Easily listen to The Science of Self in your podcast app of choice at https://bit.ly/ScienceOfSelfPodcast

Hear it Here - http://bit.ly/GeniusHollins

• Descartes’ genius traits included intellectual honesty, curiosity, diverse interests, and non-conventional thinking.

• French-born Rene Descartes is widely considered the father of Western philosophy, and greatly advanced many metaphysical concepts still in use today.

• Descartes genius was to start, like Socrates, from a point of complete ignorance, i.e. to begin in absolute doubt and work his way to true knowledge one step at a time, using rational and logical thought.

• In 1641 he published his Meditations on First Philosophy, the first three meditations of which are designed as exercises to help a person use the “method of doubt” to discard false beliefs (meditation 1), find those beliefs that could not possibly be false (meditation 2) and devise some rock-solid criteria for what constitutes true knowledge (meditation 3).

• This approach is essentially an early form of the scientific method, as it outlines a path to true knowledge by removing everything that can be doubted and focusing on that which cannot logically be false, and therefore must be true. It’s via this path that Descartes believed he built a sound philosophy.

• In the first meditation, we use hypothetical doubt to tease out truth from the inaccuracies of our own perceptions, as well as the flaws and limits of our reasoning faculties. We can practice this sentiment by reminding ourselves that we can always be wrong, and to take doubt as a starting point, rather than to make assumptions.

• Meditation 2 is about finding out what is true once all that is false is removed from the equation. This is where Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum proposition comes about, explaining that at the very least, he knew he was in fact thinking, and that proved he existed.

• From this we are led to meditation 3, which discusses the criteria for universal knowledge as those things perceived clearly and distinctly.

• To take inspiration from Descartes, we needn’t follow his complex philosophy in detail, but we can practice a kind of philosophical doubt, committing never to hold beliefs we know aren’t true, and to have stringent standards for what we consider truth.

#AbsoluteCertainty #AbsoluteTruth #AnalyticGeometry #CogitoErgoSum #CognitiveBiases #CriticalThinker #Descartes #Enlightenment #Flèche #ReneDescartes #IntellectualHonesty #IrrefutableEvidence #LaFlèche #Meditation #Philosophy #ScientificMethod #UniversalTruth #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PeterHollins #TheScienceofSelf #ThinkLikeaGenius #PeterHollins

/home/russell/temp/beliefs-justified-base-ultimately-belief-indubitable/beliefs-justified-base-ultimately-belief-indubitable-wood-light-man-person-7219821-MART--PRODUCTION.jpg

The following words have sometimes been used to describe Descartes’ approach to thought: doubt, skepticism, distrust, and rationalism. he wanted to do was discover and understand. You could see this approach as not trusting in others, but rather, it was Descartes’ way of gaining a sense of certainty. certainty in what we are saying through proof or experience, nothing can be taken as truth. truth is all Descartes ever wanted.

In it, Descartes discusses how we are able to check our beliefs against reality by essentially the first version of the scientific method. It consists of six meditations (we will only focus on the first three) about the proper method of philosophical reflection, proof, and the conclusions that can be drawn. Descartes insists that (1) we can claim to know only that for which we have justification and (2) we must judge our ideas using a method that guarantees they are correct and justified. Here’s something of a table of contents for Meditations on First Philosophy: 1: Use the Method of Doubt to rid himself of all beliefs that could be false.

2: Arrive at some beliefs that could not possibly be false and thus must be true.

3: Articulate criteria for true knowledge.

•Meditation 4: Prove that the mind is distinct from the body.

5: Prove the existence of God.

6: Prove the existence of the external, physical world.

We’ll only cover the first three meditations; from the titles, it is probably apparent why this is the case. are the meditations more directly concerned with finding truth and living life through a lens of critical thinking. first three meditations work together sequentially through a sort of process of elimination. you rule out falsehoods. you sort through what’s left. Third, you make a judgment based on what you find. a methodical way of thinking that, if applied correctly, allows you to understand the world more accurately. We’ll go through each of the three meditations in detail. Meditation 1 In his first Meditation, Descartes focuses on distinguishing between what is true and false. To complicate matters, the fact that you have experienced something does not mean it is true.

This is because of our senses, prejudices, biases, or perceptions. Everyone has their own version of truth, but that is not the truth. In order to test whether what we think we know is truly correct, Descartes suggests that we adopt a method that will avoid error by tracing what we know back to a foundation of indubitable beliefs. We have to challenge what we’ve always held to be true and doubt everything we know. Such a radical flip might seem unreasonable, and Descartes certainly does not mean that we really should doubt everything in our lives, from our names to our heritage. He simply suggests that we should temporarily pretend that everything we know is questionable. This is called hypothetical doubt, and we should hold such doubt regarding (1) the perceptions of our senses toward our experiences and (2) our reasoning abilities. Descartes puts it: But inasmuch as reason already persuades me that I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me manifestly to be false, if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole. And for that end it will not be requisite that I should examine each in particular, which would be an endless undertaking; for owing to the fact that the destruction of the foundations of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest of the edifice, I shall only in the first place attack those principles upon which all my former opinions rested. Translation?

