Meditations on First Philosophy, with Selections from the Objections and Replies
- Downloads：5487
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-01-07 06:54:04
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：René Descartes
- ISBN：1107665736
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy remains one of the most widely studied works of Western philosophy。 This volume is a refreshed and updated edition of John Cottingham's bestselling 1996 edition， based on his translation in the acclaimed three-volume Cambridge edition of The Philosophical Writings of Descartes。 It presents the complete text of Descartes's central metaphysical masterpiece， the Meditations， in clear， readable modern English， and it offers the reader additional material in a thematic abridgement of the Objections and Replies， providing a deeper understanding of how Descartes developed and clarified his arguments in response to critics。 Cottingham also provides an updated introduction， together with a substantially revised bibliography， taking into account recent literature and developments in Descartes studies。 The volume will be a vital resource for students reading the Meditations， as well as those studying Descartes and early modern philosophy。
Reviews
Anthony
，
In which my man Descartes establishes the first principles of all human knowledge， proves the existence of god， and writes some haughty responses to objections he， himself， requested。 Descartes draws from Aristotelian metaphysics （as indeed most trained in the Scholastic tradition did）， Skepticism and Epicureanism but endeavors on an audacious project that would usher in a new era of philosophy。 So， far be it from me to criticize him from a philosophical perspective。 The Replies are sometimes hi In which my man Descartes establishes the first principles of all human knowledge， proves the existence of god， and writes some haughty responses to objections he， himself， requested。 Descartes draws from Aristotelian metaphysics （as indeed most trained in the Scholastic tradition did）， Skepticism and Epicureanism but endeavors on an audacious project that would usher in a new era of philosophy。 So， far be it from me to criticize him from a philosophical perspective。 The Replies are sometimes hilariously boastful， petty and dodgy， which offers a highly entertaining portrait of an extremely proud philosopher。 This edition offers a clear and readable translation， but I dock a star for excluding the fifth and seventh Objections。 。。。more
George Percivall
，
St Johns College Winter Classics， January 2022
Edmond
，
René Descartes’s “Méditations” is one of the most important books in philosophy。 He sets the stage for all rational， modern sceptical thought about God， knowledge， the soul， ethics。 After reading “Meditations”， I can understand the modern atheistic arguments against the Christian faith。 Modern man is a sceptic， behind the appearance of confidence， his is unsure about everything。 The scientific method was invented to protect modern rational man from falling into complete agnosticism。 Post-moderni René Descartes’s “Méditations” is one of the most important books in philosophy。 He sets the stage for all rational， modern sceptical thought about God， knowledge， the soul， ethics。 After reading “Meditations”， I can understand the modern atheistic arguments against the Christian faith。 Modern man is a sceptic， behind the appearance of confidence， his is unsure about everything。 The scientific method was invented to protect modern rational man from falling into complete agnosticism。 Post-modernity is the realization that the scientific method is scepticism。 “Meditations” answered a lot of questions in my life。 I myself was a sceptic/rationalist， now I can see the error of rationalism。 。。。more
Ali Abolhassanzadeh Mahani
，
Hard to read。。。Makes reasonable arguments。
alyssa ！！
，
The use and exploration of philosophy needs to be psychoanalysed cause this man was definitely not stable at this time in his life。 I， as a mentally ill person， can absolutely relate to his state of mind but at the same time。 How did he come up w this stuff lmaoStudying this as part of school is really an experience lol。 My philosophy teacher is actually the worst which doesn't help。 The use and exploration of philosophy needs to be psychoanalysed cause this man was definitely not stable at this time in his life。 I， as a mentally ill person， can absolutely relate to his state of mind but at the same time。 How did he come up w this stuff lmaoStudying this as part of school is really an experience lol。 My philosophy teacher is actually the worst which doesn't help。 。。。more
Steve Dragon
，
A good edition of the Meditations and the Objections。 The Objections have been organized by topic， which was helpful as it allowed me easier comparison of the complaints as well as consider the Replies。 The footnotes provide some interesting notes on the translation。 I can't comment too heavily on how well it captures the original because I have not read and cannot read the original （which is why I used a translation）。 A very important text， historically speaking。 A bit of a challenge to wrap ar A good edition of the Meditations and the Objections。 The Objections have been organized by topic， which was helpful as it allowed me easier comparison of the complaints as well as consider the Replies。 The footnotes provide some interesting notes on the translation。 I can't comment too heavily on how well it captures the original because I have not read and cannot read the original （which is why I used a translation）。 A very important text， historically speaking。 A bit of a challenge to wrap around the logic of all the arguments， but still quite interesting from a literary perspective。 。。。more
