Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the late 20th century and has since become one of the dominant paradigms in global governance. It is characterized by a commitment to free market capitalism, limited government intervention in the economy, and the promotion of individual freedoms and rights. Neoliberalism is often associated with the policies of Thatcherism and Reaganomics in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively.
The key tenets of neoliberalism include the promotion of free trade, deregulation of markets, privatization of public goods and services, and a focus on individual responsibility and self-reliance. Neoliberalism is based on the idea that the market is the most efficient mechanism for allocating resources and that government intervention in the economy should be limited to ensuring the functioning of markets, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts.
Neoliberalism emerged as a response to the economic crises of the 1970s, which were characterized by high inflation, slow growth, and rising unemployment. The Keynesian economic policies of the post-war period, which emphasized government intervention in the economy and the regulation of markets, were seen as ineffective in addressing these problems. Neoliberalism was seen as an alternative that would promote economic growth and stability through the free market.
One of the key aspects of neoliberalism is the promotion of free trade and the reduction of trade barriers. Neoliberalism emphasizes the importance of international trade as a means of promoting economic growth and increasing efficiency. Neoliberals argue that trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, restrict competition and increase prices for consumers, and that reducing these barriers leads to greater prosperity for all.
Another important aspect of neoliberalism is the deregulation of markets. Neoliberalism emphasizes the importance of removing government regulations that limit the functioning of markets. This includes deregulation of industries such as finance, telecommunications, and transportation. Neoliberals argue that regulation stifles innovation and competition, and that removing these barriers leads to greater efficiency and economic growth.
Privatization of public goods and services is also a key aspect of neoliberalism. Neoliberals argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector in delivering goods and services, and that privatization leads to greater efficiency and lower costs. This includes the privatization of industries such as healthcare, education, and transportation.
Neoliberalism also emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Neoliberals argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives and that government welfare programs should be limited. This includes the promotion of individual freedoms and rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and property rights.
Critics of neoliberalism argue that it has led to increased inequality, social and economic instability, and environmental degradation. They argue that neoliberal policies have benefited the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and working class. Critics also argue that neoliberalism has led to the erosion of public services, such as healthcare and education, and that it has led to the privatization of essential services, which can lead to higher costs and reduced access for marginalized groups.
In conclusion, neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free market capitalism, limited government intervention in the economy, and the promotion of individual freedoms and rights. It has become one of the dominant paradigms in global governance since the 1970s. Neoliberalism is based on the idea that the market is the most efficient mechanism for allocating resources and that government intervention in the economy should be limited. While neoliberalism has been praised for promoting economic growth and efficiency, it has also been criticized for leading to increased inequality and social and economic instability.
Cosmopolitanism is a philosophical and political ideology that emphasizes the importance of cultural diversity and universal human rights. It is rooted in the idea that all individuals, regardless of their cultural or national background, share a common humanity and should be treated with respect and dignity. At its core, cosmopolitanism is about recognizing and embracing the inherent interconnectedness of the world and promoting a sense of global citizenship.
The term “cosmopolitanism” derives from the Greek word kosmopolitēs, which means “citizen of the world.” In its earliest usage, the term referred to individuals who identified as citizens of multiple city-states in the ancient world. Over time, the meaning of the term expanded to encompass a broader sense of global identity and responsibility.
The central tenet of cosmopolitanism is the belief in universal human rights. According to this view, all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or nationality, possess inherent value and are entitled to basic human rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and association. This belief forms the basis for many international human rights treaties and agreements.
Cosmopolitanism also emphasizes the importance of cultural diversity and promotes respect for different cultures and ways of life. It recognizes that cultural differences are a natural part of human existence and should be celebrated rather than suppressed or ignored. At the same time, cosmopolitanism acknowledges that cultural differences can also lead to conflict and oppression, and seeks to promote dialogue and understanding between different cultures as a means of promoting peace and justice.
In addition to its moral and ethical dimensions, cosmopolitanism also has important political implications. It calls for a more just and equitable global order in which power and resources are distributed more fairly among nations and peoples. This requires a commitment to global governance and cooperation, as well as a recognition of the interconnectedness of different regions and nations.
Critics of cosmopolitanism argue that it is unrealistic and impractical, and that it fails to recognize the importance of national identity and sovereignty. They also contend that cosmopolitanism can lead to a homogenization of cultures and a loss of diversity.
However, defenders of cosmopolitanism counter that it is not incompatible with national identity and that it actually promotes a more robust sense of national identity rooted in shared values and ideals. They also argue that cultural diversity can be preserved and celebrated within a cosmopolitan framework, and that cosmopolitanism is necessary for addressing global challenges such as climate change and poverty.
In practice, cosmopolitanism has been embodied in a variety of movements and initiatives. One example is the global justice movement, which seeks to promote a more equitable and sustainable global order. Another is the human rights movement, which has played a key role in promoting universal human rights and holding governments and other actors accountable for human rights abuses.
Overall, cosmopolitanism is a powerful idea that has important implications for our understanding of human rights, cultural diversity, and global governance. While it is not without its critics and challenges, it remains a compelling vision for a more just and equitable world.
Political sociology is the study of the relationship between political power and social structures. It examines how political institutions and actors interact with and shape social structures and how social structures, in turn, affect political power. Political sociology is an interdisciplinary field that draws on theories and methods from sociology, political science, history, anthropology, economics, and other social sciences.
The central concern of political sociology is power. Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others, either by coercion or by persuasion. Political power is the ability to make and enforce decisions that affect the distribution of resources, rights, and duties in a society. Political power can be exercised by individuals, groups, organizations, or institutions.
Political sociology seeks to understand how power is distributed, exercised, and contested in different societies and historical periods. It examines how political institutions, such as the state, political parties, and interest groups, are formed, maintained, and transformed. It also analyzes how social structures, such as class, race, gender, and ethnicity, intersect with political power and shape political outcomes.
One of the key concepts in political sociology is the state. The state is a political entity that exercises sovereign power over a territory and its population. The state has a monopoly on the use of legitimate force and is responsible for providing public goods and services, such as security, justice, and welfare. The state also regulates the economy, controls the flow of information, and represents the country in international relations.
Political sociologists examine how the state is organized, how it functions, and how it interacts with other social institutions and actors. They study the different forms of the state, such as democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian regimes, and how they affect political outcomes. They also analyze the relationship between the state and civil society, which includes non-governmental organizations, social movements, and grassroots organizations.
Another key concept in political sociology is social inequality. Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and rewards among individuals and groups in a society. Social inequality can be based on various factors, such as income, wealth, education, occupation, race, gender, and ethnicity.
Political sociologists examine how social inequality is produced, reproduced, and challenged by political power and social structures. They analyze the role of the state in promoting or reducing social inequality through policies such as taxation, welfare, education, and affirmative action. They also study the strategies used by social movements and other forms of collective action to challenge and transform social inequality.
A third key concept in political sociology is globalization. Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness of the world’s economies, cultures, and societies. Globalization has been driven by advances in communication, transportation, and technology, and has led to increased trade, migration, and cultural exchange.
