Rustle in the Bush

• Subtitle for this meditation – “What can be Called into doubt”

And this will be realized as foundations for stability in the sciences.

“It is not necessary to show that all my opinions are false” – Discrediting the Phyronnian view of skepticism as doubting for its own sake ( The difference lies also in the Ethical repercussions of Phyronnian doubt, this may helkp if one is curious but I wouldnt suggest it as anything authortative or serious)

Sloppy Early paper Skeptic’s Atatraxia

So we won’t be addressing every single possible opinion that could be held, that would be tedious and invite. Instead we will call into doubt the basic and fundamental principles on which all the others could not exist without.

We can easily get rid of sense data because it is so commonly fallible, and as showing room for doubt it is now discredited. It is simple as well, to dispel the idea right now of being mad, because the mad are not oremeated with reason.

Now Descartes introduces the idea of all his experiences being the result of a dream, and thus he takes way the certainty of our awake and conscious experience. Simple as.

However, he follows up quickly with the painter analogy in which he states that: “Visions which come in sleep are like paintings, which must have been fashioned in the likeness of things that are real”. What this is pointing out is a substantial kind of reality that connects the two, making it possible to even have something to dream of.

Quick digressions on definitions:

<OUSIA is ‘essence’ or ‘being’, but not exactly ‘substance’. This ancient Greek word is widely in use among past times philosophers like Platon (Plato) and Aristoteles (Aristotle), to indicate ‘essence’ or ‘being’. Later this term corresponds to the Latin words <essentia> or <substantia>.

In contemporary philosophy, the word <ousia> is analogous to English concepts like ‘being’ and ‘ontic’.

The issue of ‘being’ and ‘essence’ is one of the most engaging and challenging of philosophy. To explain the problem, let us talk about the color as red. When indicating a color, we designate it by association. For instance, we say that a strawberry is red. A tomato is red. The blood is red. Ferrari’s color is red. But what is ‘red’ itself? We say that some things are red. But we do not say ‘what red is’ without qualifications. Hence, <ousia> is the answer to the problem of “what is being” when the question is without qualification. The unqualified answer of what is red is the <ousia> (‘essence’) of red.

Martin Heidegger says that the initial interpretation of the word <ousia> was lost in its translation to the Latin. As a consequence it was also lost in its translations to modern languages. For the German philosopher, <ousia> precisely means ‘being’, not ‘substance’, that is not some ‘thing’ or some ‘being’ that “stands” (-stance) “under” (sub-). Moreover, he uses the binomial <parousia>/<apousia>, denoting presence/absence, and <hypostasis> denoting ‘existence’.

<Ousia> is ‘essence’ or ‘being’, two very important and debated philosophical and theological concepts. In fact, the word is in use also among Christian theologians. The question is easy to grasp. If there is not an ‘essence’, beyond qualifications, it means that reality is constant variation and impermanence. For instance, a stone would only be the sum of different moments.

I no longer digress! But it is important to note the differences between substance/essence/being moving forward. Something I personally want to absorb too.

So, to begin with, Descartes says it appears as if that which we can leave room for doubt are all things of extended natures, i.e. shape/place/space, time. therefore, mathematics and geometry seem the only unboutable thing

Wait a minute! What about my firm belief in an omnipotent god? He could undermine all things with his perfect power, to deceive me even of mathematics. But we’ve got a habit which makes us slip back into old opinions. Therefore, (And not saying God because Descartes would have got the rope poor fella) an evil deceiver is introduced as a supplement to the conclusion of the first meditation: That he doubts sense-perception, his being awake, and even the reliability of mathematics (ED)

I’ll be following up my own notes with those I obtain from my lectures.