David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (2):378-418 (2012)
It is generally assumed that Descartes invokes “objective being in the intellect” in order to explain or describe an idea’s status as being “of something.” I argue that this assumption is mistaken. As emerges in his discussion of “materially false ideas” in the Fourth Replies, Descartes recognizes two senses of ‘idea of’. One, a theoretical sense, is itself introduced in terms of objective being. Hence Descartes can’t be introducing objective being to explain or describe “ofness” understood in this sense. Descartes also appeals to a pretheoretical sense of ‘idea of’. I will argue that the notion of objective being can’t serve to explain or describe this “ofness” either. I conclude by proposing an alternative explanation of the role of objective being, according to which Descartes introduces this notion to explain the mind’s ability to attain clear and distinct ideas
|Keywords||Descartes intentionality objective being material falsity clear and distinct ideas ideas Arnauld|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Lilli Alanen (2003). Descartes's Concept of Mind. Harvard University Press.
E. Jennifer Ashworth (1988). Traditional Logic. In Charles B. Schmitt, Quentin Skinner & Eckhard Kessler (eds.), The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 143--72.
Jean-Marie Beyssade (1992). Descartes on Material Falsity. In Phillip D. Cummins & Guenter Zoeller (eds.), Minds, Ideas, and Objects: Essays on the Theory of Representation in Modern Philosophy. Ridgeview.
Tyler Burge (2007). Foundations of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Joseph L. Camp (2002). Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Baumgartner (2009). Interventionist Causal Exclusion and Non-Reductive Physicalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (2):161-178.
Lionel Shapiro (2010). Two Kinds of Intentionality in Locke. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (4):554-586.
Similar books and articles
R. J. Butler (1972). Cartesian Studies. Oxford,B. Blackwell.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology Without God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):1-33.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Descartes, the Cartesian Circle, and Epistemology Without God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):1–33.
John N. Martin (2011). Existential Import in Cartesian Semantics. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (3):211-239.
Frederick J. O'Toole (1993). Descartes' Problematic Causal Principle of Ideas. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:167-191.
Pedro Amaral (1987). Descartes' Quartum Quid. Philosophy Research Archives 13:379-409.
David Scott (2010). Resemblance as a Principle of Representation in Descartes' Philosophy. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (3):483-512.
Boris Hennig (2008). Substance, Reality, and Distinctness. Prolegomena 7 (1):2008.
Claudia Lorena Garcia (1999). Transparency and Falsity in Descartes's Theory of Ideas. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (3):349 – 372.
Dan Kaufman (2000). Descartes on the Objective Reality of Materially False Ideas. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (4):385–408.
Added to index2010-07-06
Total downloads64 ( #28,271 of 1,410,004 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,552 of 1,410,004 )
How can I increase my downloads?