Political sociologists examine how globalization affects political power and social structures at different levels, from the local to the global. They analyze the impact of global economic and political institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, on national governments and local communities. They also study the emergence of transnational social movements and the role of global civil society in promoting social justice and human rights.
Political sociology employs a range of theoretical and methodological approaches to study political power and social structures. Some of the key theoretical perspectives in political sociology include Marxism, liberalism, feminism, postcolonialism, and cultural studies. These perspectives offer different ways of understanding the relationship between politics and society, and provide different tools for analyzing political power and social structures.
Political sociologists also use a variety of research methods, including surveys, interviews, ethnography, content analysis, and comparative analysis. These methods allow them to gather data on political attitudes, behaviors, and structures, and to analyze patterns and trends over time and across different contexts.
Configurationalism is an approach to social theory that emphasizes the importance of understanding the configurations, or patterns, of social phenomena rather than reducing them to isolated variables or causes. Configurationalism seeks to understand how different elements of social life – such as institutions, practices, norms, and values – are interrelated and contribute to the overall structure and functioning of society.
The origins of configurationalism can be traced back to the work of German sociologist Max Weber, who emphasized the importance of understanding the interplay of different social factors and the complexity of social reality. However, configurationalism as a distinct approach emerged in the mid-twentieth century, with the work of scholars such as Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, and Charles Tilly.
At its core, configurationalism argues that social phenomena cannot be reduced to a single factor or cause. Instead, it emphasizes the need to study how different elements of social life are interrelated and contribute to the overall structure and functioning of society. This approach is often contrasted with reductionist approaches that seek to explain social phenomena through isolated variables or causes.
Configurationalism also emphasizes the importance of context in shaping social phenomena. It argues that social phenomena can only be understood in relation to the broader social, cultural, and historical context in which they are embedded. This means that social phenomena cannot be understood in isolation from their broader social and cultural context, and that social researchers must take into account the specific historical and cultural factors that shape social life.
One key aspect of configurationalism is its focus on the interplay of different social institutions and practices. Configurationalists argue that social institutions – such as the family, the economy, and the state – are interrelated and contribute to the overall structure and functioning of society. They also emphasize the importance of understanding how social practices – such as language, rituals, and traditions – are embedded within social institutions and contribute to the broader social order.
Another key aspect of configurationalism is its emphasis on understanding the role of values and norms in shaping social phenomena. Configurationalists argue that values and norms play a crucial role in shaping social institutions and practices, and that they are deeply embedded within the broader social context. They also emphasize the importance of understanding how values and norms change over time and across different social contexts.
Configurationalism has been applied to a wide range of social phenomena, including social movements, political institutions, cultural practices, and economic systems. It has also been used to analyze the relationship between different social phenomena and to identify patterns and trends across different historical and cultural contexts.
One example of configurationalism in action is the study of social movements. Configurationalists argue that social movements cannot be understood in isolation from the broader social and cultural context in which they emerge. Instead, they emphasize the importance of studying how social movements are embedded within social institutions, how they are shaped by cultural values and norms, and how they contribute to broader social change.
Another example is the study of political institutions. Configurationalists argue that political institutions are deeply embedded within the broader social context and cannot be understood in isolation from other social phenomena. They emphasize the importance of understanding the interplay of different political institutions – such as the executive, legislature, and judiciary – and how they contribute to the overall structure and functioning of society.
In conclusion, configurationalism is an approach to social theory that emphasizes the importance of understanding the configurations, or patterns, of social phenomena rather than reducing them to isolated variables or causes. It emphasizes the interplay of different social institutions, practices, norms, and values, and the importance of context in shaping social phenomena.
Hegemony is a concept that refers to the dominance of one group or nation over others, either through the use of force or through the acceptance of its cultural, economic, or political power. The term comes from the Greek word “hegemonia,” which means leadership or rule. The idea of hegemony has been used in a variety of contexts, including in political science, international relations, sociology, and cultural studies.
In political science and international relations, hegemony refers to the dominance of one state or group of states over others. This can be achieved through economic power, military might, or cultural influence. In the international system, hegemony has often been associated with the idea of a “superpower,” a nation that has significant influence over other nations and can shape global politics and economics. For example, the United States has been considered a global hegemon since the end of World War II due to its economic and military power.
In sociology, the concept of hegemony refers to the ways in which dominant groups in society maintain their power and influence over other groups. This can be achieved through cultural practices, such as language, art, and media, as well as through economic and political structures. According to Marxist theory, hegemony is maintained by the ruling class through control over the means of production and the distribution of wealth.
Cultural studies have also used the concept of hegemony to analyze how dominant cultural values and beliefs are maintained and transmitted. According to cultural studies, cultural hegemony refers to the ways in which dominant cultural values and beliefs are reproduced and reinforced through cultural practices such as media, education, and language. For example, the dominant cultural values of consumerism and individualism in Western societies are often reinforced through advertising and popular media.
The concept of hegemony is important because it highlights the ways in which power is maintained and exercised in society. It also highlights the importance of cultural and ideological factors in shaping political and economic systems. Hegemony is not necessarily a negative or positive phenomenon, but rather a neutral term that can be used to describe the dominance of one group over others. However, the implications of hegemony can be negative if it leads to oppression or the marginalization of certain groups in society.
Critics of the concept of hegemony argue that it is too simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of power relations in society. For example, the idea of a single dominant group or nation may not accurately reflect the diversity of political and cultural forces at work in a given society or international system. Additionally, the concept of hegemony may be too focused on the idea of power as domination, rather than on the possibility of cooperation and collaboration between groups.
Despite these criticisms, the concept of hegemony remains a useful tool for analyzing power relations in society and international politics. It highlights the ways in which dominant groups maintain their power and influence, and how this power can be challenged and resisted by marginalized groups. By understanding the dynamics of hegemony, it is possible to work towards a more equitable and just society, where power is distributed more fairly and the voices of all groups are heard.
In my other post, I talked about the nature and causes of hemorrhoids, as well as the common remedies which will help relieve you temporarily from pain, itching and bleeding. Today, I will be sharing with you the secret that I have discovered on how to cure hemorrhoids naturally. This secret involves a very simple method. So, it’s not at all difficult to follow.
Before I proceed, I have to tell you that this method does not require you to follow a strict diet, unless you want a healthy lifestyle. My method allows me to enjoy my favorite blueberry cheesecake and brewed coffee, without having to worry about exposing myself to hemorrhoids attack. In fact, I indulge occasionally on alcohol and remain hemorrhoids-free.
My method does not also require you to follow a rigorous exercise, unless you want to achieve a fantastic physique. Of course, I’ve always wanted to do regular exercise. And who would not want that? But the nature of my work, which demands much of my time, kept me from regular exercise.
So, you see, I don’t follow a strict diet and rigorous exercise and yet I remain hemorrhoids-free. I’m pretty sure you will be able to get rid of your hemorrhoids too while at the same time enjoying the foods that you love to eat and taking control of your time.
Let me now walk you through my secret that enabled me to get rid of my hemorrhoids naturally and completely.
Blame it on the colon
Let me get straight to the main point of it all: the colon is the primary culprit behind any hemorrhoids attack.
