Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( Ptsd ) - 2082 Words

PTSD There are multiple mental illnesses and diseases that everyone has the chance of catching. One in particular is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD is a condition that someone experiences when trauma related symptoms or impairment in everyday functioning last for a month to a lifetime (1). It occurs when someone can not bounce back from a traumatic event or experience. Even though some people can be in the exact situation and be the same age and gender there is a chance that only one will develop PTSD. Why is that? There are many possible reasons why some people develop PTSD and others do not, the main reasons are thought to be a person s background, genetics and environment. PTSD can only be diagnosed in a person with†¦show more content†¦Back to the car crash example, if the person is experiencing an avoidance symptom, then they could be really hesitant about going places that they normally would have to use a car to go to. They could also be less excited to g o to a place that they used to love to go to because they would have to drive there. Symptoms can be a range of a lot of things so children and adults don t always have the same symptoms when it comes to diseases or illness or any medical issue. For example, PTSD in young children some symptoms include bedwetting, forgetting how to talk, being unusually clingy and acting out the scary part during playtime and for older children and teens symptoms mostly follow what the adult symptoms are they include guilty, disrespectful and destructive feelings (1). PTSD consists of three classes and those are lifetime, in remission with relapses and delayed onset. Lifetime is self explanatory and it is where you are expected to have PTSD for the rest of your life, it is when the person can not bounce back or overcome the experience. In remission with relapses is when you are getting over the disorder, but still have some minor set backs like a panic attack or an angry outburst on occasion. Delaye d onset is the rare chance that someone does not show any symptoms until up to six months after a traumatic event. Sometimes it may take even years for someone with delayed onset to be

Benefits And Benefits Of Organic Foods - 950 Words

Abid Hossain AP LANG – 3 November 13, 2014 Mrs. Lumpkins Benefits of Organic Foods Sales of organic food have risen steadily over the past couple of years, reaching nearly $30 billion in 2011, or 4.2% of all U.S. food and beverage sales, (Adams). Many people believe that organic foods are ultimately the better choice when it comes to health due to the absence of pesticides and hormones. But other people—especially those whose food budgets may be more defined—wonder if organic food is really worth the inflated price tag. Despite the price, Organic foods are worth producing and consuming rather than conventional foods due to the immense benefits they provide. While the designation of foods produced without the use of agrichemicals as organic began in the 1950s, only recently has consumer interest in purchasing organic foods increased. As more and more companies market products to these consumers, some have begun to wonder about the advantages of eating these foods. Deborah Rich argues, â€Å"One of the major benefits of organic foods is their increased nutrient content† (Rich 1). Rich cites multiple studies showing that organically grown foods contain higher levels of important nutrients than conventionally grown foods. The low nutritional content of conventionally grown foods that most Americans consume, Rich suggests, has resulted in grave consequences for the nation, including higher rates of chronic disease, nutrient deficiencies, and overeating. Organic production has beenShow MoreRelatedOrganic Foods : The Benefits Of Organic Food913 Words   |  4 Pagesyour food came from? Whether it be â€Å"organic† or non-organic , what are the things you take note of when purchasing either of the two? Firstly, what is considered organic must be considered. What classifies a product as organic relies solely on how the product was grown, if it was in a natural way with no growth hormones or harmful chemicals. People who tend to eat organic food as opposed to non-organic do so for a variety of reasons. A few big reasons are the natural process in which organic foodRead MoreOrganic Food Benefits Of Organic Foods Essay1122 Words   |  5 PagesOrganic Foods I chose the topic organic food benefits. Are you concerned about the health of yourself and that of your family? You should be. You might be surprised to learn of the chemicals known to exist in the foods we eat daily. I hope to evaluate the benefits of organic food versus those of conventional food and then you can make your own decision based on my presentment. Organic food is an alternative to conventional food. It is marketed as pure, wholesome, natural, and still small scale. PeopleRead MoreThe Benefits of Organic Foods1149 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿Benefits of Organic Foods Introduction: In spite of the fact that organic foods have been proved to have a better effect on peoples health in comparison to conventional foods served in supermarkets, the fact that people continue to buy their food without expressing interest in its provenience makes it possible for one to understand that the masses have failed to comprehend the full complexity of the problem at hand. People need to understand that the You are what you eat expression appliesRead MoreBenefits of Organic Food2364 