How to write an introduction

In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot be certain, at this moment, if we are dreaming or awake. In the paper that follows, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining the steps of his argument. Then, I will offer my own critique of his argument, by showing that we can in fact know if we are dreaming or awake.

edited version:

In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot be certain if we are dreaming or awake, since dreams can have the same vivacity as being awake . In the paper that follows, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining, firstly, his overall goal, namely a foundation of sciences, secondly how he criticizes our former foundations, and thirdly how from this unfolds a series of distrusts that ends with him questioning our state of being awake. Afterwards I will criticize Descartes for being to radical with his critique. Even though we are in a dream state this would be still our reality. In the end of my essay I will demonstrate an alternative to Descartes, namely a pragmatic philosophy that does not need an ultimate foundation but that focuses on the question of how we actually our lives.


State your overall goal: In the following paper, I will contest Descartes' assumption that states of being awake and states of dreaming are indistinguishable. In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot distinguish these states because both states have the same vivacity. In particular, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining how he firstly attempts to find a foundation for sciences, how he secondly introduces his method of doubt, how thirdly criticizes our foundations of former knowledge, and how he finally arrives at this controversial claim. Then, I will offer my own critique of his argument, by showing that the question itself is rather theoretical than practical. My solution to the problem is therefore that we can derive a pragmatic sciences without an his extreme doubt. This we can assume that our reality is true for us.

Being and Time - Dasein

The ontic priority of the Question of Being

what is science for Heidegger?

Science occurs as a basis for knowledge. But is this true?

Science can be defined as the TOTALITY of true propositions

(Definition of propositions: Propositions are sentences that can be either true or false.)

What is the difference between totality and whole?

The totality is the sum of all parts, but it does not yet explain how all of these parts are working together, nor does it give us an idea of the whole.

Heidegger claims that this definition of science is not complete.

It seems sciences overlook the fact that they are made by humans and in this sense Heidegger points out that they have the Being of humans.

Human's being is defined as Da-Sein.

Heidegger makes a qualification that being scientific is not the only way of how Da-sein (that is humans that have being) is.

What is Da-sein?

"The ontic distinction of Da-sein lies in the fact that it is ontological." (Heidegger, 10)

What is ontic? Ontic is everything that is something. E.g. tables, chairs, clouds, thoughts, and so forth.

The ontic characteristic of Dasein is its ontology.

Well, what is ontology then?

An ontology describes a distinct understanding of all beings that occur in the world. For example, we could have objects of thoughts and objects of the physical order. Now, we can distinguish them further as animated objects and inanimate objects in the physical order and so forth. An ontology attempts to map all of the objects that we deal with.

Heidegger specifies in which way we are actually ontological. He says that most of the time we do not build ontologies and in this sense we are rather pre-ontological. This means that we have the potential to build an ontology but most of the time we do not engage in this activity.

What is existence?

Descries the way of how you relate to your life.

Being and Time - Analysis

First paragraph, central thought:

- The questions of metaphysics (beyond physics)

Metaphysics is related to questions of religion. In particular, which belief is rationally justified, and what makes a good belief.

- This question has been trivialized

Second paragraph, central thought:

- It talks about Being as the fundamental metaphysical question

Explanatory thought: The question of Being occurs to be appropriate for a metaphysical investigation. Simply asking for the beyond would be impossible, since we are finite creatures that cannot supersede their horizon of thinking. For this reason, we ask for the limits of our thinking. The known limit of our thinking is Being.

- Being: It is trivialized as the emptiest thought, the most general concept.

Third paragraph

- Our understanding is based on concept that were delivered to us through history
- The impact our thinking. Therefore, we have to clarify how they influence us.

1st prejudice:

Being is the most universal concept.

We have to keep in mind that this is a prejudice. This means there are contradictions that emerge if we say that being is in everything the same. (example of Being as the same substance in two different things attributes two properties to Being that are contradictory.)

The prejudice reduces Being to a being that is in everything. Being, however, is more.

2nd prejudice:

Being is undefinable because we cannot use the standard way of how we usually define. This means that we cannot use genus and specific difference. But this does not imply that we cannot talk about Being.

The reason why there is no definition of being and why there is a limit to Being is what Being is.

3rd prejudice

Being is self-evident

that means Being is in everything we do and everyone has an implicit understanding.

A closer examination, however, will reveal that the unclarity of Being is the fundamental concern of our lives.