Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Descartes: mind and body: meditation 6</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:55:20" n="8287">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>



<person id="nm0183" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0183, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="l"><p>ss, audience, large group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="l"><p>sl, all, large group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Philosophy</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">unknown</item>





<u who="nm0183"> right we've got a lot of material to cover <pause dur="0.3"/> in today's lecture so # <pause dur="0.5"/> it's best i make a start straight away <pause dur="0.7"/> i'll try and speak <pause dur="0.3"/> as clearly as possible and # <pause dur="0.4"/> go at a reasonable pace <pause dur="0.4"/> as you may have gathered today's lecture's being <pause dur="0.3"/> filmed <pause dur="0.4"/> so i'd be immensely grateful if people could look as <trunc>m</trunc> # more enthusiastic <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> and more keen than they usually do <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> i know this will be difficult but <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> do try <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> # the most important thing is that you laugh at my jokes <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> but # <pause dur="1.3"/> as you know they are few and far between <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> okay if anybody wants to take out their pocket mirror for a last <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> look at their face <pause dur="0.2"/> here's your chance <vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> no <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> let's start <pause dur="0.5"/> # what we're going to do today in today's lecture <pause dur="0.2"/> today's lecture's divided into two main parts <pause dur="1.1"/> the first part <pause dur="1.0"/> we'll look at some of the <pause dur="0.4"/> essential aspects <pause dur="0.5"/> of meditation six <pause dur="0.2"/> and the second part <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> we'll examine <pause dur="0.8"/> # Descartes' notorious mind body dualism <pause dur="0.4"/> okay so it's divided into two main parts <pause dur="1.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> it's in meditation six that Descartes seeks to bring everything together <pause dur="0.8"/> and to harmonize <pause dur="0.4"/>

all the different elements <pause dur="0.5"/> of his analysis so far <pause dur="0.9"/> okay so this really is the kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> crowning point the <pause dur="0.2"/> summation of the entire meditations <pause dur="1.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> Descartes believes that he now <pause dur="0.2"/> enjoys a limited certainty <pause dur="1.0"/> okay at this point <pause dur="1.2"/> he thinks he's now attained a limited certainty <pause dur="1.8"/> he's sure <pause dur="0.5"/> that God exists <pause dur="0.7"/> he's sure that God exists <pause dur="0.7"/> and he trusts <pause dur="0.2"/> geometry <pause dur="0.3"/> he trusts geometry <pause dur="2.1"/> because God <pause dur="0.7"/> guarantees the truth of things <pause dur="0.6"/> that are perceived clearly and distinctly <pause dur="0.9"/> okay he trusts geometry because God guarantees the truth of things <pause dur="0.7"/> that are perceived clearly and distinctly <pause dur="5.7"/> so i'm just going to hand out <pause dur="0.5"/> some more of these <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="y" dur="3"/> sheets <pause dur="0.9"/> can you take that please <pause dur="1.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> so at the beginning of the meditation <pause dur="0.9"/> we have a key quote okay this is the <pause dur="0.8"/> point where Descartes says he's now going to extend his analysis <pause dur="1.0"/> beyond the realm of the intellect <pause dur="0.2"/> and reconnect the mind to matter <pause dur="0.7"/> he says <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> i'll just <pause dur="0.3"/> read from this # passage <pause dur="1.9"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> he says <reading>now that i know that God exists <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> i have the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge of an infinitude of things <pause dur="0.9"/> not only those which relate to God and other intellectual matters <pause dur="1.0"/> but also those <pause dur="0.4"/> which pertain to corporeal nature <pause dur="0.7"/> in

so far <pause dur="0.2"/> as it is the object of pure mathematics</reading> <pause dur="1.6"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> i'll say that last sentence again because that's the crucial part of the quote <pause dur="0.7"/> okay so he says <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>i have <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> # the <trunc>ap</trunc> capacity of acquiring a perfect knowledge of things not only of intellectual things <pause dur="1.5"/> but also those which pertain to corporeal nature</reading> <pause dur="0.8"/> to bodily or material nature <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>in so far as it is the object of pure mathematics</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> so that sentence is revealing in <pause dur="1.0"/> in two respects <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> firstly it indicates <pause dur="0.2"/> quite clearly that Descartes' now going to <trunc>ex</trunc> extend his analysis <pause dur="0.7"/> to another realm of substance <pause dur="0.2"/> entirely <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>oth</trunc> that is substance other than intellectual substance <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> he's going to <trunc>ens</trunc> extend it to nature and to matter <pause dur="1.5"/> and secondly he says <pause dur="0.3"/> he's going to extend it <pause dur="0.8"/> and create a knowledge of the material world in so far it is <trunc>i</trunc> as it is the object <pause dur="0.3"/> of pure mathematics <pause dur="1.8"/> okay now also the question we might ask is to what extent is Descartes going to bend <pause dur="0.4"/> nature so as to suit a mathematical model <pause dur="0.7"/> to what extent is he going to impose <pause dur="0.7"/> # an alien mathematical

<trunc>mo</trunc> model on an resistant matter <pause dur="0.2"/> but he himself believes that the two will correspond <pause dur="0.8"/> okay so that's one of the main things that's going on in this meditation <pause dur="0.5"/> to <pause dur="0.6"/> arrive at <trunc>comp</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> complementary theories of mind and of matter <pause dur="1.1"/> okay this is <pause dur="0.2"/> perhaps one of the crucial aspects of Descartes' meditations one of the distinctive aspects <pause dur="0.5"/> that he believes we can have a correspondence between the mind and matter <pause dur="0.3"/> so he's going to <trunc>ve</trunc> develop complementary theories of mind and of matter in this meditation <pause dur="2.1"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> now meditation five <pause dur="1.2"/> has reached the conclusion that corporeal things if they exist <pause dur="0.7"/> okay this is the previous meditation has reached the conclusion that corporeal things <pause dur="0.2"/> if they exist <pause dur="0.4"/> are geometrical in nature <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> and hence quantifiable <pause dur="0.4"/> they're geometrical in nature <pause dur="0.4"/> and hence quantifiable <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.2"/> what does he mean by this he means that they have shape <pause dur="0.4"/> size position <pause dur="0.6"/> shape size position motion <pause dur="0.2"/> and number <pause dur="1.7"/> and these are all properties he believes that can be expressed in mathematical terms <pause dur="0.6"/> these are all

properties that can be expressed <pause dur="0.5"/> in mathematical terms <pause dur="1.9"/> they have these properties <pause dur="1.2"/> if they exist <pause dur="0.4"/> they have these properties these <pause dur="0.6"/> material objects if they exist <pause dur="1.0"/> the task in meditation six is to show that they do in fact exist <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> the task is to show <pause dur="0.4"/> that these geometrical objects do in fact exist <pause dur="1.2"/> that is corporeal things have geometrical properties <pause dur="3.0"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.2"/> now one of the other main things that's taking place in meditation six <pause dur="1.2"/> as i say it's the point where <pause dur="0.9"/> Descartes brings to a summation the whole of the meditations but there also takes place <pause dur="1.1"/> a significant or major reversal <pause dur="0.6"/> of the entire argument so far <pause dur="0.7"/> it takes place an entire reversal of the argument so far namely <pause dur="0.4"/> a reversal of doubt <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> so that many of the operations <pause dur="0.7"/> many of the operations that were commenced <pause dur="0.2"/> in meditation one <pause dur="1.6"/> are now deemed <pause dur="0.2"/> says Descartes we can now deem them <pause dur="0.3"/> to be risible <pause dur="0.2"/> or laughable <pause dur="0.8"/> many of the operations many of the experiments or hypotheses we conducted <pause dur="0.6"/> in meditation one can deem to be risible or laughable he says <pause dur="1.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> for example <pause dur="0.6"/> the things which in the past i

took to be certain <pause dur="0.8"/> for example the things which in the past i took to be certain <pause dur="2.3"/> beliefs and principles <pause dur="0.8"/> but which turned out to be illusory or false <pause dur="1.2"/> were he says and <pause dur="0.2"/> we can now recognize that those things were simply things that i did not perceive clearly and distinctly <pause dur="1.0"/> okay they were simply things <pause dur="0.5"/> that i did not perceive clearly and distinctly <pause dur="0.5"/> so i can now appreciate he says at this point that anything in the past <pause dur="1.0"/> which i held to be certain and true but which turned out to be false or illusory <pause dur="0.2"/> i can now recognize <pause dur="1.0"/> okay with the benefit that the journey the progress i've made and the discovery of knowledge i can now recognize <pause dur="0.8"/> that they were based <pause dur="1.2"/> # on principles or ideas that were not clear <pause dur="0.3"/> clear and distinct <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> so for example Descartes says we can now abandon or jettison the dreaming hypothesis <pause dur="0.8"/> we can now abandon or jettison <pause dur="0.2"/> that hypothesis we no longer have to take it seriously <pause dur="3.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> why simply because we're now he says in the realm of the pure mind <pause dur="0.9"/> we've emancipated the mind <pause dur="0.6"/> from the