Words   |  10 PagesThe Benefits of Organic Food—Draft #1 Organic food, once only found in health food stores, is now a consistent element at local supermarkets. So what is the difference between a conventionally grown apple and an organic one? The answer is in the way the crop is grown and what it is and is not exposed to. In order to be labeled â€Å"organic† the farmer who grew it used renewable resources and conservation of soil and water methods. Also, organic farmers do not use conventional pesticides or weed killersRead MoreNutritional Benefits Of Organic Foods1218 Words   |  5 Pagesalternatives, the organic food industry is quickly expanding. The U.S. organic foods market has rapidly grown from $3.5 billion in 1996 to $28.6 billion in 2010 according to the clinical report of Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages written by Joel Forman and Janet Silverstein. But should we purchase and consume more organically grown produce, meats, dairy products, and grains than conventionally grown foods? As the organic food section in local food supermarkets continueRead MoreOrganic Farming: Organic Food Benefits Essay1039 Words   |  5 PagesOrganic Food Benefits With the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle being abundantly clear, healthy food choices are now in the spotlight. The demand for organic foods among U.S. consumers is on the rise due to the assumption that it is a healthier and safer food choice. As a consequence of staggering amounts of greenwashing thrust upon consumers today, labels and claims of health benefits have become overwhelming and confusing. Buyers must seek the facts for nutrition and safety informationRead MoreThe Health Benefits of Eating Organic Foods1166 Words   |  5 Pagesclothing, water, and food. In the past when individuals were able to provide for themselves and their families they were able to be content. In the present day however, there is an increasing concern about what type of food is best. Another question is, what type of food should one provide for their family? There are pros and cons to almost every situation. Eating organic food leads to a healthier lifestyle. More and more people are d rawing the conclusion that eating organic food leads to a healthierRead MoreThe Benefits of Organic Food to Human Health1193 Words   |  5 PagesThe benefits of organic food to human health. Organic refers to the way agricultural foods is produced and processed. It is using methods and materials that are of low impact to the environment. And the primary goal is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants and people. Research published in a 2001 study showed that the current fruit and vegetables that are conventionally grown in the United States have about half the vitamin content of theirRead MoreOrganic Food And Farming Benefits For Health826 Words   |  4 PagesOrganic Food and Farming Benefits for Health To the casual shopper it may appear that one of the biggest differences between organic and non organic food can be found on the price tag, however, it is important to realize that the true cost of food is not necessarily the price listed on the price tag. Looking more into the quality, how its made and where the food comes from, is beneficial in our choice of the food we pick. Picking organic food have become ever-so popular. Organic food is grown orRead MoreLittle Evidence Of Health Benefits From Organic Foods Essay1188 Words   |  5 Pageshealth benefits from organic foods, study finds† Michelle Brandt argues that certified organic fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy and other certified organic food goods, may not be worth the higher prices. Brandt states that certified organic is around 50% more expensive at most retailers. Opposing views of certified organic goods have often claimed that the higher prices are worth the health benefits. Brandt states that there have been mul tiple studies done on the various types of organic and certified

Reclaiming Clean Energy from Wastewater Essay Example For Students

Reclaiming Clean Energy from Wastewater Essay Reclaiming Clean Energy from WastewaterAs the Earth becomes more developed many changes in the environment are becoming apparent. These changes are unexpected and often faced with opposition from skeptics. One of these problems is global warming. Global warming is caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are produced on a large scale by combustion of fossil fuels. A major contributor to greenhouse emissions is the combustion of coal, oil, and gas in power plants. Many options to fossil fuels as a source of energy have been suggested, but with increasing energy demands our society is reluctant to risk a change. Alternatives such as wind energy, nuclear power, and fuel cells have all been suggested, but all have draw backs and limitations. The focus of this paper is expanding fuel cell production of clean energy. The problem with fuel cells is that they require hydrogen to produce energy, and currently hydrogen is produced by hydrolysis of water w ith dirty energy. Dirty energy refers to energy that creates dangerous byproducts such as greenhouse gasses and criteria pollutants. It is said that we can never extract more energy from hydrogen than is put into it. This is true only if we use conventional methods to produce hydrogen. What if we could turn to nature to find a way for us to produce hydrogen?As it turns out nature did find a way millions of years ago. Bacterial cells evolved proteins called hydrogenases that release hydrogen gas by fermenting carbohydrates. This