- What does Descartes demonstrate with the wax example? How does it fit into his main argument for dualism? In short Descartes portrays that the wax can take on many different shapes and or forms however it will still remain as the same identity, which is wax. Therefore, during the class discussion we had mentioned the example of a child. As the child grows does the child change or remain the same? Other than the physical change we conclude the child is still the child.
- According to Descartes, how do we know the mind is separate from the body? Do you agree? Explain. “What then did I know so distinctly in this piece of wax? It could certainly be nothing of all that the senses brought to my notice, since all these things which fall under taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing, are found to be changed, and yet the same wax remains”. This quote in my opinion answers the question on how the mind and body are different. senses can be deceptive while your mind can think more logically about things. When he gave the example of men passing his window. He had connected figures to machines that were just draped with a coat and hat. Therefore, stating that his senses that his body has are different than the mind. Taking the example we had previously stated in class about a child remaining the same. We can see how the mind is continuously still the same no matter what the appearance may be of the person (throughout age).
- What problem does Princess Elisabeth ask Descartes to explain? Does he respond to her objections to your satisfaction? Princess Elisabeth in short asked how (Insert summary of what she asked). Princess Elisabeth stated, “Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions?” In all honesty the letter between Descartes and Princess Elisabeth was a little strange, in my opinion. You have the Princess asking a question and seeking knowledge. While Descartes is so “enlightened” its hard to really comprehend and digest exactly all the things he is saying. I thought it was funny when he stated, “If I make this explanation any longer I’ll be doing an injustice to your incomparable mind, whereas if I let myself think that what I have written so far will be entirely satisfactory to you I’ll be guilty of egotism”. This comment made me feel as though he was trying to nicely state that he couldn’t explain it to her because she would basically not be able to comprehend what he has to share. Even if he was to try he’d basically be doing it out of ego. I’m sorry but geez talk about being mansplained.
Angelica's blog 