Descartes

[!Thoughts] I don’t really think that the idea that items don’t inherently possess a sensed form is very controversial at all. If I smell something in the kitchen and I think that’s pasta, there must be some form of the mind in work identifying hey that smell maps to pasta in my brain. He’s kind of just saying linguistics exist.

[!Possible Interpretation] I could be wrong, but I don’t necessarily agree Descartes was saying a candle doesn’t exist if we aren’t “seeing it”,
For if I judge that the wax exists from the fact that I see it, certainly from this same fact that I see the wax it follows much more evidently that I myself
the wax does not change, rather it is not being classified so it does not hold the same value. Kind of like saying I got this gift card I can spend it because it isn’t real money. While it is the same thing we are ascribing no value to the gift card because it isn’t being observed as the same state.
If I judge that the wax exists from the fact that I imag-ine it, or for any other reason, plainly the same thing follow

This candle in my hand does not possess the classification “smell” or feeling inherently. If I were to stop observing it the candle would not lose these traits, rather it is no longer classified as these observations because these observations are created by the mind.

[!More Thoughts] So I am trying to reason about my interpretation, and I thought about the fire example. So it could seem that by my understanding it would be incorrect to say that the mind processes things and creates their form through our observed classification and ascribed value if we have no feeling in our arm, but we see its on the stove then why wouldn’t we feel pain. I would like to present both a counter as well as a counter example to this in order to combat this understanding. This understanding presupposes what we mean by the mind. If the mind can be classify things through repeated observation it would follow that a hot stove would not hurt if you had no feeling, since you have either never experienced the nature of the form, or if you lost sense at a later point the stimuli that is associated with the pain would be dominated by senses other than sight or smell. The counter example I would present would be that of phantom pain in people with missing limbs as well. The brain will often sense the feeling as if it were on the other limb.

[!Update] So after doing more research specifically within the Michael Sugrue lectures I have learned that a large criticism of Descartes is that he conflates reality with linguistics. So I would say that I maybe gave him too much credit, but I was fairly on the money with my analysis.

[!Refining] Language binds our mind to our reality. If we can conclude our mind exists, and we can conclude that our reality must be understood through this mind. We understand that our mind is using language as a classification for commonalities. It is a generalization of what x is.

Meditation 4

[!NOTE] Descartes is basically saying that if we assume something to be true, and it does in fact end up being true we are still in a fault of some kind because we did not use our intellect to determine this, rather blindly guessed and happened upon the correct answer

Mediation 5

[!NOTE] Once again I don’t really think much of what he is saying here, he is kind of just saying our eyes focus in on objects.

Meditation 6

Descartes RECAP (Provided by him LOL)

[!NOTE] This is fairly ironic given he needs to imagine not having imagination in order to conclude this

In Class Review