process releases hydrogen gas as a byproduct. Clostridium butyicum can be used to create hydrogen gas on a production level. A source for clean hydrogen for fuel cells has been found. But where to the carbohydrates come from?Scientists at Pennsylvania State University found a creative source for these carbohydrates, sugars in municipal wastewater. Using Clostridium sp. to produce hydrogen gas from sludge could change wastewater treatment plants into local pow er plants. The plants would utilize the hydrogen gas in fuel cells. Clostridium sp. requires anaerobic conditions for hydrogen production. This would decrease the costs for wastewater treatment, as aerators are a very expensive component of wastewater treatment, in addition to generating clean energy. Wastewater treatment would have to shift to anaerobic processes. By changing wastewater treatment plants into power plants the burden of energy production would be shifted away from fossil fuels. Reductions in greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions will have a myriad of effects that will benefit humanity. The decrease in fossil fuel combustion will benefit humanity by reducing global warming and by improving health of individuals. According to Plan B the raise in world temperatures could lead to increased intensity and occurrence of severe storms, the raise of sea levels, and the increased occurrence of heat waves. These factors adversely affect tourism, insurance, and agriculture (Brown). The raise of sea levels even only one meter will displace millions of people. Heat waves have killed thousands of people in the last few decades. These are severe complications that arise with global warming, this alone should encourage governments to shift focus from fossil fuels to clean energy sources. This is not where the benefits of clean energy stop. The health of all humans is affected by other byproducts of combustion of fossil fuels, the criteria pollutants. The combustion of fossil fuels releases toxic substances in addition to greenhouse gases. Nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, part iculates, and carbon monoxide are all products of fossil fuel combustion (Moore). These criteria pollutants all adversely affect human respiratory systems increasing the occurrences of asthma, respiratory infections, and other health complications. By contributing to the reduction of fossil fuels this technology is improving human health as well as the environment. .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .postImageUrl , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:hover , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:visited , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:active { border:0!important; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:active , .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uf095c3136f5e2ce78c63023daca43f7f:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Adversity and resilience of ho EssayThe costs of upgrading current wastewater treatment plants to clean power plants may seem expensive especially if the costs are given to local governments. In order to assess the price of upgrading treatment plants the benefits to local citizens must be assessed as well. By decreasing greenhouse gases global warming is slowed down which will benefit humanity in an unquantifiable manner. By decreasing criteria pollutant emissions the benefits to local communities can be quantified. By looking at the occurrences of asthma, respiratory infections, and other related health complications in local populations local officials could recognize th e monetary benefits of relying on clean energy rather than fossil fuels. If the government were to subsidize the cost of changing the treatment plants the way that fossil fuel power plants are subsidized then the burden would be taken from local governments. Not to mention the new power plant will generate usable energy that will eventually pay for any equipment to harness the energy. Energy sources should be shifted from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, such as fuel cells. This is only beneficial if the source of the hydrogen, for the fuel cell, is from a clean source. The research presented in this case study outlines the technology necessary for clean hydrogen production. As concerned scientists and citizens it is our responsibility to encourage the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy sources. In the future wind energy farms, and fuel cell power plants could supply enough power for local communities. In addition to changing our energy sources we must also encourage the u se of energy efficient appliances and practices in residential and commercial units. Fossil fuel combustion supplies ample energy. By replacing fossil fuel power plants with less powerful energy sources the supply of energy will be decreased. This must be offset by a decrease in demand. This must be satisfied by citizens, industry, and government regulations. By looking to nature for solutions to hydrogen demands a potentially limitless source of hydrogen has been found. This plan is only economical if existing structures, such as wastewater treatment plants, can be used. This topic must be researched in order to increase the efficiency of hydrogen production before we can safely say this is the answer, but it is a great start. Works CitedBrown, Lester R. Plan B. W.W. Norton Company: New York, 2003. Moore, Gary S. Living with the Earth 2nd Ed.: Concepts in Environmental Health Science. Lewis Publishers: New York, 2002.

