Your channel is extremely underrated. The content of this channel is of a very good quality. I would advise you to learn algorithm of TH-cam, because the only reason your channel is not more popular, is that is doesn't reach enough number of "recommendation lists". TH-cam algorithm is quite complex but rewarding in the end. Keep the good work up!
Hi, professor. I'm an instructor and am very young in the academe. I would just want to thank you as your lectures have helped when I was still a student and now I recommend them in turn to my students. Your videos are especially vital now since the shift to online learning is inevitable because of the pandemic. Thank you very much.
With the quarantine going on my intro to philosophy was suddenly pushed online. This was very helpful for understanding the text since we no longer have our lectures!
Man, your are amazing. I watched a lot of your videos. I keep finding them looking up other things. 400 people have seen this video. That is 400 people on the right track. More people need ta come back to the cave! Ty
Paragraph 1- René clears all of his thoughts to provide space for new foundation of knowledge Paragraph 2-set aside not only false beliefs but also doubtful beliefs(because it is open to challenge and cannot be the foundation) Paragraph 3-sense knowing/knowledge should be set aside because it is deceiving. We can be deceived by our sense for example when we have too much to drink and the world starts spinning or when a room temperature water hits us and it feels hot after we have been outside in the snow(ctto). Therefore, those that had deceived us im the past, we must not put all our reliance on them. Paragraph 4-there is an objection that maybe the senses are reliable as a whole and the only some individual aspects have deceived us (I'm not sure if this is whatbhe means) Paragraph 5-René addresses this by stating his dream experiences that are so vivid he cannot tell while he is dreaming that it is in fact a dream experience and not a real experience Paragraph 6- So suppose that everything we see is a dream. Aren't dreams a reflection of something else that exists? It is a combination of simpler things we know to a much complex thing(example: horse plus rhino is unicorn). Paragraph 7-very short paragraph that tells what are involved in the combinations. Those are shapes, number, quantity, extension, etc. Paragraph 8-complex sciences that must be set aside such as physics etc. because it is very doubtful and uncertain(refer to paragraph 6) Geometry and arithmetic (simpler sciences) are still believable because even when we sleep, 2 and 3 makes 5 and there are only fpur sides of a square. Paragraphs 9-12 Rene has an idea of God: a supreme powerful being. That being could make things that are not exactly real to be the reality for us in our minds, but he is taught that God is extremely good and would not cause and deception for us. So then, René supposes that if there is an equally supreme evil being that is also extremely deceptful, that being would want to deceive us and make us think that we are living a reality when it is actually just fabricated by that being. In that case, there is no escape to know whether one thing is real or not. But Renè can only have one thing in control: his assent. He may choose what to believe and what not. The only thing he doesn't doubt is that "he doubts." That leads on to the "I think, therefore, I am." This is only an understanding from me, a student. Please do correct me because I barely know anything. Hope this helps
In Meditation 1:10. "Some, indeed, might perhaps be found who would be disposed rather to deny the existence of a Being so powerful than to believe that there is nothing certain" This first sentence I'm struggling with. I think I understand what he is saying in this section in general... that if I am able to be deceived and to err, and that if I am indeed the product of a chain of cause and effect events, then that which is caused me will also contain within it imperfection and deceit, therefore it can't be the ultimate good, i.e. God. But I don't understand that first sentence - why would they rather deny God THAN believe nothing is certain?
Immediately after this sentence, he writes, "Let us not oppose them..." and then tries to show that even on their assumption (that there is no omnipotent God), they still cannot have certainty. I think he is closing off avenues of escape: people who think they can save certainty by giving up belief in an all-powerful divinity are going to fail; they must still confront & solve the problem of skepticism. Hope this helps.
@@ChristopherAnadale Thank you Chris. Going through all your videos at the moment and they are really helpful. One more question on this if I may... why would they think they could save certainty by giving up belief in a deity? Whether wrong or right, I don't yet see their reasoning.... How would atheism lead to certainty (in their mind)?
@@calleOMEGA Because an all powerful God could cause it to be the case that what I perceive & 'know' is different from what actually exists. Denying the existence of such a divinity removes that possiblity, leaving me free to argue for certainty in my natural knowledge.
I’m having trouble understanding the differences between rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism strikes me as a conservative approach because it focuses on experience and the limits of what we an know through our senses. Therefore history and tradition become more important because it reflects accumulated knowledge. Rationalism however strikes me as liberal approach because we can use reason and deductions independent of sensory experience. Therefore, utopian thinking becomes more possible. However, doesn’t a belief in God or a higher existence require ways of knowing beyond the senses? Is this an incorrect way of thinking about rationalism vs. empiricism?