contamination of the senses <pause dur="0.5"/> or the deception <pause dur="0.8"/> # that our senses are subject to <pause dur="0.9"/> we're in the realm of the pure mind <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore we're not subject <pause dur="0.3"/> any longer to that <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of deception <pause dur="0.5"/> we're no longer subject to the same kind of deception <pause dur="7.4"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> okay what i'm going to do now is <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> follow Descartes' deduction <pause dur="0.7"/> of the existence of material things <pause dur="0.8"/> okay how does he proceed <pause dur="0.3"/> in his deduction <pause dur="1.0"/> of the existence of material things <pause dur="1.9"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> now i should stress <pause dur="1.3"/> that what i'm going to say <pause dur="0.3"/> or what Descartes has to say <pause dur="0.3"/> may not be readily clear and transparent it's a very <pause dur="0.3"/> dense and convoluted part <pause dur="0.4"/> of the meditation <pause dur="0.5"/> so what i suggest <pause dur="1.0"/> i mean what i've done here is to try and break it down <pause dur="0.4"/> into three key components what i suggest is that people follow up the argument themselves <pause dur="0.5"/> by reading the crucial passages that i'm drawing upon <pause dur="0.4"/> after the <trunc>lect</trunc> after the lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> and before next week's seminar <pause dur="0.5"/> and the the page references <pause dur="0.4"/> are pages fifty-four to fifty-five <pause dur="0.3"/> in the Cambridge <trunc>edit</trunc> University Press edition of the

meditations <pause dur="0.8"/> okay what i'm going to say now in this <pause dur="0.3"/> key paragraph <pause dur="0.4"/> split into three key points or components <pause dur="1.0"/> is taken from <pause dur="0.3"/> those pages fifty-four to fifty-five <pause dur="0.9"/> firstly point A we can say # <trunc>d</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> point A of Descartes' deduction <pause dur="2.6"/> i am a thinking substance he says <pause dur="0.3"/> i am a thinking substance that's what primarily and essentially i am <pause dur="2.2"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> i am a thinking substance <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/> and i can clearly and distinctly conceive of myself <pause dur="0.6"/> i can clearly and distinctly conceive of myself <pause dur="0.4"/> in separation from other things <pause dur="0.8"/> okay i can clearly and distinctly <pause dur="0.5"/> conceive of myself <pause dur="0.6"/> in separation from other things <pause dur="0.2"/> such as my body <pause dur="0.2"/> for example <pause dur="1.0"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> in other words i can isolate <pause dur="0.4"/> or bracket off <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> an essential component <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> of my existence namely <pause dur="0.3"/> this thinking substance <pause dur="2.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> now reflecting on myself reveals that i have a passive faculty <pause dur="0.8"/> Descartes says reflecting on myself <pause dur="0.5"/> reveals <pause dur="0.4"/> or reflecting on what it is to be a thinking thing reveals that i have a passive faculty <pause dur="1.0"/> for receiving ideas <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> okay there's a receptivity <pause dur="1.0"/> to the <unclear>cogita</unclear> <pause dur="0.2"/> i have a <trunc>pa</trunc> and this is a passive faculty says Descartes <pause dur="0.6"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> receiving ideas <pause dur="0.7"/> this is the faculty <pause dur="0.3"/> of

perception <pause dur="0.2"/> this is the faculty of perception <pause dur="4.4"/> now Descartes then goes on to say that this <pause dur="0.3"/> passive faculty <pause dur="0.7"/> this passive faculty <pause dur="0.3"/> of perception would be <pause dur="0.5"/> inert <pause dur="1.0"/> it would be inert <pause dur="1.2"/> if there was not also <pause dur="0.4"/> if there was not also <pause dur="0.4"/> an active faculty <pause dur="1.1"/> an active faculty to set it in operation <pause dur="0.8"/> to set it in operation <pause dur="1.1"/> okay so there's a passive faculty <pause dur="0.4"/> a receptive faculty of perception <pause dur="0.6"/> but this requires to be put into operation <pause dur="0.7"/> an active faculty <pause dur="3.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> okay now point B <pause dur="0.5"/> that's point A point B <pause dur="0.8"/> Descartes argues that this latter <pause dur="0.2"/> faculty <pause dur="0.6"/> this latter faculty the active faculty <pause dur="1.4"/> is not essential to me <pause dur="0.8"/> is not essential to me <pause dur="0.4"/> as a thinking thing <pause dur="1.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> okay it's not essential to me as a thinking thing <pause dur="4.9"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> since if it was he says it would pertain to my will <pause dur="0.9"/> if it was an essential <pause dur="0.6"/> aspect of me it would pertain to my will <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore i could control it <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> i could control it and that's what Descartes' arguing we cannot do <pause dur="0.7"/> on an initial foundation <pause dur="2.6"/> this is going to become clearer <pause dur="0.6"/> as the <pause dur="0.3"/> paragraph unfolds <pause dur="2.3"/> it cannot pertain to my will

he says <pause dur="0.2"/> this faculty cannot pertain to my will <pause dur="0.5"/> since ideas <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> are often produced against my will <pause dur="1.7"/> ideas or images <pause dur="1.4"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> come alive in my head <pause dur="0.3"/> are often produced <pause dur="0.3"/> against my will he says <pause dur="1.3"/> okay they'd often come <pause dur="0.5"/> when i'm not anticipating or expecting them <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.5"/> so he reaches the conclusion <pause dur="0.4"/> as the key part point B of his deduction <pause dur="0.6"/> he reaches the conclusion <pause dur="0.6"/> that this <pause dur="0.4"/> faculty must reside in a substance <pause dur="0.7"/> this faculty must reside in a substance that is different from me <pause dur="3.5"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> okay so we've got a thinking substance that's the first part <pause dur="0.3"/> point of the deduction <pause dur="0.5"/> the second point is to deduce the idea <pause dur="0.6"/> or the sorry the claim <pause dur="0.4"/> that there's another substance <pause dur="0.3"/> a second substance and this substance <pause dur="0.4"/> is different from me <pause dur="1.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> now point C is to try and locate <pause dur="0.4"/> the identity <pause dur="0.6"/> of this other substance <pause dur="1.1"/> point C of the deduction is to try and locate <pause dur="0.3"/> the identity of this other substance <pause dur="2.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.1"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/> Descartes does this by arguing that we can infer <pause dur="2.4"/> we can <trunc>fer</trunc> its we can infer its identity <pause dur="0.7"/> by examining the operations <pause dur="1.7"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> this faculty <pause dur="0.9"/> we can infer its identity by examining <pause dur="0.2"/> its

operations namely <pause dur="1.4"/> the ideas that are produced in the imagination <pause dur="0.2"/> namely the ideas <pause dur="0.6"/> that are produced in the imagination <pause dur="2.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.4"/> now Descartes says <pause dur="0.2"/> now says something which is already outlined <pause dur="0.6"/> in meditation three <pause dur="0.2"/> namely that these ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> must possess objective reality <pause dur="0.6"/> their status must be an objective one <pause dur="1.6"/> these ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> that are produced in the imagination by an external substance <pause dur="0.6"/> they must have objective status <pause dur="1.4"/> and they must have causes <pause dur="0.7"/> they must have causes with greater or equal formal reality <pause dur="0.7"/> they must have causes with equal <pause dur="1.2"/> or greater formal reality <pause dur="4.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and he says the only substances that satisfy this constraint <pause dur="0.8"/> the only substances that satisfy this constraint <pause dur="0.3"/> are three <pause dur="0.9"/> firstly bodily substance <pause dur="1.8"/> secondly mental substance and thirdly God <pause dur="0.3"/> there are three substances that satisfy this constraint <pause dur="1.7"/> that is that a <pause dur="0.3"/> objective reality and which must have causes with greater or equal formal reality <pause dur="1.0"/> firstly bodily substance secondly mental substance and thirdly God <pause dur="2.9"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> Descartes argues that God does not equip equip us <pause dur="1.6"/> with the material to recognize <pause dur="0.2"/> God does not equip us <pause dur="0.4"/>