Krystel :））
，
3。5
a
，
objections and replies make this 3x better and more interesting; after a bit of a break maybe sorta nice to get back to philosophy， the weird sort of ragged happiness and overactive clarity of mind。
KURGAN FREEDLE
，
I found the prose extremely conversational and pleasant to read， compared to most philosophers。 Descartes starts from the only truth we can know--that we "are"， because we think we are--and makes a go at forming other conclusions based on this premise。While the book forced me to reckon my own epistemological thoughts， I favor Spinoza's single-Substance over Descartes' mind-body dualism， and once Descartes basically restated Anselm's proof of God in the fifth meditation， I was less than thrilled。 I found the prose extremely conversational and pleasant to read， compared to most philosophers。 Descartes starts from the only truth we can know--that we "are"， because we think we are--and makes a go at forming other conclusions based on this premise。While the book forced me to reckon my own epistemological thoughts， I favor Spinoza's single-Substance over Descartes' mind-body dualism， and once Descartes basically restated Anselm's proof of God in the fifth meditation， I was less than thrilled。Nonetheless， still a classic， and it might have turned me vegetarian in a roundabout way？ 。。。more
Max
，
Few of the greatest philosophical works have the benefit of being so readable。 No matter where your opinion on Descartes ends up， this is a wonderful text for those interested in philosophy。
Petros
，
In the western world， philosophy was born in Ancient Greece， roughly around 2600 years ago （the Greeks considered Thales as the guy who started it all）。 It thrived for 3 centuries， finding its apex in the figures of Plato and Aristotle （there may have been other very important thinkers， like Parmenides， but we don’t have enough texts from them to really understand their thinking）。The main questions of philosophy were set with Plato: how does the physical world work （physics）， what is the good li In the western world， philosophy was born in Ancient Greece， roughly around 2600 years ago （the Greeks considered Thales as the guy who started it all）。 It thrived for 3 centuries， finding its apex in the figures of Plato and Aristotle （there may have been other very important thinkers， like Parmenides， but we don’t have enough texts from them to really understand their thinking）。The main questions of philosophy were set with Plato: how does the physical world work （physics）， what is the good life and how to approach it （ethics）， what is the best way for human societies organize themselves （politics）， how can knowledge be obtained （epistemology）， what is the deeper/true nature of reality （metaphysics）。 Then Aristotle offered an example of a complete world-view， a complete and internally-consistent framework of understanding the world （from the foundations of logic and grammar， to human psychology， to the “divine”）。Entering the Hellenistic era （with the gradual dissolution of self-governed city states） and， subsequently， the Roman era （with Roman society gradually turning from a republic into a vast empire）， philosophical dialogue focused mainly on internal ethics and the attainment of happiness and/or piece of mind （ataraxia - a concept that was possibly cross-pollinated with ideas from Indian philosophy， after the Greeks came into contact with western Indian kingdoms）。 The main philosophical currents were Stoicism and Epicureanism （and perhaps， to a lesser degree， Cynicism）。 This period lasted for roughly 8 centuries （from the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD）。During these roughly 1000 years， in this corner of the world， people developed， shared and criticized ideas with a great degree of freedom。 They used rational discourse and logical arguments - not appeals to authority （of sages， or oracles， or prophets， or apocryphal texts， or divine revelation） - to try to understand how the world works and what is the best way to live one’s life。In the last few centuries of that era， as societal cohesion weakened and political uncertainty grew， apocryphal undercurrents re-emerged inside philosophical thinking （Gnosticism and Neoplatonism） and grew stronger as the Greco-Roman world gradually， albeit slowly， disintegrated。 Christianity became increasingly popular， becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire towards the end of the 4th century AD， and proceeding to gradually suppress all other kind of religions and all other kinds of thought。 After the 5th century AD， the philosophical project of free rational discourse came to an end。Another 1000 years passed， where Western thought was dominated by the divine and “infallible” texts and the “divine authority” of the church。 