Malebranche Class Notes February 17 What interested Malebranche in Descartes was Ds description off the body in the Treatise

on Man union off body and soul, what he means by ideas - Names for Malebranche o Ariste symbol for follower of Aristotle (the others try to show him his errors) o Thestime theo=God time = honour o Theodore theo=God dore = gift, of God - The philosopher Arnaud criticized by the Jesuits Pascal wrote to defend him - M b/w Aristotle and Descartes - Vision en Dieu we can see things not in ourselves but in God - Arnaud you cannot know God, no access - M will stress more and more that we do have this access to God, God must submit to larger order o b/w Jesuits and Leibniz - History of Nader, The Best off All Possible Worlds - Discussion b/w Cartesians and Empiricists (Locke) regarding the origin of ideas - A shock to English Empiricists - Barkley his ideas are very influenced by M the idea that everyting comes from God - Hume also greatly inf by M we dont have idea of the self; only sensation without correspondent idea, no cogito, just sentiment, feelings but w/o representation - M truth can mean three things o Relations b/w ideas o Relations b/w idea and the material world (my perception of the shining sun) o Relations b/w things as such, material things and other material things (the moon is bigger than the sun) - The text: dialogue but once Theodore enters he only speaks (1712) Ariste feels anxious about death, life is too short Theotime: life is too long a preparation, death is end of your suffering, the time off reward and recompense, supreme good to come. Ariste dont suffer in life, why see it as such? What about joy? I find this life very sweet. In fact anxiety about death is b/c thought is determined by my imagination , which makes me fear that after death I will not live anymore. Theodore you imagine that but you do not conceive that? Have a conception of it? Your imagination tells you your body will die buyt reason will tell you that substance is immortal, incorruptible this is where M takes over from Descartes in the quality off substance as substance

After death a modification an extension made into human body 0 these get destroyed after death bu todnt lose substance no one atom that gets destroyed after death lose bodily orginimy, turn to the earth, vapor, putrifaction, dust Not one atom is dissolved what reason tells me: only modifications destroyed, not substance Ariste doesnt make me feel comfortable this modification into dust etc. I would prefer to be dead for good than modification Aristotelian vision of the soul: soul has to form the body and after death this form disappears Theodore says this is not what the soul is do you really believe the only function of the soul is to form? All our sentiments are related to our body more sweet modifications where do these come from? What the soul can later possess are greater than our earthly possessions Life: intellectual joy, that you feel when you are doing something intellectual this kind of joy is even purer in this life : contaminated by relation of sould and body, by narcissism, defraded In this life we never have the ability to feel this joy purely After death you will have occasion to feel this continuously Still must explain how soul can undergo modifications how can soul after death still be modified? Ariste not convinced: although you tell me my soul wont die, how do you know that? How do you know God doesnt plan to destroy the soul? We dont have access to Gods plan. Theodore (where M will separate from Cartesian metaphysics) indeed god does reveal his plans Ariste thats what faith tells us but you promised you would explain through phil reasoning, I want reasons imp for distinction b/w reason and faith For M 0- reason is more imp than faith the reltn is separated objs of faith and objs of reason Radical separation cannot clarify each other The plans of God are submitted to reason Although we dont know everything about God, he is subject to ORDER he cannot act capriciously, he cannot contradict himself, be inconsistent His conduct must reveal his wisdom and attributes and if he was not ordered, his creation would not be reasonably ordered but would only be chaos of blind power if God wants something his will has to be in concordance with the order Gods will does not equal order/reason different from Descartes: it is reason by the fact that God wants it, a perfect God. But for M there is absolute character of reason;