with the material to recognize the latter two <pause dur="1.1"/> as the immediate cause of ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> he does not equip us with the material to recognize the latter two <pause dur="0.5"/> mental substance and God <pause dur="0.3"/> as the immediate cause the immediate <pause dur="0.4"/> the first or spontaneous cause <pause dur="0.5"/> of those ideas <pause dur="4.4"/> what we find he says what we find is that we are strongly inclined <pause dur="0.7"/> here the key word is inclined we are strongly inclined he says <pause dur="0.6"/> to believe <pause dur="0.3"/> that it's bodies <pause dur="0.8"/> other than our own <pause dur="0.9"/> mind substances or bodies other than our own mind which produce <pause dur="0.2"/> the images <pause dur="0.7"/> that take place within our mind <pause dur="0.3"/> through the imagination <pause dur="3.9"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> and he says <pause dur="1.7"/> adding another crucial component to his argument <pause dur="0.5"/> that we can be sure of this <pause dur="0.2"/> we can be sure of this <pause dur="0.4"/> of the truth of this claim <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> that there are bodies outside of us producing images in our own mind <pause dur="0.5"/> we can be sure of this because God is not a deceiver <pause dur="0.2"/> which he believes he has clearly <pause dur="0.4"/> and conclusively established <pause dur="1.0"/> God is not a deceiver <pause dur="2.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> so even though <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean <pause dur="0.7"/> there's a kind of paradox there even though God <pause dur="0.3"/> is not the

immediate cause of ideas in this instance says Descartes <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> he does play the role of guaranteeing <pause dur="0.6"/> that we're not going to be <trunc>con</trunc> ultimately deceived <pause dur="0.4"/> about <pause dur="1.1"/> the nature of those ideas <pause dur="0.8"/> that they come to us spontaneously <pause dur="1.0"/> upon our receptive faculty <pause dur="1.0"/> # through bodily substances <pause dur="1.0"/> so he says the causes of images of things the final <pause dur="0.4"/> conclusion he reaches <pause dur="0.4"/> is that the causes of images of <pause dur="0.2"/> images of things <pause dur="0.4"/> belong to the category of bodily substance <pause dur="0.6"/> the causes of the images of things <pause dur="0.5"/> belong to the category of bodily substance <pause dur="0.7"/> and hence he says <pause dur="0.8"/> perhaps a bit too quickly <pause dur="0.6"/> in his final deduction bodies therefore exist <pause dur="2.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> let's try and unpack that <pause dur="0.4"/> # a bit more <pause dur="0.2"/> to try and make it a bit clearer <pause dur="0.4"/> but clearly obviously the important <pause dur="0.8"/> move that's taking place is that Descartes' trying to deduce the existence <pause dur="0.2"/> of an external substance an extended or corporal substance <pause dur="0.4"/> which is radically different and distinct from <pause dur="0.5"/> his own substance <pause dur="0.3"/> as an intellectual substance <pause dur="1.7"/> in effect what Descartes is doing is making an <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> a distinction an important distinction <pause dur="0.2"/> between the modes of things <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/>

he's making an important distinction between the modes of things <pause dur="0.6"/> and the thing itself <pause dur="2.2"/> okay he's making an important distinction between the modes of things <pause dur="0.9"/> and thing itself <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.4"/> so our intellectual faculty for example our intellectual faculty <pause dur="0.3"/> synthesizes it synthesizes <pause dur="0.6"/> the material <pause dur="0.2"/> that is presented to it <pause dur="1.1"/> synthesizes the material <pause dur="0.2"/> or the information that is presented to it <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.2"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> and in this regard the most important <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> # function of the intellect is to make judgements <pause dur="0.5"/> is to make judgements <pause dur="1.0"/> about the information <pause dur="0.5"/> it is <pause dur="0.2"/> receiving <pause dur="2.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.3"/> now Descartes then argues that there are also other <trunc>f</trunc> faculties in operation <pause dur="0.9"/> there are other faculties in operation and here <pause dur="0.3"/> his usage of faculties is quite curious <pause dur="0.7"/> okay because what he means are things like <pause dur="0.3"/> change in positions <pause dur="0.4"/> when he says there are faculties other than this intellectual faculty <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.4"/> faculty that synthesizes information <pause dur="0.4"/> says there are other faculties <pause dur="1.7"/> like changing positions and assuming different shapes <pause dur="0.8"/> okay these kind of # capacities Descartes calls <pause dur="0.4"/>

faculties <pause dur="1.6"/> changing position <pause dur="0.2"/> and assuming shapes <pause dur="0.5"/> which is what bodily <pause dur="0.4"/> corporeal objects he says do all the time <pause dur="0.8"/> but they do not involve he says this is the key point he makes they do not involve these operations <pause dur="0.7"/> do not involve any intellectual act <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.0"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> they do not involve any intellectual act and therefore <pause dur="0.9"/> it follows for him <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> that they have to be understood <pause dur="0.2"/> as residing in some other <pause dur="0.3"/> substance <pause dur="0.6"/> namely a corporeal <pause dur="0.7"/> or extended substance <pause dur="0.7"/> if they don't involve any intellectual act <pause dur="0.2"/> then they don't belong to the mind the mental substance <pause dur="0.3"/> therefore they belong to another substance <pause dur="0.9"/> the corporeal <pause dur="0.4"/> or extended substance <pause dur="5.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> now let us note what Descartes is doing in trying to prove the existence <pause dur="0.6"/> of a material world <pause dur="0.8"/> okay and there's two key aspects <pause dur="0.6"/> to what's going on <pause dur="0.3"/> in his argument <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> there's two key aspects firstly <pause dur="2.2"/> his certainty his certainty the certainty that he's trying to develop <pause dur="0.6"/> that material things do in fact exist <pause dur="0.9"/> that material <trunc>fa</trunc> things do in fact exist <pause dur="0.8"/> is due <pause dur="1.2"/> his

certainty that material things do in fact exist is due <pause dur="0.4"/> to reflecting <pause dur="0.2"/> on the kind of capacity <pause dur="0.6"/> he thinks sense <trunc>mus</trunc> sense perception must be <pause dur="1.0"/> okay so his certainty that material things do in fact exist is due <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> to his reflecting on the kind of capacity <pause dur="0.5"/> which he thinks sense perception <pause dur="0.2"/> must be <pause dur="0.2"/> the kind of capacity <pause dur="0.6"/> that sense perception must be <pause dur="2.8"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> he notices as i've already said that sensible ideas come into existence <pause dur="0.4"/> against his will <pause dur="0.6"/> he notices that sensible ideas come into existence <pause dur="1.2"/> sorry come into <trunc>hi</trunc> his consciousness <pause dur="0.4"/> against his will <pause dur="0.6"/> sensible ideas come into existence and come <trunc>int</trunc> enter his consciousness <pause dur="0.4"/> against his will <pause dur="2.5"/> so this means or this shows he <trunc>s</trunc> he argues <pause dur="1.1"/> this shows he argues that his capacity <pause dur="0.4"/> for sense perception <pause dur="0.6"/> the capacity he has <pause dur="0.5"/> for sense perception <pause dur="2.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> is set into operation <pause dur="0.2"/> by something <pause dur="0.2"/> outside of his consciousness <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> his capacity <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>per</trunc> sense perception <pause dur="0.3"/> is set into operation by something outside his consciousness <pause dur="0.5"/> and hence which is distinct from his mind <pause dur="1.3"/> okay <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> set into

operation by something outside of his consciousness <pause dur="0.2"/> and which can therefore be claimed to be distinct <pause dur="0.4"/> from the mind <pause dur="7.0"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> he is conscious he says of the effects he is conscious of the effects of the operation <pause dur="0.8"/> of this active faculty he's conscious of the operation <pause dur="0.7"/> of this active faculty <pause dur="0.3"/> namely the ideas that it produces <pause dur="1.3"/> he's conscious of that operation <pause dur="1.0"/> and therefore he says he can infer <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> the existence of those ideas <pause dur="1.7"/> he can infer <pause dur="0.4"/> from the existence of those ideas the existence of material things <pause dur="0.7"/> which have the power <pause dur="0.2"/> which have the power to produce <pause dur="0.2"/> certain ideas within us <pause dur="2.1"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> okay so he says from being conscious of the active operation <pause dur="2.1"/> <trunc>o</trunc> sorry from the operation of that active faculty namely that it produces in us certain ideas <pause dur="0.7"/> he can infer from the existence <pause dur="0.5"/> of those ideas the existence of material things which have the power <pause dur="0.8"/> to produce those ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> that's the first <pause dur="1.0"/> key aspect

