Philosophy - descarte Essay

Submitted By jaspal77
Words: 794
Pages: 4

September, 21 2012 Philosophy
Thought of themselves as revolutionaries
Revolution says that they had no method to distinguish between what is true and what is not
Descarte believed that learning generally emulates the sciences
Empirical sciences: based on observation (physics and astronomy), apriori: make claims prior to experience (arithmetic and geometry)
Decided the physical sciences didn’t actually generate knowledge in the way he wanted cz scientific claims are probable not certain which means they could be overthrown anytime
Certainty is achieved in mathematics and answers are eternally true
Conclusions in the apriori sciences if the claim is true then the opposite is absolutely unthinkable
Science says however “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” so the opposite is thinkable
What he decided to do is take what mathematics does when mathematics is done (figuring out wht those ppl do when they do math) (regulai 1-4)
Rules 5-12 attempt to adapt to a universal method from mathematic method
Enlightenment thinkers considered themselves having no connection with church( autonomous)
In medival the the study of theology (study of god) was the ultimate study
In the enlightenment philosophy is considered the supreme science theology is downgraded considerably
Basically there is a huge shift in what is considered supreme between two eras
Medival time: first thing to study if u wanna know anything is theology/bible
Enlightenment: study of human nature is what is the first and most important to study not bible-math where does the truth from mathematics come from? Mathematics comes from the mind studying itself. Mathematical truths are mental they come from within
Come from human nature
Descarte then concludes if mathematics truths are coming from within (human nature) we must study human nature to find these truths in philosophy
Aristotle: material bricks, mortar. Efficient human being , Formal need instructions, blueprint. Finalneed to know why you are even doing this eg why building a house here?
Final causality drives all of the other 3
All “why” questions in the final cause presupposed the intellect behind which you are investigating
Enlightenment period asks how not why in the efficient causiality
Presupposition where ever efficient casuality is in vote, is that the world and anything in it is a machine that is derived of causal sequences
Medival- all truths have already been revealed, enlightenment: we do not know all truths yet, and there are new truths to be discovered
If god is at the base then we have to understand ourselves (theologic) thinker, (enlightenment thinker) we have to rethink our relationships to world, ourselves, and ppl. Rethinking of mans place in the world

Study of Descarte
Syllogism contained 2 statement specific and general logic
Synthatical logic means there are rules
-when you have man is mortal, you automatically have Socrites is mortal…because he is man
No new knowledge gained from them, so it is not suited to the discovery of new truths so Aristotle knowledge is out

Logic of discovery
All the knowledge we need is already in our