René Descartes - Meditation #6 - Proof of the Physical World & Distinction Between Mind and Body

I am writing a book! If you to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video lecture about the sixth and final Meditation on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes. In it, Descartes argues that the physical world outside of his own mind does exist, though it may be that he is wrong about some of the specific details of physical reality. He does this by arguing that God would be a deceiver if there were no physical world in general, but a few mistakes here or there do not demonstrate that God is a deceiver. He then offers two arguments for Dualism, the theory of mind according to which the mind and the body are two distinct things. The conceivability argument comes first, but it is more complicated, so I don't discuss it here because this is part of an introduction to philosophy. The divisibility argument is discussed at length. The basic idea is that the mind and body cannot be the same because the mind is indivisible while the body is divisible.
Here are links to video lectures about the previous five meditaitons.
Med #1: • René Descartes - Medit...
Med #2: • René Descartes - Medit...
Med #3: • René Descartes - Medit...
Med #4: • René Descartes - Medit...
Med #5: • René Descartes - Medit...

[@Natalia-dj9ss]

See the way that he explained such a complex topic in such a simple way? That's what makes a good professor, your students are very lucky!

[@MugenTJ]

To be fair, Descartes was being a sorta magician. His ideas are convoluted. He attempted to doubt reality to prove god, then to prove reality . When there is only reality , no god. He had to do mental gymnastics, thereby not so easy to be easily understood, especially if he using overtly fancy language.

[@brokenrecord3523]

@@MugenTJ "To be fair" indicates that you don't agree completely with the previous comment. It seems you do, that Descartes' arguments are convoluted and full of fallacies in addition to the jargon, but is explained well by JK. Is that right?

[@MugenTJ]

@@brokenrecord3523 no… my whole comment taken together is trying to say that Descartes was a difficult read namely because it’s like watching a magician, the aim is to mislead you. So that he can prove god exists. Of course this presenter makes it very clear. So clear we can see the bs behind the arguments . Given to a god believing teacher, it will be as confusing as Descartes talking himself into believing of god’s existence.

[@iinc6290]

@@MugenTJ It's not complicated really nor was Descartes trying to make it complicated. Descartes is VERY clear and digestible compared to especially post-Kantian epistemology. If you read Descartes and all you got was "I am correct in everything I believe and to think otherwise would be incorrect" I think you did NOT truly read meditations, at least not with a thin veil of New Atheism blindness stopping you from at least considering his arguments, which all have lengthy objections that if collected would tower over the length of meditations and almost all of Descartes claims have been shadowed over by better logic in modern philosophy. You are going to have a very hard time reading Hagel or some shit if you thing Descartes was incomprehensible and trying to "trick" you

[@MugenTJ]

@@iinc6290 so you don’t seem to understand what I was getting at. Okay. Doesn’t matter. I am not a serious philosophy historian or major in philosophy to read all sort of philosophy related things. So I don’t care about Hagel or whoever else. Off the bat, these guys were not of our time. So of course it’s hard for many students to digest their writing pattern. I wasn’t speaking for myself. Furthermore I don’t care if Descartes was sophisticated or not in proving god existence, he undoubtedly pulled some tricks. It’s due to those sophistry techniques that’s confusing or difficult to sort, for a regular college student or someone not study philosophy extensively. It’s not simply because I am an atheist, there hasn’t been any proof of god that is evidence in and of itself. That’s why all arguments for god existence are just sophistry at best. No substance. One cannot treat an entity like god as if one is trying to reason in mathematics. Given Descartes was a mathematician. He attempted to prove god’s existence with pure logic, not to say it was all good logic. That is what many call mental gymnastics.

[@levonbigelow412]

Anyone else notice how his references are actually on-point but he says “or something / or whatever”? Super relatable, and helps to push aside the less important aspects of what he’s teaching. Love your videos!

[@vvvvagner]

I'm just baffled by how good your teaching skills are! I'm grateful I know English so that I can access your classes and learn about Descartes. Thank you! Best regards from a Brazilian!

[@MrPOKEMON510]

This is by far the best explanation of Med 6 I've seen on youtube. Wow, thank you.

[@ivyferg]

This helped me so much in my Intro to Philosophy class, thank you so much!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad it helped!

[@jhaidesu1085]

I finished the entire meditations 1-6 and actually understanding it, thanks to you! I have oral recitation about it in 2 minutes. I can't say I'm not prepared.