Some texts of ancient thought made it through （mainly those of Plato， Aristotle） and various theologians tried to reconcile those texts with the scriptures （that project found its apex with Thomas Aquinas， whose work was officially adopted by the Catholic Church）， and thinking and human discourse involved coming up and resolving disputes between different interpretations of the divine texts。 Dissident views were strongly discouraged。Towards the end of that millennium， technology and science caught up and surpassed the ancients: the americas were discovered， the telescope was invented， Galileo described mathematically accelerated motion （which was considered impossible by the ancients）， and so on。 At the same time， a new class of wealthy traders entrepreneurs emerged （so there was some increasing diversification of political power， which was previously monopolized by the aristocracy and the church）。 As the authority of the church weakened， people gradually started to think and discuss more openly。And what does all this have to do with this book， you may wonder！In this text， Descartes thought he proved beyond doubt the existence of God （as an omnipotent and absolutely good being， infinitely perfect in every conceivable respect） and the existence of soul as distinct and separable from the body。 Most subsequent thinkers disagree he failed to do so。 But the important thing is he didn’t rely on authority or scripture to do so: he relied exclusively on rational argument。 No only that but， before publishing it， he sent his manuscript to various other thinkers （philosophers and theologians） and asked for their criticism （on the condition it is a rational criticism of the logic of his arguments without appeal to authority） and he included their objections （and some of the objections were pretty strong）， along with his own replies to them， in the final published text。 In this way， he restarted the rational philosophical discourse after a thousand-year-long slumber。Another， somewhat related， interesting approach to this book is that Descartes wrote not just as a series of arguments， but also a thought process。 So， in a way， he takes the hand of the reader and shows him a way to think （rather than just present arguments for the reader to consider）。While I consider his central argument to be quite weak， there is a substantial amount of thoughts worthy of note and consideration。 Descartes puts his mind into the very foundations of knowledge: what can we know wit certainty and how？He begins his thought process with calling into doubt all the opinions he previously accepted as true: I am absolutely certain of some things， but I see people around me who are absolutely certain about things which I know them to be wrong about - therefore being certain isn’t enough for me to know I a not mistaken。 Furthermore， when asleep and dreaming， I sometimes think I’m awakes， I am certain I’m not dreaming， and I am certain what I am experiencing is true - therefore I cannot trust my senses， either。 And， since I believe an all-loving god exists， it could plausibly be that an evil demon exists and he intervenes in my thinking （and make me feel certain of things I am mistaken about）。What can I be certain of？ I am certain I am thinking （and there’s no way I could be wrong about this）。 Therefore I exist。 I am not sure whether the objects around me exist （I could be dreaming or hallucinating， or living in the matrix）， or even whether my body really exists， but “I”， at least as a mere thinking entity， exist。Descartes implicitly accepts this “intuition” as the only possible source of certainty （“it is only what I clearly and distinctly perceive that convinces me”）。 I am equally certain or mathematics， like when I calculate 2+3=5， but there could be an alternative to their veracity: the “evil demon” who makes it so I am being deceived。I can also be absolutely certain of the content of my thoughts （at least when my thoughts are clear and distinct）: even if I don’t know if my thoughts are true， I can be certain of the truth of their content as such。 So， if I see an apple in the table， I cannot be certain there is an apple - or even a table - （since I may be dreaming）， but I can be certain there is the image of an apple in my mind。Thoughts can be “ideas” （images or concepts of things）， volition/emotions， or judgements/opinions/conclusions。 So， if I see an apple I can be certain there is the image/concept of an apple in my mind’s eye， but to say “there is an apple out there on that table” would require a judgment。Ideas could either be innate （already existing within me）， or could be invented by myself （I am inventing the idea of an elf， even though I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with my senses）， or could be be derived of things existing out there。 And， although that is not proof of their true existence， I seem to be “programmed by nature” to believe that things I experience with my senses do exist out there （I experience them whether I choose to or not）。Each thought/idea has some content （some geometrical shape， the properties I know it to hold， etc）， so that content needs to be accounted for。 Perhaps that content was either always inside me in some way or another， or perhaps there really are things apart from myself。。。 but it requires an origin or explanation。 