When I was still suffering from hemorrhoids between 2006 and 2009, I tried all the available remedies out there, including that crazy sitz bath. But all of these methods did not work. They only provided me with temporary relief from pain, itching and bleeding. So, I continued to research on the best hemorrhoids remedies. I came across an article that talked about how a dirty colon contributed significantly to hemorrhoids attacks.
The article’s main contention is that the rise of hemorrhoids can be traced back to the colon. Because we have been eating too much processed foods for years, the toxins contained in these foods accumulate over time. This results in blockages in the colon tissues causing them to inflame. When this happens, the ability of the colon tissues to filter substances is reduced. Normally, they only allow water, vitamins and minerals to pass into the bloodstream. But when inflamed, harmful substances can now enter into the bloodstream. Harmful organisms such as fungi, bacteria, and other parasites bring about numerous diseases, including swelling of the rectal area. And that’s how hemorrhoids arise. I will not discuss the anatomy of the colon here. I’ll leave that to the experts. For now, it’s enough to know that hemorrhoids arise because we have accumulated too much toxins into our body. Thus, colon cleansing is the very first step in curing hemorrhoids.
At first, I was hesitant to do a colon cleansing because many articles in the internet say that it is not very effective. It does not guarantee to remove all the toxins out of the body. Also, I was told many times (and I as mentioned in my previous post), the common causes of hemorrhoids are repeated straining when defecating, sitting for a long period of time, and the lack of regular exercise. These are somewhat not related to dirty colon. But because I was so desperate to get rid of my hemorrhoids, I did cleanse my colon by taking high-fiber diet. And lo, after few days, my hemorrhoids shrank. The itching and bleeding began to disappear. Indeed, at this very early stage, I could say that if people suffer from hemorrhoids, then they have to blame it on the colon!
The power of greens
I am now convinced that hemorrhoids attacks are caused by a dirty colon. Thus, the first step in curing hemorrhoids naturally is to cleanse the colon. Yes, you read it right! I did cleanse my colon. How? Simply by taking in high-fiber diet. I did not buy any colon cleansing products in the market, although there’s nothing wrong if you opt for these commercially produced colon cleansing products.
In my case, I just took advantage of the natural resources available in our locality: the green leafy vegetables. The advantage of green leafy vegetables is that they are cheap. Also, we can reap so many health benefits that are not even directly related to curing hemorrhoids.
So, I experimented on these green leafy vegetables. As far as I can remember, I did this experiment in early 2009. That’s more than two years after I had my first terrible experience with hemorrhoids.
One day, I went to a local farmers’ market and bought bunches of green leafy vegetables. I have moringa, bok choy (aka pechay), alugbait (aka Malabar spinach), and jute (aka saluyot). Of course, you can have whatever green leafy vegetables you like in your local farmers’ market. You can also head straight to the vegetable section in your local grocery store and see what’s available there.
Now, I washed my green leafy vegetables, sorted them out, and then placed them in big plastic boxes. I then put them in the fridge so I have a daily supply of high-fiber diet.
So, how did I cleanse my colon using this awesome stuff?
I produced a smoothie out of my green leafy vegetables by blanching and then blending them. During the first week, I had my smoothie three times a day, preferably every before meals. I usually took a glass of green smoothie early in the morning, at least 30 minutes before I had my breakfast. And then I took plenty of water during the day. An increase in fluid intake is necessary because in my research, the fiber in these green leafy vegetables will absorb more water. So if you don’t take enough fluids, there’s a tendency that you will release hard stool which may cause more straining when you defecate. So, if you try my method, don’t forget to drink plenty of water during the day.
In my experience, drinking green smoothie at least 30 minutes before I had my breakfast worked well in cleansing my colon. Obviously, because my stomach was still empty. So the fiber of my green leafy vegetables targeted directly and scraped off the toxins that have been deposited in the lining of my intestine over time. And I have to tell you honestly that during my first day of this natural detoxification process, I began to see an improvement in my bowel movement right away. In fact, the following day, I began to release dark massive stool. It was clearly a sign that my colon had been gradually cleansed. After a few days, I noticed that my hemorrhoids considerably shrank, the bleeding significantly reduced, and the pain started to disappear.
How did the fiber in these green leafy vegetables work in curing my hemorrhoids naturally?
Well, honestly, I don’t exactly know. I’m not an expert in colon anatomy. But as you can see, the smoothie that I made out of my green leafy vegetables cleansed my colon naturally. I believe that this high-fiber diet had removed the toxins that have been deposited in my intestine walls for years. So, I really believe that a clean and well-functioning colon is the key to curing hemorrhoids naturally. And hey, after several weeks of taking this smoothie on a daily basis, my hemorrhoids were gone. There was not a single drop of blood in my stool as I no longer strain every time I defecated. And after more than 2 years of taking this smoothie on a daily basis, I am completely hemorrhoids-free. I now live comfortably. No more itching! No more bleeding! No more pain! That’s indeed the power of greens. And that’s my ultimate secret! For me, this is the best way to cure hemorrhoids naturally.
Now, if you don’t have time or it’s hard for you to visit your local farmers’ market to buy green leafy vegetables, you may try those commercially produced colon cleansing products. I’m not sure if those commercial colon cleansing products work as perfectly as the green leafy vegetables, but you may give it a try. You may try the products below. I have researched on them, and they are safe because they are all-natural herbal colon products.
In case you opt for these commercial colon cleansing products, still the key to curing hemorrhoids naturally is to stuff your stomach with enough fiber. So, take the time to grab some high-fiber foods in your local grocery stores. You may have some apple, pineapple, broccoli, and cauliflower, included in your diet—if possible every day. And please don’t forget to drink plenty of water during the day. Also, if you have the time to exercise regularly, then do it. It will speed up the process of curing your hemorrhoids naturally.
I love to touch it
Let’s get a bit ticklish here.
First of all, I want to clarify few things here. When I say, I have gotten rid of my hemorrhoids naturally and completely, that does not mean that I have removed those lumps inside the rectum completely. If I were to remove them completely, I need to have surgery. That’s in no way, natural! And you don’t want that, right? That’s too painful. Also, according to my research, removing those lumps is useless because, as mentioned in the previous article, hemorroidal tissues are part of our normal body structure. Once you have removed those lumps through surgery, another lump will gradually appear if the root cause is not treated. Most importantly, removing these tissues has disadvantages. To recall, these play important role in rectal continence. Removing them permanently may lead to inability to control flatulence or bowel movement.
Okay, let’s get to my next point.
You have to remember that hemorrhoids are swollen and inflamed veins in the rectum and anus. So, when I say that I have gotten rid of my hemorrhoids naturally and completely, what I exactly mean is that I have completely prevented swelling and inflammation of the veins in my rectum and anus. Again, I did that through colon cleansing and stuffing my stomach with high-fiber foods, such as fruits and green leafy vegetables, on a daily basis.
But why bring the issue on the rectal and anal lumps here?