Rene Descartes Essay Example For Students

Rene Descartes Essay DescartesHow does Descartes try to extricate himself from the sceptical doubts that he has raised? Does he succeed? by Tom Nuttall All page references and quotations from the Meditations are taken from the 1995 Everyman edition In the Meditations, Descartes embarks upon what Bernard Williams has called the project of Pure Enquiry to discover certain, indubitable foundations for knowledge. By subjecting everything to doubt Descartes hoped to discover whatever was immune to it. In order to best understand how and why Descartes builds his epistemological system up from his foundations in the way that he does, it is helpful to gain an understanding of the intellectual background of the 17th century that provided the motivation for his work. We can discern three distinct influences on Descartes, three conflicting world-views that fought for prominence in his day. The first was what remained of the mediaeval scholastic philosophy, largely based on Aristotelian science and Christian theolog y. Descartes had been taught according to this outlook during his time at the Jesuit college La Flech_ and it had an important influence on his work, as we shall see later. The second was the scepticism that had made a sudden impact on the intellectual world, mainly as a reaction to the scholastic outlook. This scepticism was strongly influenced by the work of the Pyrrhonians as handed down from antiquity by Sextus Empiricus, which claimed that, as there is never a reason to believe p that is better than a reason not to believe p, we should forget about trying to discover the nature of reality and live by appearance alone. This attitude was best exemplified in the work of Michel de Montaigne, who mockingly dismissed the attempts of theologians and scientists to understand the nature of God and the universe respectively. Descartes felt the force of sceptical arguments and, while not being sceptically disposed himself, came to believe that scepticism towards knowledge was the best way to discover what is certain: by applying sceptical doubt to all our beliefs, we can discover which of them are indubitable, and thus form an adequate foundation for knowledge. The third world-view resulted largely from the work of the new scientists; Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon et al. Science had finally begun to assert itself and shake off its dated Aristotelian prejudices. Coherent theories about the world and its place in the universe were being constructed and many of those who were aware of this work became very optimistic about the influence it could have. Descartes was a child of the scientific revolution, but felt that until sceptical concerns were dealt with, science would always have to contend with Montaigne and his cronies, standing on the sidelines and laughing at sciences pretenses to knowledge. Descartes project, then, was to use the tools of the sceptic to disprove the sceptical thesis by discovering certain knowledge that could subsequently be used as the foundation of a new science, in which knowledge about the external world was as certain as knowledge about mathematics. It was also to hammer the last nail into the coffin of scholasticism, but also, arguably, to show that God still had a vital r_le to play in the discovery of knowledge. Meditation One describes Descartes method of doubt. By its conclusion, Descartes has seemingly subjected all of his beliefs to the strongest and most hyberbolic of doubts. He invokes the nightmarish notion of an all-powerful, malign demon who could be deceiving him in the realm of sensory experience, in his very understanding of matter and even in the simplest cases of mathematical or logical truths. The doubts may be obscure, but this is the strength of the method the weakness of criteria for what makes a doubt reasonable means that almost anything can count as a doubt, and therefore whatever withstands doubt must be something epistemologically formidable. In Meditation Two, Descartes hits upon the indubita ble principle he has been seeking. He exists, at least when he thinks he exists. The cogito (Descartes proof of his own existence) has been the source of a great deal of discussion ever since Descartes first formulated it in the 1637 Discourse on Method, and, I believe, a great deal of misinterpretation (quite possibly as a result of Descartes repeated contradictions of his own position in subsequent writings). Many commentators have fallen prey to the tempting interpretation of the cogito as either syllogism or enthymeme. This view holds that Descartes asserts that he is thinking, that he believes it axiomatic that whatever thinks must exist and therefore that he logically concludes that he exists. This view, it seems to me, is wrong. It should be stated on no occasion, in the Meditations, does Descartes write I am thinking, therefore I am, nor anything directly equivalent. Rather, he says: Doubtless, then, that I existand, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived in my mind. (p. 80). The point here is that it is impossible to doubt the truth of the proposition I exist when one utters it. It is an indubitable proposition, and one that will necessarily be presupposed in every attack of the sceptic. Descartes is not yet entitled to use syllogisms as the possibility of the malign demon is still very