Analysis of Descartes' Argument

Descartes wonders what else that he can know by using this same logic, but first must establish the idea of God and that God is not deceiving him. He reasons that God exists because he as a mortal could not create the idea of such a powerful being, and only a being as powerful as God could have caused an idea of a God that is perfect. Descartes goes on to reason that because God is perfect, then God would not deceive him about anything. It’s not that Descartes is being deceived, but rather his lack of knowledge or understanding about the matters at hand is causing the problem he is facing.

To expand on his first argument, Descartes' deceiving God argument states that our deceptions are caused by an all powerful God. Humans are capable of being deceived because we are imperfect, unlike God, who is essential flawless. If we can agree on the definition of God, an all powerful and omnipotent being who created us, then we can argue that he has the power to deceive even our most reliable senses. Descartes expresses his compounding doubts as "How do I know that he did not bring it about that there is no earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, and yet bringing it about that all these things appear to me to exist precisely as they do now?" (Descartes 491). This excerpt

Descartes begins by distinguishing the “real and positive idea of God” from the opposite “negative idea of nothingness,” placing himself in the middle of this spectrum (99). He is finite and imperfect but, as God's creation, his nature contains nothing which itself facilitates mistakes. Since he exists between God and nothingness, however, he also “participate[s] in nothingness or non-being” (99-100). Errors of judgement, then, must stem from “nothingness,” the absolute absence of all perfection. Mistakes are not “things” resulting from an error-making faculty dependent on God, but instead lackings of a limited, fallible faculty of judgement. This answer, Descartes admits, does not fully address the problem, since a lacking is not a “pure negation” and implies that something which ought to be present is missing. Could God have failed to grant some perfection that we should possess? Descartes contrasts his own “weak and limited” nature with God's “immense, incomprehensible and infinite” nature, deeming that God's reasoning is beyond the scope of his understanding and that, feasibly, a world with errors is best when examined in its entirety

Descartes’ skeptical arguments begin from the thought that everything can be doubted; the first being our senses. He claims that our senses can sometimes deceive us (e.g. when viewing things from far away). Things that can deceive us once, have the possibility to be deceiving us all the time—giving us reason to doubt all sensory claims. This leads to a problem since humans rely on empirical knowledge. If one cannot consider any claim delivered by sense to be true knowledge, then it gives reason for one to doubt reality. Following is the dream argument in which what seems to be tangible reality, is an effect of a dreaming experience. Descartes gives the example of dreaming he is sitting by a fire when in actuality he could be asleep

The Cogito argument is Descartes’ first premise in a longer argument where he proves God exists, objects exist and the mind and body are separate substances. This first argument is the lynch pin of all his later thought. To help understand the argument an example from sci-fi series Battlestar Galactica is required. In effect are humans really cylons/machines or human beings. The two are very different. The first option, cylon, says that humans are machines who receive impulses and respond in a particular way due to programming. Free will does not exist, but the cylon is a machine or sophisticated robot responding to its surroundings. The second option, human being, says that humans exist distinct, act freely and are not merely programmed to

This explanation of error was deliberate and well thought out by Descartes to avoid disproving his previous argument that confirms God’s perfection. He states early in Meditation IV: “when I attend to the nature of God, it seems impossible that he would have placed in me a faculty that is not perfect in its kind or that is lacking some perfection it ought to have.” (AT 55, p. 82) He admits that error goes against this nature of perfection and that only a deceiving God would give us the faculty to err. We do err as human beings, therefore, Descartes must present argument for error that does not challenge God’s perfection. He starts off by separating us from God: “I have been created by the supreme being, there is nothing in me by means of which I might be deceived or led into error; but

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

Descartes then goes on to assume that there is a God, who is all powerful, and created this world; yet he asks, "How do I know that He has not brought it to pass that there is no earth, no heaven, no extended body, no magnitude, no place, and that nevertheless they seem to me to exist just exactly as I know see them?" (Descartes, p.76, par.5) Without a guarantee of reality, maybe all of his previous beliefs are false. Descartes doubts the supreme goodness of a God that would let him be deceived even occasionally. Moreover, if a perfect God does not exist then it becomes probable that Descartes himself is increasingly imperfect and therefore is constantly being misled. "If, however, it is contrary to His goodness to have made me such that I constantly deceive myself, it would also appear contrary to His goodness to permit me to be sometimes deceived, and nevertheless I cannot doubt that he does permit this." (Descartes, p.76, par.5) Descartes assumes the scenario that God is really an "evil demon".