Because I no longer have swollen and inflamed veins in my rectum and anus, I am therefore absolutely hemorrhoids-free. I no longer experience extreme pain and discomfort from the large lumps in the anal area. I am having a perfectly normal anus now, just like any other persons out there who do not have hemorrhoids. However, when I defecate the small lump inside my rectum will protrude. This is because, as I already said, those veins will always remain inside the rectum. Once you start having hemorrhoids attacks, you will always have that, especially when you don’t value colon cleansing
At present, I only have a very small lump which is very easy to push back inside the rectum every time I defecate. If you have severe hemorrhoids, just like mine many years ago, it may take quite some time before you will be able to push the lump easily back inside your rectum. But you don’t have to worry. If you have cleansed your colon thoroughly, you will see considerable improvements within days.
There are few important things to take note when you push that lump back inside your rectum after defecating.
First of all, don’t wash your anus with soap and water before pushing the lump back inside the rectum. In most cases, the lump will absorb water which causes it to engorge. Also, soap can irritate the inflamed tissue and cause more damage. I suggest you use wet wipes in cleaning your anus. I prefer wet wipes over toilet papers because toilet papers tend to get messy. Also, some toilet paper particles will stick in the skin. This will serve as breeding ground for bacteria that worsen the itchiness and infection.
Once the anus is cleaned, you may now push the lump back inside the rectum. You may apply hemorrhoids oil on your lump using your finger and then push the lump gently back inside my rectum. Please note that you can try pushing back your lump inside your rectum while you are still in the process of cleansing your colon.
Using hemorrhoids oil makes it easier for you to do this procedure. I purchased my hemorrhoids oil in our local pharmacy. If your local pharmacy doesn’t sell hemorrhoids oil, then you can buy it online. This is the good thing about the internet, you can buy almost everything you need online.
Please also note that during the first few days of the healing process, you may find it a bit difficult to push the lump back inside your rectum, especially when it has worsen to Grade IV already. Sometimes the lump will come out after few minutes. This is normal because you have not yet thoroughly cleansed your colon. But once your colon is starting to function well, trust me, that lump will never come out after you have pushed it back inside your rectum. When this happens to you, you will begin to live a hemorrhoids-free life. You will be living happily and comfortably!
Now, I understand that you will feel uncomfortable with this procedure. But you have to do it if you want to get rid of your hemorrhoids naturally and completely. You should love to touch that lump. Otherwise, you will continue to suffer from hemorrhoids─forever! Anyway, you just have to do it every time you defecate. I’m positive you will get used to it. I’m sure that would become a normal part of your life, just like brushing your teeth.
The finisher
I just have emphasized above that a clean, well-functioning colon is the key to curing hemorrhoids naturally and completely. But during the early phase of the process of curing your hemorrhoids naturally, I highly recommend that you take an all-natural herbal medicine that would help the healing process faster.
I have tried three products before, but I found Venapro to be very effective (please see link below). Also, Venapro is an all-natural herbal medicine designed specifically to cure hemorrhoids naturally, without the need for surgery.
Venapro comes in two combinations: one that you can spray underneath your tongue and the other is a colon supplement. If you opt for colon cleansing products (just as the ones I introduced above) rather than green leafy vegetables, you can still take Venapro together with these colon cleansing products. You don’t have to worry about the side effects because it is proven that they are all-natural herbal medicines.
Please take note that you can stop taking Venapro once you noticed that your colon is already functioning well. In my case, I’m no longer taking Venapro for years now. Instead, I am just taking green leafy vegetables smoothie every day, and this is enough for me to get rid of my hemorrhoids completely. I don’t need this medication anymore because my hemorrhoids are gone, forever! I just need to have my wet wipes and hemorrhoids oil all the time so that I can easily push that “very small” lump in my anus back inside the rectum every time I defecate.
That’s all for now. I hope you find my secret in curing hemorrhoids naturally and completely very helpful. In case you have questions, please feel free to comment below.
Also, please visit this site regularly as I will be posting more blogs related to hemorrhoids. I will continue to do research on how to cure hemorrhoids naturally and completely. I will also review top hemorrhoids remedies available today and see if we could incorporate them into my method that I have shared with you.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.
Hume’s theory of knowledge was very much influenced by both Newton’s scientific view of the world and John Locke’s theory of knowledge.
On the one hand, Hume appropriated Newton’s view of the universe in his philosophy. For Hume, following Newton, the universe has its own nature and dynamics which is intelligible by the human mind. What the human mind can hope for, therefore, is to simply describe how the universe works through systematization or the act of putting together the series of events into a single whole.
On the other hand, following Lock, Hume believes that all forms of knowledge come from experience. This explains why Hume rejects the rationalist position that there is a supersensible or transcendent source of knowledge. Yet, Hume’s conclusion is more skeptical than Locke’s. As is well known, Locke argues that knowledge is limited only to things that can be experienced. As a matter of fact, Locke says that reason has no room to operate when it comes to ideas that cannot be experienced, such as freedom and immortality of the soul. For Hume, we need to suspend our judgment when we delve into subjects remote from the affairs of common life and experience. Hume’s position is famously known as “moderate skepticism”.
Key Concepts of Hume’s Theory of Knowledge
On the Nature of Ideas. As Locke argues, ideas come from sensation and reflection. Hume calls it impression. Hence, when we say “impression” in Hume, this includes both sensation and reflection in Locke. And for Hume, ideas come from impression.
Following Locke, Hume claims that out of simple ideas the mind forms compound or complex ideas. For example, out of the simple ideas such as “horse” and “horn”, the mind can come up with a compound idea of a “unicorn”.
According to Hume, ideas that do not represent something in reality is an abstract idea and, therefore, meaningless. The idea of a “unicorn” is an example of an abstract idea because in the first place, there is no unicorn in reality.
Association of Ideas. According to Hume, there is a multiplicity of ideas, yet all these ideas are linked together forming a coherent whole. For Hume, this is made possible by the “laws of association”.
There are three laws of association according to Hume, namely:
1) resemblance,
2) contiguity in time or place, and
3) cause and effect.
In the law of resemblance, Hume says that the idea of one object tends to call to mind ideas of resembling objects. For example, the idea of “man” resembles the ideas of “thinking”, “corporeal”, “mutable”, and “finite”.
In the law of contiguity in time and place, Hume says that when we think, for example, of “Hitler”, we tend to think of the “Holocaust”, “concentration camp”, and “Nazism”.
In the law of cause and effect, Hume says that when we think of, for example, the idea of a “fresh egg falling to the ground”, it calls to mind the idea of a “splattered mess”.
It is important to note that Hume puts more emphasis on the third law of cause and effect. In fact, the law of cause and effect is one of the most important concepts in Hume’s theory of knowledge. This explains why after talking about the law of cause and effect, Hume proceeds to the discussion on “perception” and “reasoning”.
Hume on Perception and Reasoning
Human understanding, according to Hume, is furnished with…
1) the faculty of perception and
2) the faculty of reason.
On the one hand, the object of perception are impressions or ideas. On the other hand, the object of reason are propositions.
According to Hume, propositions are either
1) a priori statements about relations of ideas or
2) empirical statements about matters of fact and real existence.
Relations of ideas, according to Hume, can be known intuitively or demonstratively.
For example, the proposition “All triangles have three angles” is an example of a proposition that can be known intuitively.
The proposition “The sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees” is an example of a proposition that can be known demonstratively.
