Next: About this document ...
Up: Phil. 93paper2, Winter 06
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?
- 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? (Warning:
this topic is particularly easy to say something simple and wrong
about!)
- How, according to our authors, can we know that God exists? What
is, 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. 93paper2, Winter 06
Previous: Instructions
Abe Stone
2006-02-10