Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings (Penguin Classics) Paperback – September 1, 1999

Husband requested this book. It’s too “brain/nerd alert” for me but he loved it and read it in no time.

Do I really need to make a recommendation for you to read Descartes? One of the most prominent individuals in modern thought, this book steps through his first arguments, then presents critiques in separate section at the end. On top of that, it includes some of his back and forth discussion with the Queen of Portugal that helps provides insight into Descartes as the man, as well as the scholar.

I kept borrowing this from the library; finally bought my own copy.

The translator of this text (Desmond M. Clarke) chose to annex several of the Objections and Replies, correspondence between Descartes and his supporters, part one of The Principles of Philosophy, and Comments on a Certain Manifesto in order to broaden and contextually illuminate the essence of what comprises the core of this compilation, Meditations On First Philosophy, by Rene Descartes. Ambitious - but the result clearly imparts one a deeper understanding of what Descartes was trying to convey, and also puts his philosophy in the proper historical context. I'm actually quite glad that I purchased this text as opposed to merely the Meditations on First Philosophy alone, for The Meditations themselves are probably the least interesting part of this book. That's not to imply that what comprises The Meditations is uninteresting, just that greater things lie elsewhere. The Meditations themselves are clearly written and present several philosophical arguments to the reader - mind-body duality, an ontological argument for God, how to reason and judge correctly, ect - but suffers at times from simplistic over-explanation. However, this is scarcely a detriment, and is to be somewhat expected whenever one confronts the task of philosophizing logically and thoroughly. Following the meditations comes a selection of objections and replies, in which Descartes attempts to defend objections to what is expounded in The Meditations.The Principles of First Philosophy follow, which is a somewhat more concise reiteration of ideas explored in The Meditations. The correspondence is extremely interesting, as the majority occurs between Descartes and Queen Elizabeth. Comments on a Certain Manifesto also adds greatly to this book, as Descartes explains and clarifies his views and responds to critics who attack him without having properly digested said views. The comments also include something which is only really touched upon in The Meditations; that is, that Descartes suggests that although much of what we judge and understand is based largely on sensory perception - and the abilities to reason and judge truthfully greatly benefit from this knowledge - that the capacity to think and reason is innate, and not something learned via sensory perception. He offers this in refutation to someone that he feels is bastardizing his views in Comments, and as support for the evidence of God in Meditations, but only explores it in detail in the former, opting for subtlety in the latter. Personally, I feel Descartes made somewhat of a mistake by - not so much simplifying so to speak - but being a little too ambiguous in Meditations. He was evidently attempting to rely on reason and reason alone, and it doing so, many people confused or misunderstood his ideas, as evidenced in the objections and replies. But the careful reader should not be prone to such misunderstanding(s).Was Descartes correct in his reasoning? Much of it is logically sound, such as the assumption that thinking inherently necessitates existence, but many of it can and has been refuted or argued by subsequent philosophers. Some of the more obvious objections I have personally with Descarte's philosophy are assumptions - things like, although the mind appears indivisible, that does not make it evidently so, and although the body appears divisible - so much so that it can be separated from the mind without affecting the mind - this surely only remains true to the point where one tries to separate the mind from the brain. Although the brain can surely be separated from the mind, it is impossible to separate the mind from the brain, or the essence of what we understand to be the mind. The ontological argument for God is also a little fishy, somewhat of a tautology, and only really true if you believe in the necessity of an omnipotent, omniscient God to begin with. However, Descartes contributions to philosophy and general science should not be overlooked or diminished, and much of what is explored here remains logically sound.This edition also includes a general introduction by the translator, notes on the translation wherever appropriate, and brief introductions before each particular section. This book proves to me, once again, why Penguin remains one of my favorite publishers of philosophy.

Thank you, I have enjoyed the book greatly.In addition, I revised the book in less then a week.Also, it was like new.:D

School requirement

After more than twenty years of absorbing a lot of the abundant literature in the philosophy of the Mind, the writings of Descartes on this subject are more than just a little familiar to me. So, I have finally gotten around to reading a book by Descartes rather than just the selective quotes chosen by other philosophers. My verdict is that Descartes does not make a very convincing argument in explaining the relation between mind and body or the relation between mind and God. Descartes' whole mind and matter "pineal gland interface" idea always seemed pretty bad one to me, but even his attempts to move beyond his "skeptical method" toward the "Substance Dualism" relation between the "thinking" mind and "extended" matter seems to me to be either unconvincing or poorly explained by Descartes.Particular credit goes to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia who makes some obvious but pointed arguments about the confusing nature of Descartes' substance dualism, this despite Descartes commencing his correspondence with the Princess with some major kissing of the Princess's proverbial behind. The Princess asks how mind may move matter when mind is moved by "information" and therefore intelligent, while matter, according to Descartes, is a substance without intelligence? Descartes' reply is kind of kind of intellectualized hand waving about how we conceive of Mind and Matter, simply ignoring that causal principles are not just a matter of conception, but of perception as well. Descartes seems to think that there is something distinct and special about the nature of thought, hence his strong belief that other animals lacked rational souls. Something my cat proves is false every time she tricks me into leaving her in the house on a cold morning. Thought or conceptual thought is the child of perception, not the other way around and Descartes' view that it is not confuses his ideas on the nature of mind and matter and mind and God. Later Descartes argues that there seems to something special about our concept of God which makes God itself somehow necessary and therefore impossible not to exist. It's not just atheists (or Princess Elisabeth) who are not convinced by this argument, it's all of us who have not had a perceptual experience of God directly given to us. Until most of us have the direct sensations and perceptions of God, perhaps as given to those how have mystical experiences, the concept of God cannot be given any greater weight for denoting an existing entity than the concept of a unicorn or the concept of Godzilla: King of the Monsters.Interesting philosophical issues also ensue regarding what the notion of "understanding" means when Descartes argues that one cannot "understand" all of God's perfections if it were not true that God exists or that we were not created by him. This left met me scratching my head in the same way that philosophical arguments about whether John Searle's Chinese Room "understands" Chinese. In Searle's famous "Chinese Room Argument," the question is asked if computers can truly understand in the same way conscious people do, or whether the syntax of a computer program is sufficient for understanding, semantic knowledge to take place in the computer? In a similar way, we may like to ask Descartes whether the possession of a concept in our conceptual vocabulary is sufficient for us to understand what the word means? Descartes tells us that God is an "infinitely perfect" being. I believe I understand Descartes concept of God and its definition, but I still feel like I don't know if Descartes' God truly exists. Descartes fails to explain to the reader (and to Princess Elisabeth) where the failure of understanding might come from.Descartes was a brilliant mind and his work in mathematics and physics was spectacular. That being said, I found myself distinctly unimpressed and confused by his metaphysics. However, anyone interested in philosophy and metaphysics should read Descartes at some point. Maybe, if your smarter than me, you will appreciate his reasoning better than I can? The book closes with Descartes writing to correct some of his views that he felt were misrepresented by one of his "supporters," a university professor named Henricus Regius. Descartes clarifications comes across as something of a rant and whilst interesting to read, did nothing to make me any more convinced of his metaphysics.

Great Product!