-
1.
- Descartes’s Meditator is afraid of being deceived. According to the
authors we’ve read (including Descartes himself), is the Meditator right to
fear this? In what ways, according to those authors, are we liable to deception
(by our senses, by books, by other people, by God, by ourselves)? What steps,
if any, can be taken to head this off? How, if at all, according to them, might
or must potentially deceptive things (including, for example, but not limited
to: dreams, fictions, history, traditional philosophy, logical arguments, the
Bible, the sensible world, the Eucharist) nevertheless yield truth if properly
used and/or understood? (In other words: to what extent is it our own fault
if we are deceived?) Are there some kinds of deception which we can’t and/or
shouldn’t want to avoid? (Note: some pieces of advice for avoiding deception
are not surprising and therefore not interesting — e.g. don’t treat a fiction
as if it were a history, don’t trust your senses about very small or very distant
objects. Also some are too vague to be interesting — e.g., trust your senses
and your reading and your reason, but only in the proper balance. If you
think there’s nothing more surprising than that in our authors, you should
probably write about a different topic.)
-
2.
- What if anything, according to our authors, is or should be the relationship
between metaphysics and/or epistemology, on the one hand, and ethics
and/or politics, on the other? For example: is correct (or incorrect?) thought
necessary, according to them, for correct action? Or vice versa: is it possible,
according to them, to think correctly — to know what one knows, to have
certainty, to know what (kind of thing) really exists — without moral and/or
political reform? How, if at all, can a human being, with human needs and
desires, be a philosopher? How if at all, can the philosopher function within
society as it now is (or: as it was in the 17th century, if that is relevantly
different from now)? Is knowledge of what is right or just (proper moral
judgment) useful, according to them, for determining what is true or what
exists (proper theoretical judgment), and if so why and how?
-
3.
- Included in the above, but you might want to focus on it in particular:
according to our authors, what are the political implications of metaphysics
and/or epistemology, and vice versa? See the above topic for some detailed
issues, to which can be added here in particular: in what ways, if any, is the
structure of our knowledge (and of “the sciences”), or the structure of beings
in general (of the world as a whole) like that of a city/state, and in what
ways if any is it different?
-
4.
- Of these possible sources of human knowledge: the senses; logic and/or
reason and/or the intellect; imagination (i.e., in some way producing or
entertaining sense-like images which do not come directly through the senses);
reading authoritative texts, which, according to our authors, is useful or
reliable and which is not? What is the proper relationship between them?
What is or might be or tends to be the actual relationship? (If the last two
are different, that would mean that the actual relationship is or might be or
tends to be not the proper relationship, i.e. that something is or might be
or tends to be wrong.) What kinds of error stem from or affect the use of
these alleged sources of knowledge, and how, if at all, is it possible to guard
against them? (Note that a good answer to this must be more than just a
list of which sources are reliable and which are not — you must find a single
surprising and interesting point to make about how different authors relate
to different sources.)
-
5.
- How much, according to our authors, do we know about ourselves?
Supposing we yield Descartes the point that I cannot (rationally) doubt my
own existence, how about the argument which follows in the Second and Sixth
Meditations, where he talks about essence (about what kind of thing “I”
am)? In what sense, according to Descartes and others we’ve read, is it or is
it not possible to know, to be certain, to doubt, and/or to be deceived about
what kind of thing/person one really is, and/or about what kind of thing
a human being (or human soul) is? Descartes claims that we can know this
about ourselves better (more distinctly) than about anything else (except
God?). Do others agree with him, and why or why not? (If not, what do
they think we know better, or just as well?) What are the implications for
metaphysics and/or for ethics?
-
6.
- In what ways, according to our authors, are we or is our world imperfect?
Which of those imperfections, according to them, are imperfections only
relative to some purpose or to some arbitrary preference on our part (so that
they might look like perfections from some other point of view), and which,
if any, are absolutely imperfect? How, if at all, according to them, can we
know/be certain that there are imperfections (of either kind) in ourselves or
in the world? Who or what, if anything, according to them, is to blame for
imperfection? To what extent, if at all, according to them, can imperfections
be corrected, and if so how and by what or whom? Are there imperfections
that are better left uncorrected, according to them, and if so why? What are
the implications for metaphysics and/or for ethics?
-
7.
- In what sense (if any), according to our authors, are human beings free,
or in what sense (if any) can they become free? In what sense (if any) can
the become unfree? What is the relationship, according to them, between
freedom and power? Between freedom and necessity? Between freedom
and divine causation? Between freedom and divine foreknowledge? Between
freedom and coercion? Between freedom and clear and distinct intellectual
perception? Between freedom and correct or moral action? Between freedom
and happiness? Between freedom and error or sin? What is freedom good
for, according to them? Why does God make human beings free (if God does
make them free, and if there is a reason)? Or why does God allow them to
become free? Or why does God allow them to become unfree?
-
8.
- How, according to our authors, can we know that God exists? What is it,
according to them, that we know, when we know that? How much or little
do we know about God’s nature? About God’s power? About God’s will (its
nature and contents)? Why, if at all, is this knowledge important, according
to them? What, if anything, will it help us to understand about ourselves?
About the world? About the proper course of action? How is the knowledge
we gain in this way related to the human institution of religion (e.g. Judaism,
Catholicism)? To the contents and interpretation of the Bible?