From this starting point， Descartes argues for the existence of god: since the idea I have of god is infinite and perfect in every respect， the entire content of his idea cannot exist solely from within me， unless I myself am infinite and perfect （which I am not）。 Therefore it must derive from something else other than myself， therefore there is a being that is perfect and infinite， therefore god exists。 And since god is a perfect being， he is also good （because being evil would be an imperfection）。 Although there are a bunch of other details， I think this is the gist of his argument （he subsequently proceeds to give his version of the ontological argument of god， which I find to be less interesting， as it is fairly weak）。This argument doesn’t seem that strong， and there were some strong counter-arguments in his “objections and replies” section: “if you had spent your entire life alone in some deserted island， how do our know that the idea of an infinitely perfect being would have come to you？ the natives of the americas don’t have any such idea， therefore it could be that your idea does come from previously held notions。”， “we can’t form the idea of infinite， therefore we can’t meaningfully hold any such idea in order to claim that its context needs to be derived from something other than ourself”。 Or perhaps， we create that idea by analogy or recursion， etc。The rest of the text may seem less interesting， but there are some interesting thoughts:Size/extension， position/movement， duration， number: I perceive clearly and dinstinctly。 Whereas light/colour， sound， smell， taste， tactile qualities （heat/cold， etc）: I perceive in a very confused and obscure way。Mathematical qualities I understand with the mind， but colors/sounds/tastes/pain/etc。 I understand with the senses （and they reach my imagination with the assistance of memory）。The senses can be faulty （“those who had had a leg or an arm amputated sometimes still feel pain in the missing part。 So， even in my own case， it is apparently not quite certain that a particular limb was hurting， even if I felt pain in it”）。 I understand with the mind， not [just] with the senses， because I use the intellect to make sense of the meaning of the senses。There is a “passive （in the Aristotelian sense of the word） faculty of sensory perception， for receiving and recognizing the ideas of sensible objects” [for translating the data of sensory input into concepts]， and an “active faculty which produced or brought about these ideas” [this could be my sensory apparatus which introduces data from the exterior world to my higher cognitive functions]。There is a difference between “imagination” and “pure understanding”: I can see a triangle with my mind’s eye and I can understand it with my intellect， but I cannot see a chiliagon although I can also understand it with my intellect。 “When the mind understands， it turns towards itself and inspects or the ideas which are within it。 When it imagines， it turns towards the body and looks at something in the body which conforms to an idea is understood by the mind or perceived by the senses [this could be the sensory input and processing - e。g。 the visual and/or somatosensory cortex - as opposed to more complex kinds of data processing - e。g。 reason， language， emotions， intuition， etc）。Perhaps I have “nothing in the intellect which I had not previously had in sensation”。Whenever we clearly understand something， we will be so strongly inclined to affirm/pursue or deny/avoid it as if we were determined by an external force （“from a great light in the intellect there followed a great inclination in the will”）。 That is indeed what “free will” should feel like （like we were being compelled to believe or act in a certain way）， since only other alternative would be indecision The only alternative possibility would be indecision/uncertainty/indifference， which would be the result of our intellect not yet being persuaded about the veracity or usefulness of the question at hand （and that is clearly not “free will”）。In order not to err， we need to confirm （using the intellect） that we indeed do clearly and distinctly understand something。Descartes distinguishes sensations between those of pleasure/pain， appetites inside my body （hunger/thirst， etc。）， and the common senses （light-colour/smell/taste/sound/tactile qualities）。 The ideas that comes from the senses are much more vivid than my imagination or memory （so it seems “impossible they should have come from within me”） and I seem to feel/see that I have a body （and I feel pain in that body and not in anything else I feel/see outside）。 “My own nature teaches me” that there are some things outside my being， that those things resemble my ideas of them， and that I have a body that I am in some way connected to or part of。 My nature also teaches me that when I feel pain there is something wrong with the body， when I am hungry the body needs drink， etc。 And my nature teaches us “to draw conclusions from these sensory perceptions about things located outside us without waiting until the intellect has examined the matter”。“The purpose of sensory perceptions given my by nature is simply to inform the mind of what is beneficial or harmful [。。。]。 But I misuse them by treating them as reliable touchstones for immediate judgements about the essential nature of the bodies located outside us”。 