Know Thyself

Taught by Mitchell Green

Week 1 (March 4-8): Introduction; aims and guidelines for course; basic concepts; Socrates and the value of the examined life. Lecture 1.1 -- Course Introduction Lecture 1.2 -- Meditative Moment: Bamboo Breathing Lecture 1.3 -- The Nature of Knowledge Lecture 1.4 -- Socrates and the Unexamined Life Lecture 1.5 -- The Big Asymmetry Lecture 2.1 -- Meditative Moment Lecture 2.2 -- The Apology Lecture 2.3 -- The Defense Lecture 2.4 -- Socratic Method Lecture 2.5 -- The Examined Life Lecture 2.6 -- Summary Lecture 3.1 -- Meditative Moment Lecture 3.2 -- Introduction and First Meditation Lecture 3.3 -- First Meditation Part 2: The Nature of Knowledge Lecture 3.4 -- Second Meditation Lecture 3.5 -- What is the Self? Lecture 4.1 -- The Piece of Wax Lecture 4.2 -- Third Meditation Lecture 4.3 -- 4th, 5th and 6th Meditations Week 3 (March 18-22) Gilbert Ryle, the Ghost in the Machine, and category mistakes Lecture Titles in red text currently have incomplete or disorganized notes. Please check back or make your own additions/adjustments. Thanks!

Week 1 (March 4-8): Introduction; aims and guidelines for course; basic concepts; Socrates and the value of the examined life.
Suggested Reading: Plato -- The Apology

Lecture 1.1 -- Course Introduction

Two lectures each week, broken into 5-6 segments (roughly 5 - 10 minutes each) followed by an essay question (usually one per week) Discussion Boards - please share thoughts, comments, questions

Some lectures will have in-video quizzes to check that you are following the material; not graded, but helpful. Ways to actively engage with the course: in- video quizzes essays discussion boards meditative moments villages of students (groups of 150 - 200 students)

Lecture 1.2 -- Meditative Moment: Bamboo Breathing

A way to separate yourself from the momentary stresses and internal conversations (the chatter of consciousness) Awareness of chatter of consciousness allows us to calm, focus, concentrate Bamboo Breathing Take a fairly deep breath, fill up lungs with air, then slowly exhale in segments (like the segments of a piece of bamboo) Repeat (2-3 minutes) After a few minutes, more relaxed and calm and focused Meditative Singing Bowl aids in relaxation and concentration

Lecture 1.3 -- The Nature of Knowledge

Bamboo Breathing When thoughts and distractions come into your mind, allow them to wash over you Gradually, it will get easier, and you will be able to do it for longer Try it while waiting for coffee to be made, or other small free moments throughout the day We will add additional meditative practices over the course of this class Nature of Knowledge Knowledge is a state of the person / the self Knowledge is an achievement (something you must earn) Knowledge has to have some kind of basis or evidence or reason. Plato and Socrates -- Belief v. Knowledge Believing something is not enough to know it Even if my belief is correct, it doesnt mean I know it. (True opinion is not enough for knowledge) Knowledge requires: 1. truth, 2. belief, 3. justification/support/account

The Self Four Characteristics of Self - the mind-centric characteristics interact with each other and are often connected The Cognitive Aspect (mind) What you believe What you know Information Memory The Affective Aspect (mind) Emotions - have content (e.g. regretfulness) - there must be an identifiable source or sources Moods - general feeling (e.g. anxiety) without necessarily having specific identifiable reasons/causes Experiential Aspect (mind) Sensations (External or Internal) e.g. lemon - the way it smells, way it feels to the touch, way it looks, way it tastes

The aspect of Cognitive, Affective and Experiential (mind) are intertwined with each other. Character Traits (separate from mind-centric aspects) Dispositional Qualities - they are always there, under the surface, but are not always actively present, i.e. irascibility: a person may have this quality, but they will not constantly be angry; rather, it will show itself under certain circumstances, like when they are treated unfairly or verbally attacked. Show themselves over time, not constantly.

