Ads skipped

Descartes Reboots Everything — Descartes to Nietzsche (Lecture 1)

6.1K views · Jul 8, 2026 · Education

Ergo

14K subscribers

Comments · 16

@ergo_org · 6 months ago (edited) · pinned
▶️ Next: The Birth of Modern Science - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK2-eylagoc">https://youtube.com/watch?v=GK2-eylagoc</a> 📚 Watch the full series: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1GBzfniaE7yYEnqbu04YifXszlpgSR-N">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1GBzfniaE7yYEnqbu04YifXszlpgSR-N</a> 🎓 More from Lee Braver: From Socrates to Sartre — <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1GBzfniaE7zSGDWgenU7CWunUNt_UR2R">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1GBzfniaE7zSGDWgenU7CWunUNt_UR2R</a> 🔗 Chapters, annotations & multi-language subtitles: <a href="https://ergo.org/videos/lee-braver-descartes-reboots-everything">https://ergo.org/videos/lee-braver-descartes-reboots-everything</a> Presented by Ergo: in-depth philosophy courses from leading scholars, free at <a href="http://ergo.org/">ergo.org</a>
2
@jamesnaughton5657 · 2 weeks ago
Really nice balance between accessibility and substance.
2
@DouwedeJong · 1 month ago
Kelly Bundy: It turns, therefore I am
1
@yj9032 · 2 weeks ago
Very well explained
@Dischade · 1 month ago
Great lecture. That handwriting 😅.
4
@deksam86 · 10 days ago
Wow we are five minutes in and still no mention of mathematics or Euclid?
@alwaysgreatusa223 · 2 months ago (edited)
Science is by no means obvious even to scientists today -- in fact, there is really no such thing as a 'method of science'. Moreover, there is no moment at which you can say that science began as something distinct from natural philosophy, mathematics, logic, or even more esoteric studies such as astrology, alchemy, magic, and witchcraft.  That is to say, modern science actually owes its origins to an evolution from out of all these sources -- not simply to Descartes' 'Meditations'.
3
@alwaysgreatusa223 · 2 months ago (edited)
What does it mean to say, 'I see the sun rising''?  First of all, nothing is actually meaningful divorced from the context in which it occurs or as something abstracted from those who find it meaningful -- or use it to convey a meaning.  So, when the layman says 'I see the sun rising' -- supposing he is ignorant of astronomy --- he simply means just that, literally.  He is reporting what he is seeing, not making an astronomical report.  So, is he wrong?  Certainly not !  For the sun rising is exactly what he sees.  However, if he meant this as an astronomical report of what is actually occurring in the movements of the two celestial bodies in relation to each other, then he would obviously be mistaken. So, when we ask ourselves whether or not the layman has knowledge, we first have to ask ourselves a logically prior question -- knowledge of what ?  Knowledge of what he sees, or knowledge of an astronomical occurrence?  He certainly has knowledge of what he sees -- i.e.  the sun rising.  What he is ignorant of is the astronomical cause of his perception -- not the perception itself.  Of course, if he goes on to make a judgment based upon his 'seeing the sun rise' that the earth is actually standing still while the sun moves across its sky, then he is making a false judgment.  This kind of judgment is obviously a natural one for him to make -- and it's the kind we all tend to make when we are not remembering our astronomical lessons -- or not focused-upon them at the time.  You might be a highly-educated person -- with a thorough knowledge of both astronomy and cosmology -- and still invite your lover to get-up early to go watch the sunrise together.  You are not being ignorant in doing so, you are just ignoring for the time being the scientific explanation for the sake of a romantic experience. Distinctions -- even subtle ones -- are critical when doing epistemology and trying to determine exactly what someone knows or doesn't know.  The real lesson here is that perceptions are one thing, judgments based upon them another.  Of course, it should be obvious that I am using the word 'perception' here to simply mean a subjective experience prior to any judgment as to its external cause -- for example, 'I feel pain' can hardly be judged by an external observer as stating something false because it is merely the report of a subjective experience, not a judgment based upon one.  This kind of distinction between perception (as a subjective experience) and judgment (as report of an objective fact) is critical when we begin to study epistemology -- and, in particular, Descartes 'Meditations'.  Is 'I exist' a subjective experience or is it a report of an objective fact?  Perhaps it is both?  If judgments based upon subjective experiences are sometimes mistaken, does that necessarily mean they are always mistaken ?  Does it mean they are doubtful and can never be trusted?  Descartes certainly believed the latter was the case -- hence, there went the baby out with the dirty bath water.
3
@RidiculouslyMaliciousOrphan · 9 days ago
Would it be too skeptical to ask Descartes where he gets off assuming anything is a dream at all, or even what a dream is, if in fact he is stripping away all of his previous assumptions?  I'm pretty new to philosophy, and so if this is a stupid question, don't hesitate to tell me.
@alwaysgreatusa223 · 2 months ago (edited)
'Knowing how to know things' -- as if it were something to be learned or created ex-nihilo -- is a typical epistemological blunder.  Obviously, if you didn't already have the ability to acquire knowledge from the start, you couldn't learn anything, much less how to acquire knowledge. Indeed, the foundation for all higher knowledge is already an inherent and fundamental part of the mind -- it's hardly a blank slate.  Moreover, you can (and do in fact) learn much about the world by observation, but that doesn't mean, what the empiricists suppose, that observation is the only source for acquiring knowledge, or that observation alone always suffices for knowledge.
3
@HalfAnUnkindness · 13 days ago
Descartes literally thought the only real thing was a thing that isn't real -- the sense of self 😂 imagine being that wrong