Sometimes even that function is faulty， but “in matters regarding the well-being of the body， all my senses report the truth much more frequently than not。 Also， I can almost always make use or more than one sense to investigate the same thing， and， in addition， I can use both my memory， which connects present experiences with preceding ones and my intellect which has by now examined all the causes of error”。3/5 is not meant to signify how important I think this text is， but rather how much I enjoyed reading it。 If you are interested in philosophy or the history of human thought in general， this book is highly recommended （having some prior grasp of Aristotelian would be helpful in understanding some of the concepts involved， since Descartes was still a cultural product of the “scholastic tradition”）。 If not， you’d probably not benefit much。 。。。more
Ryan
，
disclaimer: i only skimmed the objections and replies and these are my own interpretations！ i may have butchered descartes！it was quite a fascinating read and in particular， meditations 1-3 and 6 were not too difficult to understand， which is a nice change of pace for a philo book。 all the meditations were pretty good except 4 imo。 while all the other meditations had some holes， i was more willing to accept them as true。 but the whole thing about the infinite will/finite intellect in meditation disclaimer: i only skimmed the objections and replies and these are my own interpretations！ i may have butchered descartes！it was quite a fascinating read and in particular， meditations 1-3 and 6 were not too difficult to understand， which is a nice change of pace for a philo book。 all the meditations were pretty good except 4 imo。 while all the other meditations had some holes， i was more willing to accept them as true。 but the whole thing about the infinite will/finite intellect in meditation 4 was just unconvincing， and meditations 5-6 depend so heavily on that。 still， it was an entertaining read on the whole， and still one of the easier philo books to understand。meditations summary1: doubt everything: material things， mathematical truths， and the existence of god2: i think， therefore i am; importance of reasoning。3: god must exist: since i am a finite being， my understanding of infinity must have stemmed from an infinite being。4: my will is infinite but my intellect is finite。 errors come from my will extending past my intellect; if i keep my will in check and ONLY take to be true what my intellect perceives clearly， i can never be wrong。 5: i perceive two truths clearly: the existence of god， and mathematical truths。 for example: since existence is a perfection， and god is perfect， therefore god must exist。 same thing for mathematical truths。 hence， they must be true。 6: my knowledge of material objects must stem from outside me， since i am not able to clearly perceive them within me。 since they are external， they must come from either corporeal things or non-corporeal things （god）。 since god is perfect and wouldn’t deceive me， any error must come from corporeal things。 therefore corporeal things exist。 also， he gives a commentary on why we make errors: we don’t have time to slow down and judge the clarity of our perceptions。i only skimmed the objections and replies。 one highlight i found interesting: since descartes’s arguments rest entirely on the existence of god， by that logic an atheist can never be sure of any truths。 。。。more
Cody
，
5/10DNF。。。 kinda。 Our course finished the Meditations and went over a few objections。 I don't feel motivated to finish the other objections。 I have no idea how the philosopher with the most notorious quote in philosophy proceeds to write prose which was basically an almost indecipherable slog to go through。 I thought it was just me being dumb at first， but then Hobbes' objections were breeze to read。Outside of the writing style， there was not a lot I agreed on。 Not even "ego sum， ego existo"。 Th 5/10DNF。。。 kinda。 Our course finished the Meditations and went over a few objections。 I don't feel motivated to finish the other objections。 I have no idea how the philosopher with the most notorious quote in philosophy proceeds to write prose which was basically an almost indecipherable slog to go through。 I thought it was just me being dumb at first， but then Hobbes' objections were breeze to read。Outside of the writing style， there was not a lot I agreed on。 Not even "ego sum， ego existo"。 The saving grace is that it's facilitative for philosophical/class discussion。 。。。more
Alice Domenis
，
