Saturday, February 20, 2010

Preus - Explaining Religion

Introduction: Preus' goal is to account for the paradigm shift that resulted in the modern, naturalistic study of religion, both its breaking free from theology and its institutionalization. In short, the modern study of religion was born from challenging the claim that only a supernatural referent grounded religious language. With Eliade and others, this foundational challenge has been questioned: now we want to understand religion on its own terms. Preus hates this trend: "it seems self-serving rather than rationally persuasive to argue that religion can therefore be understood only from within a religious perspective" (xix). Instead, he argues in favor of the naturalistic desire to "explain religion," its existence and persistence, and wants to clearly distinguish it from "religious apologetics" (xxi).


Chapter 1 - JEAN BODIN: In Bodin's time, religious conflict in Europe and the reality of the vast religious world outside of Christendom demanded an inquiry into the origin of religion as a way to arbitrate competing claims. Political crisis and the introduction of "religion" to the west coincided. Preus structures Bodin's response in the Colloquium into three categories: religious truth, policy and conscience (the intellectual, political and attitudinal).

1) Intellectual: Bodin seems to argue through his characters that the "best" religion is not the oldest, but that there is no basis on which to judge the "best." He begins, however, to turn to natural law as a common ground for interpreting religious claims. He also makes an important distinction between inner conviction and outer practice.

2) Political: Bodin, like Machiavelli and Hobbes, was an outsider to religion, approaching it from a socio-political angle and arguing for toleration for the sake of stability. He recognizes the connection between political power and religion, but, contra Spinoza, thinks superstition is necessary for political harmony. He thus self-contradictorily asserts that government should both practice tolerance and promote a state religion for political harmony.

3) Attitudinal: Senamus/Bodin wants to shift the attention of the debate from questions about religious object to questions about the religious subject and his motivations (Arendt's "modern" turn), opening the road for psychological assessments of religion.


Chapter 2 - HERBERT OF CHERBURY: A contemporary of Descartes and Bacon, Herbert shared Descartes' desire to solve the crisis of the criteria of truth. He thus set out to find the five common notions lying behind all religions, to each of which he accorded some worth. In doing so, he strictly distinguishes truth from tradition, a distinction Spinoza would accept in full. He also strangely paved the way for Freud in arguing that the reality of God conforms to the fondest wishes of mankind (Freud's essential thesis, stripped of its theological presuppositions). Finally, though he was ultimately looking for that universal root of religion, Herbert was honest enough to admit when historical data contradicted his theory, thus making him an important predecessor of the modern academic.

Like Bodin, he was greatly affected by religious conflict but nonetheless worked out of a religious perspective. Unlike Bodin, however, he did not resort to any "magical" elements (angels and demons), he more or less fully demotes revelation and authority from significance to his investigation, he imagines a global universal history of religions and he ignores, like a good Englishman, socio-political implications.

Chapter 3 - BERNARD FONTENELLE: wanted to explain why it is that people believe what they do when and where they do (41). Where do fables come from? Man's desire to explain a power that lies beyond his control. In the case of both philosophy/science and myth, the mind is working in the same way (43). Unmistakably, myths are absurd (even as they pass over into religion), but they are revelatory of the human mind, which makes them worth studying (47). Oracles can be explained in a similar fashion.

Fontenelle advances upon Herbert's rationalism, uses a naturalistic scheme and clearly separates his project from theology. Herbert was trying to create generic theology, Fontenelle looking to the common psychohistorical causes of religious belief. For Herbert, religion is to be legitimated, for Fontenelle, to be explained. Herbert the 17th c. rationalist, Fontenelle the 18th c. empiricist. Herbert represents the deistic-theological strategy, which incorporates particular values into a universal theory and has the advantage of universality but at the cost of reductionism (modern example: Cantwell Smith's Toward a World Theology). Fontenelle represents the "two-realms" strategy, which proceeds in reductive and explanatory fashion but exempts one's own religion (modern example: Berger's Sacred Canopy).


Chapter 4 - GIAMBATTISTA VICO: Vico's basic thesis, known as "maker's knowledge," is that we can know social institutions because we have made them. These institutions are best studied by investigating their origins. We can only understand a culture's institutions on its own terms: thus, we cannot simply analyze myth and try to gain from it an esoteric knowledge that makes sense on our own terms (reason). He proposes that we understand myth not in terms of reason but in terms of poetry.