As with almost all of Descartes inquiries the roots of his second argument for the existence of God begin with his desire to build a foundation of knowledge that he can clearly and distinctly perceive. At the beginning of the third meditation Descartes once again recollects the things that he knows with certainty. The problem arises when he attempts to clearly and distinctly understand truths of arithmetic and geometry. Descartes has enough evidence to believe these things, but one major doubt is still present; the possibility of God being a deceiver. Descartes worry is that all the knowledge that he possesses through intuition could potentially be false if God merely chooses to deceive him. So in order to have a clear and distinct perception of arithmetic truths (and other such intuitive truths) Descartes delves into the question of God’s existence (and whether this God could be a deceiver or not).

However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. He feels certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but reflects that often he has dreamed this very sort of thing and been thoroughly convinced by it. On further reflection, he realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead Descartes to believe falsely all these things. He supposes that not God, but some "evil demon" has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

Descartes reasoning shows that as part of his a posteriori claim, God’s existence depends on our idea of God as a perfect being. However, he writes that “From this I knew I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is solely to think, and which does not require any place, or depend on any material thing, in order to exist” (Descartes, Discourse on the Method, page 36). As per Descartes, the existence of his mind is partially based on the notion that it’s (his minds) existence is independent of any other being. His causal proof of God, however, depends entirely on the human mind and its ideas of what God is. Aside from these flaws in his reasoning, Descartes also mistakenly links his proofs together, attempting to propagate them and champion their creditability.

In other words, a dream image is only a portrait of a real-life object, place or

His belief in God even affected his theories on reality. One of his theories was that he was being deceived by a conniving and mischievous demon that was hell-bent on distorting his reality. The demon could be comparable to the evil dictator and the memory replacing machine in Total Recall. Despite the evil demon, Descartes did manage to reveal one very true thing and that is that he must exist if he truly is being deceived by the evil demon because he needs to exist in order to be deceived. He later summarizes this into his famous phrase “I think, therefore, I am.”(Descartes 136).

At the beginning of the fourth meditation Descartes has developed three main certainties: 1) God exists. The understanding that God exists, comes from the intellect and not from the senses or the imagination therefore God exists 2) God is not a deceiver because deceiving is a sign of weakness or malice and because God is perfect he would not be allowed to do things of such evil nature. And 3) if God created him, God is responsible for his judgment, and so his ability to judge must be sound; so long as he uses it correctly. Yet, If God has given Descartes indubitable judgment how is it Descartes makes an error from time to time?

These preconceived notions keep us from “the knowledge of the truth” (Descartes 193). In order to access the truth, we must doubt everything. Doubting everything will lead to the distinction between mind and body. Once you recognize that distinction, you will recognize that “neither extension nor shape nor local motion, nor anything of this kind which is attributable to a body, belongs to our nature, but that thought alone belongs to us” (195). This thought that we have produces ideas, and these ideas are given to us by God, they are innate. Since God gave us this “faculty for knowledge […], it can never encompass any object which is not true” (203). For we are able to see the truth clearly and distinctly this way. Descartes argues that God would be a deceiver if what he gave us was able to be distorted and that we can mistake what is false as true. This is not the case, because God is not a deceiver. Some would argue that people do believe things to be true when in fact they are false. This, however, is not the doing of God, it is of our own free will, and it is what Descartes calls “errors.” Errors do not rely on our intellect, but rather on our own will. Ultimately, doubting will lead to deductive reasoning, or a series of logical statements eventually