Descartes was the ultimate naysayer and contrarian. he made the decision that he would no longer hold beliefs that had the slightest amount of doubt surrounding them. Logically, this would lead to knowledge and truth that was absolute. speaking, this would be troublesome at best, but this was the essence of Descartes’ famous method of doubt. Descartes recognized the impracticality of disavowing all the knowledge he had been taught and even observed (the sky is blue, right?), so he created broad categories of beliefs.

The first category consisted of beliefs that he had learned through his own senses. Surprisingly, he considered that the senses did not impart absolute truth. You can see that the sky is blue; everyone can observe the same thing, right? exactly. All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely to anything by which we have once been deceived… on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment.

We do not know that what we experience through our senses is true; at least, we are not certain of it. we cannot tell when our senses are correctly reporting the way things really are and when they are not. the best thing to do is to doubt whether any knowledge can be based on our sense experiences. Descartes didn’t believe his senses, and this is best exemplified in his analysis of dreams. In a nutshell, dreams lead to a certain type of experience, yet they do not represent reality.

But it is often impossible to distinguish between dream experiences and waking, real-life experiences. this experience is not a reliable source of truth and knowledge. Descartes is not saying that we are merely dreaming all that we experience, nor is he saying that we cannot distinguish dreaming from being awake. point is that we cannot be sure that what we experience as being real in the world is actually real. Recall that the second portion of Descartes’ method of doubt involved reason.

This is to say that our reasoning abilities cannot always be trusted—this is a self-evident truth as we are always subject to cognitive biases, skewed perspectives, and simple errors. This is what is typically referred to as the demon problem, whereas earlier we had the dream problem. I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be. Translation? can’t be sure that our reasoning abilities are trustworthy, honest, reliable, or correct. Descartes puts forth an argument to prove his point, just like before. If we think about a simple addition problem such as 2+3=5, then there are two possibilities about how we reach the answer. first possibility is that our powers of reasoning are indeed reliable and sound, and thus we are calculating correctly. The second possibility is that an evil demon from the depths of the earth is manipulating our brain, and we only come to the conclusion that 2+3=5 because the demon puts that idea in our minds. Here, we come to an answer via deception and a profound lack of correct reasoning.

Thus, we can only trust our sense of reasoning if we can ensure that the second possibility, and ones like it, are never occurring. that’s not possible. We can’t be certain that our sense of reasoning is reliable or absolute truth—not by itself, anyway. This can be a highly disconcerting notion—to not be able to trust your own reasoning and thought processes. you can’t trust your senses or thoughts, then in what sense is your view of the world real or accurate? What, if anything, can provide the type of certainty that Descartes so desires? is the very conundrum Descartes dealt with and strove to fix. Meditation 2 Meditation 1 was about ridding oneself of beliefs that could be false, most notably from our senses and from our mental reasoning. Meditation 2 follows on that thread and is about finding beliefs that are true no matter what. How does one find these propositions if we cannot trust our senses or reasoning?

It was only from those propositions that you could build knowledge of the world that was reliable and true—only by working from a base of truth could you have the chance of concluding truth. The point was clear: Descartes must attempt to find universal truths that were without a doubt correct. this particular line of thought sprung one of the most famous lines in all of Western philosophy. first, his inner dialogue: But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; [surely] I myself did exist, since I persuaded myself of something.

But there is some deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, who ever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me. without doubt I exist also if he deceives me, and let him deceive me as much as he will, he can never cause me to be nothing so long as I think that I am something. So that after having reflected well and carefully examined all things, we must come to the definite conclusion that this proposition, “I am, I exist,” is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it. You may have guessed what’s coming next. think; therefore, I exist” In Latin, “Cogito ergo sum."

This line sprang from Descartes’ argument for a universal truth, winding its way around the first meditation’s two major roadblocks of not trusting senses and reasoning. The fact that he is being deceived by a demon is something in itself. there is a deception, it must be acting upon something, and that something is Descartes himself. Thus, an undeniable truth must be that he exists. Descartes realizes that he cannot question his own existence because he is a “thinking thing."

Even if he doubts the senses and the body, he cannot doubt himself because of his thoughts. Even if we were to be deceived by an evil demon as to what we see and hear, if the thoughts are still there, we would still exist. But to further expound on what cogito ergo sum actually proves, it doesn’t mean that one exists as a person, a soul, or a body. simply speaks to the limited scope that because he thinks, he exists, and thus the undeniable truth is only that he is a thing that thinks. thinks exists.

