Meditation 3 Study Q's Flashcards
What does the meditator say is “inside him” (and thus CERTAIN) and what is “not inside him,” when he senses something?
The meditator says that sensory perception and imagination are inside him. What is not inside him is the external things that he can’t be certain of due to his senses being imperfect.
What, “as a general rule,” does the meditator say shows that a given perception is TRUE?
“Whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true.”
What “mistake” did the meditator say he made with regard to the ideas of things “apprehended by the senses?” (e.g., the earth, sky, stars, etc.)
He made the mistake of believing that there were things outside him which were the sources of his ideas and which resembled them in all respects. His mistake in doing this was that if his judgment was true, it was not thanks to the strength of his perception.
What is Descartes’ main concern in this meditation? Why?
Descartes’ main concern in this meditation is whether God exists and whether he can be a deceiver.
What cannot “strictly speaking” be false? On the other hand, what must we be on guard against making a mistake?
Ideas cannot be false. The only thoughts where we must be on our guard against making a mistake are judgments.
What are the THREE classes of ideas that the meditator identifies?
What a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is.
What is the meditator’s example of how the object does not always resemble the idea?
There are two different ideas of the sun which I find within me. one of them makes the sun appear very small. The other idea shows the sun to be several times larger than the earth. Obviously both these ideas cannot resemble the sun which exists outside me; and reason persuades me that the idea which seems to have emanated most directly from the Sun itself has in fact no resemblance to it at all.
Which ideas (those of “substances” or those of a substance’s “modes”) have more objective reality? What idea, does the meditator say, has the MOST “objective reality” of all?
Ideas of “substances” have more objective reality. The idea of a supreme God is the most “objective reality” of all.
What is the rule about “cause” and “effect” that the meditator states?
There must be at least as much reality in the CAUSE as there is in the EFFECT.
What are the TWO conclusions that the meditator draws from this rule about “cause” and “effect?”
It follows that something cannot arise from nothing and also that what is more perfect cannot arise from what is less perfect.
How does the meditator define the word “God?”
The meditator defines the word “God’ as “A substance that is infinite, ( eternal, immutable) independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else that exists.”
What is the meditator’s conclusion based on the definition of God?
His conclusion is that the idea of God could not have originated from himself and therefore this means that God exists.
Why does the meditator deny that we can think of the “infinite” God by simply negating the ideas of regular finite things?
We are finite substances therefore we cannot create the idea of something infinite. therefore it must have been an idea that came from a substance that really was infinite.
What, then, is the basis for believing that God actually exists?
The mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.
What “class” of ideas (innate, adventitious, or invented) is God, according to Descartes?
God is considered innate.