It is important to note that in relations of ideas, the truth can be established without empirical evidence. In fact, in both examples above, we don’t need to resort to experience before we can truly say that all triangles have three angles or, indeed, the sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees. Through mental processes alone, we can truly say that indeed the propositions above are absolutely true.
Matters of fact, according to Hume, are propositions whose truth can be discovered through experience alone. Consider, for example, the proposition “Sugar is sweet”. Obviously, one cannot really say that indeed sugar is sweet if one has not tasted it. Hence, we can never come to know that sugar is sweet without resorting to experience.
It is must be noted that it is “matters of fact” that concerns Hume. In fact, Hume’s theory of knowledge centers on the idea of “matters of fact”.
Hume asks: “What is the nature of the empirical evidence which assures us of any real existence of matters of fact?”
According to Hume, we are assured of some facts by the present testimony of our senses or by the records of our memory. In other words, for Hume, we know that facts exist in reality simply because we experience them. This explains why Hume was an empiricist.
But the question is by what means do we get beyond such facts? In other words, how can we be sure that such facts exist in reality? This is the central question in Hume’s theory of knowledge, which he developed in his famous work Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
So, again, by what means do we get beyond such facts?
According to Hume, it is by means of the relation of cause and effect that we are enabled to make, more or less reasonable, predictions and conjectures that go beyond the data of perception and memory.
But how do we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect?
The answer, for Hume, is not reasoning a priori (as the rationalists would have us believe) but entirely from experience. Again, for Hume, our knowledge of cause and effect relation remains limited to experience. Of course, the mind steps beyond experience and engage in reasoning. But for Hume, this kind of reasoning is not supported by any argument or process of understanding through relations of ideas or through reasoning a priori. This kind of reasoning, for Hume, is supported by habit or custom.
Now, it must be noted that for the rationalists, cause and effect relation falls under a priori reasoning. In other words, for the rationalists, there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. For example, if it is raining at the moment, then reason tells us that the road must be wet. However, for Hume, in reality there is no necessary connection between two events, between cause and effect. The idea of a necessary connection is produced in the mind not through reason a priori, but through habit or custom. Hence, Hume did not reject the idea of “connection” wholesale. He only rejects the idea of connection employed in metaphysical reasoning, that is, the a priori reasoning in rationalism.
Again, for Hume, there is (necessary) connection only through experience (in common life and practice) which is based on habit.
Hence, the only evidence assuring us of any real existence and matters of fact is experience, that is,
1) the present testimony of our senses,
2) the records of our memory, and
3) the causal (experiential) reasoning based on the empirically
observed regularities of past experience. As Hume writes:
“Knowledge of reality can only be derived from a careful observation of the ‘constant conjunction’ between contingent events. Where such constant conjunction is observed, we are inclined to attribute a causal relationship between events designated as ’cause and effect’.” See David West, An Introduction to Continental Philosophy (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1986), p. 15.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.
Introductory Notes on Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge
One can meaningfully make sense of Spinoza’s theory of knowledge if it is understood within the context of Descartes’ theory of knowledge.
Like Descartes, Spinoza was a rationalist. In fact, Descartes was a great influence on Spinoza. However, Descartes and Spinoza differ on their understanding of thought and extension. We learned from Cartesian dualism that thought and extension are the essence of two causally interacting substances. Hence, in Cartesian philosophy, thought (or mind) and extension are two independent substances. In contrast to this view, Spinoza believes that thought and extension are parallel aspects of one and the same substance. Hence, in Spinoza, there is no dualism; thought and extension are not existing independently from each other.
It is also important to note that The Ethics, which is Spinoza’s magnum opus, provides the key to understanding the entire system of Spinoza’s philosophy. The ultimate aim of the book, which is also the ultimate aim of his philosophy, is human blessedness, a blessedness that is inseparable from “knowledge of the union existing between mind and the whole of nature”. As we can see later, for Spinoza, the greatest goal of human life is to understand one’s place in the structure of the universe as a natural expression of the essence of God. Thus, human blessedness for Spinoza means having adequate knowledge of the motives of what we do, which in turn leads us to engage in deliberate action. In understanding Spinoza’s philosophical system, we should be guided, therefore, by what his philosophy ultimately aims to achieve.
Another important introductory concept that will help us understand Spinoza’s theory of knowledge is the vacuum argument, which is implied in Descartes’ theory of knowledge. For a detailed discussion on Descartes’ theory of knowledge, see “Descartes’s Theory of Knowledge”.
Now, for both Descartes and Spinoza, the vacuum remains a “something”, with size and shape, though it lacks mass, solidity, impenetrability, and the like. For Descartes, an empty space or vacuum remains something real, though it contains nothing perceptible in it. Hence, an empty space or vacuum is just a particularly thin region of a single reality, that is, RES EXTENSA or extended substance. And it must be noted that for Descartes, there is only one extended substance, and it is SPACE.
Spinoza developed this Cartesian thought on empty space. For Spinoza, all physical objects (that is, things) are simply qualities (or modes) of one substance, namely, the whole of SPACE. Thus, for Spinoza, the difference between matter and empty space is just the difference between thick and thin regions of SPACE.
Descartes and Spinoza share the same view that there is only one material reality, that is, EXTENDED SUBSTANCE or SPACE. But they differ on their views of a thinking substance, or RES COGITANS. Descartes thought that there are many spiritual realities (that is, things that have minds) of THINKING SUBSTANCES or RES COGITANS. Spinoza rejects this position. Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, and that there is only one thinking substance, which is identical with material substance. Thus, as we can see later, for Spinoza, reality is ONE. For Spinoza, reality equals substance and all its modes. And for Spinoza, substance and all its modes equal God, or nature (Deus, sive Natura). The discussion that follows briefly sketches the key concepts of Spinoza’s theory of knowledge.
Key Concepts of Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge
Substance, Modes, and Attributes
Spinoza borrowed the Cartesian notions of substance, modes, and attributes and appropriated them in his philosophy.
Spinoza modified the Aristotelian definition of substance as something or anything that exists in itself. Spinoza agrees with Aristotle that a substance is that which exists in itself. But Spinoza added that “the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it is to be formed” (Ethics, 1d3). In other words, substance for Spinoza is conceived through itself. For this reason, a tree, understood in the Aristotelian sense as substance, is not really a substance for Spinoza because although it exists in itself, it cannot be conceived through itself. A tree (and other material things) exists in time and space, but it is conceived or explained in terms of the laws governing spatial reality. For Spinoza, therefore, there is only one substance and that is Nature.
Nature for Spinoza is the totality of modes. Spinoza understands modes as the sum total of all the qualities and states of a substance, and which are knowable only in terms of an attribute. According to Spinoza, attribute refers to that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence, namely, thought and extension.
Mind and Body
For Spinoza, modes include not only qualities (for example, hardness, color, and the like), but also things or matter (for example, a tree or a person) in general. Here, Spinoza includes not only physical matter or things but also mental and psychological predicates like thought and feeling.
But unlike Descartes, Spinoza argues that there is no dualism between thought and extension. Rather, thought and extension are two attributes of one and the same underlying reality. Thus, for Spinoza, all modes (that is, everything in nature) fall under attributes (thought and extension). Thus, for Spinoza, an extended substance is identical with a thinking substance. Indeed, for Spinoza, “all extended things are also thinking things”.