[@alexgaucher7058]

Im a french canadian and i have tried for the last 4 h reading the same 10 pages in french .... did not get a single word.... Watched your 28:50 Video..... And im good now. Can't thank you enough you just got yourself a new Subscriber!!!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

This is a lovely comment to read! Glad I could help.

[@UAND154]

You're a really great teacher for people who love learning so new useful ideas for precious things in their lives especially in philosophy .❤😊 Thanks a lot.

[@davewilson4493]

Thank you so much for this series of videos. The way you sometimes jump forwards and backwards, but always with a purpose of carefully leading your viewers steadily to understanding is just wonderful. It's like you took something that is often dry and dusty, and injected life into it.

[@oscargalindo9269]

You made this meditation easy to understand. Thank you so much

[@alexavaneysan2935]

This is so helpful and understandable, thank you very much

[@Khora]

I started having questions about the existence of existing myself and my therapist told me to study some descartes. It surprised me how this evolution of thought by "proving" that I use in my thinking was also used by philosophers. It is very easy to forget that we live in a world made by people, and that, although we may not be brilliant like some, we are just humans in the end. Thank you for the vid :)

[@MugenTJ]

Unfortunately Descartes is not a very good philosopher if based on the writing of meditation. It is filled with confirmation biases and circular reasoning. But we do need bad examples as much as good examples, I guess. 😅

[@brokenrecord3523]

@@MugenTJ He's an awesome philosopher!!! Maybe not a great logician, but this is the 1600's. It took 300 years from the invention of the horse saddle to the invention of the stirrup ~~ he doesn't have the benefit of the next 400 years of discovery. My point is that these are, arguably, original thoughts & Original thoughts are quite rare so beating him up over the flaws is like suggesting the Beethoven should have put another beat in the third measure (or whatever, not a musician).

[@MugenTJ]

@@brokenrecord3523 I don’t see why you should come to his defense. There was plenty of Philosophers before him, without biases able to make good points that we still respect to this day. Surely I’m judging him via his most popular piece of work not in the interest of attacking him but rather the whole of philosophy when obvious fallacies not pointed out by people in the field and spread it like gospel sometimes. Also I think he isn’t a bad logician, for it is logic that leads one to believe or conclude things not based on facts. Descartes was a good mathematician if I’m not mistaken, so he is by no mean a novice thinker.

[@brynnetakhar9034]

bless bless bless your heart. so so helpful for my course. appreciate it!!

[@marklafrenz7123]

Professor Kaplan, your videos are excellent. I took three courses on Kant, one as an undergraduate and two as a Ph.D. student, one on Kantian ethics and another on C1. I'd be very happy if you posted videos on C1.

[@avanishpal8950]

Sir you are a fantastic man explain in such a magnified way, everything got clear Thank you 💙

[@elhoucinetariat5196]

great explainer i have ever seen

[@cheapguitarbeginnertutoria5356]

Watched it for 2 days (the 6 meditations), give us more of modern philoaophy lectures, thank u sir

[@wannagornkhunnasarn8677]

Amazing content

[@aliptera]

A clock tells time, in this sense it is indivizible. If you divide a clock, it stops telling time.

[@abdawg126342ndchnle]

I love my professor dearly, but he can be so confusing. Thank you for clarifying the real distinction for me, it is really going to make my essay that much better.

[@abeerasajid7690]

Just subscribed, lol. It was worth it!! Thank you!

[@marlon2080]

Thank you so much!

[@shannonluck5066]

Your talks are great! Such a pleasure learning... 🎉

[@devonashwa7977]

thanks professor i actually learned something

[@arasheskandari4023]

Thank u so much❤.

[@bc.a]

The point you made regarding Descartes' corpuscular beliefs (that all solid matter is packed down with no air vacuums) got me wondering how his views on the body may have changed if he had a modern understanding of physics. Instead of a dichotomy between solid and empty space, our sense of touch could be broken down into more of a spectrum; on one end is space with a low density of atoms, and on the other is space with a high density of atoms. Our bodies just measure a point on that spectrum of how molecularity dense any given object is. This sort of defeats his current argument of dualism as evidence of conceivability, however I think it could be adapted to include that spectrum. -Benson Atkinson

[@vhawk1951kl]

Modern as in fashionable?-that is what it means.

