Comparing Rene Descartes And Immanuel Kant

Kant credited both empiricism and rationalism movements. He believes that they both contributed to human’s knowledge and should not reject neither one of them. So, he keeps some parts of those principles and defines empiricism a posteriori knowledge and rationalism as a priori knowledge. His goal is to explain and then justify the possibility of scientific knowledge.

Humans are finite substances so they cannot come up with the ideas of infinite substances unless it were given to them by an infinite substance. Descartes continues that while we advance gradually each day these attributes could never exist within us because we are only potentially perfect whereas God is actually perfect. Furthermore, Descartes argues that only God could be the author of his being because if it were he or his parent’s other finite substances that authored his being then he would not have wants or doubts because he would have bestowed upon himself every perfection imaginable to a finite being. Therefore, God exists because Descartes could not have thought of God because he is a finite substance thus the idea of God must have come from an infinite substance.

I have an idea of a perfect being; it must contain in reality all the

From Descartes point of view, he thinks that it makes sense to talk of degrees of reality to qualify the above assumptions, and he sometimes equates this with talk of degrees of perfection. Thus, he brings God back into the picture. The ideas, then, could come from only God, or from another being superior to humans but inferior to God. But this, too, is impossible, argues Descartes, as if it were the case that God produces the ideas of bodies in humans, then the very strong inclination we have towards believing that the idea-producing bodies resemble the ideas we have would be false and thus God would be allowing us to be deceived which is not permissible. The same would apply if any other being were producing

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

Secondly, to come up with the second proof of Gods existence, Descartes thought that the power and action that is needed to preserve something is capable of creating something new. He argued that there must be as much power in the cause just as it is in the effect. According to the philosophical writings of Descartes, upon knowing that he did not have power to preserve his own existence because he was just a thinking thing; Descartes concluded that the power must have come from outside him (Descartes, Cottingham and Murdoch 26) And since he is a thinking thing, he claims that the one who created him must also be a thinking thing, possessing all the ideas and attributes of god. In addition, he observed that his parents could not be responsible for creating and preserving his life. Descartes therefore concludes that the one who created him and gave him ideas of a perfect God must be God, therefore God exists.

There has been many thinkers in history who have lacked a belief in God. Some ancient Greek philosophers, such as Epicurus, obtained natural explanations for these superior miracles. Epicurus was the first to question the compatibility of God with suffering. In contrast, Descartes proves God 's existence as an external reality and that ideas of perfection or infinity cannot come from oneself. He explains that “I am a finite being and thus cannot generate these ideas on my own. I have also never experienced perfection or infinity in the world, so they cannot come from experience, either”. God is a “perfect being”.

After giving his first proof for the existence of God Descartes concludes by mentioning that this proof is not always self-evident. When he is absorbed in the world of sensory illusions it is not quite obvious to him that God’s existence can be derived from the idea of God. So to further cement God’s existence Descartes begins his second proof by posing the question of whether he could exist (a thinking thing that possesses the idea of an infinite and perfect god) if God itself did not exist.

Descartes’s attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the argument that he has the clear and distinct idea of God as the “most perfect being and that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Therefore, this idea of God can’t be from himself, but its cause must be God. So God exists. In what follows I’ll explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.

In a quote previously shown, Descartes claims that his idea of a perfect being comes from God. Descartes also believes that the idea

From this definite foundation Descartes tries to prove that there is something external to the mind. So he states the law of casualty. This basically says that nothing can be created from nothing, and that the less perfect can not create something more perfect or better than itself. Then if there is an idea in our minds that we didn’t create, something else created it. If God is more perfect than us, then we could not have created God but God created us. Descartes then wrote about the idea of God. He said that God is infinite and could not have been created by us because God is more perfect than us thus undoubtable and certain. The idea that God exists disproves the Evil Genius theory therefore proves the existence of an external world.

Given the above arguments one can begin to understand the nature of the God Descartes is endeavoring to prove. For Descartes, God is infinite and perfect existence. God is “eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and [the creator of] everything else". (Descartes 20) Not only does God possess this nature but it is necessary that He does so. If God is not infinite or perfect God could not exist as these attributes are essential to God's existence. Furthermore, if God is not the ultimate creator the innate idea of God we experience would cease to be innate but adventitious (externally caused) or imaginative (caused by the mind) which is again impossible given its content. Given these qualities one can draw a connection to the

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

First, ideas originate from causes; the latter must have as much or more formal reality as the objective reality of the idea. Second, Descartes has an idea about God, this idea has infinite objective reality because this idea, no matter what caused it has to have infinite formal reality; “because something can’t come from nothing, or the cause must have as much or more reality than the effect” (Descartes 31). Third, Descartes is finite and does not have infinite formal reality, therefore he cannot cause the idea of God because he, as a cause, would have less formal reality than the objective reality of what he produced, effect, which is the idea of God. Thus, God could have caused the idea of God in him, because only God has as much formal reality as the objective reality of his idea (Descartes 31), therefore, God

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.