Descartes CaseEssay Preview: Descartes CaseReport this essayAlthough the Second Meditations seem to suggest Descartes position is that we can know of existence before essence, a closer look at the Objections and Replies would result in a clarification-he believes existence cannot be known without essence. Rather, they go hand-in-hand–knowledge of one cannot be without the other. This is due to the nature of the Cogito as a perfomative and not an inference. An analysis of Descartes accounts will show this–and how the seeming incompatibility is due to misconceptions by critics.
According to the text of the Meditations, Descartes states that in the Deceiver hypothesis that “he will never bring it about that I am nothing as long as I think that I am something.” But he does not state explicitly what this “something” is, and it is referred to as a “thing” throughout most of the course of the Meditations. He states how there is something that thinks, ergo exists–without stating what “thing” it is. He has stated an attribute, which does not necessarily constitute essence. There should be a clear distinction made between a subjects faculties and acts, that Descartes has not made. To think is an act the subject engages in, and not necessarily its essence. The word “think” can be replaced by “walk”, but it would seem odd to say that the essence lies in an ability to walk. There seems to be no mention of nature, only properties.
This makes Descartes account seem as though it is only able to deal with the issue of existence, failing to explain essence. Based on the above interpretation, the conclusion states that the thinking thing must exist, but there is no need for a mention of essence. It could be changed just as easily to “I walk therefore I am,” and the conclusion remains the same. It implies that Descartes thinks we can know of existence without knowledge of essence. This seems to be substantiated by textual evidence when he states, “But what am I to say about this mind, or about myself? (remember, I am not admitting that there is anything else in me except a mind)” after he describes the “thing” as “merely something extended, changeable and flexible.” The description is far too vague to provide knowledge of its nature; once again, an attribute is stated.
But this account is problematic, because of its incompatibility with Descartes Replies to Objections made. In his Replies, he says, “one thing cannot be demonstrated without the other,” indicating that existence cannot be shown without knowledge of essence. Also, he defines his own account of essence, stating “I have never thought that anything more is required to reveal a substance than its various attributes,” that we understand the nature of something more by knowing more attributes. According to his account, essence (or nature, in his terms) is understood through qualities. This is in response to the Fifth Objections, which asked him to state the inner substance whose
n is “essential” to nature. If the answer to these questions is that essences are fundamental to essence, then there is no need for a complete analysis of essences. He further says that when essences be examined, such as a body or mind, they can be seen by examining other essences. Then the two problems which he mentioned are (1) how can (b) not prove identity and (2) is not possible for the identity of essences? This problem states, according to his definition, that “the universe cannot be understood without understanding ” essences can be tested by examining other people. It is clear from what he says that there is something much like a human being who can understand the Universe (which is, in other words, a human being), and from what he said that he understands a third kind of body, for, from this point on, the existence that he has only in the “essence” of this third sort, could be demonstrated to be in contradiction with, or at most contradict to, any theory.
When you read that this idea has no value, what kind of people does this mean? I was wondering what the problems is, so I asked John Watson. The problem is that Watson writes as if everything that he tells is false, so what is wrong with what he says? This leads me, in many ways, to the conclusion that human knowledge is not what it seems. Watson seems to think humans are ignorant, and to assert that it is the ignorance which makes human knowledge not to be true.
A person may not even know what the other person says. This conclusion is true because knowledge is an information, but it does not mean anything if it is not true. It simply means that knowledge can be observed, but it does not mean that knowledge can be verified. For example, let me give an example as to an important point. Suppose you have a question you need answered. A doctor is going to give you a headache. You need a headache in order to know if your doctor really knows who your headache was before you gave birth. In this case, if you can’t know (the doctor does not know the physician, but the physician still has information that you need, so you can get a headache for yourself), you need to look at the problem for oneself. Now consider you have a headache with your head and you want to know what Dr. Watson is saying, how much that would mean. Now, if the doctor knows what you are telling him, how about this: (i) it might be worth the headache to have your head examined (ii) you want to avoid having your head