Next: About this document ...
Up: Phil. 100Bpaper3, Winter 11
Previous: Instructions
- Descartes's Meditator is afraid of being deceived. According to
the authors we've read (including Descartes himself), is the Meditator
right to fear this? In what ways, according to those authors, are we
liable to deception (by our senses, by books, by other people, by God,
by ourselves)? What steps, if any, can be taken to head this off? How,
if at all, according to them, might or must potentially deceptive
things (including, for example, but not limited to: dreams, fictions,
history, traditional philosophy, logical arguments, the Bible, the
sensible world, the Eucharist) nevertheless yield truth if properly
used and/or understood? (In other words: to what extent is it our own
fault if we are deceived?) Are there some kinds of deception which we
can't and/or shouldn't want to avoid? (Note: some pieces of advice
for avoiding deception are not surprising and therefore not
interesting--e.g. don't treat a fiction as if it were a history,
don't trust your senses about very small or very distant objects. Also
some are too vague to be interesting--e.g., trust your senses and
your reading and your reason in the proper balance. If you think
there's nothing more surprising than that in our authors, you should
probably write about a different topic.)
- What if anything, according to our authors, is or should be the
relationship between metaphysics and/or epistemology, on the one hand,
and ethics and/or politics, on the other? For example: is correct (or
incorrect?) thought necessary, according to them, for correct action?
Or vice versa: is it possible, according to them, to think
correctly--to know what one knows, to have certainty, to know what
(kind of thing) really exists--without moral and/or political reform?
How, if at all, can a human being, with human needs and desires, be a
philosopher? How if at all, can the philosopher function within
society as it now is (or: as it was in the 17th century, if that is
relevantly different from now)? Is knowledge of what is right or just
(proper moral judgment) useful, according to them, for determining
what is true or what exists (proper theoretical judgment), and if so
why and how?
- Included in the above, but you might want to focus on it in
particular: according to our authors, what are the political
implications of metaphysics and/or epistemology, and vice versa? See
the above topic for some detailed issues, to which can be added here
in particular: in what ways, if any, is the structure of our knowledge
(and of ``the sciences''), or the structure of beings in general (of
the world as a whole) like that of a city/state, and in what ways if
any is it different?
- Of these possible sources of human knowledge: the senses; logic
and/or reason and/or the intellect; imagination (i.e., in some way
producing or entertaining sense-like images which do not come directly
through the senses); reading authoritative texts, which, according to
our authors, is useful or reliable and which is not? What is the
proper relationship between them? What is or might be or tends to be
the actual relationship? (If the last two are different, then
something is or might be or tends to be wrong.) What kinds of error
stem from or affect the use of these alleged sources of knowledge, and
how, if at all, is it possible to guard against them? (Note that a
succesful answer to this must be more than just a list of which
sources are reliable and which are not--you must find a single
surprising and interesting point to make about how different authors
relate to different sources.)
- How much, according to our authors, do we know about ourselves?
Supposing we yield Descartes the point that I cannot (rationally)
doubt my own existence, how about the argument which follows in the
Second and Sixth Meditations, where he talks about
essence (about what kind of thing ``I'' am)? In what sense,
according to Descartes and others we've read, is it or is it not
possible to know, to be certain, to doubt, and/or to be deceived about
what kind of thing/person one really is, and/or about what kind of
thing a human being (or human soul) is? Descartes claims that we know
this about ourselves better (more distinctly) than about anything else
(except God?). Do others agree with him, and why or why not? (If not,
what do they think we know better, or just as well?) What are the
implications for metaphysics and/or for ethics?
- In what ways, according to our authors, are we or is our world
imperfect? Which of those imperfections, according to them, are
imperfections only relative to some purpose or to some arbitrary
preference on our part (so that they might look like perfections from
some other point of view), and which, if any, are absolutely
imperfect? How, if at all, according to them, can we know/be certain
that there are imperfections (of either kind) in ourselves or in the
world? Who or what, if anything, according to them, is to blame for
imperfection? To what extent, if at all, according to them, can
imperfections be corrected, and if so how and by what or whom? Are
there imperfections that are better left uncorrected, according to
them, and if so why? What are the implications for metaphysics and/or
for ethics?
- In what sense (if any), according to our authors, are human
beings free, or in what sense (if any) can they become free? In what
sense (if any) can the become unfree? What is the relationship,
according to them, between freedom and power? Between freedom and
necessity? Between freedom and divine causation? Between freedom and
divine foreknowledge? Between freedom and coercion? Between freedom
and clear and distinct intellectual perception? Between freedom and
correct or moral action? Between freedom and happiness? Between
freedom and error or sin? What is freedom good for, according to
them? Why does God make human beings free (if God does make them free,
and if there is a reason)? Or why does God allow them to become free?
Or why does God allow them to become unfree?
- How, according to our authors, can we know that God exists? What
is it, according to them, that we know, when we know that? How much or
little do we know about God's nature? About God's power? About God's
will (its nature and contents)? Why, if at all, is this knowledge
important, according to them? What, if anything, will it help us to
understand about ourselves? About the world? About the proper course
of action? How is the knowledge we gain in this way related to the
human institution of religion (e.g. Judaism, Catholicism)? To the
contents and interpretation of the Bible?
Next: About this document ...
Up: Phil. 100Bpaper3, Winter 11
Previous: Instructions
Abe Stone
2011-01-02