There are nevertheless three common socio-historical institutional universals (rather than universal ideas à la Herbert) which we share with them: religion (belief in providence), sexual order/marriage and immortality/burying of the dead (this sounds alot like Charles Taylor in Understanding and Ethnocentricity). If we take these universals to have existed in more primitive times, then myths are not collective fantasies but rather refer to real history, real things that happened to them and their way of dealing with those things. For instance, man encounter thunder and assumes that thunder is like him (his ideal-ego), leading to its personification: thus, Zeus.

Despite his acknowledgement of historical irony, Vico assumed providence because it gave meaning to history. Hume applied Vico but stripped it of theological significance. Weber, on the other hand, would be greatly interested in the meaning giving function of religion. Although Vico himself did not outwardly criticize religion, thus defying the thesis of the book, his is a case of new wine bursting old wineskins.

Chapter 5 - DAVID HUME: With Hume, a line of criticism ends and the construction of an alternative theory begins. Following the "historic mission of the Enlightenment," Hume's aim is to overthrow religion. In that pursuit, he sought to undermine the three basic theological-apologetic pillars: 1) specific revelation (in "Of Miracles"), 2) the design argument (in the Dialogues), 3) an innate sense of the divine (in Natural History). His aim was to produce a science of man, that spurned analyzing man in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Neither did he want to refer to any platonic reality underneath it all: to the senses alone!

"Of Miracles": A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Testimony is what establishes miracles. Testimony is not enough to found a system of religion. In fact, we should be even more worried that there is no God if the regularity of natural processes were to fail.

Dialogues: The watchmaker argument is mistaken: the world ought to be thought of more as an organism than as a machine. From the senses alone, we clearly see that mind is generated from matter and not the other way around. So why should we assume a divine mind preceding all else? We have never witnessed a world being made. There is no data for a system of cosmogony. Why, then, would we assume world-making to be at all like house-building (i.e., necessitating a divine architect)?

Natural History: We encounter nature's unpredictable and unmanageable power, which causes fear and anxiety over our future well-being. Our first way of contemplating nature in order to master it is to personify it. There are thus two moments to the "religious experience": 1) the fixing of the passions on objects, and 2) the modeling of unknown powers on human volitions. Only impressions, passions and instincts are innate. Religion is only a historically-acquired reaction formation.

Hume did not share his contemporaries' belief in the progress to rationality. Man, for him, was controlled by his passions and haunted by terrors, thus making him an easy target for priestcraft.

Hume was decisive in talking about ways of coping with life rather than theology. His influence on Tylor and the field of anthropology is unmistakable. The three problem areas of Hume's new science included: 1) defining the nature of man, 2) pinpointing what experiences account for religion, and 3) figuring out how to account for the variety of religious belief.

Hume's problems: 1) lack of evidence. Charles de Brosses (who interestingly coined the term fetishism) advanced upon his science by filling in the details. 2) a lack of interest in the social (making Hume a target for Durkheim), 3) no developmental theory, 4) no interest in the content of religion.


Chapter 6 - AUGUSTE COMTE: Comte is known for his two sides, one scientific, one messianic, one convinced that science is leading us to progress, the other worried about the spiritual crisis we face. Preus chooses to see these two sides as of a piece. Comte's two most important ideas are his belief in the evolution of religion and the need at all times for it or its functional equivalent. Together, they explain his supposedly schizophrenic philosophy, how religion can be both necessary and obsolete. Comte understood that science was right, but also that we need to replace theology with something else, something that can take on the social role of religion.

Like his predecessors, Comte wanted to look to our origins not because there is some absolute beginning or end, but because it is important to look at idio-social genesis. For him, ideas are important but only in their reciprocal relationship to society. Though Comte emphasizes observation and experience, he also thought it impossible to proceed scientifically without some kind of theory. Indeed, facts are only data inasmuch as they fit into some theory. Thus, we are justified in talking about paradigm shifts, so long as we have read and observed carefully.