independent of Gods will Limits to Gods freedom possibility to submit himself For Cartesian MPs, even reason, math, are contingent they have to be created by absolute will still necessary but cannot be justified by reference to reason but by their creation M God prefers perfect things to non-perfect things Gods plans general plans Humans project their ideas on God easy to think and judge God based on how we feel. It presupposes a lot of effort in order to think of origins/beginnings - easier to think simplistically and relate God to human ideas humanizing reality/ideas Must distinguish b/w knowledge by our own means and a more perfect and difficult knowledge, ideas, reason What is knowledge based on our own capabilities? Sensuous impressions, ffeelings, etc. These perceptions presuppose an impression on our soul. Pure ideas do not modify soul After death, the bodily perceptions will disappear but pure ideas will not Ideas that presuppose modification of soul and pure ideas is introduced in M Separation b/w ideas by a detour: we dont have access to the soul, we do have access to our body (opposite of Cartesian) If we want to say something about the soul we will need a detour : he will use metaphors spatial, movement in matter, The soul can be moved this is the will, inclination, passions Two kinds of perceptions o Pure perceptions: are superficial to the soul b/c they are not dependent on modification not our capacities, not attributes of our own thinking they come into the soul independent of our capacities of thinking, feeling what does it mean to have ideas w/o thinking? o Sensuous perceptions: material, the sun these are perceptions that move us deeply. Pain can disturb my concentration, hear a fly; concentration is disrupted by something so superficial, can interrupt our concentration/intentions These perceptions are stronger than pure and in relation to pure perceps b/c they move us , modify us Pure perceps do not move us into new state, concentration, leaves us unaffected Even feeling joy at this concentration is lacking after death, undisturbed but unmoving This being moved, modified is constitutive, inherent to these perceptions This is why these belong to us our capacity to produce them

presuppose capacities that belong to us, our condition the condition of being incarnated this relation to the body can dominate our thinking Another dialogue b/w Christians and Chinese Phil by M Christian: PureP so true, we dont feel affected by it and thus we dont believe it the perception of infinity is so light you arent affected by it; Pain, the vivacity is believeable but may say nothing about reality. When you look into sky, the vastness, extensive produces even less of an effect, more immaterial Pain colour the sky thought (most real) When you close your eyen and think about the sky/a triangle this is only intellectual and doesnt effect you at all The soul cannot be divided submitted to the kind of corruption that the body will undergo All this disagreeable are a result off the mod of the soul: the fear of death is completely irrational b/c it presupposes that the soul will be mod but after death the soul and body are separated The origin of that affect wont remain after death the soul will no longer fear This is the background of the search after truth you have to distinguish b/w these ideas that belong or dont belong to you The light of our ideas and the darkness of our sensuous impressions One has to get used to making spontaneous distinctions b/w what belongs to me and what does not Sensuous representation are difficult to avoid contain power to convince us that what they are is comparable to reality can not help but believe what I feel is quality of what I see but this belief is part of immanent sensation of body says something of constitution of body M- contract, anti-phenomenological move dont believe that your representations are of reality, they may be completely different Ethical aspect the reason why you must separate from this intellection is to become ethically better, to learn what is really important to life Religious aspect the real perceptions, where do they come from? How do we receive them? We dont see them in ourselves When we think of phil, MP, Math we have to be delivered from our selves in order to receive them, we need a transcendental power in order to see these Errors come from the senses book 1 kinds of sensory errors Book 2 Imagination first elaborate theoretical explanation of imagination in the 17th century (psychological and social) Book 3 pure understanding

Book 4 Inclinations sensory perceptions. The will not free Book 5 the passions Book 6 the method prescription of method to avoid errors and discover truth February 24 - Preface: the Search After Truth o Method w religious and ethical aims o A Science of Man the most beautiful and pleasant and necessary component of knowledge is the knowledge of ourselves the science of the human being is the most worthy science - Basic aspects of Ms Philosophy: o 1. The Science of Man o 2. Dualism most important b/c it leads us to disginguish b/w body and soul - Preceding sciences overlooked basic importance of dualism, reduced man to element of universe condusion of relatn of soul and body generated wrong science of human being and things as such, of God - Pg 39. St. Augustince insight in dualism but still believed in things generated by lack of dualism - Dualism fundamental concept of all sciences - Neglect of dualism is not only resp of phil of representation of ourselves but ites responsibility for the false representation of material objects kthing in themselves and God - Ph 40 Greatest number do not see what knowledge of the mind could be M criticized those who felt we could not know our mind; have no insight into the mind, but still must affirm dualism - Those who are attracted to the exotic, glamorous sciences, the false sciences Faux savants those who think they are learning but are not only false sciences but a false way of living dont deceive yourself betray yourself - Great objects Aristotelian phil In order to discover these thing the mind must go outside of itself - Interested in new sciences (self knowledge and wisdom) but is not written in this method - The imagination has a tendency to exaggerate tese sciences (astronomy, chemistry, etc.) - Most basic science is science of man but we discover man to be a sort of appendix of God - A science that teaches us who and what we are more than all the others combined - One of the basic insights : make difference b/w representations that come from ourself and reps that com ffrom reason - Resist the influence of body on mind a way of respecting reason and respecting God pure illusion comes from the body

