17th/18th cent phil

Theory of ideas: (mental representation) How the mind represents the world.
- I represent the world, by perceiving an idea, which happens in my mind, and ask
whether or not these things actually exists outside of my mind
Metaphysical view - metaphysics of substances, attributes, and modes
Relates to Spinoza
Epistemology - clear and distinct perception of things
Metaphysics is about the way the world is, what is being qua being? (what do they have
in common virtue of being beings?)
Epistemology is the way the world is
How does theory of ideas relate to epistemology and metaphysics?
I = thinking substance
Bodies = objects of geometry made real (only modes of extension)
Does modern physics explain these things?
Are bodies substances?
-------------------Lecture
I - > perceive ideas in my mind
Veridical vs hallucination, in both cases you still have an image of something (ex red
flower)
Difference is the question of whether or not whatever you are perceiving actually exists
Modifications of the soul and the body is the same.

Disagrees with the view that all things are in God

Agrees that I am a thinking thing, with modes, but says that we dont need an idea to
perceive modes
The objext causes my ideas, the soul has the ability to create ideas
Explains that their are objects because God has an idea of those things, these things
depends on God
-If we perceive an idea of an outer objexive, then:
The object causes the idea (produces)
Our soul causes the idea
God produces the idea on the occasion of the object
our soul has all of the ideas already in it
we perceive an idea in God's mind
----Rejecting the first premise (above)
How does a physical stimulus cause a conscious experience?
- correlation between the physical world and us having images in our mind, they correlate
and may cause on another, but they are not the same thing
Rejecting the second premise
How would the mind know what to produce, to represent the object. The mind could
produce objects that misrepresents those objects.
State S of the mind represents object O iff _______ S ______ O. He says you will never
be able to do solve this
Rejecting the third premise
Ex. If the whole class were looking at the screen, than God must have made unique
images in everyone's mind, which is not elegant, because God would have just made 1

screen, and have everyone perceive it

Correlation between God's idea of objects, and our view. This premise tries to explain
only God having this view of the object, not for everyone perceiving it.
Relationship between me and god's idea?
Why can't our immediate view of the world, actually be the view of the world?
This premise means that God just let's us see his images in his mind
Rejection to premise 4

Then says that 5th premise is the correct way to go

Read par starting with... "I shall not examine here how two minds can be united to one
another and whether they can in this way reveal their thoughts in each other".
He says that we can be wrong about the world
What am I other than a series of ideas?
Am I just a subset of god's ideas?
If so, then you would not have to worry about the relationship between you perceiving
God's ideas, because you are part of God's idea.
---------View on Causation:
Substance, attribute and mode
Causation is a relation, between what though?
(Hume - causation is a relation between events)
What about this: what causes the indent in a pillow? The bowling ball, but that is no
event, it just is.

Therefore, connection with Substance and events

There will be cases of Substance - Substance causes, such as creation of the world.
1. If x causes y then it is necessary that if x happens then y happens.
2. If x is anything other than an act of god's will, and a happening does not logically entail
y happening, than it is possible that x happens and y does not.
If x were not from an act of God's will, for any y, x does not cause y., such that x happens
does not logically entail y happening. (If possible, (x happens and y not happens) then
not neccessary)
Occasionalism - idea that God creates everything in the occasion that you act, same with
soul
Body --> Body : Occasionalist
B --> M : O
M --> M : O
M --> B : O
Difference with Descartes:
Body --> M : O
M --> M : Active (because mind has the power to do so)
M --> B : Active