Apparently， Descartes said his Metaphysics - the Dualism - is the least elaborate of the whole work and that it is rather "something you can quickly read as an after-dinner。" I heard this by Italian Professor Carlo Sini， who gives a completely different image of Descartes from the one we are taught in school - the great philosopher who founded subjectivity。 Descartes is all about science and separates the res extensas from the res cogitans so that he could work on the former one， the human body， Apparently， Descartes said his Metaphysics - the Dualism - is the least elaborate of the whole work and that it is rather "something you can quickly read as an after-dinner。" I heard this by Italian Professor Carlo Sini， who gives a completely different image of Descartes from the one we are taught in school - the great philosopher who founded subjectivity。 Descartes is all about science and separates the res extensas from the res cogitans so that he could work on the former one， the human body， freely， without being furtherly persecuted by the Church。 Another intelligent move in this sense is not getting involved in Theology。Before hearing Sini explain his thesis， which comes from deep research and studies， I felt irritated by Cartesian metaphysics。 I felt guilty because I should love Metaphysics。 I say I like Philosophy， and then I cannot read Descartes ranting about his cogito？ I then heard Sini explaining that Philosophy for Descartes was only a pretext to get into science without been excommunicated， and I felt better about skipping some pages of this book。Okay， soul， God and blah blah blah covered; let's move on。 I feel your pain， René 。。。more
Ruby Jusoh
，
A philosophy text。 I understood the sentences but not the ideas。 Not that hard to grasp， though。 Very spiritual and contemplative。 。17th century writing。 Hence， the confusion。 The language is okay， though。 Descartes discussed God and existence， mind and body， will and intellect。 My favourite statement by the author - we make mistakes because our will is wider than our intellect。 Oh， so true！ The essays are wonderfully written。 Obviously， this needs a lot of reread。 I will give this another go so A philosophy text。 I understood the sentences but not the ideas。 Not that hard to grasp， though。 Very spiritual and contemplative。 。17th century writing。 Hence， the confusion。 The language is okay， though。 Descartes discussed God and existence， mind and body， will and intellect。 My favourite statement by the author - we make mistakes because our will is wider than our intellect。 Oh， so true！ The essays are wonderfully written。 Obviously， this needs a lot of reread。 I will give this another go soon。 。 。。。more
/Fitbrah/
，
Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinates （literally evenly spaced dots on a map） and superscripts in mathematical standard notation。 His philosophy is in the same vein。 You'd think someone would've figured all this out by then。Is very jarring to go from Neo-Platonism to this。 Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinates （literally evenly spaced dots on a map） and superscripts in mathematical standard notation。 His philosophy is in the same vein。 You'd think someone would've figured all this out by then。Is very jarring to go from Neo-Platonism to this。 。。。more
Aman
，
Meditation One and Two use radical doubt to arrive at Descartes' classic account of human subjectivity， and I am becoming increasingly aware that this account is only ever improved upon or critiqued by subsequent Western philosophers， but never quite surpassed。In Meditation Three， Descartes provides a very compelling account of thought （objective reality） and its relationship with the existence of entities as such （formal reality）。 Can we imagine that which we have never seen？ Only perhaps by co Meditation One and Two use radical doubt to arrive at Descartes' classic account of human subjectivity， and I am becoming increasingly aware that this account is only ever improved upon or critiqued by subsequent Western philosophers， but never quite surpassed。In Meditation Three， Descartes provides a very compelling account of thought （objective reality） and its relationship with the existence of entities as such （formal reality）。 Can we imagine that which we have never seen？ Only perhaps by cobbling together that which we have （sensed）。 What about that which lies beyond our cognitive abilities？ Perhaps。。。Meditation Four: why do we make mistakes？ Because our will， or judgement， or ability to affirm or deny propositions， extends beyond our understanding， or what we can know。 While perhaps not mind-blowing， I think it provides a theoretical apparatus to discuss "error"。 In Meditation Five， the math analogies are interesting， insofar as they tell you about Descartes's thought process。 Existence is to God what having three angles that equal two right angles is to triangles。 Finally， Meditation Six: The mind and the body are determined to be distinct， the body being that which affects us without our willing。 How do these two different substances communicate？ pineal gland peers its head from another textHe talks a lot more about God than this review betrays， but I would rather not be the version of myself that harps on that。 However， God cannot be separated from his arguments。 Objections and Replies: It is arguable that Descartes is not able to defend himself with respect to certain objections:- what makes something more real or have more reality？ Degree of ontological dependence， perhaps？- Can we truly imagine the infinite？ We can imagine the perfections that exist in everything we can imagine。。。 and it's like we have a little bit of God in our hands。- Circular reasoning （trademark argument， and 'clear and distinctness' is begging the question？）！ Uhhhh。。。 。。。more
Andrew Kinney
，