Lecture 1.4 -- Socrates and the Unexamined Life

Socrates (Greek Philosopher) Taught Plato Lived about 2300 years ago in Athens Son of a midwife (mother) and a sculptor (father) When he was middle aged, he regularly discusses the nature of life, right, wrong, etc. with friends) Plato was a young Athenian follower of Socrates (most of whom were young educated men), who wrote down what he learned from Socrates in texts such as The Apology. (from Greek apologia: justification, reason, rationale) -- this text is Socrates response to the charges against him for general troublemaking in Athens Origin of The Apology:

Socrates accused of corrupting the youth, believing in false gods, etc. His defense: The Oracle (priestess at Delphi) supposedly always tells the truth Chaerephon (friend of Socrates and respected Athenian) asked if any man was wiser than Socrates; Oracle said no. Socrates explains her answer: when he asked questions of others (justice, knowledge, truth, virtue, etc.) they claimed to know the answers, but Socrates wisdom was in his awareness of his ignorance, while others believed that they had knowledge when in fact they were ignorant Point: it is wiser to seek knowledge and be aware of ones own ignorance than to claim knowledge without substantial base for those beliefs Self-Knowledge can be present even in ignorance, if one is aware of that ignorance Juries consisted of 501 jurors (landholding Athenians) Despite his Apology, Socrates is found guilty as charged. Meletus (one of the primary accusers) requests death penalty; juries grant it -- poisoning by hemlock Socrates response: The Unexamined Life is not worth living. He doesnt want to live in Athens but be forced to stop asking questions, searching for truth Article The Examined Life by Richard Kraut (philosophy professor at Northwestern University): proper interpretation of this quote is: ... not to be lived. i.e. not that it would be better to die than to live without self-examination, but that without it, you are missing something valuable and important

Lecture 1.5 -- The Big Asymmetry

Self-knowledge brings about a kind of Asymmetry (aka privileged access) - at least for some aspects of the Self If there is some damage to my ankle, I know I am experiencing pain coming from my ankle - or at least that I am experiencing pain I know [in a fairly immediate way] that I am hungry / irritated / hopeful I know [in a fairly immediate way] what is in my mind in the cognitive component -- what my views are -- I wouldnt ask someone else what I think about a topic, I would ask myself

There is an Asymmetry between my knowledge of myself and your knowledge of me, and vice versa. This Asymmetry is fairly pervasive in Philosophy, though some other fields might challenge it, i.e. Sociopsychology -- but in some examples it is quite strong Lemon example: When you bite into a lemon, it seems that you are the best authority on how it tastes to you (bitter, sour) You may not be the best authority on things such as the calorie content, the acidity, etc., but no one else can reasonably argue to you that you are incorrect about how it tastes to you. Election example: If someone asks who you think will win American Idol or the next election, you may be wrong about the actual outcome, others may have different views, but you are the best authority on what you think will happen. Emotions and Moods Someone else might point out that you seem anxious because you are fidgeting, or that you are angry or frustrated with someone based on your behavior toward that person, and you may not have realized it until they pointed it out Moods might be things that you experience, but might also be things that are manifest in your behavior/ dispositions to behavior that others may be able to perceive as well. So: emotions and moods may not be as asymmetrical as cognitive states. Character Traits Many would say that you are the best authority on what sorts of character traits you have, but this is not always true Perhaps you believe yourself to be brave -- until you are faced with a situation that requires real bravery and you back down Others may have previously perceived your actions and determined that you dont have this quality, even before you did. You may believe yourself to be empathetic, generous, whatever -- other people may have a very different perception of you. Psychologists have been arguing (with some good strong evidence) that people are not very good judges of their own characters -- many are worse at judging their own characters than others who know them reasonably well. Post-Lecture Exercise: Make a list of what you take to be the most important aspects of your character. Dispositional traits, such as: being generous, kind, irascible, short-tempered, impatient with fools, etc. Roughly 20 traits. Reflect on it, consider whether youre being honest with yourself, etc. Dont share the list just yet. Well come back to it later.