Descartes thinks (albeit in a flawed way), and therefore he exists as a thinking thing. It’s almost the mental equivalent of a tongue twister. At this point, all Descartes has reasoned out is that he exists as a thinking being and there are no other things he knows for certain—not his name, his age, or the size of his bed. Where can we go from here? Meditation 3 I am certain that I am a thinking thing; but do I not therefore likewise know what is required to render me certain of a truth?

In this first knowledge, doubtless, there is nothing that gives me assurance of its truth except the clear and distinct perception of what I affirm, which would not indeed be sufficient to give me the assurance that what I say is true, if it could ever happen that anything I thus clearly and distinctly perceived should prove false; and accordingly it seems to me that I may now take as a general rule, that all that is very clearly and distinctly apprehended is true. Translation? Descartes sets a new standard for what could be considered true knowledge almost without us realizing it: “clearly and distinctly apprehended." what does that mean? When we see something clearly, then our vision is unblocked—we have a clear view of the object in question. It is not too far away, it is not blurry, it is not too dark to make out, and so on. When we see something distinctly, we are able to differentiate the object from all other objects. If we see a button among a pile of similar buttons, we do not see it distinctly—we can easily confuse it for one of the other buttons nearby. In other words, clear and distinct perceptions are defined by Descartes as those that are so self-evident that, while they are held in the mind, they cannot logically be doubted. Examples of clear and distinct perceptions include the propositions “A=A” and “I exist."

All knowledge, according to Descartes, is supposed to proceed from clear and distinct perceptions; no proposition is supposed to be judged as true unless it is perceived clearly and distinctly.Clear and distinct ideas are formally known as basic or self-justifying beliefs that Descartes hoped to use as foundations for his system of knowledge. Consider the proposition that 2+3=5. can have a clear understanding of the proposition (unobscured by other thoughts, with a clear view of the different parts of the proposition and how they fit together). we aren’t going to confuse it with some other proposition (e.g., that 2+3=6). You might feel there are some gaps left in this definition of absolutely true knowledge, but these will be addressed shortly.

From what we know in Meditations on First Philosophy thus far, our senses and reasoning are unreliable, and the only thing we can know is that we ourselves are a thing that thinks (because we are thinking right now). allows us to infer that, since cogito ergo sum is clear and distinct, clear and distinct propositions are the base of true knowledge. does it? How can we say that clear and distinct propositions are indeed the most basic truth that exists? can we be prevented from going down a further rabbit hole when we know that our most basic thoughts and senses are unreliable?

How do we know the demon can’t corrupt our thoughts on A=A? This is where Descartes’ devout Catholicism comes into play, and perhaps he deviates from his stance of all knowledge requiring hard evidence and proof. God is the ultimate arbiter of truth and knowledge. This is also one of the most common critiques of Meditations on First Philosophy, because it seems to be contradictory to the very point of not trusting your own beliefs or thoughts. But when I considered any matter in arithmetic and geometry, that was very simple and easy, as, for example, that two and three added together make five, and things of this sort, did I not view them with at least sufficient clearness to warrant me in affirming their truth?

Indeed, if I afterward judged that we ought to doubt of these things, it was for no other reason than because it occurred to me that a God might perhaps have given me such a nature as that I should be deceived, even respecting the matters that appeared to me the most evidently true…And in truth, as I have no ground for believing that Deity is deceitful, …the ground of doubt that rests only on this supposition is very slight, and, so to speak, metaphysical. But, that I may be able wholly to remove it, I must inquire whether there is a God…and if I find that there is a God, I must examine likewise whether he can be a deceiver; for, without the knowledge of these two truths, I do not see that I can ever be certain of anything. Translation? is worried that there might be a demon who has the power to confuse us or deceive us even about a very simple mathematical proposition, so there is the possibility that we only think we are being clear and distinct. Certain propositions (I doubt, I exist, I am a thinking thing) are completely demon-proof. However, Descartes has said that even simple mathematical propositions are not. Thus, he uses God as a foil to keep the third meditation flowing. There are universal truths, espoused and approved by God, that we can find, and they are essentially categorized as clear and distinct. arbitrary and not overly helpful in determining categories, but this does flow logically from Descartes’ earlier arguments. Anything that is not clear and distinct is said to be not demon-proof; thus, it cannot be absolute truth.