True knowledge true wisdom that we have to apply immediately to the external world Descartes knowledge includes reflection ( read: knowledge in the direction of the mind) he constructs image on how false science has been generated false science generated by neglect of dualism gals sci belief that there are several sciences and differences are determined by diff objs of science, other science/method/thinking has to be elaborated, the reason for hierarchy of sciences, the relation off the noble character of some sciences, determined character In fact ppl came to this idea (ofo science/method/quality and character) is b/c of a confusion of sciences and the arts 3. What is right for these arts are not right for theoretical knowledge. In arts you cant both turn your hands to both harp playing and farming exclusive of other applications Descartes says this is a confusion to project thi son the sciences we confus wwhat belongs to the mind and what belongs to the body the arts belong to the body we take what is constitutive of the arts as constitutive of the sciences In order to come to the right science we have to come to the right mind Descartes human wisdom is one in the same, not differentiated from the object does not change no ore altered than the sunlight by the face that it shines upon Descartes all light comes from the mind Revelation of hierarchy all things that science can study can be studies by universal attitude The insights of how we have to know are deduced from the nature of our minds and not the nature of the thing presupposition of modern science Malebranche radicalized this insight the errors are coming from the sciences, from the body Real science/wisdom/knowledge dismantling confusions generated in history of human thinking of unity of body and mind Necessary to be convinced of dualism to avoid confusion, false sciences, false representation off material things this is purpose of the Search After Truth Project to give 1000 proofs, convincing proofs The illusory character of the body of perceptions of the imagination off perceptions The causes off these errors we fall into them take discipline to resist they are natural in ourselves natural tendancy in us strengthened by the fall, but sin This book is similar to Augustines City of God condenses and summarizes a lot of other books makes these superfluous The passions/senses are useless for discovering what is good,

they dazzle us and seduce us false and confused in reltn to obj it represents but this knowledge is useful to the preservation of the body 1. Dualism: Pure perception/noble 2. Union: sensible perceptions, images not theoretically valuable doesnt tell you anything about the truth, deceptive meaning yes in relation to the body, to help us be careful, preserve the body, good for being incarnated. You cannot build a theory on these experience, cannot deduce the truth Important for life life is what concerns the body preservation Pg 39 the mind of man in its entirety (in reltn to man and God) (Cartesian Meditations: 1,3,4 imp for notion of freedom/ 6 imp for union of mind and body) Descardes material falsity of beings The value M attributes to the sensible impressions For D everyting that entres the mind in an idea = passions, sensations M criticizes this Basic tension in Ds phil is not b/w soul and body, but in on the MPal differentiation b/w the two substances The union: o The machine body that is not animated o Do not exp body as machine D will say from experience we have no direct access to the machine, the automata autonomous no direct access important to know that body is machine in order to control our passions There is nothing my mnind teaches me more vividly than I have a body Sould not doubt there is some truth in it Nature (God) also teaches me my sensations I am not present in my body like a sailor is present in a ship nut I really believe that soul and body form one unified substance form one and the same body no dualism cannot experience dualism (impossible) You dont interpret signs from stomach you feel hungry and adjoined, intermingled with it if this were not the case, I would not feel pain We interpret body as organism (not machine- no parts can be replaces) =- you feel loss of part of body as complete reconfiguration We would pereciev damage only by intellect as sailor would survey damage of a ship_ When the body needs food or drink we have understanding, not a confusion of sensations M redoubles the union: union off mind and body and union with