Despite being a terrible philosopher， Descartes is a beautiful writer。 It is no wonder his ideas were so influential: skepticism has been a thorn in the side of epistemologists since near to the disciplines conception， but Descartes will move you with his skepticism in a way Sextus Empiricus never does。 Each of the meditations is written in a style of personal reflection and carries with it the horror of slowly loosing one's grip on everything you thought was real—and， in later meditations， of b Despite being a terrible philosopher， Descartes is a beautiful writer。 It is no wonder his ideas were so influential: skepticism has been a thorn in the side of epistemologists since near to the disciplines conception， but Descartes will move you with his skepticism in a way Sextus Empiricus never does。 Each of the meditations is written in a style of personal reflection and carries with it the horror of slowly loosing one's grip on everything you thought was real—and， in later meditations， of being consoled by by a God who affirms reality as it appears to be。 Over the last century Descartes has been soundly criticized by a number of intelligent philosophers。 Parroting just one of them， Alasdair MacIntyre， I would reminder readers of Descartes that one of the fundamental issues in skepticism is it's double-standard: the skeptic asks you to disbelieve something if you cannot be certain it is true， when in fact we need only disbelieve something if we have reason to believe it is false （see Gilbert Harman's Change in View， chapter 4， for a discussion of positive vs negative undermining of beliefs）。 For that reason， we should not take Descartes's doubts particularly seriously。 And I am unsure if anyone has ever thought to take his positive accounts of knowledge of proofs of God very seriously。 However， his writing is delightful， short， quippy， and quite necessary for a historical understanding of philosophy。 It should be on any student of philosophy's shelf—even if none of them should take it particularly seriously。 。。。more
Paul Kuntze
，
I LOVE Descartes。 There are of course various logical fallacies ehich the book is famous for， but focussing on that doesn't do justice to the wisdom and genius of the work。 I LOVE Descartes。 There are of course various logical fallacies ehich the book is famous for， but focussing on that doesn't do justice to the wisdom and genius of the work。 。。。more
Christopher C。 Fuchs
，
“I think， therefore I am。” This book is Descartes seminal philosophy， a very abstract but foundational cornerstone of Western philosophy。 Still， a bit dry for modern ears。
Jonathanrb
，
The other day， I noticed this book and Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty next to one another on my to-read shelf。I decided to read the Sewell book first。It’s best not to put Descartes before the horse。
Wade Z
，
look。 descartes was big brain。 no one is arguing that。but whether his philosophy manages to escape his own personal biases （if that even is possible） with regards to the power of the church？ debatable。now his argumentation and replies？ superb。 brilliant。 it's a shame he died because of scandinavia look。 descartes was big brain。 no one is arguing that。but whether his philosophy manages to escape his own personal biases （if that even is possible） with regards to the power of the church？ debatable。now his argumentation and replies？ superb。 brilliant。 it's a shame he died because of scandinavia 。。。more
Б。 Ачболд
，
Хэн: Декарт （1596 – 1650）。 Юу: “Анхдагч Философийг Бясалгахуй” （1641）。 Aч холбогдол: “Орчин үеийн” барууны философи энэ номоор эхэлдэг （гэж ярьдаг юм байна）。 Гол асуудал: мэдэхүй （epistemology）: аливаа зүйл үнэн， худал эсэхийг яаж мэдэх вэ？ {Жишээ нь， энэ үзэг бодит уу？ г。м。}Зорилго （Декартын ойлгосноор）: шинжлэх ухааны суурийг тавих; бурханы оршихуйг батлах。Бас нэг асуудал: бие ба ухаан。 （Mатериаллаг биед consciousness， soul буюу бодол ухаан， амин сүнс хэрхэн ямар байдлаар оршдог вэ？）Гаргасан д Хэн: Декарт （1596 – 1650）。 Юу: “Анхдагч Философийг Бясалгахуй” （1641）。 Aч холбогдол: “Орчин үеийн” барууны философи энэ номоор эхэлдэг （гэж ярьдаг юм байна）。 Гол асуудал: мэдэхүй （epistemology）: аливаа зүйл үнэн， худал эсэхийг яаж мэдэх вэ？ {Жишээ нь， энэ үзэг бодит уу？ г。м。}Зорилго （Декартын ойлгосноор）: шинжлэх ухааны суурийг тавих; бурханы оршихуйг батлах。Бас нэг асуудал: бие ба ухаан。 （Mатериаллаг биед consciousness， soul буюу бодол ухаан， амин сүнс хэрхэн ямар байдлаар оршдог вэ？）Гаргасан дүгнэлт нь: Алдаатай （юм шиг）。Бид нарын гаргаж болох дүгнэлт: Шашны номлолоор олон зуун жил явсан Европ хүмүүсийн хувьд， шинжлэх ухааны ойлголтууд бий болж байсан （жишээлбэл дэлхий хавтгай биш гэдгийг олж мэдсэн） тэр цаг үед мэдээж эдгээр асуултыг тавих шаардлага гарч ирсэн байх。Унших учир шалтгаан: （1） Философийн түүхэнд ач холбогдолтой гэдэг утгаар нь; （2） Зарим талаар Декартын зарим нэг байр суурь үнэн байж болох: төрөлхийн мэдлэг гэж жишээ нь байдаг бол （Чомский）。 （3） Mэдэхгүй。 Mиний ойлгоогүй өөр олон асуудлууд байгаа гэдэг нь тодорхой байна。Гэвч: Өнөө үед （миний бодлоор） Декарт сүртэй чухал ач холбогдолтой биш。 Та унших хэрэгтэй юу: Философийг системтэй суръя гэж байгаа тохиолдолд хэрэгтэй。 。。。more
Hubert Tomecki
，
3/10
hmmm
，
It rly makes u think。。。
Chad
，