He divides the world into three ages: 1) Theological/fictitious-military state, 2) Metaphysical/abstract-feudal state, 3) Scientific/positive-industrial state. The first stage of the theological state was fetishism, where man projects himself outwards on objects and demands an absolute explanation of the world out of himself. As opposed to Hume, Comte thought fetishism was a productive stage, despite being childish. Fetishism is essentially right to recognize a power of order immanent in nature. Later he will say they were right to essentially be worshiping man inasmuch as he has the potential to become powerful.

But then we grow up and discover that nature is governed by laws, not wills. This is the first principle of positive philosophy. The advance of the intellect throws off anthropomorphism, but with the negative result of an introjection of natural-law analysis into the human. Comte wants to re-establish the realm of the human, to be as constructive as the first age. He was thus critical of critical philosophy for denying spiritual power in nature and society. He was also against the unregulated individuals that results from criticism. This rampant egoism is all the more deplorable for coinciding with wealth.

To combat this trend, Comte wanted to reunite feeling and understanding, man's affective and cognitive life, which he thought divorced in the second age. To do this, we ought to worship the "Great Being," or humanity itself. Our knowledge is not only power, like nature, but a lovable power, unlike nature, for it is at our command, a thesis not unlike Feuerbach's. Comte was convinced that by re-imagining religion, we could proceed on the inexorable progress of the mind toward mastery over human destiny.

Comte's two most important ideas, evolution and functional equivalency, translate into modern terms in the following way: if we define religion substantively and look for it in its evolution, we are bound to encounter places without religion. If we define it in terms of functional equivalency, we begin to find religion everywhere.

Chapter 7 - EDWARD BURNETT TYLOR: With the aid of new disciplines like geology, biology and archaeology, Tylor wanted to write a science of culture with his master key notion of animism. First, he held that the laws of nature hold everywhere and every-when and that savages were rational empiricists just like us. Savages held the notion of animism, which consists of two "dogmas:" 1) individuals have souls and 2) the world is populated with spirits. The evidence? Dreams. We see ghosts in dreams and assume that they are real. Thus, we do not "project" spirits onto the world but simply observe and attempt to explain. Thus, Tylor grants the same rationality to his subjects that he claims for himself, but nonetheless thinks of animism as a "survival," something that has outlasted its use into the modern age. Religion, which he defines as "belief in spiritual beings," is essentially animism. Though this is an evolutionary theory, Tylor does not assume progress. He thought civilization was superior to savagery, but that it was still savage nonetheless. What we share with the savages is the dualistic doctrine of the person. Today, animism has come full circle, and it is now only a doctrine of the human soul. Tylor pitted against the "survival" of animism his own materialism, which was nonetheless "mentalistic" in that he believed in the power of ideas to causally shape the world. Contra Hume, no talk of feelings. Contra Robertson Smith, no talk of the rationalization of ritual action. Contra Herbert and Kant, no irreducible ethical dimension. Contra Freud, no unconscious. Contra Durkheim, no account of the social. Freud will, however, take from Tylor the notion that religion is essentially childish and that analogy is an important principle of scientific discovery.


Chapter 8 - EMILE DURKHEIM: Two lines of inquiry drawn on by Durkheim and Freud: 1) anthropological, individualistic, developmental, intellectualistic (Hume, Tylor, Comte #1), and 2) sociological, functional equivalency (Vico, Comte #2). Durkheim and Freud both acknowledge that religion continues to be socially necessary and that explaining religion does not mean explaining it away. Durkheim reacted against the British (Tylor) for ignoring the social, Freud for their equivalence of religious and logical thought. Durkheim and Freud both wanted to take religious actors seriously, rather than just call them crazy. Thus, they said that believers are not deceived in their conviction that they are in the embrace of powers larger and more profound than reason can control. In order to understand this, one must go underneath the symbol to reality itself.

Choosing whether one will begin with the social or the individual is square one for the study of religion. Society, for Durkheim, is a system of active forces in which it becomes possible to explain men in a new way. Social facts are sui generis. We cannot reduced the sociological to the psychological. Durkheim says the defining feature of religion is the distinction between sacred and profane, the sacred being that which is elaborated by a collectivity and embodies the community as a whole. Durkheim rejects Hume's account of the birth of the gods. The real religious question is how reality gets divided into two.