God this second union radically recongfigures the first Dualism has another rmeaning for M: the union we have with the body has another ethical meaning: it is contaminated by sinfulness (original sin)_ - the attention we pay to experiences troubles our concentration of God interrelation The more we are attentive to the body, the less we are to God the union of body is something sinful we fell the reproach of consciousness, bitter reproach Basic tension of Ms MPs b/c of this tension and reframing off Cartesian formulation, phil must help us live w certainty in this life not to be slave to illusions to live free for Descartes, but for M, it is about finding equlibrium b/w these two tendencies as preparation for death the human being distorts lives apart from transcendence, everyting is related to truth, clarity, will comes from reltn w God Descartes idea is clear and distinct ie: means that idea seems to have the source of its luminosity the cause of our insight is in the idea, like a light, it opens/shows/reveals itself, manifests in us dont need anything beyond the idea, in idea as such (also in Spinoza) M luminosity doesnt come from idea as such but comes from God, reason fo God, illuminates ida, helps us to elaborate, explore, deduce idea is not in-itselff anymore = expression of Gods reason, expresses/participates in Gods reason idea has not truth value in in itself Relation to body always pulls us down to experiences all questions of ethics/sciences/philosophy will focus on the need to resist this transcendency M is more intellectualist than D for M the will is not free must free our minds from representations that come from the body in order to participate in Divine reason Pg 36 impossible that this union be broken w/o the destruction of our being always joined to truth, to our bodies 2 laws: of mind and of body dualism of two unions March 3 Descartes read 4th meditation M wants to get rid of idea that we should rid ourselves of our body he reframes this try to avoid it Attribute meaning put claims on things try to avoid deceptive meanings How do we deceive ourselves? M not deceived by the body Senuult Corrupt Man corruption stems from bodies M not corrupt but we use it in wrong sense not our senses but the improper use of our freedom that brings us into error

We give up on our ffreedom to follow our bodies (sennult) M we arent wrong when we feel heat from the fire, but we are when we thing this sensation has nothing to do with the soul Things o For us: not a guarantee can give us no judgement, appearing of the objects cannot deduce anything about these beings, may not exist but M stays that is impossible to know if these things exist o In themselves: Being This in their appearing have no claim on existence , they do not make a claim on existence dont bother asking this question Only God makes this claim Sensations: nothing but mods of the mind the only thing we can say philosophically about how materiality affects us can say nothing more nor less Useful to experience thigns bodily ie; heat from fire But need to adopt hermeneutical attitude from philosophy Understand 2 things o The mind = nature + properties of will o Understanding = Judgments and how they are responsible for errors Pg 2 understanding: Active and Passive parts Active: Ideas, actions Passive: Will/volitions, passions Cartesian Treatise of the Passions 17 Mechanistic body nothing to attribut to soul but thoughts/ideas pain , passions, affects sensations are all thoughts Ma will limit thought/idea to representations Shows Ds problems in some sense sensations have representational content M no representational content whatsoever All things are ideas fo Descartes (but we do not receive ideas (passive), we form them) Why is an idea clear (light, clarity) for D? All the qualities I deduce from the idea are qualities I deduce from content from idea emanations comes out of idea, not my mind projecting on it the light is immanent to the object Where light is not bright: obscure or confused ideas Dont form for Descartes, simply receive them The will the idea as such, the perception is passive do not explore, simply receive Malebranche the will is blind has to be oriented, guided by perceptions am conscious of will as faculty of soul but will has no Problem for M we have no direct access to content of our soul

Pf 237 how we know our own soul have no idea of soul do not see it in God know it only through conscience thus our knowledge of our soul is imperfect Conscience sentiment, feeling (feel the mod off the soul in pain and joy, etc.) but dont perceive what is at origin of modification, a kind of obscurity I dont know through my own introspection M strange Cartesian rejects capacity for introspection The self is pure darkness I can only feel mods through sensations but do not know what soul is capable of, only what body is capable of Pg 238 have clear knowledge of existence of soul but have no knowledge of its essence concerning matter it is opposite: we have knowledge off essence but no guarantee of its existence Only thing we can say in certainty w sensations we have to make abstractions to understand what they really are: mods of the soul Pg 634 soul formally becomes what it is perceiving But b/c we donot know what the soul is capable of we need a detour: negative psychology- Matter Matter: o Passive: receive figures: for Cartesian matter is inter, just identity of extension, movement is always projected onto matter dynamic, no motion (all mvmt comes from outside: anti-aristotelian) o Active: Movement Soul: o Ideas (figures) o Will (movement) impressed onto us, something soul receives by impression of God in us The will is not free b/c it is not expression of what we are is expression of God Freedom is determined negatively M ideas received passively as figures Matter (ideas, soul, figures) Part 1 o External: (figure) ie: piece of glass. External to the quality of matter o Internal: (configuration) ie: particles of rock. Gives structure to matter o Pure perception: superficial do not modify internal structure of the soul o Sensible perception: modify the soul, mod is continuous in relation to objs that affect it. Occur upon occasion No direct reltn b/w body and mind Object affects body (closed system) in trun modifies mind