-------

Lecture 2.1 -- Meditative Moment

Focus on a part of your body Purpose: not to have a transcendental experience, but rather to calm waters of consciousness, quiet the chattering of stream of consciousness, let those thoughts float through

Lecture 2.2 -- The Apology

Socrates (469 - 399 b.c.) no career, no writing, just liked to hang out and talk about life and the big questions with young men who followed him lyceum - public space for business, sports, trade, etc. where Socrates interacted with politicians, orators, artists, musicians, poets, etc. Plato (~428 - 347 b.c.) student of Socrates; primary source for all that we know about Socrates wrote works called dialogues which are [somewhat embellished] records of conversations between Socrates and his contemporaries founded The Academy in ~387 b.c. (which lasted through AD 529) -something like Europes first university Unlike Socrates, Plato believed he had many of the answers Trials in Ancient Athens Greece was a democracy 501 jurors - fellow Athenians - anyone could volunteer Accusations against Socrates makes the worse argument seem the stronger - distorting truth and fact to confuse people busies himself studying things in the sky and the earth - studies nature rather than engaging in business or other proper activities for citizens teaches these strange things to others (corrupting the youth) Socrates responds that he does not claim to have any knowledge, and therefore the charge that he goes around professing his knowledge is without basis

Lecture 2.3 -- The Defense

The Temple at Delphi

People traveled here to ask the priestesses (Pythians) questions; believing that they were always correct/ always spoke the truth. Pythians inhaled gas from an underground crevice. Origin of the word oracle (a source of information that cannot be in error). No one is wiser than Socrates - Pythian answer given to Chaerephon. Does not necessarily mean he is wiser than everyone else (i.e. could be tied as wisest with others). Socrates himself was surprised and confused by this answer, but concluded that this was possibly its meaning: I may have the slight advantage of having no illusions of knowledge which I do not in fact possess, whereas others believe themselves to be knowledgeable when in fact they are not. No false preconceptions. Socrates claimed that he attempted to prove this claim incorrect by talking to: The Politicians -- Socrates asks them questions about justice, knowledge, the proper way to run a state, etc finds that they have views and beliefs, but not knowledge. The Poets -- Socrates tries to understand their poetry discovers that the poets themselves have no better understanding of their poetry than anyone else. They seemed to have undergone a mystical experience when writing the poetry and later could not articulate their meaning. The Craftsmen -- Socrates is impressed with their skill at making pots, sculpture, painting, etc., but as a result of these skills, the Craftsmen believed that they also had knowledge about other aspects of life. This was a hollow knowledge with no basis. Socrates says he became very unpopular because of these interactions (in which he kept concluding that the people he talked to were not knowledgeable) couldnt find work fell into poverty. Socrates argues that the young men who follow him do so by choice and simply take his behavior as an example this may be why he has been accused of corrupting the youth but he has not been actively or purposefully teaching them.

Lecture 2.4 -- Socratic Method

The essence of Socratic Method is that it is a form of teaching that does not involve imposing factual information onto the student. it is based on the idea of drawing out knowledge and understanding that already resides within.

Socrates and Meletus - By engaging in the following discussion, Socrates uses this method to demonstrate that Meletus accusation is absurd: Socrates: Who improves the youth of Athens? Meletus: Everybody but you. Socrates: Do wicked people harm others and do good people benefit others? Meletus: Yes. Socrates: Will anybody consciously choose to be harmed? Meletus: No, of course not. Socrates: Do I corrupt the youth deliberately or by accident? Meletus: Definitely, deliberately. Socrates: But if I deliberately corrupt the youth, do I not risk harming myself? This way, Socrates successfully shows the absurdity in Meletus accusation. Socrates says that he is not afraid of the death sentence and will not beg for mercy. He chooses to stick with his own principles because his life wont be valuable to him if he is freed but unable to talk to people. If he cannot be examining his life as a gadfly in the city, his life is not worth living. He also warns the jurymen who voted against him that in silencing their critic, they have harmed themselves much more than they have harmed him.

Lecture 2.5 -- The Examined Life

Literal Interpretation: Claim - The unexamined life is not worth living i.e. if you arent willing to examine your life then you might as well not have been born. Consider Mary in Moldova again: according to a strict interpretation of Socrates claim, Mary doesnt do any self-examination as she is too busy helping others, therefore Marys life isnt worth living. Conclusion: Doesnt seem plausible. Another Interpretation: Professor Richard Kraut of Northwestern - article The Examined Life The Greek word biotos can be interpreted as either not worth living or not to be lived. If we take the latter interpretation to be the correct translation then the claim becomes more plausible. i.e. one should engage in self-examination, as this is valuable, but it is not necessary in order to live a life that could be considered worthwhile. Take into account the reasons why Mary is doing what she is doing - presumably her motivation is that she wants to help out her fellow human beings because she cares about them. She probably reached that point of view after a certain amount of selfexamination