Like many scientists of his day, Durkheim looked to totemism. In the case of the plants and animals that serve as clan totems, there is nothing special about them. They are sacred not because man projects his essence onto them but because the totem is a symbol of the clan. The totem is the condensation of social force, as in fetishism (Marx would say that the condensation of social force into an object makes it mysterious but not necessarily sacred). It is the very type of the sacred thing. Only, then, when you get the symbolization of community do you get religion. The power that religion is a response to is thus a social rather than a natural power. Collective life brings the individual into a state of effervescence that leads to heightened psychic activity. This in turn leads to the positing of an ideal reality that embodies the aims of social life. The believer is thus not deceived when he believes in the existence of a moral power upon which he depends and from which he receives all that is best in himself.

Chapter 9 - SIGMUND FREUD: Freud proposed an anthropological thesis that is irreducibly social as well. Freud brought his pre-established structure to the study of religion, but matching religion and neurosis was not simply name-calling. Neurosis is a structure common to all humankind. Thus, there exists in the life of the individual fragments of an archaic heritage. Freud's analysis is centered around the model of the family. A collective is defined as that which shares a common father figure (superego). Freud's contribution to the analysis of religion was to have substituted an immanent within (unconscious wish) for a transcendent ground.

Freud's basic thesis on the persistence of religion: religion continues on because of the indestructible power of childhood wishes. Religion begins with totemism. Psychoanalysis sheds a single ray of light on the understanding of totemism: children are known to project onto animals feelings toward their father. The sacred in totemism is thus nothing but the perpetuated will of the father. The renunciation of incest and the symbolization of the father figure that follow the primal scene is both an act of fellowship amongst the brothers and the establishment of the God figure. For Freud, it was important that the primal scene actually took place: religious ideas not only include wish-fulfillments but also historical recollections, thus making it both a past and present force.

Preus again emphasizes how, despite the fact the Durkheim and Freud were wrong about certain things, the critical tradition is open to changing data, unlike theology, which is controlled by no reality principle. He also emphasizes again how Freud and Durkheim are ultimately motivated by a desire to give the benefit of the doubt to religious believers, as they take it that "no human institution can be founded on error alone."

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority
James Preus

Chapter One: Background and Project
Main Points:
*Previous scholars tend to paint Spinoza as a 'rationalistic' interpreter of scripture, which misses the rather obvious point that he advocated a historical interpretation.
*The goal of the book, then, is to put Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise within the context of the broader theological and political debates of his time, and, by doing so, to stress that Spinoza's real genius lie in stressing the interconnectedness of theological interpretation and political arguments, in order to undermine the political consequences of interpretation.
*Though Spinoza nominally focused his attention on long-dead Jewish authors, this really provided a cover to comment on current debates.
*Most significant was the one prompted by his friend, Ludwig Meyer's, book, Philosophia S. Scripturae, published in 1666. Essentially, Meyer tried to overcome the schisms in Christianity, predicated on differing interpretations, by developing a method that would lead to a single interpretation.
*Spinoza, in contrast, wanted to make room for a multiplicity of interpretations, in order to prevent the Calvinists from legislating scripture.
*Current politicians both sought to enact laws based on scripture, and to fashion national history after sacred history, so as to turn it into the story of a New Jerusalem. Yet, there was a significant split between the biblicists, who believed (roughly), that Scripture needed to based on text, language, etc., and the Enthusiasts, who claimed to be moved by the Spirit to find the proper interpretation.

Chapter 2: Meyer
*Essentially, Meyer sought to apply Cartesian rationalism to the Bible, in order to find the true interpretations. He began with Cartesian doubt, discarding Descartes's own doubts about the possibility/wisdom of solving theological difficulties through his method.
*He came up with a reader-oriented theory. The reader's interpretations were the site of meaning in the text, and the interpretations possible depended on the resources brought to it by the reader.
*So he proceeds from the assumption that the text is infallible. If we were to doubt that, we would be making merely historical arguments about the text.
*He then critiques theologians, saying they're not nearly attentive enough to the ambiguities of sentence structure, the ways in which meaning can be obscured because we can't hear it spoken, etc.
*He also questioned the tendency to use one text to interpret another, arguing that their intentions may be different.
*Essentially, one interprets atomized sections of text, which may or may not be interconnected, hoping to find the intention.
*All meanings found in the text are true meanings, yet the meanings found in the bible must be subject to analysis by natural reason. (He operates under the assumption of Scriptural exceptionalism.)
*We have – though he doesn't explain how – certain innate ideas or truths about the nature of God and the sacred, that we look to find confirmed in the Scripture. Scripture must be interpreted in accordance with the “internal witness” of reason.
*And yet, despite this, he thinks it impossible to have a properly critical stance toward the bible without outside knowledge.