Obj B M Object o Idea: appears as idea, what we receive from God, has to do with truth union w God (Being) o Sensory Perception: mod of mind, says nothing about truth of obj, Geometrical forms and figures Sensory percep presupposes combination off these unions Continuous transformations that senses impose on us, from being to appearing, in order to behave in the world Affective reaction relation to external things Natural wualities, ways of feeling reltns of feelings, sentiment b/c we ffeel them we think the presence of the real objects is more real than the idea we have relations w real objects, distance, feeling vivid feelings We tend to ascribe these feelings to the materiality, to localize them in material objects Pain in foot is mod of mind, localized in foot the body is inert No immediate relation/correlation b/w what happens in the soul and what happens in the body Adter death the resurrection of the body will take on an idal form of ideas the matter will be gone but the pure idea will remain

Part 2 - the will is not immanent to soul (like matter is not immanent to form) - there is one will, Gods will, which is particularized in each individual soul - General character of the will and particular portion of it as impressed proportional - Gives impression of being about something but the will we must direct - The movement God is original cause in will: natural inclinations - Typical for movement in matter is that it always goes straight - The will can be deviated like movement of objects can be deviated from their straight course - But the principle of deviation is immanent to will as such, it si external to natural objects, matter (cant deviate by desire/decision) capacity to deviate from inclination = freedom - We can feel inclination but not ascent to it - Residue what occurs from disproportion off inclination and will - Articulation, manifestation of disproportion Mar10? March 17 - M expanding on errors occurring on the level of the 3 primary

qualities matter you can describe from a theoretical pov A. PRIMARY QUALITIES o 1. Size: a soi (in-itself) Invisibility abstract notion since there is no empty space just b/c we cant see what is in the between doesnt mean nothing is there We judge size of object in relation/proportion to size of our owon body o 2. Figure/Shape o 3. Movement B. SECONDARY QUALITIES o 1. Sensible Qualities The smallest seed of the apple contains all the necessary or essential material of all apples, trees, etc. for all the universe, all time, infinity, no limit Comes from cosmological idea centre of the sphere is everywhere, every monad is like atom and at its centre concentrates the universe indivisible No limits idea of the seed, centre, core Paradox contained w/in this mystical idea that M uses in his MPs Pascal what would he say about this idea? Have to see the human as in between the infinitely small and the infinitely big (Vastness of the universe): human being as extention of infinities Infinitely Big> B (Being/God) <Human Being> N (Nothing/Imperfection) > Infinitely small Mite smallest being of universe (Ciron) Human being seen from pov of universe is like a mite is seen by the human body Mite quasi universe we are nothing in reltn to the universe b/w being and nothing being itself a universe for what is smaller Deidrich M. wrote Sphere (36) intro Hei specialist on Leibniz wanted to look at original monad Fascination with miniturization at the limit of materiality, limit of visibility, but still not imaginary Pg 38 can never judge the magnitude of movement You have to know distance from own bodily incarnation, distance is relative we are not able to say something of magnitude of movement itself need time to measure distance through duration but even duration is relative according to our own bodies Even although something takes same amount of time we feel it takes a shorter or longer amount of time Experience of time in pain contamination of consciousness by the body that cannot be transcended overwhelms your ability