now comes the second one <pause dur="0.5"/> which is crucial for modifying what he's just <pause dur="0.2"/> claimed <pause dur="0.5"/> the second one <pause dur="1.3"/> what he cannot do <pause dur="0.3"/> he says what he cannot do <pause dur="1.0"/> is to safely draw conclusions about the nature <pause dur="0.9"/> what he can't do is to safely draw conclusions about the nature <pause dur="0.4"/> of material things <pause dur="0.7"/> from the ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> that arise under their influence <pause dur="0.5"/> okay that's the key point i'll say it again <pause dur="0.4"/> what he cannot do is to safely <trunc>co</trunc> draw conclusions about the nature the specific <pause dur="0.6"/> detailed nature <pause dur="0.9"/> he cannot draw conclusions about the specific detailed nature of those material things <pause dur="1.1"/> from the ideas that arise under their influence <pause dur="1.4"/> okay so he can <trunc>co</trunc> contemplate the ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> that are being produced in his mind <pause dur="0.7"/> he's aware that his mind is thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> he's aware that his mind is being activated by something outside of itself but what he cannot then do <pause dur="0.7"/> in any simple sense <pause dur="1.1"/> is to grasp <pause dur="0.4"/> or understand the nature <pause dur="0.9"/> the detailed nature of those material things which are producing the ideas within his mind <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> so this is the point for example the this is the point that he's making <pause dur="0.8"/> when he says that corporeal

things this is the point he is making <pause dur="0.6"/> when he says in meditation six <pause dur="0.7"/> that <reading>corporeal things <pause dur="1.2"/> are perhaps</reading> this is the quote he says <reading>are perhaps not exactly <pause dur="0.4"/> what we perceive by the senses</reading> <pause dur="1.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> corporeal things are not exactly <pause dur="0.8"/> what we perceive by the senses <pause dur="1.3"/> <reading>since this comprehension <pause dur="1.7"/> by the senses <pause dur="0.2"/> is in many cases obscure <pause dur="0.2"/> and confused</reading> <pause dur="2.2"/> okay so these corporeal things <pause dur="0.6"/> this is what he means he says <pause dur="0.4"/> corporeal things are perhaps not exactly what we perceive <pause dur="0.9"/> by the senses <pause dur="0.7"/> since they <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> this comprehension by the senses is in many cases or instances <pause dur="0.3"/> obscure and confused <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> so what Descartes' got to try and do is to <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>extr</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> extrapolate <pause dur="0.4"/> from the information the mind is receiving <pause dur="0.6"/> he's got to try and extrapolate what is clear and distinct <pause dur="0.9"/> therefore making a separation between what is clear and distinct <pause dur="0.4"/> from what is obscure <pause dur="0.3"/> and confused <pause dur="0.3"/> and this is what's motivating his move in the direction <pause dur="0.5"/> of a certain geometrical precision <pause dur="0.4"/> about the essential nature of objects <pause dur="1.0"/> which is not going to be revealed to us simply through sensory perception <pause dur="3.3"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> okay so in order to have reliable thoughts about nature <pause dur="0.9"/> or the components of nature <pause dur="0.8"/> we have to rely not on what we sense <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> on what we conceive <pause dur="0.5"/> in order to

have reliable <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> knowledge <pause dur="0.3"/> of nature we have to rely <pause dur="1.1"/> on what not on what we sense but on what we conceive that is <pause dur="0.8"/> we have to rely on the understanding <pause dur="0.2"/> or the pure intellect <pause dur="2.5"/> now for Descartes <pause dur="0.4"/> as i've indicated this means having recourse <pause dur="0.3"/> to the realm of the clear and the distinct <pause dur="0.8"/> which is the realm for him of pure mathematics <pause dur="1.5"/> we have to have recourse to the realm <pause dur="0.3"/> of the clear and the distinct <pause dur="0.4"/> that is the realm of pure mathematics <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> in other words what we'll be concerned with <pause dur="0.3"/> in our theory of knowledge or our epistemology what we'll be concerned with <pause dur="1.6"/> is what is general to things trying to identify what is general to things <pause dur="0.4"/> as opposed to what is particular about <pause dur="2.2"/> in short as i <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>al</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> already # <pause dur="0.7"/> repeated a number of times our attention will be focused on those primary qualities <pause dur="0.7"/> of objects not on the secondary qualities <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> things like shape size and motion <pause dur="0.9"/> as opposed to things like sound <pause dur="0.7"/> taste and pain <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> for example he says we can be sure <pause dur="0.5"/> we can be sure <pause dur="0.6"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>ge</trunc> our general principles of the sun <pause dur="0.4"/> we can be sure of our general principles of the sun <pause dur="0.7"/> namely that it

has a <trunc>cer</trunc> certain shape and size <pause dur="0.9"/> and that it is # it exists <pause dur="0.2"/> extended in space <pause dur="0.5"/> this kind of knowledge <pause dur="0.6"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> knowledge <pause dur="0.3"/> that is certain <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> as for things like sounds <pause dur="0.3"/> and pain he says <pause dur="0.6"/> these seem to pertain to matter <pause dur="0.2"/> as for things more secondary qualities like sound and pain <pause dur="0.4"/> sound and pain <pause dur="0.4"/> these seem to pertain to matter he says <pause dur="1.1"/> in virtue only of the particular <pause dur="1.2"/> sensibilities <pause dur="0.6"/> of our own existence as human beings <pause dur="1.0"/> okay those secondary qualities of things <pause dur="0.3"/> seem to pertain to matter only in virtue <pause dur="0.8"/> of the particular or peculiar sensibilities <pause dur="0.7"/> of ourselves <pause dur="0.7"/> as human beings <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> and do not exist independently <pause dur="0.2"/> they do not enjoy an independent existence <pause dur="2.5"/> now let's be clear about what Descartes' saying there <pause dur="0.8"/> clearly he's saying there is some basis in objects <pause dur="0.3"/> there is some basis <pause dur="0.5"/> in objects <pause dur="0.4"/> for me to have experiences <pause dur="0.3"/> of colour <pause dur="0.5"/> sounds <pause dur="0.2"/> smells and taste <pause dur="0.4"/> clearly there is some basis <pause dur="0.3"/> in objects for me to have those <pause dur="0.4"/> subjective experiences <pause dur="3.7"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/> experiences of colour sound <pause dur="0.2"/> smell taste and so on <pause dur="1.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> the point

he's making is that we cannot be sure <pause dur="1.0"/> on the evidence of sense experience <pause dur="0.4"/> what that basis is <pause dur="0.4"/> we cannot be sure <pause dur="0.2"/> on the evidence of sense perception <pause dur="0.8"/> what that basis is <pause dur="4.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="6.8"/> what we can be sure of <pause dur="0.2"/> says Descartes <pause dur="0.6"/> is that bodies have general properties what we can be sure of <pause dur="0.4"/> is that bodies have general properties <pause dur="1.3"/> and that they can be discovered by the mind <pause dur="0.7"/> independently of the senses <pause dur="1.3"/> okay what we can be sure of is that bodies have general properties <pause dur="0.3"/> all bodies have <pause dur="0.5"/> general properties that can be discovered by the mind <pause dur="0.5"/> working <pause dur="0.5"/> independently of the senses <pause dur="2.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="5.3"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/> now the key question to ask obviously <vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> is whether there are such things the key question to ask <pause dur="0.3"/> of Descartes' argument <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> is obviously whether there are such things as geometrical objects <pause dur="1.1"/> the key question to ask is whether there are such things <pause dur="0.4"/> as geometrical objects <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> which apply <pause dur="0.5"/> which apply to concrete <pause dur="0.4"/> empirically identifiable <pause dur="0.5"/> bodies <pause dur="0.3"/> and not just to abstract figures <pause dur="1.3"/> okay do these geometrical <pause dur="1.4"/> <trunc>ide</trunc> # objects and the ideas we have of them <pause dur="0.5"/> do they apply to concrete <pause dur="0.5"/> empirically

identifiable and often complex <pause dur="0.5"/> bodies <pause dur="0.3"/> and not just to abstract figures <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> in other words how do we know that we're not simply imposing <pause dur="0.3"/> upon <pause dur="1.3"/> a more complex reality <pause dur="0.8"/> simply our own geometrical <pause dur="0.3"/> prejudices <pause dur="0.9"/> some need that we have <pause dur="1.4"/> to have <pause dur="0.6"/> a neat and tidy conception <pause dur="0.4"/> or understanding of reality <pause dur="2.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> how do we know that it's not ultimately <pause dur="1.5"/> part of our own subjective make-up <pause dur="0.3"/> just like the secondary qualities <pause dur="1.5"/> okay now if <trunc>tha</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> if we can sustain that argument <pause dur="0.5"/> then Descartes' whole position is placed into peril <pause dur="0.9"/> simply 'cause it means we haven't got over <pause dur="0.3"/> what he wants us to overcome <pause dur="0.2"/> namely <pause dur="0.3"/> subjectivism <pause dur="0.2"/> solipsism <pause dur="0.3"/> and the whole doubt <pause dur="0.4"/> that he's opened up the whole question of doubt <pause dur="0.4"/> that he's opened up <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> it also calls into question <pause dur="0.8"/> his need and desire <pause dur="0.5"/> to arrive at a non-biologically based <pause dur="0.4"/> conception <pause dur="0.4"/> of science or knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> a non-biologically based <pause dur="0.3"/> conception of science or knowledge in other words <pause dur="0.8"/> a conception of knowledge which would be <pause dur="0.8"/> species <trunc>spe</trunc> specific it would be