Panpsychism
As we can see, Spinoza’s view of Nature falls under Panpsychism, the thesis that all extended things are also thinking things. Panpsychism also holds the belief that everything has a soul. As an adherent of Panpsychism, Spinoza argues all living things also think. A tree, for example, is a thinking thing for Spinoza.
But it must be noted that the term “thinking” for Spinoza is not only limited to mental attributes. For Spinoza, thinking also includes “subconscious desires and perceptions”. For this reason, plants and animals can also be categorized as “thinking things”, but they do not have conscious mental life as humans do. This explains why Spinoza rejects Descartes’ view that it is humans alone who think. Like Hobbes who argues that the mind could just be matter in motion, Spinoza believes that the mind (of humans) differs only in terms of “degree” but not in “kind” from the rest of nature.
Deus, sive Natura (God, or Nature)
The concept of God as Nature is the key to understanding Spinoza’s notion of “reality as one”.
As is well known, Spinoza identified God with Nature. Thus, for Spinoza, God in Himself is identical with God’s creation. As we can see, Spinoza is a Pantheist. Pantheism is a form of naturalism that views Nature as God, where God means the infinite, unitary, and self-existent cause of all existence.
As a Pantheist, Spinoza believes that everything found in Nature is simply and extension of God inasmuch as everything in Nature is part of God.
It must be noted, however, that Spinoza’s view of Nature is a deterministic system, which means that every event taking place within it is caused by another, antecedent event within the system. And because this cause-effect relationship happens within the system, an appeal to a final cause is not possible. Thus, Spinoza tried to transfer the religious attitude of worshipful awe and humble love from “God, the personal creator of Nature” to “God, the impersonal system of Nature itself”.
It is important to note that Spinoza used the term “infinite cause of the universe” rather than “final cause of the universe” in order to show that in the deterministic system of Nature, there is no God as final cause of everything. This is simply because God is Nature in itself. And for Spinoza, cause and effect is simply part of God or Nature, and since this event (that is, cause-effect) happens within Nature, then, again, there is no final cause.
Spinoza’s Moral Teachings
According to Spinoza, the greatest good of human life is to understand one’s place in the structure of the universe as a natural expression of the essence of God. This is what Spinoza calls human blessedness, which is, as already mentioned, the goal of Spinoza’s philosophy.
Human blessedness, for Spinoza, is having adequate knowledge of the motives of what we do, and which leads us to engage in deliberate action. In this way, actions are considered morally good. Again, this only happens when we recognize our place within the grander scheme of reality as a whole. The reason behind this is that if we know that Nature is God, then any action that is harmful to Nature (to everything, especially humans) is an attack on God.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
René Descartes’s theory of knowledge was first articulated in his famous work The Discourse on the Method, but was fully developed in his later famous work Meditations on First Philosophy.
Descartes was considered the Father of Modern Philosophy. He was also the first major figure in the philosophical movement in the modern period known as rationalism. Rationalism can be viewed from two vantage points, namely, as a method and as a doctrine.
On the one hand, rationalism can be viewed as a method of understanding the world based on the use of reason as the means to attain knowledge. On the other hand, rationalism can be viewed as a doctrine in epistemology which regards reason as the chief source and test knowledge.
Key Concepts in Descartes’s Theory of Knowledge
One of the key concepts that we need to remember in Descartes’ theory of knowledge is the idea that sense perception is unreliable. As a matter of fact, Descartes rejects the idea that sense perception conveys accurate information. Thus, it could be said that one of the goals of Descartes is to distinguish what is true from what is false. In doing so, Descartes employs the famous methodic doubt where he doubts everything believed to be true until certainty is attained. In this process, ideas are put in rigorous test in determining its certainty. As is well known, the methodic doubt is the central concept of Descartes’ first published work titled The Discourse on the Method.
The second key concept in Descartes’ theory of knowledge is the idea that reason is the essence of humanity. For Descartes, the very act of thinking offers a proof of individual human existence. Hence, thought and reason, according to Descartes, must be the essence of humanity. In fact, as Descartes argues, a human person would still be human even without hands or hair as long as he has reason, that is, the ability to think creatively. And because only humans have the ability to think, animals, therefore, don’t think. According to Descartes, animals act based on their instinct.
The third key concept that we need to remember in Descartes’ theory of knowledge is the claim that knowledge can attained. As we can see, Descartes emphasized this point as a response to the claims of the skeptics that we cannot attain knowledge. For Descartes, reason is a native gift. And Descartes believes that true knowledge can be attained though the methodical application of reason.
Descartes’ Discourse on the Method
The Discourse on the Method is Descartes’ first published work. It was written in Latin, rather than in French. It must be noted that during the time of Descartes, Latin was still the accepted language of scholarship. Hence, the attempt to write in language other than Latin during this time was revolutionary.
The Discourse on the Method is also Descartes’ attempt to explain his method of reasoning, which contains six (6) parts. In what follows, I will briefly sketch the key concepts of each part.
Part I: On Good Sense
One of the main points of Part I of Descartes’ Discourse on the Method is idea that people possess “good sense”. Descartes understands good sense as the ability to distinguish truth from fiction.
According to Descartes, because people possess good sense, it is therefore not the lack of ability to think that obstructs people from attaining truth, but their failure to follow the correct path of reasoning. Thus, as Descartes argues, it is the use of a method that can elevate an average mind above the rest. In fact, Descartes considers himself as an average thinker improved by the use of his method.
Part II: On Methodic Doubt
It is in Part II of the Discourse on the Method that Descartes lays down the rules which he believes is the way to certainty. As is well known, this method was famously known as the “methodic doubt”. This method involves four (4) steps, namely:
To never believe in anything unless she can prove it herself.
To reduce every problem to its simplest parts.
To always be orderly in one’s thoughts and proceed from the simplest part to the most difficult.
To always, when solving a problem, create a long chain of reasoning and leave nothing out.
Part III: Descartes’ Moral Code
It is in Part III that Descartes puts forth a provisional moral code to live by, namely:
To obey the rules and customs of one’s country and religion and never take on extreme opinion.
To be decisive and stick with one’s decisions, even if some doubts linger.
To try to change one’s self, and not the world.
To examine all professions in the world and try to figure out what the best one is.
Part IV: Descartes’ Arguments for God’s Existence
In Part IV of the Discourse on the Method, Descartes offers his argument for God’s existence. Contemplating the nature of dreams and the unreliability of the sense, Descartes becomes aware of his own processes of thinking. Descartes eventually realizes that “thinking” is a proof of his existence.
Now, because Descartes has the ability to doubt, he believes that he is imperfect. But because someone has the ability to conceive of perfection, then, for Descartes, it follows that something or someone perfect must exist outside of him, namely, God. Therefore, God exists. And for Descartes, all things in the world, including clear and distinct ideas, comes from God.
Part V: On the Immortality of the Soul
One of the highlights of Part V is Descartes’ discussion on the immortality of the soul.
Descartes believes that the soul has a life outside of the body. Thus, for Descartes, the soul could not perish. The soul, therefore, is immortal. Descartes, however, did not provide any proofs as to the existence of the soul outside the body.