to pay attention to objects Project the infinite indivisibility of time God could direct our minds towards duration so that an hour would seem like centuries there is no limit to indivisibility and infinitely smaller and smaller parts can be infinitely divided Reason only we can have in absolute notion of duration or speed o 2. Perception of Figures: (33) Our judgments cannot be trusted natural judgments can occur on two levels: Perceptual Representation: there are natural judgments in the domain of the visible or the affective (material impression) Heat comes from fire natural judgment if you can feel heat from fire you say heat is in fire but if you are burning your hand you feel heat in your hand contaminating, affecting the body need this experience, this is the role of natural judgment, not theoretical, functional Pg 33/34 even straight line cannot been seen as such pre-conceived w notion given to us not through perception There are no straight lines in universe as such b/c part off the cosmology that all lines are a part of the greater sphere, the form of which we cannot perceive Objects, in order to be seen, have to undergo a deformation through our eyes in order to be seen is subjected to perspective, the laws of perspective the impression, of the object on our eyes is the MATERIAL IMAGE, which is distorted in comparison to real image In order to recognize the circle you have to paint it as an ellipsis (in a painting) in order to be called a material image these objects have to betray their true image, become distorted to affect the eyes Why does M need idea of material image? B/c we dont perceive itcould be that every object could be so deformed that it has no resemblance to real object Formal resemblance of material image and object and what we receive the necessity of this resemblance is no evident no resemblance b/w movement in my nerves and the feeling of heat But there is relation of visual field wants to prove something of optical laws

 Sensation: natural judgment as compound sensation You have first a material, non-conscious sensation which is distorted, not true to reality/geometry but on occasion of image, I have sensation Natural judgments help to redress the original shape correction of material objects, in order for us to perceive material object the ideal/real geometrical figure as it is incarnated in matter Perception although it is transformed, painted in the eye, in order to form perception, we see the real thin but things cannot appear to us as they really are Cannot perceive things as they really are you must paint a cube to appear as a cube, you can paint all of its aspects, all of its sides God makes these corrections for us natural beliefs, nature makes these continual corrections for us Natural belief not our minds that have to judge this operation is performed by God who communicates these to us The result is what we see Pg 46 nature another word for God institution of nature is God in relation to union of mind and body they occur w/in us, independent of us these are unconscious judgments We cannot postpone our judgments, they are immediate God fashions them in and for us we could do this ourselves if we understood optics and geometry like God, in a perfect manner God is using laws that are intellectually comprehensible to the human being Seems to suggest that what relates the mind with the body (the passage from material affects to representations) is occurring at every moment the transition from unconscious material to conscious is also something we can understand no mystery to us God fashions these in us, communicating these in us, communicating these corrections material representation (incarnated perception) but also according to ideal reality Ideal limited geometrical figures

The way God is present to his own creations through our own materiality God is conscious to matter only through our own eyes Extension isnt part of God, it is God ideal extension is part of himself Need to singularize, particularize the absolute character off geometric reality according to our situation in the world God needs our eyes to perceive his creation does not have view from nowhere Natural judgment as God in us communicates this to us Like the will we experience is impression of Gods will w/in us Gods will is beginning and end perfect self-affection needs body and passions of human incarnate reality in order to articulate absolute selfaffection Similar idea M is projecting on our perception God as perfect being contains pure, perfect reality as matter Matter as we can perceive it is in extension but pure extension, how can God admire it? Only through its material realization b/c it has been implemented in material reality the expression and impression of absolute Will we deviate from God by only looking for good of our bodies, the materiality of our will The same with extension: the real destination of materiality is extension If we were able to perceive real extension, our eyes not deviated, we would be able to perceive the infinite indivisibility off matter (but we cannot perceive this) The limits of our perception puts limits on the unlimited character/quality of extension The Fall we believed our eyes (as criterion of truth) nut matter as we perceived (taste, touch, smell) it is not real matter, not all reality It manifests its nature as extension through our eyes and what we perceive as matter M the exterior world its real reality is the ideal extension Something inconsistent in idea that God is reliant