peculiar <pause dur="0.8"/> to our own <pause dur="0.3"/> human <pause dur="0.6"/> # existence <pause dur="1.5"/> as you recall this is one of Descartes' major <pause dur="0.5"/> aims <pause dur="0.3"/> is to develop <pause dur="0.8"/> a system of knowledge <pause dur="0.5"/> that is # <pause dur="0.7"/> mathematically based <pause dur="0.4"/> and which is objective that is <pause dur="0.2"/> it's independent of our particular biological <trunc>con</trunc> constitution <pause dur="1.0"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> now what we cannot be sure of <pause dur="0.3"/> is that Descartes has ever <pause dur="0.3"/> accomplished the task <pause dur="0.3"/> that he set that he has set himself <pause dur="1.4"/> okay how do we know <pause dur="0.2"/> that this <pause dur="0.4"/> emphasis <pause dur="0.2"/> on geometrical precision is not simply <pause dur="0.6"/> the <trunc>re</trunc> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the product <pause dur="0.3"/> of some peculiar need or desire <pause dur="0.6"/> of the human animal <pause dur="0.6"/> to control <pause dur="0.2"/> external reality to domesticate nature control or tame nature <pause dur="0.8"/> and one of the ways of doing that <pause dur="0.4"/> is by having a very neat and tidy conception of the material world <pause dur="1.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> which has this clarity and distinctness <pause dur="0.5"/> that Descartes' aiming for how do we know that that's not simply <pause dur="0.4"/> a human prejudice <pause dur="0.7"/> or # a human <trunc>pre</trunc> predisposition <pause dur="2.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/> what we can say <pause dur="0.4"/> is that Descartes' <pause dur="0.3"/> attempt to exclude <pause dur="0.2"/> Descartes' attempt to exclude sense <pause dur="0.3"/> based properties <pause dur="0.7"/> Descartes' attempt to exclude sense based properties <pause dur="0.8"/> from scientific knowledge results in a very

austere <pause dur="0.3"/> understanding of the world <pause dur="0.7"/> its attempt to exclude <pause dur="0.4"/> from scientific knowledge <pause dur="0.2"/> sense based properties <pause dur="0.7"/> results in very austere <pause dur="0.4"/> conception or understanding of the world <pause dur="0.2"/> which is reduced to essentially <pause dur="0.6"/> the properties of extension <pause dur="0.2"/> and motion <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> is essentially <pause dur="0.5"/> what the world is according to Descartes <pause dur="0.5"/> so it's reduced <pause dur="0.5"/> to extension and motion it gives us a very austere conception of the world <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> now later philosophers after Descartes <pause dur="0.7"/> people like Leibniz and Locke <pause dur="0.3"/> added more <pause dur="1.1"/> primary qualities <pause dur="1.3"/> notions of force <pause dur="0.2"/> and solidity for example <pause dur="1.0"/> but even though they added a few more <pause dur="0.6"/> primary properties <pause dur="0.4"/> they still argued they still agreed with Descartes <pause dur="0.6"/> they still agreed <pause dur="0.3"/> with Descartes <pause dur="0.4"/> that ultimately reality <pause dur="0.3"/> was made up of very simple components <pause dur="0.2"/> or simple properties <pause dur="1.3"/> and that any complexity that the world has <pause dur="0.4"/> is merely <pause dur="0.3"/> a surface phenomena <pause dur="1.2"/> okay so even though <pause dur="0.4"/> the list of <trunc>pro</trunc> primary properties was extended by later philosophers <pause dur="0.2"/> after Descartes such as Locke and Leibniz <pause dur="0.4"/> they still agreed with him <pause dur="0.8"/> that in

essence the world <pause dur="0.6"/> was composed of simple <pause dur="0.8"/> natures <pause dur="0.6"/> or one or two <pause dur="0.4"/> essential components <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore any complexity of the world <pause dur="0.7"/> # that we perceived in the world was an entirely surface phenomena <pause dur="1.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> now Descartes' <pause dur="0.2"/> desire to reduce the world <pause dur="0.5"/> to a few essential <pause dur="0.3"/> features <pause dur="0.6"/> Descartes' desire <pause dur="0.2"/> to reduce the world to a few essential features <pause dur="0.5"/> is all part of his ambition <pause dur="0.4"/> it's all part of his ambition <pause dur="1.0"/> to know the world as it is in itself <pause dur="0.3"/> to know the world <pause dur="0.8"/> as it is in itself that is independently <pause dur="0.3"/> of his particular constitution <pause dur="1.5"/> independently of his particular <pause dur="0.5"/> constitution <pause dur="0.2"/> that is as Descartes <pause dur="0.7"/> was an embodied person <pause dur="0.4"/> living in a particular society <pause dur="0.3"/> at a particular point in time with a certain history and memory <pause dur="0.6"/> and with a certain biology <pause dur="0.4"/> it's all part of his ambition <pause dur="0.2"/> to transcend <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> particularity of constitution <pause dur="2.0"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.6"/> and he says to do this we've got to subtract from our view of the world we've got to subtract to do this <pause dur="0.8"/> he says we find it necessary to subtract from our view of

the world whatever <pause dur="1.0"/> is contributed <pause dur="0.6"/> by our biology whatever is contributed by our biology <pause dur="1.0"/> we've got to subtract from that <pause dur="0.4"/> whatever's contributed by our biology so it's an incredible sort of ambition <pause dur="0.6"/> that Descartes' <pause dur="0.4"/> undertaken <pause dur="0.9"/> to arrive at <pause dur="0.2"/> the conception of <trunc>so</trunc> science that he's <pause dur="0.5"/> he wants to arrive at <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> okay so both # # in substance is a very bold move but also because of its boldness it makes his position very vulnerable <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> okay what i want to do now is to turn to the second part of the lecture and offer some <pause dur="0.3"/> reflections or some insight and then reflections <pause dur="0.6"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> Descartes' notorious dualism of the mind and the body <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <trunc>per</trunc> perhaps the # <pause dur="1.6"/> the thing that Descartes or Cartesian philosophy <pause dur="0.6"/> is most <pause dur="0.4"/> # renowned for <pause dur="0.5"/> for advocating a strict separation <pause dur="0.6"/> of mind and body <pause dur="3.4"/> a principle task of meditation six <pause dur="0.3"/> a principle task of meditation six is to show that material things exist <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> material things exist <pause dur="0.2"/> but that they are not in themselves as they appear <pause dur="0.7"/> to the senses <pause dur="0.8"/> okay so a principle task <pause dur="0.3"/> of that final meditation <pause dur="1.2"/> as we've just seen is to show that

material things material things exist but they <pause dur="0.5"/> but that they are not <pause dur="0.3"/> in themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> as they appear <pause dur="0.5"/> to our senses <pause dur="1.7"/> so that the sense based view of nature or matter <pause dur="0.6"/> requires correction by a superior understanding <pause dur="0.5"/> the sense based view of matter <pause dur="0.4"/> requires correction and modification <pause dur="0.4"/> by a superior understanding <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.0"/> now Descartes <pause dur="1.4"/> in the rest of the meditation then goes on to make the same kind of claims <pause dur="0.5"/> about the self <pause dur="0.5"/> about the identity of the self <pause dur="0.9"/> what he'll do <pause dur="0.2"/> is to talk about the self <pause dur="0.4"/> in two modes he'll talk about the self in two modes firstly <pause dur="0.9"/> he'll offer a sense based understanding of the self and show that that's deficient <pause dur="0.6"/> and then he'll offer <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>m</trunc> well he called it <pause dur="0.2"/> takes to be a superior rational <pause dur="0.4"/> rational or reason based conception of the self <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.5"/> okay so there's a certain isomorphism there between what Descartes' just said <pause dur="0.6"/> about material bodies and now what he's going to say about his own body <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.8"/> he says i feel myself to be he says i feel myself to be a mixture <pause dur="0.8"/> or an intermingling <pause dur="0.2"/> of a body and a mind i feel that's what i feel myself to be <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> a mixture or a <trunc>hin</trunc>