I’m so lost. I’m taking a class for college and I have to answer a question about his argument “is mind more certain than matter.” I don’t even know how to answer this question let alone know what the question even means. I’ve been trying to figure this out for that last hour and a half. Maybe I’m just dumb enough to understand all this.
what are you using to write this question? Mind or matter? So maybe it is not a global definition of certainty, but the only thing we can know for certain is the mind. Since it is what we perceive all else through. If we decide matter is more certain, that statement is paradoxical because we arrived at that conclusion through the mind. Hope that helps.
Overrated is overrated legend has it he’s still trying to figure it out. Lol just kidding but I know I came up with an answer, but I have no record of it. I also ended up getting a C for the class, not because of my work but because of participation points. I didn’t participate in a group project by not showing up to their meetings, but mind you I did do group work, and dropped me grade down a whole letter grade. Pretty dumb grade weight if you ask me.
Descartes talks in Mediation one that that he wants to level all his beliefs to the ground so he may start anew, yet he keeps in tact his religious beliefs? What Descartes insists is that, if he can show even a single moment, instance, or example where a specific knowledge claim from either one of these domains is shown to be 'possibly false' then the whole domain collapses, that would dictate that the idea of religion collapses. I don't understand why he let that go, in my mind this totally renders his meditation one useless.
If the material world has no real meaning, is just an illusion that the ego perceives as important, then what is the value of the material world? If the illusion is broken, the material world no longer has value. The Simulacra no longer has meaning. Furthermore, if I create a model of an event in a location, in my mind, it would therefore be just as valid as the event that took place in the material world. There is no difference between the imagined and the real.
Your channel is extremely underrated. The content of this channel is of a very good quality. I would advise you to learn algorithm of TH-cam, because the only reason your channel is not more popular, is that is doesn't reach enough number of "recommendation lists". TH-cam algorithm is quite complex but rewarding in the end. Keep the good work up!
It will reach your reccomendation if you listen to the audiobook video
It's so refreshing to hear somebody not distorting or caricaturing Descartes... thanks for the lesson.
Hi, professor. I'm an instructor and am very young in the academe. I would just want to thank you as your lectures have helped when I was still a student and now I recommend them in turn to my students. Your videos are especially vital now since the shift to online learning is inevitable because of the pandemic. Thank you very much.
With the quarantine going on my intro to philosophy was suddenly pushed online. This was very helpful for understanding the text since we no longer have our lectures!
Me too.
Man, your are amazing. I watched a lot of your videos. I keep finding them looking up other things. 400 people have seen this video. That is 400 people on the right track. More people need ta come back to the cave! Ty
This greatly helped me write my philosophy paper
Decided to write about this for my philosophy final. Thank you so much, this was extremely helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
I'm reading this for an English class. I love your explanations of each paragraph. Your analysis is very helpful, thank you!
Clear paragraph by paragraph delineation of Meditations One. Thank you.
Thank you very much! This cleared many things up for me as a beginner philosophy student.
Meditation 2 Walkthrough here: th-cam.com/video/SqNGa7gQxhk/w-d-xo.html
Christopher Anadale extremely helpful material, keep it up
Appreciate it. I don't have the largest vocabulary, and some of these philosophy texts are painful to read...
And... descarte is level 1
Especially the last paragraph in mediation 1
Late I know, but damn are you correct.
I'm gonna have to buy meditations after hearing this. Thankyoub
Thank you so much, this is so helpful in understanding the text!
As ever, thank you very much for an breaking down this text so clearly.
This helped me with my HW thanks.
nice & simple
really helpful. Thanks broski
this is so helpful for my philosophy paper!!
Love from Sambalpur Bargarh india...
Thank you sir for explaining 😊
Love from India
Good job, thanks!
great vid
thank you i finally understand, the other creators confused me!
So glad!
I greatly thank you :)
Paragraph 1-
René clears all of his thoughts to provide space for new foundation of knowledge
Paragraph 2-set aside not only false beliefs but also doubtful beliefs(because it is open to challenge and cannot be the foundation)
Paragraph 3-sense knowing/knowledge should be set aside because it is deceiving. We can be deceived by our sense for example when we have too much to drink and the world starts spinning or when a room temperature water hits us and it feels hot after we have been outside in the snow(ctto). Therefore, those that had deceived us im the past, we must not put all our reliance on them.
Paragraph 4-there is an objection that maybe the senses are reliable as a whole and the only some individual aspects have deceived us (I'm not sure if this is whatbhe means)
Paragraph 5-René addresses this by stating his dream experiences that are so vivid he cannot tell while he is dreaming that it is in fact a dream experience and not a real experience
Paragraph 6- So suppose that everything we see is a dream. Aren't dreams a reflection of something else that exists? It is a combination of simpler things we know to a much complex thing(example: horse plus rhino is unicorn).
Paragraph 7-very short paragraph that tells what are involved in the combinations. Those are shapes, number, quantity, extension, etc.