upon human singular perspective M says God does not intervene here M suggests that God intervenes in case of object to give me true impression March 24 - Negative influence of natural judgments can be experienced as corrections (but can also deceive us) - In what sense can the senses be deceiving? - 1 case: method to conjure all the types off errors according to all the faculties: senses, imagination, perceptions, etc. - Errors related to perceptions of primary qualities (book 1) - Means A) PRIMARY QUALITIES o 1. Concerning the perceptions of size o 2. Perception of shapes/figures o 3. Perception of movement - B) SECONDARY QUALITIES/ Affectations/ Sentiments - Errors concerning perception situation of the moon - M assumes that objects project themselves upon us, make impressions in our eye - But with the experience of greater distance (ie: moon high in the sky) the impression becomes smaller, the impression, produced perception is much smaller - Material law does not work here: w/ the experience of the distance being larger, normally my body, system/machine should have corrected the material impression in my eye - The image of the moon must be perpetually corrected in order to remain the same size - Dont confuse size of material image w/ the size of the perceived thing - b/c the size doesnt diminish - M says moon up high is small because it appears closer to us, while moon on borizon appears bigger and further away - But this ignores phenomenological evidence distorts, goes agains our phenomenological experience to mantinatn his theory - Combines two things: optical truth, givenness and phenomenological experience of things (but he has the second part wrong to be true to his material premise) counterfeit experience smuggled in - The material object is not adapted why isnt the moon viewed in accordance w size consistency? - Material sensation conscious perception (natural judgment occurs in between) - In the situation with the moon, the problem is not with natural judgment, but on the level of material senses the correction is not made but M calls it an error of natural judgment - B) Problem off the Affections, Sentiments Perception of

Secondary Qualities Not intentional ambition (as they do have for Descartes), ideas for Descartes ideas are intrinsically resp M has to introduce notion resp for why intentional relation they invoke in us is wrong All the things in the mind are ideas clear, distinct we knkow their relation to their causes intentional For D every content of the mind is give by way of ideas and intentionality is intrinsic to mind Some ideas are confused sensations, colors, pains why does he call these ideas? He will need to explain that given the nature of mind as intentional all these must have intentional features Obscured and confused: because as ideas they are materially wrong, false because they are so arrogant they impose in us, wrongly, the pretention, ambition, to have intention as iff they were external to the mind, that sensation are not of the mind as if the green blackboard was exterior to the mind, objective reality that corresponds to the obj that causes my idea M sensations are not ideas have to make differentiation b/w ideas and sensations in the mind sensations are simply modifications concern not the object but the soul/mind All our sensations are not about object they are something of our experience auto affection but as such they dont say something about the object, not constitutive for how objects appear not responsible for how objects manifest themselves Level of pure affection isolated from how objects appear Background already present in this discussion of affections On level of secondary qualitites there is no truth not ideas at all perhaps copresent w ideas Status of ideas contrary to Descartes Not ideas in the mind, perceptions from God We are able to recovnize these ideas in material objects b/c of our relation to God this plays no role in secondary qualities, sensations Pg 234 we perceive ideal incarnations by God who acts in us sensations caused by god has no sensations himself, doesnt ffeel pain God joins sensations to ideas so that we know the objects are present se we have certain sense off concrete being these are secondary qualities At level off the visual: passage from material/bodily aspect to the mind occurs by way of intellectual, scientific truth operations we are intelligent enough to comprehend this, we could if we had Gods intellectual capabilities we could recreate this if we could comprehend it On the level of sensible qualities: material impact/base (a pain in stomach mechanical) what occurs at this level of mind (hunger)

is representation, perception Wont say natural judgments are faithful to sciences Excluding idea that God also operates here W passage from body to mind w the visual, recognize a circle, the object has to be painted in form and God like a Good Painter, has to correct that perception into a circle (a plate painted in a picture) these are principles unifying mind/body on level of visual and how to materialize objects But this is not possible on level off sensations Visual: transition is made by pure scientific operations no parallel to other level off sensation Sensations: no idea here, no truth involved can give mechanical description but can give no description off how this transition occurs to a feeling ideas are the only true things we can say about matter sensations dont say anything about that matter These transitions cannot be implemented material truth of an idea an idea cannot be the base Reject the possibility of idea at base bc of MPal principles but can be no schema to explain our feeling of hunger, that sensation reason why, finally, in 17th century, these sensations are merely subjective 17th centure philosophy ha been philosophy that tries to give MPal premise of science in M you see science conform to MPs idea of science (ie: miniature world) as confirmation of MPal presupposition ideas not deduced from scientific discoveries this is what changes, revolutionizes science in 18th century forget MPal assumptions Affections./Sensations, Errors Why are we deceived on this level you could reduce the origin of all of these sensations could be found in our neglect to live according to the dualism a clear distinction of truth as dualism of mind/body We forget this make errors ie: pain occurs in my foot but given dualism pain is in my soul but at occasion of something occurring in my foot We are like machines for M pain is just indication of error occurring in the body Analytical attitude The vital relations are synthetic w/o our own intervention syn relations b/w objects perceive unity, gestalt blackboard appears as unity, ie: experience pain as unity that has to do with totality of body synthetic attitude is wrong from MPal attitude we have to separate what in our daily life is united Fall into error confuse things that belong to the mind w things