intermingling of mind and body <pause dur="0.8"/> but what he wants to show or argue <pause dur="0.5"/> is that this is not in fact the case <pause dur="0.2"/> what there is is a union <pause dur="0.7"/> there's a union not an intermingling a union of two distinct <pause dur="0.2"/> components <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.4"/> more than that <pause dur="0.2"/> not only <trunc>w</trunc> does he want to argue that the mind and body<pause dur="0.4"/> are two distinct components but he also wants to argue <pause dur="0.7"/> that only the mental component <pause dur="0.9"/> is essential <pause dur="0.7"/> to a self <pause dur="0.5"/> to what it means to be a self <pause dur="0.2"/> only the mental component <pause dur="0.4"/> is essential <pause dur="2.8"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> okay so the sense based <pause dur="0.2"/> conception of the self <pause dur="1.5"/> what i feel <pause dur="0.2"/> myself to be and what i perceive <pause dur="0.4"/> that i have a head <pause dur="1.1"/> # feet <pause dur="1.4"/> and so on all of this <pause dur="0.3"/> forms <pause dur="0.3"/> the inessential self for Descartes <pause dur="0.9"/> okay all of this this what i <pause dur="0.2"/> what i perceive <pause dur="0.2"/> through my senses to be my body <pause dur="0.3"/> forms the inessential self he says <pause dur="4.7"/> okay even though this body belongs strictly to me and is the site <pause dur="0.4"/> even though this body belongs strictly to me <pause dur="0.5"/> and is the site of all my affections and appetites <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> the site of all my appetites and affections the source of my pleasure and pain <pause dur="0.4"/> he says

it forms the inessential <pause dur="0.5"/> part <pause dur="0.3"/> of what i truly am <pause dur="0.2"/> the inessential part <pause dur="0.4"/> of what i truly am <pause dur="3.8"/> in other words <trunc>be</trunc> because we cannot rely on the senses we cannot also rely <pause dur="0.3"/> on this sense based conception of the self <pause dur="0.5"/> to arrive <pause dur="0.2"/> at an adequate conception of the self <pause dur="0.9"/> okay if in fact we cannot rely on the senses <pause dur="0.6"/> which is what the meditations has tried to demonstrate <pause dur="0.3"/> conclusively <pause dur="0.2"/> up to this point <pause dur="0.4"/> we cannot rely on the sense based conception in order to arrive <pause dur="0.5"/> at a true identity <pause dur="0.3"/> of the self <pause dur="1.0"/> and this is true he says in the case of both external sensations of the body <pause dur="0.5"/> this is true in the case of both external sensations of the body <pause dur="0.3"/> and internal <trunc>sen</trunc> sensations <pause dur="0.4"/> he makes that distinction <pause dur="0.5"/> between external sensations of the body <pause dur="0.3"/> and internal sensations <pause dur="1.5"/> so external sensations <pause dur="0.4"/> will be things like that are dependent upon the stimulation <pause dur="1.0"/> things that are dependent on the stimulation of our sense organs <pause dur="0.6"/> such as our eyes and our ears and our nose <pause dur="1.5"/> these produce beliefs about <pause dur="0.6"/> the sizes and shapes of things <pause dur="1.6"/> as seen from various distances but

are always subject to illusion <pause dur="0.5"/> okay those external sensations <pause dur="0.3"/> are subject to illusions <pause dur="0.4"/> those sensations <pause dur="0.4"/> which are dependent upon the stimulation of my sense organs <pause dur="1.0"/> which give me certain ideas of the shapes and positions of things in relation to various distances but produce illusions <pause dur="0.4"/> like looking at the sun <pause dur="0.2"/> just looking at it <pause dur="0.2"/> and thinking it's <pause dur="0.3"/> a very small object <pause dur="0.8"/> but there are also internal sensations says Descartes <pause dur="0.4"/> such as pain <pause dur="0.6"/> which we can locate in a part of the body <pause dur="0.5"/> internal sensations such as a pain <pause dur="0.4"/> in a part of the body <pause dur="0.8"/> all of these <pause dur="0.3"/> sensations <trunc>int</trunc> external and internal <pause dur="0.2"/> belong to the inessential self <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.6"/> so what he does now is is to introduce <pause dur="0.5"/> a reason based <pause dur="0.3"/> self <pause dur="1.4"/> he introduces the idea of a reason <pause dur="0.3"/> based self which is designed to show <pause dur="1.2"/> that the mind and body <pause dur="0.2"/> can be separated <pause dur="0.7"/> and seen to be distinct <pause dur="0.6"/> components <pause dur="0.6"/> can be seen to be distinct components <pause dur="3.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> now what Descartes does is to acknowledge <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> even though he says we can't have reliable we can't form <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> we can't base reliable knowledge <pause dur="0.5"/> on our sense based self he does acknowledge or

concede <pause dur="1.5"/> that the sensory information we receive <pause dur="1.0"/> plays an important role <pause dur="0.2"/> in our survival <pause dur="0.6"/> the sensory information we receive <pause dur="0.2"/> and act upon <pause dur="0.4"/> plays an important role he says in our survival <pause dur="0.9"/> but it's limited <pause dur="0.3"/> to our biological constitution <pause dur="0.9"/> so his argument there is in fact quite close <pause dur="0.5"/> strangely enough <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> more later nineteenth century Darwinian ideas <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> about <pause dur="0.6"/> our <pause dur="0.4"/> # senses and faculties <pause dur="0.4"/> evolving over time <pause dur="0.3"/> in accordance with <pause dur="0.2"/> the needs <pause dur="0.6"/> the <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the needs we have as an animal <pause dur="0.2"/> to adapt <pause dur="0.3"/> to changes in circumstances <pause dur="0.9"/> Descartes acknowledges that point <pause dur="0.4"/> and says <pause dur="0.5"/> that that's what our senses do they enable us to survive <pause dur="1.0"/> they respond to certain situations <pause dur="0.6"/> and provoke certain responses <pause dur="0.6"/> okay gives us a sense of danger <pause dur="0.4"/> or warning for example <pause dur="1.5"/> but he says they are not sufficiently clear and distinct <pause dur="0.5"/> they are not sufficiently clear and distinct <pause dur="2.0"/> and only teaches what is confused and obscure <pause dur="0.5"/> they only teach what is <trunc>con</trunc> confused and obscure in other words their role <pause dur="0.3"/> if <trunc>y</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> one can say <pause dur="0.6"/> is entirely <pause dur="0.3"/> instinctual or instinctive <pause dur="1.7"/> okay the sense based impressions and

perceptions that we're picking up on <pause dur="1.1"/> have a survival value <pause dur="1.4"/> but they are relative <pause dur="0.3"/> to our biological constitution they play an important role <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's precisely <pause dur="0.4"/> the role that's limited <pause dur="0.6"/> to the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> evolutionary <pause dur="0.2"/> need to survive <pause dur="1.4"/> and to adapt <pause dur="2.1"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> okay so it's inadequate <pause dur="0.6"/> Descartes' claim is <pause dur="0.3"/> his claim that he <pause dur="0.3"/> deduces from that is to say that it's inadequate <pause dur="0.5"/> to base a scientific conception <pause dur="0.3"/> of matter or nature <pause dur="2.2"/> on <pause dur="0.9"/> the needs we have to survive and adapt it's inadequate to base <pause dur="0.4"/> a scientific conception of nature <pause dur="0.7"/> on the on the sense based aspects of our self <pause dur="0.2"/> which we need in order to survive and adapt <pause dur="1.2"/> okay scientific investigation cannot be based <pause dur="0.8"/> on this sense based <trunc>concep</trunc> # <pause dur="0.2"/> sense based <trunc>ac</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> # aspect of our existence <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.8"/> now Descartes then develops <pause dur="0.2"/> a crucial premise <pause dur="0.3"/> in his argument he develops a crucial premise <pause dur="0.3"/> in his argument <pause dur="0.4"/> which is designed to <pause dur="0.2"/> separate <pause dur="0.8"/> and make clearly distinct <pause dur="0.6"/> the components of mind and body <pause dur="1.1"/> for example <pause dur="0.2"/> namely he argues that if bodily <trunc>a</trunc> attributes if bodily attributes <pause dur="0.4"/> can be subtracted <pause dur="0.9"/> from the conception of the self