Paragraph 8-complex sciences that must be set aside such as physics etc. because it is very doubtful and uncertain(refer to paragraph 6) Geometry and arithmetic (simpler sciences) are still believable because even when we sleep, 2 and 3 makes 5 and there are only fpur sides of a square.
Paragraphs 9-12
Rene has an idea of God: a supreme powerful being. That being could make things that are not exactly real to be the reality for us in our minds, but he is taught that God is extremely good and would not cause and deception for us. So then, René supposes that if there is an equally supreme evil being that is also extremely deceptful, that being would want to deceive us and make us think that we are living a reality when it is actually just fabricated by that being. In that case, there is no escape to know whether one thing is real or not. But Renè can only have one thing in control: his assent. He may choose what to believe and what not. The only thing he doesn't doubt is that "he doubts." That leads on to the "I think, therefore, I am."
This is only an understanding from me, a student. Please do correct me because I barely know anything. Hope this helps
this definitely helped. breakdown of a breakdown thanks :)
In Meditation 1:10.
"Some, indeed, might perhaps be found who would be disposed rather to deny the existence of a Being so powerful than to believe that there is nothing certain" This first sentence I'm struggling with. I think I understand what he is saying in this section in general... that if I am able to be deceived and to err, and that if I am indeed the product of a chain of cause and effect events, then that which is caused me will also contain within it imperfection and deceit, therefore it can't be the ultimate good, i.e. God. But I don't understand that first sentence - why would they rather deny God THAN believe nothing is certain?
Immediately after this sentence, he writes, "Let us not oppose them..." and then tries to show that even on their assumption (that there is no omnipotent God), they still cannot have certainty.
I think he is closing off avenues of escape: people who think they can save certainty by giving up belief in an all-powerful divinity are going to fail; they must still confront & solve the problem of skepticism.
Hope this helps.
@@ChristopherAnadale Thank you Chris. Going through all your videos at the moment and they are really helpful. One more question on this if I may... why would they think they could save certainty by giving up belief in a deity? Whether wrong or right, I don't yet see their reasoning.... How would atheism lead to certainty (in their mind)?
@@calleOMEGA Because an all powerful God could cause it to be the case that what I perceive & 'know' is different from what actually exists. Denying the existence of such a divinity removes that possiblity, leaving me free to argue for certainty in my natural knowledge.
@@ChristopherAnadale Got it! Thank you
Well done!
I’m having trouble understanding the differences between rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism strikes me as a conservative approach because it focuses on experience and the limits of what we an know through our senses. Therefore history and tradition become more important because it reflects accumulated knowledge. Rationalism however strikes me as liberal approach because we can use reason and deductions independent of sensory experience. Therefore, utopian thinking becomes more possible. However, doesn’t a belief in God or a higher existence require ways of knowing beyond the senses? Is this an incorrect way of thinking about rationalism vs. empiricism?
merci
The question is why did he in this meditation assume there is a higher power in the first place?
I appreciate your overviews Christopher!
He’s talking about certainty and observation as a scientist.
I’m so lost. I’m taking a class for college and I have to answer a question about his argument “is mind more certain than matter.” I don’t even know how to answer this question let alone know what the question even means. I’ve been trying to figure this out for that last hour and a half. Maybe I’m just dumb enough to understand all this.
I'd love to know what you came up with for that question ngl
any update ?
what are you using to write this question? Mind or matter? So maybe it is not a global definition of certainty, but the only thing we can know for certain is the mind. Since it is what we perceive all else through. If we decide matter is more certain, that statement is paradoxical because we arrived at that conclusion through the mind. Hope that helps.
Overrated is overrated legend has it he’s still trying to figure it out. Lol just kidding but I know I came up with an answer, but I have no record of it. I also ended up getting a C for the class, not because of my work but because of participation points. I didn’t participate in a group project by not showing up to their meetings, but mind you I did do group work, and dropped me grade down a whole letter grade. Pretty dumb grade weight if you ask me.
Descartes talks in Mediation one that that he wants to level all his beliefs to the ground so he may start anew, yet he keeps in tact his religious beliefs? What Descartes insists is that, if he can show even a single moment, instance, or example where a specific knowledge claim from either one of these domains is shown to be 'possibly false' then the whole domain collapses, that would dictate that the idea of religion collapses. I don't understand why he let that go, in my mind this totally renders his meditation one useless.
He is not a skeptic, only feigning to be one.
If the material world has no real meaning, is just an illusion that the ego perceives as important, then what is the value of the material world? If the illusion is broken, the material world no longer has value. The Simulacra no longer has meaning. Furthermore, if I create a model of an event in a location, in my mind, it would therefore be just as valid as the event that took place in the material world. There is no difference between the imagined and the real.
Is this why I feel so comfortable in the desert?
Christ Jesus is Lord of ALL.
Prove it.