Chapter 3: Conservative Reactions
Basically, Meyer pissed everyone off, but for different reasons.
*The conservatives resented the implication that natural reason or scientific discoveries could at all offer anything to faith, seeing philosophy as one more golden calf, leading the people astray. Thus, they largely shut themselves out of the revolutions being created in the sciences and humanities.
*The conservative reaction isn't particularly interesting. They basically ignored the ways in which Meyer showed interpretation to be problematic, simply reiterating their privileged knowledge of scripture, the power of revelation, and the infallibility of Scripture.
*They also stressed the exceptionalism of Scripture, arguing that, while meaning might be unclear in other text, the authors of the bible were the penmen of God, so the text was absolutely clear.
*Finally, they also interpreted Scripture through Scripture, ignoring Meyer's argument against such practices, and suggestions that arguments must be accessible to all.
*The reasons are more interesting. First, the fact that Scripture needed interpretation at all contradicted the basic protestant principle that each man is a priest. So the establishment was interested in disclaiming any interpretive work, insofar as possible.
*Yet, Calvinism was an imported doctrine, making interpretation unavoidable (not sure that exactly made sense).
*So, in sum, they were defending their own authority.

Chapter 4: Liberal Reaction
*First, liberal here mainly means a “determination to engage the intellectual culture at large” (107).
*The liberals were generally a little more sympathetic to Meyer, believing philosophy could be of service to theology, but skeptical as to Meyer's application of it. Preus takes two men as examples: Ludwig Wolzogen (pastor, later professor of theology at university of Utrecht) and van Velthuysen (physician and liberal magistrate).
*Two basic points of liberal counter-critique: 1) ordinary usage, not reason, determines meaning of language. 2) the bible was an irreducibly historical book and had to be analyzed as such.
*Wolzogen: more democratic than Meyer, arguing that all readers were interpreters, by virtue of assigning meaning to words, and thus no authoritative interpreter was needed. Also argued superstition was spawned by theologians who refused to look rationally at religious doctrines.
*Van Velthuysen: no 'truths' contained in bible, according to Meyer's model; rather, only historical facts. Historical truths could not be deduced by reason; rather, they had to be attested to by witnesses. Thus, it was a category mistake to treat the bible philosophically.
*Likewise, meaning was discovered by learning language, usage, outside facts, etc. It was impossible to interpret a text outside of a certain linguistic and historical framework. Wolzogen, who promoted ordinary language interpretation, made the claim that, since God had deigned to communicate via human language, it was only appropriate to interpret.
*The analogy is basically to the order of a emperor. We know we must obey his commands, but it is appropriate to ask after their meaning and context. We may not understand everything, because God decided to produce one Bible for all time, with parts written in particular contexts, yet we're bound to it.
* In essence, we must interpret the /bible through reason, in order for it to be accessible. To claim divine inspiration is to be an Enthusiast.
*In sum: Liberals were in favor of rational readings, without being rationalists, advocated learning the languages, and treating the text historically as an object with a long, and complex history that shaped the form that it took.