if bodily attributes can be <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> subtracted <pause dur="1.2"/> from the conception of the self <pause dur="2.1"/> if these bodily attributes <pause dur="0.5"/> can be subtracted <pause dur="1.2"/> from the conception of the self <pause dur="1.6"/> without taking away <pause dur="0.2"/> a clear and distinct conception of the self <pause dur="1.2"/> without taking away a clear and distinct conception of the self <pause dur="1.5"/> then bodily attributes can be regarded as extraneous <pause dur="0.5"/> and inessential to the self <pause dur="0.7"/> okay that's basically the essential premise <pause dur="0.8"/> in the meditation the final meditation regarding the <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> regarding <pause dur="0.5"/> the separability of mind and body and <pause dur="0.2"/> regarding the <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.6"/> need to treat them as distinct <pause dur="0.5"/> components <pause dur="0.8"/> if we can subtract <pause dur="0.2"/> bodily attributes <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> from the conception of self without taking away <pause dur="0.6"/> the idea of the self being clear and distinct <pause dur="0.4"/> then those bodily attributes can be regarded he says as inessential <pause dur="0.6"/> and extraneous <pause dur="0.7"/> to our notion of the self <pause dur="3.2"/> now in answer to the question is it possible to conceive of ourselves <pause dur="0.2"/> in answer to the question <pause dur="0.6"/> is it possible to conceive of ourselves <pause dur="0.5"/> as being devoid <pause dur="0.2"/> of powers of imagination <pause dur="0.6"/> and sensation <pause dur="0.6"/> and yet still <pause dur="0.3"/> have a sense of self <pause dur="0.5"/> Descartes'

answer is yes <pause dur="0.2"/> it is possible <pause dur="1.8"/> to <pause dur="0.9"/> regard ourselves <pause dur="0.7"/> as beings devoid of imagination <pause dur="0.5"/> and sensation <pause dur="0.2"/> and still <pause dur="2.5"/> have a sense of ourselves as a self <pause dur="0.5"/> is this still possible <pause dur="0.5"/> Descartes' answer <pause dur="0.3"/> is is yes <pause dur="1.8"/> what he argues <pause dur="0.4"/> what he argues on this point <pause dur="0.8"/> is that completeness <pause dur="0.6"/> does not reside in the number of components of a thing <pause dur="1.1"/> the completeness of a thing such as our self <pause dur="0.7"/> does not reside in the number of components <pause dur="0.8"/> or attributes <pause dur="0.4"/> but only in their essential ones <pause dur="1.0"/> okay to have a <pause dur="0.4"/> sense of a completeness of something <pause dur="0.4"/> such as a self <pause dur="0.4"/> does not he says reside in the number of components <pause dur="0.8"/> but rather only in the essential attributes or components of a thing <pause dur="0.4"/> and this is what he's trying to do in his theory of the self he's trying to deduce <pause dur="0.4"/> what are the essential attributes of a self <pause dur="1.5"/> and to isolate them and say if we can extract them <pause dur="0.6"/> from the other components namely bodily components or attributes <pause dur="0.3"/> and if we're still left with something that we can identify <pause dur="0.4"/> as clear and distinct <pause dur="0.3"/> then what we've got is

what is essential <pause dur="0.5"/> to that thing <pause dur="0.3"/> in this case the self <pause dur="0.5"/> namely thought <pause dur="0.4"/> and consciousness <pause dur="0.3"/> and Descartes believes we can do all of that <pause dur="0.6"/> we can extract <pause dur="0.2"/> or subtract <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> these essential properties <pause dur="0.7"/> from the bodily attributes and still be left with a clear <trunc>s</trunc> a conception that is clear and distinct <pause dur="2.4"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> now in the final part of the lecture i just want to end on a critical note and then go out with a bang <pause dur="0.7"/> by # reading a passage from Nietzsche <pause dur="0.4"/> # i've resisted all along that i hope you respect from bringing Nietzsche into these lectures <pause dur="0.5"/> but i'm afraid my resistance is now <pause dur="0.6"/> low and # i've brought some Nietzsche in for us to read <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> so we'll end on that point we'll we'll <trunc>re</trunc> we'll finish by reading the passage from Nietzsche <pause dur="0.7"/> but that <pause dur="0.2"/> passage will hopefully follow from what i've now got to say <pause dur="0.5"/> in the final part of the lecture offering some critical reflections <pause dur="0.6"/> on Descartes' <pause dur="0.5"/> curious notion of the self <pause dur="1.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/> what we'll see i mean i'm introducing Nietzsche at this point but in in many respects <pause dur="0.2"/> what Nietzsche has to say about

the self and the subject <pause dur="0.4"/> # is prefigured in Hume <pause dur="0.3"/> who we're going to look at <pause dur="0.2"/> next week <pause dur="1.0"/> now in response to Cartesianism <pause dur="0.7"/> Hume argues that basically its position <pause dur="0.2"/> amounts to nonsense <pause dur="0.9"/> in short he says <pause dur="0.2"/> this is nonsense <pause dur="0.5"/> a mental substance alone he says is not sufficient <pause dur="0.3"/> a mental substance alone is not sufficient <pause dur="0.5"/> to constitute a self <pause dur="0.7"/> a mental substance alone isolating a mental substance <pause dur="0.4"/> is not sufficient <pause dur="0.2"/> for constituting a self <pause dur="1.5"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> and the idea of a soul <pause dur="0.2"/> which Descartes also wants to develop <pause dur="0.4"/> from this isolation of the soul because if you've isolated the soul from the body then clearly you've isolated something <pause dur="0.5"/> which is immaterial <pause dur="1.0"/> okay which enjoys an a <pause dur="0.2"/> a radically different existence to <pause dur="0.3"/> a bodily existence which is finite mortal <pause dur="0.4"/> and so on <pause dur="1.3"/> he argues the idea of a soul <pause dur="0.7"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> not scientific <pause dur="0.3"/> but an assumption at best <pause dur="0.2"/> and a piece of superstition <pause dur="0.3"/> at worst <pause dur="1.0"/> okay the idea of a soul <pause dur="0.5"/> is an assumption <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>i</trunc> is not scientific but is an assumption at best <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> a piece of superstition or

prejudice at worst <pause dur="2.7"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> i mean as we can discuss in the seminars one of the major problems that Descartes faces <pause dur="0.7"/> in <pause dur="0.5"/> arguing for the radical distinctness of mind and body <pause dur="0.6"/> is to try and show how if they are radically distinct <pause dur="0.3"/> they are interconnected <pause dur="0.5"/> how are the mind and body interconnected <pause dur="0.2"/> because surely they have to be <pause dur="1.7"/> and as we'll see his response <pause dur="0.3"/> is an entirely intellectualist <pause dur="0.2"/> response <pause dur="1.2"/> his response is an entirely intellectualist response what do i mean by that <pause dur="0.9"/> well for example <pause dur="0.3"/> he says that apparent bodily sensations <pause dur="0.3"/> such as a pinch in the stomach <pause dur="0.7"/> are not things apart from intellectual events <pause dur="0.9"/> so apparent bodily sensations are really <pause dur="0.2"/> he says intellectual events <pause dur="0.8"/> a special case of thoughts <pause dur="0.4"/> so the pinch in the stomach for him <pause dur="0.3"/> is a desire to eat <pause dur="0.5"/> and this <pause dur="0.7"/> has to be something <pause dur="0.2"/> that the intellect carries out not the body <pause dur="1.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.8"/> now the final key question <pause dur="0.8"/> which will lead us nicely into Nietzsche <pause dur="1.0"/> is to ask whether the fact <pause dur="0.3"/> the fact <pause dur="0.2"/> that we do appear to be able to conceive of ourselves <pause dur="0.3"/>

independently of our bodies <pause dur="1.1"/> the fact that we do appear to be <pause dur="0.2"/> able to conceive of ourselves <pause dur="0.6"/> independently of our bodies <pause dur="2.4"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.3"/> isolate some essential <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="fr">moi</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> or me <pause dur="0.5"/> might this be an illusion generated <pause dur="0.4"/> might this simply be an illusion <pause dur="0.4"/> generated by our consciousness <pause dur="1.1"/> okay so might the fact <pause dur="0.5"/> that we do appear to be able to conceive of ourselves <pause dur="1.0"/> independently of our bodies might this simply be an illusion <pause dur="0.7"/> generated by our consciousness <pause dur="0.9"/> and therefore nothing true at all <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> okay i may consider for example my body to be an essential part of my existence <pause dur="0.6"/> but that does not mean that it is <pause dur="0.9"/> okay simply the fact that you consider your body to have been an essential part of your existence <pause dur="0.5"/> doesn't mean that it is <pause dur="1.3"/> illness and disease for example <pause dur="0.3"/> often make us aware <pause dur="0.5"/> well not often but all the time make us aware of the prime importance of our body <pause dur="0.3"/> which for the most time we simply ignore like a machine <pause dur="0.3"/> and assume and hope <pause dur="0.3"/> that it's functioning entirely <pause dur="0.3"/> # smoothly <pause dur="1.4"/> so how is the

