In this work, Descartes' metaphysics and epistemology are clearly stated and assiduously analyzed. It is shown that Descartes' epistemic foundationalism is tenable, and that his mind-body dualism is correct if taken to concern the relationship of mentalistic (mind-related) data to physicalistic data, even though it is incorrect if taken to concern the relationship of mind per se to body per se. Descartes' analysis of causation is shown to be correct, notwithstanding the copious criticism to which centuries have subjected it. Descartes arguments for God's existence are clearly stated and, thereby, shown to be masterpieces of dialectical ingenuity.
©2016 John-Michael Kuczynski (P)2016 John-Michael Kuczynski
because it answers questions not just about the history, but also the substance of philosophy.
Russell's book on Leibniz, maybe, but better, more straightforward than that.
The discussion of foundationslism.
Man v world
This is for smart people; small minds will need a less analytical and more narrative approach, and are likely to rail against it with the standard impotence-based slogans of 'textual accuracy', which is code for 'dumb it down for me.'
This book is thorough and accurate, and it is a great book in its own right. Better than the Meditations, actually, since the epistemology put forth actually works, whereas Descartes' epistemology is the usual tired skeptical nonsense.
The clarity. The sober tone.
It had a disaffected, emotionally constricted quality that I did not always care for. But that was also the thing I liked about it; it was clean burning.
Keeping it Real
The book is a masterpiece of exposition and analysis. And it is way, way better than anything else I've read on Descartes.
yes, because it is poetically written, which is easily overlooked when it is read
the discussion of foundationalism
the part where causation is discussed
struck by its authoritativeness
brilliant book, but not for beginners
it is a concise and beautiful guide to knowledge-theory and to Descartes' views thereupon
it was non-fiction
it was unadorned and easy to listen to
the distinction between foundationalism and coherentism
a brilliant book. people with small minds who need meaningless frills won't like it. people who like thought, as opposed to glop posing as thought, will like it. the author is meticulous in his reconstruction, and analysis of the descartes' arguments.
Yes, it has to be listened to many times, because it is very thoughtful and deep.
I like the discussions of causation and how we can prove God's existence on the basis of knowledge of causality
I liked it when the author refutes the ontological argument.
great book, but the narrator sounds too much like my grandad
It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the author, as much as it is a matter of the author over simplifying The Meditations to the point that Descartes' presentation of ideas would be unrecognizable to anyone who first read this and then read The Meditations. My favorite part (sarcasm alert) is where the author disagrees with one of Descartes arguments, so, he says, he will just skip it.
Report Inappropriate Content