked to the body. Mental and physical properties are deeply intertwined. And the "form" or organization of matter does indeed effect the faculties or functions it possesses. But it still preserves that conceptual distinction between phenomenal and the physical and doesn't reduce phenomenal properties or the faculties of the mind as simply resulting from the form of an object.
It's a good question. It really depends on how we understand panpsychism. If we understand it merely as the doctrine that every, or almost every, physical thing in the universe has a mind or some mental aspect, then it is not true that according to panpsychism "sensory experiences are inextricably linked to the body". After all, rocks and plants can have conscious states without it being true that all conscious states need to be attached to physical objects.
what fun!
Not sure that one needs Descartes to believe in a soul (life) apart from a body. There is an ancient text discussing how God breathed life into the body of man. The life, or soul was separate, then was breathed into the body that had been without life. That was a little before Descartes. Further, the Christian belief in life of the soul after the death of the body predates Descartes a smidge as well.
One major problem with Descartes, "I think therefore I am", is if you drive an axe through the brain, it can no longer think. Philosophy took a bad turn with Descartes' dualism. Not to mention that his, "I will doubt everything" in Meditation 1 is a massive fail.
Can't we just say when you destroy the brain the mind loses the link to the material world? So it survives the destruction of the brain and continues to live in the immaterial realm, which if following Descartes' argument is isolated from other immaterial realms where other minds live? I know this is ridiculous but the beauty of philosophy, or at least part of it is we can free ourselves from the empirical world
@@islaymmm We can also speculate that a monkey sitting in front of a typewriter can write Shakespeare's Hamlet. Fortunately we have such a thing called science that demands evidence before our imagination takes a flight into the absurd...
Nicely done video content. What puzzles me about thinking being separate from the body issue is the question of why people who have brain diseases have altered thinking in many instances, which seems to indicate that a material body part is needed for thinking to take place. Additionally, how would one be able to think if their brain was removed entirely?
18:20 Descartes already explained the concept of the Rubber hand illusion. Sensory perception is just a product of "thinking" we don't necessarily have to "feel" physically.
That’s an error. Descartes made quite a number of errors. It’s almost embarrassing since he was not a clumsy thinker .
@@MugenTJ you just said a whole lot of nothing with that comment buddy.
Next time say what the error actually is instead of using big words.
@@SPCTR0 which words was big to you? All my words are very simple.
The error is: sensory perception is just a product of thinking we don’t necessarily have to feel physically.
You just said it, so excuse me for not repeating it the first time! But given your seemingly combative attitude. I’m happy to stop this conversation here.
@@MugenTJ by big, i meant vague. My bad.
again, a whole lot of nothing. You did not even point out why that is an error? You can't just expect me to understand your point without even a brief explanation.
@@SPCTR0 fair enough. Ok. I appreciate your curiosity. 👍
Well, namely, sensory perception or experience entirely depends on physical stimulus and physical apparatus such as eyes, ears and skin. Only when we gained those experiences that our brain formed a mental representation of them so that we can re-experiencing them via imagining or dreaming, which is now accomplished by the brain, a collection of nerve cells much like the nerves that carried the inputs from eyes and ears.
So, Descartes made an error to think that the mind is distinct or separate from the body/brain.
Ironically to explain even not 100% clear I have to use big words. Lol. Hopefully that helps!
Edit: I bet you that you can’t imagine pain too well. Pain or pleasure is more strongly felt directly from stimulation. Visual imagination is easier, but is it anything like seeing things directly? No! That’s why to claim he can’t tell between dream and reality is very disingenuous.
This dude is amazing
I have a question. You mention that the cartesian notion of the soul is what led us to belive we have immortal souls. But did not Christian doctrine before Descartes teach the immortality of the soul and how did they then do so on an arestotelian notion of the soul?
I also did a double take when he said that, and wanted to hear what people believed before that. This is a very well-done course, and I hope to work my way through.
Could you please do a video on the theories of truth.
When he answers what kind of 'I'exists with "A thinking thing" does he mean that the 'I' is the creator of the thoughts? I ask because, if so, I don't think he's proven that. Sure, there does seem to be an 'I' that is processing the thoughts, but those could be received (demon!) just as much as they could be created.