[@KaylaSteen]

OMG THANK YOU!!

[@alejandrocaceres4113]

Great lectures!! I think however that the modern view of physics is more complicated. The empty space is thought to be filled with quantum fields ... Which somehow help to avoid the action at a distance beteween paricles ... which by the way are also waves! The electron would be by the nucleus and at 2 miles at the same time. The packing of corpuscules of Descartes thought as a medium would allow the movement bewteen two bodies (sun and earth) to transmit throughout space ... in that context, it is not such a crazy idea.

[@hawthorne1504]

Hi Mr Kaplan, As one whose education was grounded in ancient and medieval philosophy I can see how difficult it would be for students, with little background in the discussions and debates preceding the 16 th century, to understand what these philosophers are referring to. don’t you think there should be greater emphasis on teaching the history of philosophy in the schools?

[@MLHunt]

I have really enjoyed this Descarte series. It has deepened my understanding of his work. Thank you. One thing it has reinforced in me is my very ambivalent opinion of Descarte as a thinker.

[@justinreamer9187]

Also touch on Donald Davidson and Colin McGinn.

[@mr.pancake3108]

I'm impressed that he can write backwards.

[@vukken99]

They said just the fact we question about the existance it creates existence by the fact of question itself

[@hdrulz2007]

How do you write backwards so well!! Awesome work! Thank you 🙏

[@pepawlowski]

I wonder how Decarte would explain fantom pain. or Split/multiple personalities.

[@klloo9251]

I feel really dumb 'couse when i try to read the meditations itself i can't focus or understand much, but when i watch your lectures i understand everything. Thank you a lot for making them. Do you have any tips on how to process texts like this and how to focus and understand them?

[@serena.t818]

Do you think the divisibility arg is Descartes strongest argument for Substance Dualism or conceivability, esp if one could critique it using Ryle or Princess Elizabeths response?

[@vhawk1951kl]

critique is a noun, not a verb.

[@justinreamer9187]

You should touch on Daniel Dennett.

[@sezinsevimli3427]

For the last statement stating the importance of distinction between the mind and body, can't an omnipotent God can bring me back to life with my thoughts after I die? Why do I want my sould to be a whole seperate thing?

[@vukken99]

Incorrect..he can not prove if God deceives or does not deceive. That is dependent on individual perception which can be inaccurate or even biased from receiver end.

[@filosofiailuminante.catedra]

I don't find in any of the text in Meditation #6 the idea of "double checking", where is the source of that idea?

[@ambience6769]

Is there a way for me to get my hands on the full text of 1-6th Meditation, I'd be delightfully grateful.

[@ASH-su6nb]

Meditation on first philosophy Rene descartes , internet archive. Copy paste this on Google should come up

[@calorion]

I love how you put the most embarrassing-sounding parts of the videos as the teasers. That takes chutzpah.

[@TroutBoneless]

that 10 second clip at the beginning features more gesticulation than I have ever performed in my life

[@bowman-san2681]

I was just thinking what if a person has some mental illness like schizophrenia at 6:47 and seeing, smelling and just feeling that cat exists cannot be double-checked by his own five senses. and thinking whether God can be blamed if a person is born with a mental illness. Let me see the finish the video and find if these questions are answered in the video.

[@gomez3357]

They can’t double check?

[@DeathScyther006]

“The same dude can’t be two different heights.” Spoken truly like a 3rd rate duelist with a 4th rate deck.

[@mikeg.6590]

struggling with this one.

[@dlbattle100]

I guess Descarte never knew anyone with a brain injury.

[@SPCTR0]

Tbh, from meditation 3 to 6, it kinda sounds like Descartes is just straight up gaslighting himself lmao.

[@GynxShinx]

It's so funny to me that he's obsessed with God not being a deceiver, probably because of the specific religion he has, when it is perfectly believable that God would deceive us if it were the moral thing to do.

[@Nick-Nasti]

The Bible has specific examples of god deceiving. These are conveniently forgotten.

[@ColePatten]

To Descartes, God is not a deceiver because Descartes proved the existence of a perfect being. Since this being is perfect, it is not deceitful. This is what Descartes considers God. There is controversy over whether Descartes was even Christian. You can argue over his existence of the perfect being, but granted it exists, it must be non-deceiving. The Third and Fourth Meditations are primarily concerned with this.

