Descartes claims in the Third Meditation that ideas of sense might be materially false. While an accurate interpretation of this claim has the potential of providing some valuable insights into Descartes's theory of ideas in general and his understanding of the epistemic status of sensations in particular, the explanation Descartes provides of the material falsity of ideas is itself obscure and misleading, making accurate interpretation difficult. In this paper an interpretation of material falsity is offered which identifies the fault of (...) materially false ideas in the logical incoherence of their objective content. The implications of this interpretation are also discussed. (shrink)

Despite repeated attempts to understand the cogito, its character still remains the subject of much dispute. I believe this state of affairs exists because commentators have not proceeded properly in their investigations. Descartes tells us that it is clear and distinct perception which “assures” him of his existence as a thinking thing. Yet when one turns to the literature, what one finds is that the two issues are not discussed in conjunction, but rather independently. I believe this is a mistake, (...) and that it counts heavily against existing interpretations of the cogito; they are unable to explain how clear and distinct perception “assures” Descartes of the truth of “I am a thinking thing.” In what follows I intend to provide such an explanation and, in the process, develop a new interpretation of the cogito. (shrink)

ne of the leading problems for Cartesian dualism is to provide an account of the union of mind and body. This problem is often construed to be one of explaining how thinking things and extended things can causally interact. That is, it needs to be explained how thoughts in the mind can produce motions in the body and how motions in the body can produce sensations, appetites, and emotions in the mind. The conclusion often drawn, as it was by three (...) of Descartes's illustrious successors, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz, is that mind and body cannot causally interact.' I mention this problem of the interaction between thinking things and extended things only to distinguish it from the problem concerning the union of mind and body which I wish to discuss. Some commentators, such as Daisie Radner, maintain that the.. (shrink)