She has engaged in some self examination - just not at that moment in her life - and her behavior is the result of past examination. A person can still live a worthwhile life even if they never engage in self-examination, they simply will be missing something. What are they missing? Kraut uses characters from the Dialogues as examples of people who could do with a bit more self-examination. Engaging in this would arguably make their lives more worthwhile: i) Euthyphro - Euthyphro tells Socrates he is going to prosecute father for killing one his slaves. Socrates asks Euthyphro if he believes that he really knows right from wrong - Euthyphro agrees that he has a superior sense of morality. Socrates goes on to prove that Euthyphro does not in fact know the nature of right and wrong and makes a fool out of him. ii) Crito - After Socrates has been accused and sentenced, Crito tries to convince Socrates to allow Crito to help him escape from jail. Crito asks Socrates not to make a fool of him by not escaping as others will think that Crito could have helped but didn't. Socrates refuses to escape, accusing Crito of viewing status and prestige as more important than doing what is right. Therefore Crito requires some more self-examination. iii) Ion - Rhapsode - an epic singer, tells the stories of Homer. Ion is willing to let his mind be full of someone elses thoughts, and so doesnt develop his own faculties. Ion avoids the painstaking but valuable work of self-examination by borrowing the words of others. Krauts conclusion: Each of these lives are worth living, they just arent as worthwhile as they could be. Oscar Wilde - Most people are other people. i.e. we borrow many ideas from other people, incorporating others beliefs and values into our own. We are pastiches. Criticisms of Wilde - Socrates would agree that it is impossible to come up with totally original thinking. But there is an important difference between taking something already fully formed (using other peoples ideas without modification) and taking that basic material - thoughts, emotions, points of view- and changing and cultivating them to make them your own.

Lecture 2.6 -- Summary

Some things we can learn by way of general points from The Apology: The nature of the Socratic Method Some forms of psychotherapy owe a lot to the Socratic Method - dont try to teach the patient something new but rather get the patient to dredge up from inside himself things that are already there The nature of self-examination not about staring at your belly-button and trying to literally look deeper

Effective self-examination comes from discourse with others -- you can find out what you think by looking at how you respond to other peoples thoughts, questions, challenges, replies, etc. Socrates self-examination was not about meditation on a mountain, but about actively engaging and interacting with others The difference between the Self and the Body Socrates believed that it was possible that some part of himself would survive even after his body was destroyed by the hemlock poison What is the relationship between the Self (part of which, or perhaps the entirety of which is the mind) and the body that we inhabit? This Dualistic view (that the self/mind is a non-physical thing) will resurface later with Rene Descartes and will be revisited over the coming weeks.

Notes on Platos The Apology

Week 2 (March 11-15): Descartes, the mind-body problem, and introspection

Suggested reading: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy

Lecture 3.1 -- Meditative Moment

Choose a word -- any word -- to concentrate on. Do not choose a word with strong emotional associations. Sit down, get comfortable, feet planted, close your eyes if you prefer. Keep your back straight but your shoulders relaxed. Now repeat that word (silently) to yourself over and over again while taking deep, calm breaths. Some other thoughts will come in -- greet them, say goodbye to them, and continue repeating that word to yourself. Continue for 3 - 4 minutes.

Lecture 3.2 -- Introduction and First Meditation

Early Modern Period in Western Philosophy Marked by a move towards Rationalism Ren Descartes (1596 - 1650) French philosopher, scientist and mathematician Invented Analytic Geometry -- Cartesian Coordinate Systems Also interested in Optics and Meteorology Commonly credited with initiating the Modern Era of Philosophy

Wary of Galileos fate in Italy (probably suppressed some of his publications to avoid bringing the wrath of the Church)

Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes manifesto for his new method of conducting inquiry Aims of Meditations: To use reason to establish Theism (prove that God exists) God possesses all possible perfections, i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence, etc. This can be proven/established as genuine through reason To prove that the Mind is a distinct kind of substance from the Body The Mind should be free from prejudices/ withdrawn from association with the senses Contrary to common sense, information we receive from our senses can be very misleading We must be wary of what we determine about reality through sensory input To debunk Empiricism -- the belief that all human knowledge comes from the senses only & that any claim of knowledge must be backed up by a sensory experiential explanation If you argue it is raining, or argue that there is a black hole, you can present sensory evidence to back up your claim. However, how can you prove with only sensory knowledge that torturing for fun is wrong, or even that 2+2=4 (though every time you put 2 things together with 2 more things, you have always ended up with 4 things, this is not PROOF that it will be true in every case) Therefore, Empiricism is faulty and must be tossed away in favor of Rationalism: The proper use of our reasoning can give us all information we need about nature, right and wrong, mathematics, etc. Rationalists would not deny that we get any information from sensation, but would say: sensation is to knowledge as food is to knowledge -- you need food in order to know anything, to metabolize, just as you need sensation in order to think, but its only a source and can be a misleading one. Ren Descartes personal journey (all of this is in the first paragraph of Meditations) Had a good and proper education in his youth, and then became interested in the philosophical questions Didnt feel that he had the energy, courage, intellectual power to try to answer the questions satisfactorily

Spent time traveling around the world, gambling, dueling, etc, before finally returning home. Went and lived in a little shack in the forest to ponder the philosophical questions Removed himself from human interaction Removed himself from sensory input as much as possible Meditated on the nature, extent, source of his knowledge Realized that many of the things he was sure of in his youth, things that seemed obviously true at the time, were now obviously untrue (i.e. Ptolemaic system of Astronomy -- the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth, which stayed still. All sensory evidence seemed to confirm this, so it felt obvious, until Copernicus blasted that theory apart) This led to the inevitable question: how many things that I take to be obviously true now could be proven categorically false in the future? How can I trust the things I think I know? Several years now have passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true. And thus, how doubtful were all those that had subsequently built upon them. He resolves to apply himself to the general demolition of his opinions. that is, to do his best to reconsider with a new skepticism as many of his beliefs as possible. Overall, Descartes was concerned with reexamining all knowledge, especially that which seems obvious, through the critical lens of reason.

Lecture 3.3 -- First Meditation Part 2: The Nature of Knowledge

try to raze to the ground all of his beliefs for opinions he thinks are probably true, be skeptical of those as well suffice for the rejection of opinions even if he finds some reason to doubt I got most of my most true admissions through the senses -- and since senses are deceptive sometimes, mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once (i.e. optical illusions like mirages, etc.) if someone has lied to you, you wouldnt automatically trust them in the future -same goes for senses Descartes considers possible objections throughout his argument Even though the senses do sometimes deceive us, there are other times when you cannot doubt (i.e. I am wearing this dressing gown, next to the fire, holding a piece of paper) unless you are crazy convinces me that I am asleep

Lets assume that we are dreaming. Maybe we are not doing all of these things that we believe through our senses. These primary elements -- the painting-like images of dreams -- come from something outside of ourselves too Even when painters paint fantastic creatures, they have to create them from elements that are already real, present... eyes, ears, legs, etc. -- they dont come out of nowhere But in dreams, you may believe all of these things when they are not true - but I know I am not asleep, I can feel all of these realities too realistically -- but then again, I suppose I must remember that I have been deceived every bit as well as this in the past Following this series of thoughts is making me dizzy - this dizziness nearly This class of things appears to include: bodies, size, shape, quantity, place in space,..... * -- if we can prove that there is a reality outside of us, it might be made of these things Perhaps medicine, science, etc. have uncertainties Absolutes: arithmetic and geometry (if we can work out doubts) Even so: he BELIEVES that there is a God -- he hasnt proven it, but sees it as possible If there is a God, he could be deceiving me into believing all of these things about perception and reality But that would be contrary to Gods good nature But what if its not a good God but an evil genius? (lays snares for my credulity in my dreams) -- cannot rule out the dismal possibility Matrix example -- the people believe they are living normal lives but they are actually in pods providing energy for the evil omnipotent computer system Evil grad student example -- steals your brain and stimulates it with digital information that gives you the mental experience of going through your daily routine, so that you believe everything is normal and have no idea that your body is elsewhere and you are essentially a puppet Descartes concludes that he has brought forward a radical, depressing, skeptical hypothesis and now will try to figure out if there is any way out I dont know how to rule out this possibility. So how can we know any of these things for sure? It seems absurd, but I cant logically prove that these crazy things are not in fact the truth of the situation.