[@Nick-Nasti]

@@ColePatten Descartes did not prove anything. His logic is so flawed a child can find the mistakes. Few look to his proofs as serious philosophical formulas.

[@scrooglemcduck1163]

No, no. What Descartes really said was, "I think, therefore I am Rene Descartes." Thus, we are ALL a Rene Descartes' set.

[@tenzinsonam9599]

Is the body the tomb of the soul?

[@fecalmatter4195]

Descartes didn't think disceting the brain 🧠 wouldn't effect the mind? Also atoms are not like that they are more like waves apparently.

[@dougsiva7015]

re Clark Kent and Superman's height difference, Superman could chop off 8 inches, but I'm not sure that Lois Lane would be pleased with that!

[@user-gq8dq3ig7l]

How can the mind be indivisible when he just divided his mind into 2 faculties in Meditation 4?

[@user-gq8dq3ig7l]

I understand that Descartes tries to explain the discrepancy but I think his explanation is weak at best. Great explanation of Descartes by Kaplan, though.

[@beaumontbyrom5009]

Our modern biological understanding of the parts of the brain and their different functions really seems to put a dent in the dualistic theory.

[@shannonluck5066]

It's circular reasoning isn't it... 😮

[@abramisme]

Clark Kent actually hunches for that reason

[@TheDorkShop]

16:19 the mind is absolutely divisible: while you are falling asleep (especially when its taking a while because caffeine or similar ) start counting. when you get to 100 decide if you will next count to 101 or start at 1 again. eventually, while your mind is still counting, your internal monologue will continue as if it wasnt counting. you will have thoughts just like you would have normally. eventually you will notice that you counted to 101 or started over at 1 while you were distracted from counting. part of your mind counted and made a decision about how to proceed, and part didnt.

[@GrumpyCat-mw5xl]

Can’t 2 things be true at once. It’s possible in life the mind requires a body. But in death the mind no longer requires the body.

[@VladimirGluten47]

The two seem mutually incompatible.

[@ricb7801]

Don't lobotomies prove that minds are also divisible?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Why bother, no one knows, the point is absolutely nothing in everywhere-when No-thing-defined reference-framing for self-defining personalities in Eternity-now perspectives.

[@pieceofmind321]

Is deception necessarily bad? I’m I in the wrong for tricking someone into thinking that I forgot about their birthday so that I could throw them an epic surprise party?

[@pascalmartin1891]

I am not sure how compatible the divisibility argument is with contemporary brain studies and body of knowledge..

[@_abdul]

Key Takeaway : "Superman was a Nerd"

[@chrisearl2217]

The mind is separate from the body, I'm sure. I don't see how the sloppy entanglement of "Discreet" neurons could create a whole, let alone a consciousness.... unless somehow the mind resides in a single cell and some million digit bit pattern derived from the inputs of all the other neurons arrives there to give a description of the current reality......I need to think this through before writing comments next time 🤣🤣🤣

[@shannonluck5066]

Jeffrey, what's with your idea of smelly cats? 😅 I've never met one... Lol

[@legba7550]

Hold on a second... If your body is divisible... Then for sure you can be 6'2 and later 5'6... The other way around is harder but hey... It's possible... I know a dude

[@maddyholtz8632]

But how did Descartes get to the conclusion that God is not a deceiver?

[@ambermartinez2616]

God is perfect, therefore benevolent (good), so he can't deceive! ^-^

[@vhawk1951kl]

By definition

[@gomez3357]

Cause deception Is imperfect

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@gomez3357 incomplete in what sense? Perfect means complete or accomplished.

[@vhawk1951kl]

He did not, but in any event God is not a deceiver by definition, thus it is a definitional impossibility for God to be a deceiver, but whose definition you might ask if you had any wits.

[@brotherjongrey9375]

What about a mind that can't remember anymore but can still sense... Divisible mind

[@Cghost-fh4hf]

So Descartes would approve doublechecking all horseshit we read on social media before reposting it.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Do you not do that?

[@vhawk1951kl]

just cut the pointless music

[@pcatful]

R.D. denies what so many religions explain. We live an a world of delusion. So if God is revealing the truth, it's obviously been obscured by this world, whether or not there a devil involved. Otherwise we should be all knowing ourselves. God may not be deceiving you but the world is, or you choose to believe what you want because of your sinful nature.