I thought it was cognito this whole time and ive been saying it wrong
All that Descartes was able to proof was that there was thinking and that he and thinking are inseparable. It's a jump in saying therefore he was a thinking thing that did the thinking. It's like saying that there's raining therefore there must be a rainer that's doing the raining of rain.
I cannot think that Descartes can be certain of anything! The fact that just becauses he thinks he is thinking and therefore is, can never be 100% true and by his reasoning his thoughts can be manipulated by a malicious demon, or that he is just a character in a book in his dreams!???
I have yet to hear a convincing argument against Cogito. Most of the objections I have heard center on the definitions of 'I' or 'think'. But when you disregard a separate 'I' (an identity is not required for the argument) it is impossible in my mind to deny that perception is occurring. The opposite concept seems so utterly ridiculous it is all but a proof in my mind... how would it be possible to convince something that _doesn't exist_ that it is having an experience that it may or may not really be having? To me, any rebuttal of Cogito has to explain how that can happen.
awesome lecture thank you. philosophy is so cool lol
Descartes got it wrong. He should have said "I feel, therefore I am". _I sentio; ergo sum._ Feeling, not thought, is primordial.
Behind each thought, one can find a motivating feeling. Feeling is self-motivating, self-supporting, self-creating -- the exact term escapes me. Feeling is god. It is what it is, and it is a boundless realm -- "larger" than Planet Earth, larger than the universe. The heart is the gateway to this realm, and the mind is the navigator, the compass that enables us to avoid retracing our steps. This is how we reverse entropy -- by going ever deeper into this realm of feeling.
What about Avicenna flying man or suspended man, isn’t that preceded Decarte cogito, isn’t his thought experiment clear indication of mind body dualism
Blind people can't see in there sleep descarte wrong
They can hear in their dreams
@@mahdiliban yes
Interesting argument
@@user-xf6fb2yl8b how do you know if a blind person cant see in sleep?
To whom this may concern,
One thing I couldn't accept is there is someone out there who doubts their own existence!You can't fool me! You just fucking can't!
Wait, so Christians didn't believe in immortal souls until Descartes? But didn't Plato believe just that? What's going on here?
They believed it, but they had no proof from which to found it. Since if you can't prove you exist, you can't prove souls exist, and you can't prove their immortality or god in general, even.
I don't understand --reincarnation , hell, ressurection etc. existed long before Descartes...did this not require a soul?
4:08 ff, where is it the text?
Around 19:30 you say that the belief in an immortal soul only makes sense if we adopt the view of Descartes, but a lot of Christian thinkers, like Aquinas and so on, wrestles with this question before and at least attempted to give answers in how we ought to understand humans as physical or at least embodied beings, waiting for their bodily resurrection, but also having an immortal soul that undergoes purgatory.
Are you saying that a core doctrine of Christianity was falsely or irrationally held for over 1000 years?
Since when did he say that? He only mentions that it isn’t a universally accepted view today? How does that make it true or false? Your should stop being irrational instead.
Which video covers the Wax example
I wonder how aphasia would fit into Cartesian model. Does that mean my soul is blind, or something?
If that's the case and given the fact that my physical body is capable of sight, wouldn't that imply that the soul has no primacy over the mortal shell?
Is there even an actual separation of the two, or is the entire soul concept - an exercise in wishful thinking... Because the cowards are terrified of ceasing to exist?
cannot believe he forgot what pepperoni is
im so confused 80 ? 24? aren't there's only 70?
What he's saying is AT (Adam and Tannery) who published a version of the Meditations. In different editions, certain parts of the text might be on different pages (different translation, different font etc.) so people often refer to the page number it was on in the AT version, so that everyone know which part of the text they are referring to.
Wax example please? Link
That's not his real face and body, that's the reverse of his face and body. He had to so with the camera while editing, so we can read what he writes on the screen. And he is a right handed too.
Jeffrey would disagree, that's his own perception of himself in the mirror :)
great video, but no pineapple in the pizza.
