You can look at the size, shape, color, or any other physical characteristics of these two objects and clearly see that the two are not at all the same. .
If you look at this principle a little more deeply you can see that it has many flaws. Things like human error, misconceptions, and ignorance take away a great deal of validity from this principle. We can even see the proof of this in the movie "The Little Mermaid." A utensil we know as a fork, the sea people called a "dingle hopper", two different names for an identical object. From seeing this film, we know that a fork and a "dingle hopper" are the same thing. But what if everyone knew what a fork was, but no one knew what a "dingle hopper" was? People could argue that they were not the same object because they are unaware of the second name for the object. A person could argue that the two were different by saying they had different properties. To that person, this is a valid argument because they lack the knowledge of the properties of the second object therefore the two are not one of the same. In this case, people could not conceive the two to be identical so they do not have the same properties.
The validity of the Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals can also be looked at from a scientific perspective. From chemistry, we all know that H2O and water are the same thing and therefore have the same properties. Using Descartes" argument, we know that water exists because we can see it and touch it, but he can doubt the existence of H2O because the properties of chemistry can deceive him. The properties of chemistry are not physical properties and therefore H2O cannot be the same thing as water because the physical properties cannot be compared. I can see how this argument can hold to be true to an ignorant person, but I fail to see how Descartes can say that chemistry can be doubted so it must not exist. Anyone with even a small knowledge of chemistry can understand how it is such a basic and important part of life.
Descartes' proof of the existence of God occurs in the Third Meditation. ... Now Descartes has established the rules by which to lay down his argument. ... Descartes determines that such an idea must have a formal reality, a cause. ... Descartes then makes the point that he has the idea of "infinite- describing God. ... Therefore, Descartes concludes that God necessarily exists. ...
Descartes first looks at the senses. ... (Descartes). ... Descartes affirms his existence every time he thinks, doubts, or is persuaded (Descartes). Descartes affirms that if there is an Evil Deceiver then Descartes must exist because in order for God to deceive, Descartes he must first exist. ... These two ideas, Descartes cannot account for. ...
(Rene Descartes, Meditation I) Descartes" Mediations combined equal the embodiment of an effort to establish a foundation for knowledge. ... Descartes points out the fallibility of the senses, for they often deceive. ... (Rene Descartes, Meditation I) With his senses stripped and the acknowledgement that God is in fact an "evil genius," Descartes searches for that which he can rely on. ... (Rene Descartes, Meditation II) This portion of Descartes" argument proves to be an important rung on the ladder, for it establishes the one thing that Descartes believes to be plausible. ......
Descartes and his Deamon Everyday we are bombarded with various forms of stimuli. ... Would this make Descartes nonexistent as well as his body and mind? ... And believe can only exist in the mind, according to Descartes. ... Perhaps he deceives Descartes about everything else. ... But it is possible that the evil demon of Descartes is our own beloved mind. ...
Descartes" Meditations In his second meditation, Rene Descartes reveals and tries to verify the proposition "I am thinking, so I exist". ... Descartes argues that this is what makes one's own existence indubitable. ... On the other hand, the proposition, "I am walking, so I exist", would be considered dubitable by Descartes" prescribed rationale. ... Descartes uses his meditations to demonstrate the importance of foundational beliefs, for they are all one can be truly certain of. ... The proposition "I am thinking, so I exist" would be considered a piece of knowledge that we c...
On the other hand, Descartes was a Sceptic. ... (Descartes, 1980 ). ... Lastly Descartes argued that certainty is a state of consciousness which is subjective. ... The doors of studying the mind (Psychology) were opened by Descartes. Prior to Descartes, the mind was viewed as the puppeteer of the body. ...
Descartes set out to find and isolate in his mind those things which he could doubt even to the tiniest degree. ... For Descartes, one of these things is the existence of God. ... However, this leads to a problem in Descartes thought. ... There is nothing to say that God is not supremely perfect - Descartes has just assumed this. ... Another problem here is that Descartes believes God to be omnipotent. ...
Descartes doubted everything. ... (Descartes, 30) Descartes then concludes that the piece of wax may take on many different forms alienated from its original. ... (Descartes, 72) Descartes also provides evidence for the existence of things that our perceived through the senses. ... (Descartes, 78) Descartes then comes up with the conclusion that material objects do indeed exist. ... (Descartes, 80) Descartes made specific arguments about the existence of external objects. ...
I have chosen to defend Descartes based on three main reasons. ... "The essence or nature of a mind, Descartes says, is to think. ... Secondly, Descartes believes that he exists; hence I think therefore I exist. ... This basically states that Descartes has proven that he exists and that God has created him and that the world in which Descartes lives is created by God also. ... I believe that Descartes' theory of knowledge is better compared to Hume's because Descartes says that the mind is separate from the body and that it thinks for itself. ...