illusion the question we need to ask is how is the illusion of the subject or the self <pause dur="0.4"/> generated <pause dur="0.5"/> if it is an illusion as Hume and Nietzsche will argue <pause dur="0.5"/> how is this illusion <pause dur="0.5"/> generated <pause dur="0.9"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.7"/> in <trunc>whi</trunc> # clearly Descartes on one level is hitting onto something that we can all <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps immediately recognize that with sense that are our bodies are perhaps inessential <pause dur="0.5"/> and that there's a little sort of homonculus in our heads <pause dur="0.3"/> which is <pause dur="0.3"/> which is our essential identities <pause dur="0.4"/> it's our minds <pause dur="0.4"/> and that's what's essential by us <pause dur="0.6"/> but what Hume and Nietzsche want to # <pause dur="0.6"/> try and the idea they want us to try and entertain <pause dur="0.3"/> is the idea that it might be an illusion <pause dur="0.5"/> generated by consciousness <pause dur="0.8"/> but how what's the mechanism for the generation of this illusion <pause dur="0.3"/> within consciousness <pause dur="0.5"/> well for Hume as we'll see in detail in the <pause dur="0.5"/> coming weeks <pause dur="0.3"/> it's created by the force <pause dur="0.4"/> of our habits <pause dur="0.2"/> and customs <pause dur="0.8"/> our social habits <pause dur="1.1"/> and customs and our mental habits and customs <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> it simply <trunc>re</trunc> resides in our customary practices <pause dur="2.5"/> which have <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> which have accrued over time <pause dur="0.4"/> and which we

take to be <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> revealing something true about reality but <trunc>w</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> which may simply conceal prejudices <pause dur="0.9"/> for Nietzsche the illusion lies <pause dur="0.3"/> in the sedimentations of our grammar <pause dur="0.4"/> and our linguistic conventions the illusion resides in the sedimentations <pause dur="1.1"/> of our grammar and our linguistic conventions <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> as you know Nietzsche was a great Averroist <pause dur="0.6"/> and in one of his most pithy moments he says for example <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>we will not get rid of God</reading> he says <pause dur="0.5"/> which is clearly <pause dur="0.3"/> what his entire life was designed to do <pause dur="0.7"/> <reading>we will not get rid of God</reading> he says <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>until we get rid of grammar</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> we will not get rid of God <pause dur="0.3"/> until we get rid of grammar <pause dur="0.5"/> fantastic quote <pause dur="0.6"/> what does it mean i'll leave you to ponder that <pause dur="0.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> but # <pause dur="1.0"/> we will not get rid of <pause dur="0.2"/> God until we get rid of grammar now what we're going to do is just <pause dur="0.7"/> end the lecture <pause dur="0.5"/> by reading this passage from Nietzsche's <pause dur="0.4"/> Genealogy of Morality <pause dur="1.2"/> where he tries to expose <pause dur="0.4"/> this illusion of the self or subject <pause dur="0.4"/> and i'll just read it out <pause dur="0.2"/> and then we'll stop <pause dur="1.8"/><event desc="drinks" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> okay it's just a final piece of

entertainment <pause dur="0.4"/> in the conclusion to the lectures on Descartes <pause dur="1.4"/> okay it's just three lines down we're going to read <pause dur="0.5"/> most of the page on the left-hand side and just stop at the top <pause dur="0.7"/> of the right-hand side page <pause dur="0.2"/> so three lines down <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> Nietzsche says <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>there is nothing strange <pause dur="0.2"/> about the fact</reading> i i hope this just gives you some food for <trunc>thou</trunc> thought over the # <pause dur="0.3"/> weekend <pause dur="0.5"/> he says this # <reading>there is nothing strange about the fact <pause dur="0.2"/> that lambs bear a grudge <pause dur="0.3"/> towards large birds of prey <pause dur="1.1"/> but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs <pause dur="0.7"/> and if the lambs say to each other <pause dur="0.2"/> these birds of prey are evil <pause dur="0.5"/> then whoever <trunc>i</trunc> is least like a bird of prey <pause dur="0.2"/> and most like its opposite a lamb <pause dur="0.4"/> is good isn't he <pause dur="0.9"/> then there is no reason to raise objections <pause dur="0.5"/> to this setting up of an ideal <pause dur="0.5"/> beyond the fact that the birds of prey will view it <trunc>som</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> view it somewhat derisively <pause dur="0.6"/> and perhaps say <pause dur="0.6"/> we don't bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs <pause dur="0.2"/> in fact we love them <pause dur="0.4"/> nothing is tastier <pause dur="0.3"/> than a tender lamb <pause dur="1.1"/>

this is just <trunc>abs</trunc> as absurd</reading> okay so Nietzsche's point is a kind of culinary point but now he's off <pause dur="0.2"/> going on to make a philosophical one <pause dur="0.7"/> he says <reading>it's just as absurd <pause dur="0.3"/> to ask strength <pause dur="0.5"/> not to express itself as strength <pause dur="0.5"/> not to be a desire to overthrow crush become master <pause dur="0.5"/> to be a thirst for enemies resistance and triumphs <pause dur="0.4"/> as it is to ask <pause dur="0.2"/> of weakness <pause dur="0.3"/> to express itself as strength <pause dur="1.0"/> a quantum of force <pause dur="0.4"/> is just such a quantum of drive will action <pause dur="0.4"/> in fact it is nothing but this driving willing and acting <pause dur="0.5"/> and only the seduction of language <pause dur="0.4"/> in the fundamental of <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> errors of reason that are petrified in it <pause dur="0.5"/> which construes and misconstrues all actions as conditional upon an agency <pause dur="0.5"/> a subject <pause dur="0.7"/> can make it appear otherwise <pause dur="0.7"/> and just as the common people separates lighting from its flash <pause dur="0.4"/> and takes the latter to be a deed <pause dur="0.4"/> something performed by a subject <pause dur="0.2"/> which is called lightning <pause dur="0.6"/> popular morality separates strengths <pause dur="0.4"/> from the manifestations of strengths <pause dur="0.4"/> as though there were an

indifferent substratum <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> behind the strong person which had the freedom to <unclear>manifest</unclear> strength or not <pause dur="0.5"/> but there is no such substratum <pause dur="0.3"/> there is no being behind the deed <pause dur="0.5"/> its effect and what becomes of it <pause dur="0.4"/> the deer <pause dur="0.3"/> the doer</reading> sorry the deer <pause dur="0.4"/> i'm on this # food # <trunc>poi</trunc> aren't i <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>the doer</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> i'm obviously anticipating what i'm going to have for tea tonight <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> but anyway <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>the doer <pause dur="0.4"/> is invented</reading> i have a very rich existence # i'll have you know <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> i eat deer every night <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>the doer is invented as an afterthought the doing is everything</reading> <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <reading>the doing is everything basically the common people double a deed <pause dur="0.5"/> and when they see lightning they make doing a deed out of it <pause dur="0.3"/> they posit the same event <pause dur="0.2"/> first as cause <pause dur="0.3"/> and then as effect</reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> so Nietzsche's saying there <pause dur="0.2"/> there is only the one event <pause dur="0.3"/> there's no cause and effect <pause dur="0.2"/> there's no subject and object no subject <pause dur="0.5"/> or substance as subject <pause dur="1.3"/> this is the final part now <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>the scientists do no better <pause dur="0.4"/> when they say force moves <pause dur="0.2"/> force causes and such like <pause dur="0.5"/> all our science in spite of its coolness and freedom from emotion <pause dur="0.5"/> still

stands exposed to the seduction of language <pause dur="0.4"/> and has not ridded itself of the changelings foisted upon it <pause dur="0.4"/> the subjects <pause dur="0.2"/> for example the atom <pause dur="0.5"/> just such a changeling likewise the Kantian thing in itself <pause dur="0.5"/> no wonder then</reading> he says <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>if <pause dur="0.2"/> the entrenched secretly smouldering emotions of revenge and hatred <pause dur="0.4"/> put this belief to their own use <pause dur="0.4"/> and in fact do not defend and believe more passionately <pause dur="0.4"/> than the strong <pause dur="0.3"/> are free to be weak <pause dur="0.2"/> and the birds of prey <pause dur="0.3"/> are free to be lambs <pause dur="0.4"/> in this way they gain the right <pause dur="0.3"/> to make the birds of prey <pause dur="0.2"/> responsible <pause dur="0.5"/> for being <pause dur="0.4"/> birds of prey</reading> <pause dur="1.6"/> profound <pause dur="0.6"/> quotation i hope you agree <pause dur="0.3"/> and basically Nietzsche's point is that it's only the weak <pause dur="0.4"/> who need to believe in a self or a subject <pause dur="0.5"/> and i'll leave you with that thought