Lecture 3.4 -- Second Meditation

Two of the Biggest Questions in Philosophy What do you mean? and How do you know? Philosophers try to be very clear and precise to avoid ambiguity, hence the density of Descartes Meditations -- we must read and consider carefully in order to properly respect his efforts

Descartes attempts in the Second Meditation to claw his way out of the deep ditch of scepticism that he has dug himself into. So lets suppose (he says) that everything I think is untrue, or at least that its subject to serious doubt... I believe that none of what my deceitful memory represents ever existed. I have no senses whatever, at least no senses that tell me about anything in the world. Body, shape, extension, movement and place and all chimeras, that is, are all phantoms, not real. What then will be true? Perhaps the only truth is that nothing is certain. But how do I know that there isnt something above all of these things, about which there can be no doubt? Maybe there is a God (or whatever one might call him) who instills these very thoughts in me... but maybe I am the actual author of these thoughts, so how do I know they would come from God? But I have already denied that I have any senses in any body... this is doubting that. Am I so tied to a body and to the senses that I cannot exist without them? If I doubt them, must I doubt my own existence? But I have persuaded myself that there is nothing in the world -- no sky, earth, minds, or bodies. Do I, too, not even exist? BUT doubtless I do exist if I persuaded myself of something. If I persuaded myself of something, I must have existed in order to do this self-persuading. But perhaps this great supreme and powerful deceiver is actually attempting to deceive me into thinking that I dont exist, but no matter what he tries, he cannot succeed because as long as I think, I am something. That is, no matter how much one may doubt, one can be sure that there is a self, doing that doubting. Conclusion: After everything has been most carefully weighed, it must be established that this pronouncement -- I am. I exist. -- is necessarily true every time that I utter it or conceive it in my mind. I am thinking, therefore I exist (latin Cogito ergo sum). This is the ONE certainty he can count on.

Lecture 3.5 -- What is the Self?

I do not yet understand sufficiently what I am. I definitely exist (as evidenced by the fact that I think) But what is this Self that exists? -- I must be careful to make sure I do not unwittingly mistake something else for myself / confuse things that are not me with things that are me. This would be an error in that very item of knowledge which I claim is the most certain and evident of all. I will set aside any belief that can be weakened even slightly by the previous arguments, so that all that remains is certain and unshaken.

What did I previously believe myself to be? I believed I was a man. What is a man? A sort of rational animal... but how to define the terms rational and animal? I am not sure that I am necessarily bound up with my body -- the idea of a body is something I can imagine myself existing without. The Senses Surely sensing does not take place without a body I seem to have sensed in my dreams things which I later realized I did not in fact sense Thought Thought exists -- it alone cannot be separated from me. I am. I exist. That is certain. Therefore, I am a thinking thing. (Latin term: Res Cogitans). That is, a mind / an intellect / understanding / reason This is a crucial part of Rationalism -- that what is essential to my being, the self that I am, is that I am a thinking thing. Descartes wants to suggest that anyone could try the same thought experiment and come to the conclusion that you are essentially a thinking thing as well. This point (the thinking thing) is widely contested by many philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, etc. -- they believe Descartes puts intellect on a pedestal it does not deserve / places humanity above animals unfairly. What is thinking? - Includes such activities as doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagination, and sensing. Not only can I introspect and be certain that there is a Self here, but I can notice things inside my mind and be sure that, in some sense, those things are real. I cannot prove that the orange I am holding is a real thing in the world outside of my mind, but I can be certain that it seems to me that I am holding an orange in my hand. I cannot be certain (as in a desert mirage) that there is water on the road, but I can be certain that it seems to me that there is water on the road. The Muller-Lyer Illusion - I dont know whether those two lines between the arrows are the same length or not, but I can be certain that it seems to me that one is longer than the other. Even if what I think is not true, I can be sure that it is true that that is what I think. (This is a Second-Order Thought) In the case of sensation and imagination, I can be sure that these things are going on inside of me, even if they dont necessarily correspond to any actual truth outside myself.