My feelings about this book are a bit complicated。Let's start with the broad positives:First， there's the fact that Rene Descartes achieved something monumental in this work， specifically regarding probably the first conclusive metaphysical examination of apodictic recognition of self-existence that has survived the passage of time。 His elaboration of the idea is， I believe， deeply underappreciated， particularly since the rise of popular postmodernist materialism and those who become its adheren My feelings about this book are a bit complicated。Let's start with the broad positives:First， there's the fact that Rene Descartes achieved something monumental in this work， specifically regarding probably the first conclusive metaphysical examination of apodictic recognition of self-existence that has survived the passage of time。 His elaboration of the idea is， I believe， deeply underappreciated， particularly since the rise of popular postmodernist materialism and those who become its adherents only by way of faddish self-conscious image cultivation。 The frequency with which I encounter supposedly astute intellectuals who miss the real significance of the Cartesian ontological self examination due to self-conscious philosophical jadedness is deeply dismaying。 Rene Descartes has， in part through subsequent commentaries that improve the form of the argument buried in the rambling Meditations， provided a succinct and lucid foundation that impressively fortifies any philosophical reasoning that can benefit from it。Second， this is a relatively well-structured presentation of the Meditations， plus selected Objections and Replies。 The informative footnotes， integration of information from both Latin and French original editions， and cross-referencing footnotes are all helpfully presented for the sake of keeping track of， and understanding， the material。 It offers essential context in a pair of introductory commentaries。This is important work， and deserves attention and （in the case of Rene's enduring contribution） a better reputation from students and scholars of philosophy。Now， the negatives:The introductory commentaries seem written from the perspective of someone who assumes a certain amount of formal philosophical scholarship， so the target audience is clear。 I believe they might be more helpful， as written， following the primary material rather than before it。 Some amount of context establishment is important before diving into the Meditations themselves， but as written I think much of the significance of preceding analysis is lost by the time a first-time reader of the Meditations actually gets to the addressed sections of Rene's work。The manner of labelling the selected Objections and Replies after the primary text is more difficult to follow than would be ideal。 In particular， additional notes （presented with the Objection instead of solely in the introductory material at the beginning of the book） about who is behind each Objection could offer substantial improvement in readers' ability to understand the perspectives of the writers。I would like to see a commentary on Meditations that addresses the particulars of the strength of each argument， for the sake of the introductory reader; this book does not offer that。 There are deeply flawed arguments， genuinely important questions， and quite effective arguments against parts of Rene's elaborations in Meditations that arise， and among Rene's Replies I find a similarly wide range of positive and negative in the reasoning。 One source of Objections in particular ranges between attacks on the Meditations that are petty and superficial at times， and those that are thoroughly well-reasoned at other times -- where Rene tends to handle the former acerbically and condescendingly but with excellent reasoning clarity， and tends to handle the latter acerbically and condescendingly without any meaningful substance to his arguments。Finally， while the rigor of Rene's reasoning varies wildly after （very slowly） reaching the important apodictism of the Cogito （the famous "I think， therefore I am" statement， less succinct than that in Meditations）， much of even the best reasoning to follow that is largely wasted except as a demonstration of the skill， because of intervening flaws in logic and unexamined assumptions。Overall， the importance of Rene's contributions to metaphysical philosophy -- both in concrete foundations for later work and in methodological practice -- are monumental， and all too often overlooked for their value， but the "negatives" I mentioned above make reading this a less than ideal experience， at some times frustrating， at others tedious。 An attentive and honest thinker who has not benefited from an illuminating encounter with Rene in the past can learn a lot from this work， and it is mercifully short for the sake of its shortcomings relative to a lot of the rest of my habitual reading。 。。。more
Harry Tanama
，
This is a great book to think about my existence and being conscious。
Deyth Banger
，
"March 27， 2019 – 60。0% "It doesn't make sense。。。 the whole book。。 so I am finishing it now。。。"March 2， 2019 – 60。0% "Part 6 out Of 9 Parts。。。。9:14"March 2， 2019 – 50。0% "Part 5 out of Part 9"January 30， 2019 – ShelvedJanuary 30， 2019 – Started ReadingShow less" "March 27， 2019 – 60。0% "It doesn't make sense。。。 the whole book。。 so I am finishing it now。。。"March 2， 2019 – 60。0% "Part 6 out Of 9 Parts。。。。9:14"March 2， 2019 – 50。0% "Part 5 out of Part 9"January 30， 2019 – ShelvedJanuary 30， 2019 – Started ReadingShow less" 。。。more
marco
，
i hate descartes
Miranda Pape
，