Chapter 5:Spinoza's Naturalized Bible
This chapter essentially shows how Spinoza synthesizes Meyer, and critiques of Meyer, in order to form TTP.
*To recap: The conservatives had disengaged from the text and history, while the liberals protested the tendency to use the text to awaken preexisting ideas in the mind, arguing instead that meanign must me excavated from the text. Though Spinoza obviously sided with the latter, he went further than them, because he was not held back by the desire to read the meaning of the text in the present, or any belief in scriptural exceptionalism.
*Spinoza turned to natural history in order to expand the notion of interpretation to include history, language, previous interpretation, etc., in what went into interpretive work. Essentially, he was out to subvert the dogmatism of his time, not reject it.
*So, can't start with infallibility of text; must start with its history.
*While there are some overlaps with Meyer, such as Spinoza's belief that one can identify general truth – such as love, justice, and charity in the Bible – Spinoza didn't have any beliefs nearly as extensive as Meyer's claim that the mind possesses a series of truth that the text triggers memory of.
*Rather than Meyer's rationalism (which Preus saw as an echo of Maimonides), Spinoza took a “bottom up” approach, modeled after Bacon, taking the scripture as a source of data out of which a hypothesis could be formed.
*Preus suggests that Spinoza chose to create a natural history of scripture – which Bacon had not – in order to highlight to his friends the difference between his stance and Meyer's.
*Spinoza also said at some point that “the interpreter of the text is like the studier of nature,” meaning that each is a self-contained system which must be studied as a discrete entity. The bible is a system of meanings that presuppose a certain worldview.
*This worldview was teleological, tending to anthropomorphize God. Only by understanding that writers were superstitious and modeled their cosmos after person experience is it possible to understand the text. Thus, the text is sui interpres, in that its interpretation is derived from itself.
*Spinoza thus attacked philosophers for promoting superstition.
*Spinoza supported Meyer's dismissal of divine guidance in interpretation by pointing out that the original participants in history had no need of the spirit; rather, they witnessed biblical events in real time.
*There is no sacred history, and the canon is a historical construct, whose sacredness was determined by finite groups in specific situations. Thus, Scripture is not necessarily binding in the present.
*Deceptively, cleverly, Spinoza used the language of discovering the 'intention' of the text, despite believing there was no god as intender. Contemporary believers, then, were authorized to accommodate the text to fit their own notions of justice, etc.
*Spinoza used anachronism to show the historicity of the text, and argued we can use the Scripture to comment on the present, but only through analogy. Thus, the Old Testament proved that religious functionaries should not have political power and beliefs should not be legislated.
*Preus sees Spinoza as making more radical use of Cartesian and Baconian philosophies, and in doing so, redefining the relation between philosophy and theology. He radically separated the two by making questions of truth and interpretations of textual meaning into separate questions. He also introduced a new theory of religion that made the bible as historical as any other historical religious document.
*Yet, for all that, Spinoza is often accused of having a rationalistic interpretation of religion, largely because of his discussion on miracles, when he suggests a miracle is something that
simply isn't known yet. Still, he thought that necessary for establishing historical truths.

Preus argues Spinoza was relatively ignored because his work failed to conform to either liberal or conservative approaches to history, scripture, though he gives him credit for helping undermine theocracies and create pluralism.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Harry Frankfurt - Demons, Dreamers and Madmen

(Note: this post only covers Chapters 1-12)


1. Frankfurt begins his explication of the First Meditation with some general thoughts: Descartes' task is to find his generic identity as a rational creature (4). It is a characteristically religious endeavor that begins with the naivete of the reader and progresses toward illumination. He writes in the first person to entice the reader into his own perspective.

2. Descartes rehashes the arguments of skepticism to three ends: 1) to prepare the reader for the intellectual matters that lie ahead, 2) to respond to and deal with each of them, 3) to make the truths he eventually arrives at seem firm. He admits the difficulty of doubting our senses, as habit forces us into belief. But given that his purpose seems to be less substantive and more mood-setting, isn't Gassendi's criticism that the first meditation could simply be rewritten "Universal doubt!" justified? Frankfurt wants to distinguish two phases of the 1st Meditation: throwing out the beliefs and then re-examining each one. The first is easy, the second a bit more time consuming.

3. Descartes throws out his beliefs less because of their falsity and more because of their doubtability. Indeed, the pair truth/falsity is less important for D than certain/doubtful. But shouldn't the concept of reason he employs to distinguish certain/doubtful have been thrown out with his other beliefs? No, because D's task is precisely to make a provisional commitment to reason and see if it fails.

4. Frankfurt wants to analyze D's argument as a dialectic: first, there is the validity of the senses. Then, first antithesis: our senses are sometimes deceptive. Second thesis: the senses are sometimes deceptive. Second antithesis: is it possible that I'm mad? No. But let's revise the thesis just in case. Third thesis: whatever is perceived under ideal external conditions by an ideally qualified perceiver certainty exists (55). Third antithesis: what if I'm dreaming? The dream argument unsettles even this third thesis. Even on their best terms, the senses are incapable of providing certainty.