much alive. As an aside, Descartes himself denies that the cogito is a syllogism, although it should be mentioned that in some of the Replies to Objections he seems to assert that it is in fact a syllogism. Finally, in the Regulae ad directionem ingenii, Descartes denies the usefulness of syllogisms as a means to knowledge. I believe that, given Descartes project, it is fair to grant him that the cogito deserves the status he bestows upon it. For can there be anything more certain than something that is so forceful and so powerful that every time it is presented to our mind we are forced to assent to it? What Descartes did here was to jiggle about the way philosophy normally approaches the construction of knowledge structures. By starting with self-knowledge, he elevates the subjective above the objective and forces his epistemology to rest upon the knowledge he has of his own self (and inadvertently sets the tone for the next 300 years of philosophy). This leaves him with a problem. He can know his own existence, that he is a thinking thing and the contents of his consciousness, but how can any of this ever lead to any knowledge of anything outside of himself? The answer is that, by itself, it cant. Descartes, in the third Meditation, attempts to prove the existence of God, defined as a being with all perfections. This proof is to be derived from his idea of a God, defined as a being with all perfections. So far, so good Descartes examines the contents of his consciousness and discovers within it this idea, and we can allow him this. At this point, however, he introduces a whole series of scholastic principles concerning different modes of causation and reality without proper justification: For, without doubt, those ideas considered as images, as opposed to modes of consciousness that represent substances are something more, and contain in themselves, so to speak, more objective reality, that is, participate by representation in higher degrees of being or perfection than those that represent only modes or accidents; and again the idea by which I conceive a Godhas certainly in it more objective reality than those ideas by which finite substances are represented. Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect; for whence can the effect draw its reality if no t from its cause? And how could the cause communicate to it this reality unless it possessed it in itself? Whence do these principles draw their indubitability? Even if we grant that it is contrary to natural reason that an effect can have greater reality than its cause, that the concepts of modes and substances are coherent with Descartes method, let alone possess the properties that he ascribes to them, then surely we can still bring the malign demon into play? Is it not possible that this all- powerful demon could bring it about that Descartes has a notion of a being with all possible perfections that he calls God? No, says Descartes, because the notion (representing something perfect) would then have more objective reality than the demon (as something evil and thus imperfect) has formal reality, and it is manifest by the natural light that this is not possible. But why not? Maybe the demon has just made it seem impossible, and it seems that Descartes has no answer to this. Furth er problems remain. Cosmological arguments for God invoking the notion of causation have always had to contend with the problem of the cause of God. For if all events (or ideas) are caused ultimately by God, then what about God Himself? Why should He be exempt from this rule? The standard response to this is to claim that God, being omnipotent, causes Himself. One of the chief perfections that Descartes attributes to God is that of self-existence, that is, that His existence depends on nothing else but itself. But if we examine this idea, it seems a little confused. If God is the efficient cause of God then we are forced to ask how something that does not yet exist can cause anything. If God is the formal cause of God, i.e. it is part of the intrinsic nature of God that he exists which seems more likely then it seems that we have merely a reformulation of the ontological argument for Gods existence from Meditation 5. It seems that Descartes may have anticipated the wealth of criti cism that the causal proof of God would inspire, and so, after explaining how human error and a benevolent, non-deceiving God are compatible in Meditation Four, he produced in Meditation Five a version of the mediaeval ontological argument for Gods existence. Unlike the causal argument, the ontological argument doesnt involve the covert import of any new principles. It simply purports to show that, from an analysis of his own idea of God, Descartes can show that He necessarily exists. The reasoning goes like this: I have ideas of things which have true and immutable natures. If I perceive clearly and distinctly that a property belongs to an ideas true and immutable nature, then it does actually belong to that nature. I perceive clearly and distinctly that Gods true and mmutable nature is that of a being with all perfections. Further, I perceive clearly and distinctly that existence is a perfection and non-existence a non- perfection. Thus existence belongs to Gods true and immutable nature. God exists. One of the interesting things about this argument is that, at first sight, it does not seem to depend