It must be noted, however, that Descartes equates the soul with mind. Hence, the soul for Descartes can be understood as reason, that is, the rational soul.
Part VI: On Physics
Part VI is the concluding part of the Discourse on the Method. It touches on the possible conflict between the Church and Descartes’ view on physical science.
It must be noted that Descartes supports Galileo’s heliocentrism, and because Galileo was excommunicated by the Church, Descartes was very careful in the end so as not to experience Galileo’s fate.
It is also in Part VI that Descartes shows the practical application of his method in mathematics and the physical sciences.
The Meditations on First Philosophy is Descartes’ most famous work. Though it is usually known as the Meditations, the full title of the work is Meditations on First Philosophy in which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body are Demonstrated.
The Meditations on First Philosophy or, simply, the Meditations, is prefaced by a letter to the wisest and most distinguished men, the dean and doctors of the Faculty of Theology of the then University of Paris. Descartes’ intention of doing this is obvious. As we may already know, it had been just 8 years since the condemnation of Galileo. As is well known, Descartes allied himself with the basic outlook of Galileo, especially on the argument that the sun is the center of the universe (heliocentrism) instead of the earth (geocentrism).
Because the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris had been so influential for centuries, Descartes seemed to believe that if he could secure the approval of the Faculty of Theory at the University of Paris, then he may be able to escape Galileo’s fate.
As we can see, the Meditations on First Philosophy gained approval from the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris; however, after 22 years, the Roman Catholic Church placed it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books). As is well known, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum is a list of books that were once forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church because these books were considered as dangerous to the Catholic faith and morals of the Catholic Church.
Just as the Discourse on the Method, which is Descartes’ first published work, the Meditations on First Philosophy is also composed of 6 parts. In what follows, I will briefly sketch the key concepts of each part.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation I): On What Can Be Called into Doubt
In the first meditation, Descartes reiterates materials from his previous work titled the Discourse on the Method. For example, in the first meditation, Descartes employs again the concept of “methodic doubt” that he first introduced in the Discourse.
As is well known, the methodic doubt seeks to doubt everything believed to be true in order to determine which beliefs one could be certain as true. The methodic doubt, therefore, necessarily leads to the discovery of truth. How is it possible?
For Descartes, the fact that he is doubting shows the certainty of the existence of a being that doubts. It goes to show that if, for example, I am doubting, then I must be thinking. And if I am thinking, then I must exist. Needless to say, the existence of the thinker necessarily precedes the act of thinking. Therefore, Descartes sets out to prove, using only reason, that some truths are beyond doubt. Indeed, this is the basis of the famous Cartesian phrase “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore, I am”.
However, Descartes admits that he cannot be sure that God is not playing some tricks on him. The idea here is that there might be a powerful demon that tricks him and created some illusions in the physical world to deceive him. This is what we call in Cartesian philosophy the “demon problem”. But because Descartes believes that God is good, he is convinced that God would not deliberately deceive him. Therefore, the I is certain of itself which, as we can see, proves the point that indeed the human mind can attain truth.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation II): On the Nature of the Human Mind, which is Better Known than the Body
Most of meditation II is devoted to discovering whether there is anything that Descartes can be certain about. It is important to remember that in the first meditation, Descartes talked about things that can be doubted and employed the methodic doubt in discovering the truth. In meditation II, Descartes continues to demonstrate how certainty can be attained.
As already explained, Descartes is convinced that he can be certain that he exists because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind that does the doubting. From here, Descartes proceeds to addressing the question “What is this ‘I’ that does the thinking?”.
Descartes’ answer is that this mind is purely a thinking thing. In other words, for Descartes, the mind is nothing but a thing that thinks.
Descartes, however, concedes that though what he perceives with his senses may be false, he cannot deny that he is perceiving. Thus, for Descartes, the human mind is capable of both thought and perception. In other words, for Descartes, sensation or perception belongs to the mind. As a matter of fact, sensation is one of the functions of the mind (the other is thinking). Descartes uses the analogy of the wax to prove his point.
As we can see, a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax. For some thinkers, such as the empiricists, it is the senses that distinguishes a solid wax from a melted wax. For Descartes, however, the ability to distinguish a solid wax from a melted wax is not the function of the senses but of thought. In other words, it is “thought” or the “reasoning mind” that makes the judgment that a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax.
For Descartes, therefore, because the senses can be deceived, physical objects, including bodies, are properly perceived only by the intellect. Indeed, for Descartes, the mind is the only thing that one can be certain of.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation III): On God’s Existence
One of the central points in meditation III is Descartes’ attempt to prove the existence of God. Here, Descartes argues that the idea of God is necessarily true because it is grasped with clarity and distinctness. As we can see, Descartes’ ontological proofs of God’s existence is based on the notion of “clear and distinct” ideas. On the one hand, an idea is clear for Descartes if one cannot help taking notice of it, such as toothache. On the other hand, an idea is distinct if it cannot be confused with anything else. For example, the idea of a table cannot be confused with the idea of a chair.
Now, in proving that the idea of God is clear and distinct, Descartes introduces his theory of ideas. According to Descartes, there are three types of ideas, namely:
1) innate,
2) adventitious, and
3) fictitious.
According to Descartes, innate ideas are ideas within us that do not come from experience. Take, for example, the mathematical proposition “2 x 2 = 4”, or the statement “All triangles have three angles”. As we can see, we do not resort to experience in order to prove the point that twice two is always four or the fact that there is not at least one triangle that does not have three angles. Through mental processes alone, we can logically conclude that indeed twice two is always four, or all triangles have three angles.
It is important to note that for Descartes, innate ideas are not present in us the moment we are born. Hence, babies and mentally defective adults do not have innate ideas. This is because for Descartes, innate ideas are proper only to, or can only be possessed by, a rationally developed mind. What is there the moment we are born is the possibility for our mind to become rationally developed, which in turn enables us to possess innate ideas.
Adventitious ideas are ideas that are based on our experience with the world and the things around it. For example, we may say “Sugar is sweet”. Of course, as Descartes would have us believe, we can only be sure that the statement “Sugar is sweet” is true if we have experienced it, that is, if we have personally tasted it.
Fictitious ideas are those ideas that are the product of our imagination. Consider, for example, the idea of a unicorn. Of course, there is no unicorn in reality (hence, fictitious), but we can come up with this idea by combining the idea of a horse and a horn. So, if we imagine a horse with a single, large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead, then we have arrived at the idea of a unicorn.
Now, what is the point of Descartes in introducing these three types of ideas in relation to his concept of God as innate?
According to Descartes, our idea of God is innate and is placed in us by God. And because innate ideas as self-evident, clear, and distinct, then our idea of God is also self-evident, clear, and distinct. Therefore, God necessarily exists.
However, Descartes’ ontological proof for God’s existence goes like this: “If something exists, then it must be caused by something else. The only possible ultimate cause is an infinite, perfect being. But because God is the only infinite and perfect being, therefore, God exists.”
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation IV): On Truth and Falsity
In the third meditation, Descartes was certain that God is perfectly good. However, if God is perfectly good, how then is error or falsity possible?