Descartes the man We’ve spent a lot of time covering some of the ideas put forward by Descartes, but now let’s turn to the man behind the ideas, and what we can say about the quality of his thinking style, beyond the content of his thinking. You can almost imagine Socrates and Descartes having a lively conversation—both of them seemed passionate about digging as deeply as possible into the nature of things, beyond the limits of human understanding, beyond assumption, and, in Descartes’ case, beyond doubt. Descartes, like many other genius thinkers, wanted to know, and he wanted to have absolute, infallible knowledge that was unquestionable. He wanted something rock solid to build the rest of his philosophy on. Descartes’ thinking, we can see many of the genius traits we’ve discussed in their most potent form.

Curiosity—yes, plenty. fact, so total was Descartes’ curiosity and inquisitiveness that he wanted to peer into things as far as possible. wanted absolute knowledge held with absolute certainty (or at least, he wanted to identify the method to finding it out). Hard work and discipline? in buckets. A broad range of interests? Indeed. Descartes had a minor rank of nobility and enjoyed an enriched education at the Jesuit college at La Flèche, where he studied the classics, science, mathematics, metaphysics, music, poetry, acting, dancing, fencing and riding (he probably squeezed in quite a bit of Greek philosophy too). later studied law. invented analytic geometry and published many works on military architecture, metaphysics, and philosophy, and casually practiced medicine without charging his patients.

Descartes was a rigorously critical thinker and pursued what at the time was a rather non-orthodox route with dogged determinism and plenty of diligence. cannot imagine Descartes achieving half of what he did without the help of these genius traits. a way, Descartes formalized and put concepts to an intellectual approach that perfectly encapsulates the attitude held by many genius people. work was to make plain a style of thought and an approach that characterizes not only the scientific method, but the spirit of enquiry itself. was a genius whose thinking focused on thinking—he was the ultimate practitioner of metacognition!

How can we apply Descartes’ (admittedly stringent) standards to our own thinking in daily life? Let’s look at the meditations again: The first is that we use the method of doubt to get rid of all beliefs that could possibly be false. is akin to throwing away any mental garbage that’s accumulated in your mind. We don’t have to completely abandon every conception of reality unless we have 100 percent irrefutable evidence for it, but we can commit to not holding too tightly to beliefs and ideas that haven’t strictly earnt their place. much of your current worldview is actually supported by cold hard evidence? If we’re honest, not much. You don’t have to throw these ideas out; rather, be aware that they are provisional at best. The second meditation asks us to positively hold on to only those beliefs that we know are true. This is likely to yield a very small subset of what we think we know. Descartes, the very least he could say for certain was that he existed, because he was thinking.

You, of course, don’t have to settle for such slim pickings, and can concede a few more things in order to live practically in the world with necessarily limited knowledge. If we are scientists, we can commit (here’s intellectual honesty again) to only holding beliefs that have a certain degree of evidence. we are more practically minded, we may say we will only hold on to propositions and ideas that have demonstrated their value and function in our lives. other words, is it true, or does it work? In doing this, we are already practicing the third meditation, and articulating our criteria for true knowledge. Here, we can commit ourselves to being clear and concise in our definitions, and clearly recognizing and formulating the limits of our understanding and certainty. Takeaways genius traits included intellectual honesty, curiosity, diverse interests, and non-conventional thinking.

Rene Descartes is widely considered the father of Western philosophy, and greatly advanced many metaphysical concepts still in use today.

genius was to start, like Socrates, from a point of complete ignorance, i.e. to begin in absolute doubt and work his way to true knowledge one step at a time, using rational and logical thought.

1641 he published his Meditations on First Philosophy, the first three meditations of which are designed as exercises to help a person use the “method of doubt” to discard false beliefs (meditation 1), find those beliefs that could not possibly be false (meditation 2) and devise some rock-solid criteria for what constitutes true knowledge (meditation 3).

•This approach is essentially an early form of the scientific method, as it outlines a path to true knowledge by removing everything that can be doubted and focusing on that which cannot logically be false, and therefore must be true. It’s via this path that Descartes believed he built a sound philosophy.

the first meditation, we use hypothetical doubt to tease out truth from the inaccuracies of our own perceptions, as well as the flaws and limits of our reasoning faculties. We can practice this sentiment by reminding ourselves that we can always be wrong, and to take doubt as a starting point, rather than to make assumptions.

2 is about finding out what is true once all that is false is removed from the equation. is where Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum proposition comes about, explaining that at the very least, he knew he was in fact thinking, and that proved he existed.

this we are led to meditation 3, which discusses the criteria for universal knowledge as those things perceived clearly and distinctly.

take inspiration from Descartes, we needn’t follow his complex philosophy in detail, but we can practice a kind of philosophical doubt, committing never to hold beliefs we know aren’t true, and to have stringent standards for what we consider truth. you reached the end of another episode of the science of self connect with us at newtonmg.com and don't forget to sign up for the authors newsletter and to receive his free materials at bitly slash Peter Hollens see you next week