in any way upon anything that has been proved hitherto. It is an application of pure logic, an analysis of what we mean when we say God and a inference from that analysis. Descartes explicitly says that an ideas true and immutable nature does not in any way depend upon his thinking it, and thus upon his existence. Once he has perceived clearly and distinctly that an ideas true and immutable nature consists in such-and-such, that is the case whether or not he thinks it is, or even if he exists or not. Descartes in fact recognises the primacy of the ontological argument: although all the conclusions of the preceding Meditations were false, the existence of God would pass with me for a truth at least as certain as I ever judged any truth of mathematics to be. If this is true, which it seems to be, then this argument is only as trustworthy as the faculties which ena bled us to construct it, which are the same faculties that enable us to know mathematical truths, and so it seems worthwhile to ask how, under Descartes theory, we come to know mathematical truths. Descartes claims we perceive them clearly and distinctly. How do we know that what we perceive clearly and distinctly is true? Because God, being perfect, is no deceiver, and would not let it be the case that we could ever perceive something clearly and distinctly without it being the case. It seems then, that this proof of God, relying on the veracity of clear and distinct ideas, relies on the certain knowledge that a non-deceiving God exists. We have another proof of God, the causal proof as described in Meditation three. But apart from the patent futility of using one proof of p to construct another proof of p, on examining the causal proof of God further, we find that it, too, relies upon a methodology that can only be relied upon if the divine guarantee is present, for if this guaran tee is not present, then, as I mentioned above, how can we be sure that the all-powerful demon is not exercising his malignant influence? This, of course, is the infamous Cartesian circle, first identified by Arnauld in the Fourth Objections and discussed ever since. Many philosophers have tried to get Descartes off the hook in various ways, some by denying that there is a circle and some by admitting the circularity but denying its significance. I will here briefly evaluate a few of their arguments. Some commentators have taken a passage from Descartes reply to the Second set of Objections (Mersennes) to indicate that Descartes is only actually interested in the psychological significance of fundamental truths. The passage is as follows: If a conviction is so firm that that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting what we are convinced of, then there are no further questions for us to ask; we have everything we could reasonably want. Under my interpretation, thi s is what it is about the cogito that makes it so important for Descartes, so we cannot have any argument with the principle expressed by him in the above passage. But can it help break the circle? When we clearly and distinctly perceive something, Descartes says, fairly I think, that this perception compels our assent, that we cannot but believe it. Gods r_le in the system, to these commentators, is as a guarantor of our memory regarding clarity and distinctness. In other words, once we have proved Gods existence, we can happily know that any memory we have of a clear and distinct idea regarding x is true i.e. that we really did have a clear and distinct idea of x. But this does not seem satisfactory, as we still do not have a divine guarantee for the reasoning that leads us from the clear and distinct notions we originally have about God to the proof of His existence. We can give assent to the clear and distinct notions we have originally; in fact, we are compelled to give this as sent when the notions are presented to our mind, but the logical steps we take from these ideas to the final proof is still subject to the evil demon because God is not yet proven. Furthermore, because these steps are needed, the memory of the original clear and distinct ideas are themselves subject to doubt because God is not yet proven. It seems that the only way either of the proofs of God could be accepted would be if we had an original clear and distinct perception of God directly presented to our mind (qualitatively similar to the cogito). But this in itself would make any future proofs redundant. Interestingly, this sounds quite similar to a divine revelation. Harry Frankfurt, in his book Demons, Dreamers and Madmen, has argued that what Descartes is actually looking for is a coherent, indubitable set of beliefs about the universe. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Perfect certainty is totally compatible with absolute falsity. Our certainty may not coincide precisel y with Gods truth, but should this matter?: Reasoncan give us certainty. It can serve to establish beliefs in which there is no risk of betrayal. This certainty is all we need and all we demand. Perhaps our certainties do not coincide with Gods truthBut this divine or absolute truth, since it is outside the range of our faculties and cannot undermine our certainties, need be of no concern to us. (Frankfurt, p 184) This is almost a Kantian approach to knowledge, where we as humans only concern ourselves with the phenomena of objects as they present themselves to us, not with the objects in themselves. Can we ascribe this view to Descartes? Its tempting, given what we have said above regarding the prime importance of indubitability, but it would seem that a God presenting ideas to us in a form which doesnt correspond to reality, and then giving us a strong disposition to believe that they do correspond to reality would be a deceiving God and contrary to Descartes notion of Him. Thus t he belief set would not be coherent. Perhaps, as we do not have clear and distinct ideas of the bodies we perceive, and as the divine guarantee only extends as far as clear and distinct ideas, we are being too hasty in judging that reality is how it appears to be and if we stopped to meditate further we would see that reality is actually like something else. But aside from the fact that this seems unlikely, Descartes never seemed to envisage the possibility. So much for the Cartesian circle. Where does this leave the ontological argument, which we had only just begun to discuss? Aside from the methodological difficulties, there do seem to two further problems with it. The first has been noted by almost every student of Descartes over the years that of the description of existence as a property. Put briefly, this objection states that existence is not a property like red or hairy or three-sided that can be applied to a subject, and thus it makes no sense to say that existence is par t of somethings essence. If we assert that x is y, we are already asserting the existence of x as soon as we mention it, prior to any application of a predicate. from the beginning. In other words, to say x exists is to utter a tautology and to say that x doesnt exist is to contradict oneself. So how can sentences of the form x doesnt exist make sense? one may well ask. It is because these sentences are shorthand for the idea I have of x has no corresponding reality and it was to solve problems like this that Bertrand Russell constructed his theory of descriptions. To add existence to an idea doesnt just make it an idea with a new property, it changes it from an idea into an existent entity. Finally, if Descartes is right, there seems no reason why we cannot construct any other idea whose essence includes existence. For instance, if I conjure up the idea of an existent purple building that resembles the Taj Mahal, then it is the true and immutable nature of this idea that it is a bu ilding, that this building resembles the Taj Mahal, that the building is purple, and that it exists. But no such building does exist, as far as I am aware, and if it did exist, its existence would not be necessary, but contingent. This in itself is enough, I think, to show that the ontological argument is false. Once we have destroyed Descartes proofs of the existence of God, the edifice of knowledge necessarily comes tumbling down with them, as we find that almost everything Descartes believes in is dependent on Gods nature as a non-deceiver: I remarkthat the certitude of all other truths is so absolutely dependent on it, that without this knowledge it is impossible ever to know anything perfectly. (p.115) The only possible exceptions are those assent-compelling beliefs such as the cogito. Even these, however, are doubtful when we are not thinking about them, and the above passage does give weight to Edwin Curleys argument that: Descartes would hold that the proposition I exist is fully certain only if the rest of the argument of the Meditations goes through. We must buy all or nothing. This is not the end of the story, though. As far as Descartes is concerned, by the end of Meditation Five, he has produced two powerful proofs of God, has a clear and distinct notion of his own self, has a criterion for truth, knows how to avoid error and is beginning to form ideas regarding our knowledge of corporeal bodies.. And so it remains only to explain why we are fully justified in believing in corporeal bodies, and also to draw the ideas of Meditation Two regarding self-knowledge to their full conclusion. Regarding the nature of corporeal bodies and our knowledge of them, it seems to me that, given his premises, the conclusions Descartes draws in Meditation Six are generally the correct ones. He again invokes the causal to argue that the ideas of bodies we have within our minds must be caused by something with at least as much formal reality as the ideas have objectiv e reality. We could theoretically be producing these ideas, but Descartes dismisses this possibility for two reasons firstly, that the idea of corporeality does not presuppose thought and secondly that our will seems to have no effect on what we perceive or dont perceive. (This second argument seems to me to ignore dreaming, in which what we perceive derives from us but is independent of our will). The ideas, then, could come from God, or from another being superior to us but inferior to God. But this, too, is impossible, argues Descartes, as if it were the case that God produces the ideas of bodies in us, then the very strong inclination we have towards believing that the idea-producing bodies resemble the ideas we have would be false and thus God would be allowing us to be deceived which is not permissible. The same would apply if any other being were producing these ideas. Thus, concludes Descartes, it is most likely that our ideas of corporeal bodies are