According to Descartes, everything that God created is perfect. But God created humans as finite beings whose finitude still leaves room for error. Descartes illustrates this point in this way:
But why didn’t God create humans as perfect beings so that humans would not err?
According to Descartes, God could have willed it. God could have created humans as perfect beings, but according to Descartes, man cannot fathom the mystery of God. Hence, God’s motives and reasons for creating humans as imperfect beings are incomprehensible.
What about the origin of truth? How certain is Descartes about the existence of the “I”? What if God deceives him?
Here, Descartes brought again the demon problem. According to Descartes, since God is perfectly good, then he cannot deceive us. This is because if God deceives us, then he is not God because “to deceive” someone is an act of an imperfect being. Therefore, Descartes is certain about the existence of “truth”, of the “I” because God as a perfect being would not deceive us. What this implies is that God cannot be the source of error.
Now, if God is not the source of error, then who is responsible for the existence of error or falsity? For Descartes, the concepts of “intellect” and “will” are they keys to answering this question.
According to Descartes, both the intellect and will are gifts from God. Descartes argues that the intellect as the faculty of knowledge cannot be the source of error. Because the intellect simply perceives ideas, it cannot err. It must be noted that for Descartes, the intellect allows us to perceive ideas only; it does not make judgments. This is because judgments are the business of the will. Now, since it is judgments that can either be true or false, and that since judgment is the primary function of the will, then, according to Descartes, it is the will that is the source of error. It is the will that commits mistakes.
How is this possible?
According to Descartes, when the will (which is the faculty of choice or freedom of the will) passes judgments on matters that are not clearly understood, error comes into the fore. What this implies at the end of it all is that, to avoid error in judgment, as Descartes would have us believe, it (judgments or decisions) must be guided by reason or the intellect.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation V): On the Essence of Material Objects and more on God’s Existence
It must be noted that God is reconsidered in meditation V. Meditation V is also a transition to a more important sixth meditation.
One of the central points in meditation V is Descartes’ attempt to know whether materials things exist independently of the mind. But because Descartes has put the testimony of the senses in doubt, then Descartes just “see” these materials things. In other words, Descartes simply observes these things. Thus, Descartes resorts to the intellect and consider more carefully the “idea” of these things, which is all that is available to him.
However, it should be noted that Descartes postponed the discussion on whether materials things exist in reality outside of the mind until the sixth meditation and instead discussed what he thought as the 3rd proof of God’s existence. Meditation V, therefore, is devoted to the discussion of the discovery of the 3rd proof of God’s existence.
Now, Descartes argues that clear and distinct ideas have a nature or essence of themselves. And for Descartes, this necessarily implies existence. Since our idea of God is clear and distinct, Descartes, concludes that indeed God exists. Descartes illustrates this argument this way:
God, by definition, is a being of infinite perfection.
Existence is a perfection (for everything that exists is perfect; otherwise, it cannot exist).
Therefore, God exists.
Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation VI): On the Existence of Material Objects and the Real Distinction of Mind and Body
We know that since the intellect conceives some things clearly and distinctly, some things necessarily exists therefore. Now, the question is, what is our proof that these things really exist in reality? Or how do we know that indeed material things exist?
Put differently, we know that the essence of material things is extension. In other words, all things are extended. Hence, to be a thing is 1) to have size and shape, 2) to endure, and 3) to be movable and changeable. Now, are they any?
To answer these questions, Descartes initially offers the discussion on the dynamics of the imagination as proof. But Descartes thought that although the imagination can produce images of reality, it cannot be a strong proof to the existence of materials things. This is why Descartes turns to the senses.
Indeed, Descartes perceives that he has a body that exists in the world, and this body can experience pain, pleasure, hardness, and the like. And this body can perceive other bodies with extension, shape, movement, hardness, heat, color, smell, tastes, and the like.
Now, Descartes was convinced that these perceptions all come from outside sources, and that these perceptions come to us involuntarily. It is clear that since material things exist, it is logical to suppose that the source of sensory ideas in some way resembles the ideas themselves. Hence, for Descartes, all knowledge comes from without via the sense.
But isn’t it that for Descartes the senses are unreliable sources of ideas and knowledge? In fact, Descartes insists in the earlier discussion of the Meditations (as well as in the Discourse) that we should not rely on the senses because they only deceive us?
Descartes seemed to have changed mind here. According to Descartes, the situation is now very different from the first meditation. For Descartes now knows that God who created these material things “exist” and is “not a deceiver”. Therefore, those material things that are perceived by the mind via the senses exist in reality. Descartes illustrates his argument this way:
I have a “strong inclination” to believe in the reality of the material (extended) things that I seem to sense. (To put it differently, their independent reality seems to be one of the things I am “taught by nature”.)
God must have created me with this inclination.
If material things do not exist independently, then God must be a deceiver.
But God is not a deceiver.
So, material things exist with those properties I conceive to be essential to them.
Final Note: On the Discussion Between Mind and Body
For Descartes, mind and body are both substances, and so they are completely distinct from each other. On the one hand, mind is a non-extended thinking thing. On the other hand, body is an extended non-thinking thing.
Part of the reason why Descartes aims to establish the distinction between mind and body is to establish the fact that the soul is immortal. As we can see, the distinction between mind and body opens up the possibility of establishing the immortality of the soul since it involves the idea that the “decay of the body does not imply the destruction of the soul”.
But how does Descartes prove the crucial claim that the mind and body are capable of existing apart from each other?
Here, Descartes invokes what he calls 1) clear and distinct conception of the mind as a thing that is complete and does not require any extended qualities in order to exist, and 2) the corresponding clear and distinct conception of the body not requiring any mental properties in order to exist.
As we can see, Descartes’ real distinction argument turns on the reliability of so-called clear and distinct perception. However, Descartes did not give a concrete example of a mind existing apart from the body, and a body existing apart from the mind.
Now, despite the real distinction between mind and body, Descartes argues that these substances nevertheless interact with each other. According to Descartes, the mind causes certain changes in the body and the body in the mind. But when asked about the specificity of this interaction, Descartes was unable to answer and instead appeal to God. In Descartes’ understanding, God sets up or institutes those particular causal relations between mind and body that are, in general, the most conducive to the well-being of the composite of mind and body. Descartes illustrates:
God can create anything that I can clearly and distinctly conceiveꟷthere being no impossibility in it.
If God can create one thing independently of another, the first thing is distinct from the second.
I have a clear and distinct idea of my essence as a thinking thing.
So, God can create a thinking thing (a soul) independently of the body.
I also have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended thingꟷits essence.
So, God can create a body independently of a soul.
So, my soul is a reality distinct from the body.
So, I, as a thinking thing (soul), can exist without my body.
Concluding Remarks
At the end of the Meditationson First Philosophy, Descartes was convinced that he has achieved his main objective: skepticism and solipsism have been defeated and the basic structure of reality has been clearly delineated, namely, God, souls, and material things. Descartes also concluded that reality is composed of infinite substance and two kinds of substances: thinking and extended substances. Finally, Descartes believes that he has successfully shown that indeed knowledge is possible, that, contrary to the position of the Skeptics, the human mind can attain knowledge.