There are mental illnesses, the affected person holds the delusional belief that they are dead, do not exist. "Cogito Ergo Sum" is doubtful, and this demonstrates that nothing is perfect. Your senses, body, mind are not perfect, but good enough to perform its function.
Exactly 👍
I found all my answers and "not answers" in 🙏 Nisargadatta 🙏
"I know that I don't know"...this is the best👍 ruclips.net/video/MhQqERLElE4/видео.html
☝️Nisargadatta 🙏
The unicorn broke all my seriousness 🐽
I love this guy... Then he added pineapple to his pizza... He is obviously completely insane
Surely not! This is the first American I've come across who didn't know what pepperoni is when he drew it. He has to be playing with my mind.
Descartes made a fundamental mistake. He presupposed an "I" must exist for there to be thought or sensory experiences. But he never proved the existence or required existence of this "I".
Read again and try ..
his initial attempt at proving the existence of god, which then leads to proving the existence of himself, seems contradictory to his third doubt. If he disproves fundamental mathematics through a being of malicious intent, does that not prove the existence of a higher power already?
I think it doesn't prove the existence of a higher power. He's only saying that there might be such an evil demon, not that there must be such a being. He probably doesn't even think that the evil demon is likely.
"I know that I don't know" is the best👍 ruclips.net/video/MhQqERLElE4/видео.html
☝️Nisargadatta 🙏
Cogito, g as in cognitive, not as in George, don't mix Latin and Italian pronunciation...
I still lean toward Aristotle. Metaphysics in the proper usage ( after or from nature/physics ) rather than the later "above" the physical I think you downplay Aristotle's genius; after all, he studied under Plato for twenty years, not precisely philosophy
101. he was no comic book figure or computer game hero. He was the real thing. Aristotle would have a dozen Ph.D. in various academic subjects by today's standards. French philosophers are like explorers who put their flag( "I " of ego) in the philosophical landscape and claim the new territory as theirs, and you learn their thoughts and language. Creating a psychological storm rather than a philosophical one. Descartes' breakdown leads later to existential crises ( Sartre) and nihilism. Modern quantum physics uses the old Greek format rather than free-thinking continental thoughts." I do admire Descartes's attempts to marry math and religion with philosophy. This opposing to one has to go to fit the 'I" of ego in ( God and soul are repressed in most modern schools of thought).
Anderson Melissa Williams Dorothy Lee Frank
The matrix?
Ah, but Descartes unknowingly presupposes the existence and validity of logic.
Pineapple does not belong on pizza! haha
You're entitled to your wrong opinion
The most important part of this lecture is that pineapple belongs on pizza
nope
No brains
And that there's no name for the little round things that normally go on pizza.
I was with him up to this point then I quit. There're limits to what philosophy should be allowed to do to a pizza... pineapple!
We seem to have proved that pineapple can be 'imagined' to belong on a pizza but that this concept, 'pineapple belonging on pizza', might have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, the fact that you can imagine this unlikely combination means that you exist.
It is easy to prove the pineapple fallacy:
- Pizza and red wine are a match made in heaven.
- Therefore pizza ingredients should go with red wine.
- Pineapple does not go with red wine,
- Therefore pineapple has no business on a pizza.
OK, it needs sharpening up a bit. 😉
Mr. Decartes, you were innocent about the Dutch you met. They protect the image of power at any cost....
I don't like metaphysical pineapple on my metaphysical pizza!
he really threw pineapple on the pizza
unicorn
only issue was that you put pineapple on a pizza, sadge
If Republicans have their own party than Liberals have their own party. Parties are separated. Therefore our nation was built on separation.
Everything was fine then came the ananas on the pizza.
Sorry, I'm not in the Cartesian tradition. This is a low level discussion.
May we have an idea of your level way of discussion ?😂
@@pourquoipas971
I work on theory.
You had me until you presupposed pineapple onto your metaphorical pizza.
I followed you until you put pineapple on pizza.
Descartes is why weirdos think chat GPT is in love with them? :) thats my takeaway here
Rene is in denial
PINEAPPLE ON A PIZZA?!?! That's it, I'm done.