actually caused by bodi es resembling those ideas. We cannot be certain, however, as we cannot claim to have clear and distinct notions of everything we perceive. We can, however, claim certainty with regard to those properties of bodies which we do know with clarity and distinction; namely, size, figure (shape), position, motion, substance, duration and number (not all of these assertions are justified). Obviously we cannot claim that we know these properties for specific bodies with clarity and distinction, for to do so would leave open the uestion of why it is that astronomy and the senses attribute different sizes to stars. What Descartes means is that we can be sure that these primary qualities exist in bodies in the same way that they do in our ideas of bodies. This cannot be claimed for qualities such as heat, colour, taste and smell, of which our ideas are so confused and vague that we must always reserve judgement. (This conclusion is actually quite similar to the one John Locke drew fifty years l ater in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding.) I think we can grant this reasoning, with the caveat regarding dreaming that I noted above, and of course the other unproved reasonings that Descartes exhumes here, such as the causal principle. Furthermore, it seems to be further proof that Descartes does believe we can get to know objects in themselves to a certain extent. Finally, I turn to Descartes argument for the distinction of mind and body. Descartes believes he has shown the mind to be better known than the body in Meditation Two. In Meditation Six he goes on to claim that, as he knows his mind and knows clearly and distinctly that its essence consists purely of thought, and that bodies essences consist purely of extension, that he can conceive of his mind and body as existing separately. By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately. At this point, Descartes ma kes the apparent logical leap to claiming that the mind and body have been created separately, without justification. Most commentators agree that this is not justified, and further, that just because I can conceive of my mind existing independently of my body it does not necessarily follow that it does so. In defence of Descartes, Saul Kripke has suggested that Descartes may have anticipated a modern strand of modal logic that holds that if x=y, then L (x=y). In other words, if x is identical to y then it is necessarily identical to it. From this it follows that if it is logically possible that x and y have different properties then they are distinct. In this instance, that means that because I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind and body as existing separately, then they are distinct. The argument, like much modern work on identity, is too technical and involved to explore here in much depth. But suffice to say that we can clearly and distinctly conceive of Dr Jekyll an d Mr. Hyde as being distinct and yet they are identical, necessarily so under Kripkes theory. It is doubtful that Kripke can come to Descartes aid here and Descartes needs further argument to prove that the mind and the body are distinct. And so we finish our discussion of Descartes attempts to extricate himself from the sceptical doubts he has set up for himself. As mentioned previously, the ultimate conclusion to draw regarding the success of the enterprise that Descartes set for himself must be that he failed. When the whole epistemological structure is so heavily dependent on one piece of knowledge in this case the knowledge that God exists then a denial of that knowledge destroys the whole structure. All that we can really grant Descartes and this is certainly contentious is that he can rightly claim that when a clear and distinct idea presents itself to his mind, he cannot but give his assent to this idea, and furthermore, that while this assent is being granted, the clear and distinct idea can be justly used as a foundation for knowledge. The most this gets us and this is not a little is the knowledge of our own existence each time we assert it. But Descartes project should not be judged by us as a failure the fact that he addressed topics of great and lasting interest, and provided us with a method we can both understand and utilise fruitfully, speaks for itself. Bibliography 1. Descartes, Ren_ A Discourse on Method, Meditations and Principles of Philosophy trans. John Veitch. The Everymans Library, 1995. Descartes, Ren_ The Philosophical Writings of Descartes volume I and II ed. and trans. John Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge, 1985. Frankfurt, Harry Demons, Dreamers and Madmen. Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. Curley, Edwin Descartes Against the Skeptics. Oxford, 1978. Vesey, Godfrey Descartes: Father of Modern Philosophy. Open University Press, 1971. Sorrell, Tom Descartes: Reason and Experience. Open University Press, 1982. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ed. Ted Honderich. Oxford University Press, 1985. Cottingham, John Descartes. Oxford, 1986. Williams, Bernard Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Harmondsworth, 1978. Russell, Bertrand The History of Western Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin, 1961. 11. Kripke, Saul Naming and Necessity. Oxford 1980. Word Count: 4577 Words/ Pages : 4,753 / 24 Doctor Assisted Suicide Essay