5. The problem D is confronting is how to formulate an alternative policy in terms of which no judgment will be certified except those that cannot be shaken by conflicting testimony (62). Frankfurt emphasizes that at this point in the Meditations, D is arguing from the perspective of common sense and not from a fully mature perspective. It is important to keep this in mind so as not to hang D for simply representing and not necessarily arguing for a common sense viewpoint.

6. So again, the dream argument means someone committed to their senses alone cannot distinguish physical objects and dream images (75). But dreams are like paintings, they might not themselves be real but surely represent something real. D argues that those things are the simple and universal elements of sensory objects (colors, shapes, etc.), which the imagination merely rearranges in dreams. Of course, one has to wonder what right D has to present a theory of the imagination at this point. But let's move on.

7. Frankfurt claims that the 1st Meditation only deals with sense material. So what about the mathematics discussion. His claim again is that math, for this naive subject of the 1st Meditation, is indeed extracted from sense data.

8. The existence of an omnipotent deity raises the possibility that there are no material objects at all, that even the most simple and universal things are not real (95) (because the non-existence of the material world means the non-existence of simples) (98). The hypothesis of an omnipotent deity leads to a slightly different way of doubting the truths of mathematics: while math doesn't need particular things for its truths to be valid (as physics needs objects, astronomy needs stars, etc.), but it does need something, anything to exist. If we can't be sure of the existence of anything, we can't be sure of the truths of mathematics.

9. The hypothesis that God somehow made me defective is the first thesis, which is then negated by the antithesis, God is good. But then we're at a dead end, universal doubt: we can neither decide on the existence of God, nor on whether his existence would allow our deception. It is possible that God allows us to always be deceived. But then, it seems even more likely that we are always deceived if we come from an even less perfect source. Frankfurt is showing here that we arrive at universal doubt without the introduction of God or the malin genie. God is brought in as an attempt to eliminate doubt. The malin genie is brought in not to prove universal doubt, but to entertain the possibility that our ideas are actually false, and not just doubtful.


10. At the beginning of the 2nd Meditation, Descartes turns to himself and finds a belief particularly immune to skepticism: SUM. This does not mean that I exist but rather that the statement sum is in a certain sense indubitable. There are a few ways in which he proves the certainty of this statement, though the most well-known runs as follows:

1. I am deceived in thinking that I exist.
2. If I am deceived about anything, then I exist.
3. Hence, if I am deceived in thinking that I exist, then I do exist.
4. Therefore I do exist.
5. If I do exist, then I am not deceived in thinking that I exist.
6. Therefore, I am not deceived in thinking that I exist.

It is therefore logically impossible to utter sum without it being true (137). The conclusion is not necessarily cogito ergo sum. The assertion is that whenever sum is considered, not necessarily believed, it is true. An interesting sidestepping of the question of belief. To repeat again, Frankfurt believes that D is not so much concerned with truth and falsity as he is with certainty and doubt. His aim here is to show that the certainty of sum is ubiquitous. Sum is permanently available as a solid foundation of knowledge because it is derivable from a premiss that is necessarily available whenever needed (152).

11. Res cogitans is introduced as a more explicit rendering of sum (156). Res cogitans is not my essence. As he says later in the 6th Meditation, my essence is to be a union of body and soul. Thinking thing is simply the only thing I can ascribe to myself indubitably at this juncture in the Meditations. It is indispensable to my existence but not, in itself, my essence.

12. What is clear and distinct perception (cdp)? To recognize something as necessarily true is to cdp it. Cdp does not in and of itself guarantee existence but only that we know what is necessarily involved in a concept. To cdp a triangle is to know that it has three sides. To cdp myself is to know that I exist. Existence is thus necessary attribute of myself in a way that it is not of the triangle.

Cdp is not, as is often thought, a kind of immediate, visual encounter with an object. It is, rather, an affair of reason (187). To perceive something clearly is to understands that there are no reasonable grounds upon which a thing can be doubted. To perceive something distinctly is to understand its implications and attributes. It is possible to perceive something clearly without perceiving it distinctly (he gives the example of pain), but not the other way around. In the end, Frankfurt argues that cdp is more a matter of prudence than it is absoluteness in method.