that belong to the body The mechanism of the body what is occurring We have to start with these sensations D article 22 on the Passions: we have perceptions, the mind has 2 faculties: the fac of perceptions and the will Perceptions: these are ideas and sensation (are also ideas) in the sense of sensations we can make a differentiation b/w 3 kinds depending on what we attribute to it: o 1. Have sensation of colour you attribute to object (judgment of mind) o 2. Attribute it to your body as if you feel it in your body o 2. Attribute it to the soul, passions different attributions on different things the intensity of the sensation, the higher the sensation the more likely to attribute it to your body attribution based on visibility of cause if we cant wee it we are likely to attribute it to the object

March 31? April 7? April 14? April 21-28 (reading break?) May 5 - why we make errors here we are talking about a kind of thinking - imagination deceives us certain ideas of pure understanding can also deceive us how? - What does M mean by pure understanding - Faculty the mind has to know external objects - He will say that sensations do not have this faculty to tell us anything of external objects refutation of classical empiricist philosophies (where knowledge is build upon first contact through sensations) - Book 1 says sensations say more about the body can tell us some things: re objects are dangerous to preserve the machine (body) but dont really tell us about the existence of the obj - How can our minds say something about what is external to the mind? Through pure understanding - Knowing what is not immanent to the mind pure understanding makes use, can make use, build their knowledge on PURE IDEAS - Pure intellectual ideas are the means by which we finally have capacity to be intentionally related to objects - We can see pure ideas w/o modification manifests w/o our capacity to be modified they resist or have a transcendental character, transcendent to the capacities, the realities of the

mind to be modified (opposite to sensations) Representation at moment of sensation can be nothing more than a mod of the mind can be produced by mod of mind Pure ideas not reliant on our capacity to reproduce, represent (distances M from D) Modern interpretation what D means by ideas is that they are dispositions, capacities to think about the qualitites of a triangle, to think the ideal this si reborn, innate idea M these ideas are not innate the disposition to think, discover new properties of external objects are dispositions we only have access to them by union of our mind with the mind of God Theological Reason everything that belongs to truth, perfection comes from God our mind cannot contain these truths Clear opposition between what belongs to man and to God In order to discover truth, human being must open himself to God in order to discover it not of own capacity Epistemological reason the mind is something obscure we dont have access to mind like idea (for Descartes, cogito is idea have access to it) if we have access to mind, I can know all properties, qualities that belong to that idea that means by way of own thinking, mental capacity, you can discover, have access to it, know it it is that claim that M rejects dont know mind, obscure We will need model of the body in order to say something by way of comparison about the mind Iff matter is capable of something like movement what is analogous to the mind? The will (we only have access to know of will because we have clear idea of what matter is) only by way of our knowledge of extension, exteriority can we begin to indirectly have knowledge of the mind Presupposition of modern philosophy until 19th century that mind is kind of empty space idea comes from, vocabulary of the inner mind, interiority comes ffrom knowledge of exteriority a kind of contamination of the interior (idea mind is something spatial) M we can have some access to that interiority Arnaud rejected that ideas would be dependent on mind rejects that ideas have independent reality on their own for Arnaud, ideas are intentional M intentionality is immanent to our minds Discussion Is M a realist of ideas (idealist)? Some say no b/c then he would say the ideal reality is purely ideal; the domain of