The Second Meditation Essay

Meditation is very difficult to describe and can only truly be explained once experienced. It is the practice of mental concentration leading ultimately through a sequence of stages to the final goal of spiritual freedom, nirvana. The purpose of Buddhist meditation is to free ourselves from the delusion and thereby put an end to both ignorance and craving. The Buddhists describe the culminating trance-like state as transient; final Nirvana requires the insight of wisdom. The exercises that are meant to develop wisdom involve meditation on the true nature of reality or the conditioned and unconditioned elements that make up all phenomena. The goal of meditation is to develop a concept in the mind.

At the beginning of Meditation three, Descartes has made substantial progress towards defeating skepticism. Using his methods of Doubt and Analysis he has systematically examined all his beliefs and set aside those which he could call into doubt until he reached three beliefs which he could not possibly doubt. First, that the evil genius seeking to deceive him could not deceive him into thinking that he did not exist when in fact he did exist. Second, that his essence is to be a thinking thing. Third, the essence of matter is to be flexible, changeable and extended.

In Descartes’ first meditation, he proposes an argument for skepticism about the external world based on the possibility of dreaming. I will argue that Descartes’ argument for skepticism is flawed. In this essay I will explain Descartes’ argument, explain why Descartes’ argument is flawed, and consider an objection to my own argument.

Descartes’ skeptical scenario is a view of radical skepticism which challenges the common-sense view of knowledge. In this essay, I will demonstrate that the possibility of Descartes’ skeptical scenario shows that knowledge of the external world is impossible. This will be done by examining the dreaming argument. Subsequently, I will present responses to the critiques of the dreaming argument via the analysis of the arguments of a deceiving God and an evil demon. The idea of his writings in Meditation I is to show that there are doubts about knowledge.

‘Meditations’ outlines Descartes’ method of justifying, through reasoning alone, his initial beliefs concerning the existence of reality as he perceives it. This challenge of scepticism is itself achieved through adopting a temporary sceptical approach in meditations 1 and 2. By way of mental deconstruction and evaluation of all that he had previously considered true, Descartes is left with only the elements that he is able to ascertain are ‘certain and indubitable’ . He first asserts our apparent inability to distrust our senses in distinguishing reality from illusion. This process forms the foundations from which he may

Throughout Descartes meditations, it is clear that he strongly believes he has been deceived over a long period of time by his senses, and therefore cannot trust any current knowledge he has previously claimed to have had. He reflects on the fact that he has often found himself to be mistaken with regard to matters that he formerly thought were certain, and seeks to rid himself of all deception, reconstructing his knowledge by somehow withdrawing completely from the senses, and doubting everything. It is very clear what his overall object is while writing this piece, he wishes to question all knowledge. In Descartes Meditations, he questions many metaphysical topics such as the existence of a separate body and mind. He furthermore goes onto

Throughout Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes argues for the ideas and philosophical beliefs behind skepticism. In his writings, he describes the fallibility and importance of the body of man and through extension the senses with which we observe the world. This paper will first show that within Descartes’ writings the body is an extension of the mind. Secondly, this paper will prove that the senses are a false form of understanding which leads to the deception of the mind. Finally, this paper will address the inconsistency that arises from these definitions of Descartes, specifically the incompatibility of a completely independent mind and a body dependent upon that mind.

In René Descartes’ First Meditations, he introduces three main sceptical arguments for the possibility of doubt: illusion, dreaming and error. Descartes’ purpose in his First Meditations is to define knowledge by placing doubt on the sceptical arguments capacity to provide truth. In this essay, I will focus on the argument from dreaming. There are many objections against the argument; therefore I will assess the soundness of the argument and whether it establishes universal doubt based on the plausibility of the objections. Moreover, I will further conclude that it is possible to know if we are dreaming or not at any given moment and that we are not always in a dream.

Having assured himself that he exists and that the essential nature of his self includes at least the capacity to think he then explored the question What else am I? (Section 27) and reached this conclusion: But then what am I? A thing that thinks (res cogitans). What is that? A thing that doubts (dubitans), understands (intelligens), affirms (affirmans), denies (negans), wills (volens), refuses (nolens), and that also imagines (imaginans) and senses (sentiens) (Section 28). Descartes acknowledges that thinking includes doubt, understanding, affirmation, denial, will (volition), refusal, imagination, and senses .

In the second meditation, Descartes declares that this universal doubt makes him feel like a swimmer who is suddenly plunged into deep water. He therefore assumes that everything is false and that he has no memory, senses, or body. Even what he perceives as “reality” could just all be a lie. At this point he has found the first of what he calls “clear and distinct ideas,” ideas so certain that they cannot possibly be denied.

In his Second Meditation on Philosophy Descartes investigates the nature and the idea of real knowledge. After describing his doubts in the truthfulness of his beliefs in the First Meditation Descartes strives to discard his prior knowledge on the base of its uncertainty and aims for a thing that would not induce any doubts. After finding this point of absolute certainty and the foundations of real knowledge Descartes then ties it to the idea of a free will, which when not corresponds to the extension of knowledge serves as a source of mistakes. This essay will discuss Descartes' argument on the essence of certainty and knowledge described in the Second Meditation and connect it to the idea of the essence of mistakes examined in the Fourth Meditation.

come to the conclusion that there is a limit to what they can do. A conscious

In Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes looks closely at three ideas about God. First, he investigates the possibility that he is being deceived by God. Next, he delves into the likelihood that he may

He divided the thinking substance into infinite and finite substance. The infinite thinking substance is God. God is the perfection in his mind, because besides “I thinking, so I exist,” he also realizes that he is imperfect and he cannot create perfection. A substance bringing him a meaning of naturally perfection is God. The existence of God is “very clearly and distinctly,” which is also the reason Descartes needs to doubt deeper in his thinking process. Moreover, he divided finite substances into thinking substance, such as mind or soul, and extended substance, such as body. He believed that mind and body are separated substances that can independently exist without each other. He believes that there is a big difference between mind and

Once Descartes established himself as a "thinking thing", his attention turns to the external world. Descartes reflects upon his dealing with physical objects, and questions the state of physical nature, dealing directly with the senses. Restating the fact that Descartes believes that these sensations of taste, touch, smell, and the like can be fooled, he attacks these bodily perceptions, not from the point of "what makes them true", but rather "what makes them false". These senses lead him to ideas of external objects, which he claims to perceive clearly and distinctly, yet he is not