Lecture 4.1 -- The Piece of Wax

If there do exist any objects external to my mind (a big if which has yet to be proven), I can tell you what they would be like. Lets consider the things which are commonly believed to be the most distinctly grasped of all, namely: the bodies which we touch and see. Lets begin by considering one body in particular: this piece of wax. This solid piece of wax has been taken recently from the honeycomb. It still retains the honey flavor. It still retains some flowery scents. Its color, shape and size are manifest. It is hard and cold. It is easy to touch. If you hit it with your knuckle, it makes a sound. Everything is present in it that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But -- as it is brought close to the fire, the flavor and scent are disappearing, the color changes, the shape changes, the size increases, it becomes liquid and hot, no longer easy to touch, no longer makes sound when you hit it. So: Does the same wax remain? Yes. This cant be denied, as I was able to track it through those changes. But then, what was it in the wax which was so distinctly grasped? - Certainly none of the aspects which are reached by means of the senses... all of those aspects (in bold above) are now changed. And yet -- the wax remains. Since I was able to be aware of the same piece of wax through all of these changes, it must not have been by means of those manifest properties (determined by senses) that I initially ascribed to it. Therefore, those things cannot be characteristics of the wax itself, because the wax itself stayed. It continued to exist while those characteristics did not persist. Therefore, something other than those sensory qualities must have allowed me to track the wax through time. So: What remains when we have removed every quality that does not belong to the wax essentially? -- only that it is something extended, flexible and mutable. Primary Qualities - qualities which are essential, in the world, distinct from our minds, do not depend upon aspects of perception Secondary Qualities

What is it to be flexible and mutable? Is it what my imagination shows? i.e. it can change from square to round, triangular, etc.? No, because I grasp that it is capable of innumerable such changes. Therefore, this insight is not achieved by imagination. Is its extension also unknown? It becomes greater in melting wax, greater still in boiling wax, and so on... perhaps to vapor eventually. I would not judge correctly what the wax is if I didnt concede that it takes on even greater variety of dimensions than I could grasp through imagination. Therefore, I do not grasp it through my imagination. I perceive it from the mind alone. Important Plank in Doctrine of Rationalism: What I know about a body (the wax) is something I know through intellect rather than imagination (imagination is related to sensation) -- my sensory experience with the wax gives me something, but like food gives me energy -- it is not a justification for knowledge. Descartes Physics If I grasp the wax properly, it is through the primary qualities -- location in space and time, extension, that it is one of a certain number of pieces of wax The world itself, independent of our minds, does not have any of the things that our senses give us, i.e. color, fragrance, taste, etc. -- it only has these objects in purely mathematical, quantifiable terms.

Lecture 4.2 -- Third Meditation Lecture 4.3 -- 4th, 5th and 6th Meditations

Notes on Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy

Week 3 (March 18-22) Gilbert Ryle, the Ghost in the Machine, and category mistakes
Suggested reading: Selections from Ryle, The Concept of Mind. Lecture 3.1 -Notes on Ryles The Concept of Mind

Week 4 (March 25-29) Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious Suggested reading: Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Lecture 4.1 --

Notes on Freuds Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

Week 5 (April 1-5) Recent work on the unconscious: the adaptive unconscious Suggested reading: Wilson, Strangers to Ourselves (Harvard) & Wilson and Bar-Anan The Unseen Mind & Wilson and Gilbert Affective Forecasting: Knowing What To Want Lecture 5.1 -Notes on Wilson, Bar-Anan, and Gilbert Readings

Week 6 (April 8-12) Neuroscience, emotions and somatic markers Suggested reading: Damasio, Descartes Error (Putnam) Lecture 6.1 -Notes on Damasios Descartes Error

Week 7 (April 15-19) Self-deception Suggested reading: Mele, Self-Deception Unmasked (Princeton) Lecture 7.1 -Notes on Meles Self-Deception Unmasked

Week 8 (April 22-26) Zen Buddhism, archery, and koans Suggested reading: Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery Lecture 8.1 -Notes on Herrigels Zen in the Art of Archery

Week 9 (April 29-May 3) Indian Buddhism and the self Suggested reading: Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy Lecture 9.1 -Notes on Siderits Buddhism as Philosophy

Week 10 (May 6-10) Self-knowledge and self-transformation Suggested reading: to be announced Lecture 10.1 --

Notes on Suggested Reading