Descartes' Evil Demon Argument

The Evil Demon Hypothesis is an important component of the Method of Doubt. Descartes used the Method of Doubt to find what is true by withholding assent from all beliefs that are dubitable. However, if Descartes was to scrutinise everything he believed, he would be left with an

Descartes’s mission in the meditations was to doubt everything and that what remained from his doubting could be considered the truth. This lead Descartes to argue for the existence of God. For the purpose of this paper, I will first discuss Descartes’s argument for the existence of God. I will then take issue with Descartes’s argument first with his view on formal reality and varying levels of reality, then with his argument that only God can cause the idea of God. I will then conclude with

In Descartes’ First Meditation, Descartes’ overall intention is to present the idea that our perceptions and sensations are flawed and should not be trusted entirely. His purpose is to create the greatest possible doubt of our senses. To convey this thought, Descartes has three main arguments in the First Meditation: The dream argument, the deceiving God argument, and the evil demon “or evil genius”. Descartes’ dream argument argues that there is no definite transition from a dream to reality, and since dreams are so close to reality, one can never really determine whether they are dreaming

The topic of this essay is Descartes’ First Meditations and I will be discussing in detail the Dreaming argument and the Evil Demon argument.

This essay will attempt to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes’ dreaming argument and evil demon argument. Through discussion, I will show why the evil demon argument is more plausible than the dreaming argument. The essay will give a brief definition of the two arguments and explain why these arguments are important. Then I will discuss the two arguments, considering both sides and referencing previous work by other philosophers. I will conclude with a short summary of the topics covered.

Descartes’ Evil Demon argument is the idea that instead of his God deceiving him- because he is too good to do so – that perhaps there is an evil being of a similar power to God who is in fact deceiving him to believe falsehoods as fact (Reason and Responsibility, Feinberg and Shafer-Landau, 2015, 242-244). The premises for this go like 1. If I am to be certain of anything I need to be certain I am not being deceived by a powerful evil demon, 2. I cannot be certain I am not being deceived by a powerful evil demon, therefore 3. I cannot be certain of anything. This is harder to argue against because there is no evidence for an evil demon existing- however this does not stop Descartes from believing in God. This is a valid argument because the premises do follow on from each other however, it is not a sound argument because premise 2 is

Descartes organised his ideas on knowledge and skepticism to establish two main arguments, the dreaming argument and the evil demon argument. The dreaming argument suggests that it is not possible to distinguish between having a waking experience and dreaming an experience. Whereas, the evil demon argument suggests that we are deceived in all areas of our experiences by an evil demon. This essay will investigate the validity of the arguments and to what extent the conclusion of these arguments is true. The soundness and the extent to which the premises are true will also be explored. After evaluating these arguments it will be concluded that the dreaming argument is valid, but is not sound. Whereas, the evil demon argument is both valid and sound.

In the fifth and last skeptical hypothesis, Descartes raises the possibility of there being an evil demon that deceives him into believing falsehoods. Descartes has established arguments that either support or demolish the thoughts for all of these skeptical hypotheses. As stated previously, the dream argument points out that people may actually be dreaming when they think they are living in reality. Descartes used his methods of detecting falsities to evaluate this argument.

At the beginning of Meditation three, Descartes has made substantial progress towards defeating skepticism. Using his methods of Doubt and Analysis he has systematically examined all his beliefs and set aside those which he could call into doubt until he reached three beliefs which he could not possibly doubt. First, that the evil genius seeking to deceive him could not deceive him into thinking that he did not exist when in fact he did exist. Second, that his essence is to be a thinking thing. Third, the essence of matter is to be flexible, changeable and extended.

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).

In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.

Given the evil genius’ capability of not only altering sensory information, but also mathematical proofs and deceiving us on all basic fundamentals of logic, this all-powerful evil genius tears down everything Descartes has ever known to the point of his own existence. My objection to Descartes’ meditation that prompts the examination of his arguments conclusion revolves around the evil genius’ control over Descartes himself. If this evil genius is all-powerful in every aspect of deception, then Descartes’ entire argument that there is an evil genius may be pre mediated by another all powerful being to make Descartes come up with this argument. If this all-powerful being instilled these ideas in Descartes’ head in hopes of publication, he may have created this argument to hide the real cause of deception from him. In essence, the evil genius is so powerful that he caused Descartes to think that there is an evil genius when in reality we are controlled by something else. Knowing Descartes’ tendencies to dismiss the actual existence of an evil genius, regardless of what is deceiving us, this all-powerful being’s ability to deceive undermines Descartes’ entire argument. This skepticism objects to Descartes’ final and strongest view that an evil genius is deceiving

Descartes’ method offers definitive conclusions on certain topics, (his existence, the existence of God)but his reasoning is not without error. He uses three arguments to prove existence (His and God’s) that attempt to solidify his conclusions. For his method to function seamlessly, Descartes needs to be consistent in his use of the method, that is, he must continue to doubt and challenge thoughts that originate in his own mind. He is unable to achieve this ideal state of mind, however, and his proofs are shown to be faulty.

However Descartes presented an idea in his first meditation that an evil demon could be interfering with our thoughts. This is still in play and presents a challenge to his new criterion. Descartes aims to prove God's existence, in turn to discard any possibility of an evil demon deceiving us - as God's benevolent nature would never allow us into being deceived by such things. Descartes argument proposes that because we have an innate idea of God in our mind, this idea must have a cause. There must be as much reality in a cause as in its effect, due to the principle of causal adequacy – which states that the less perfect cannot give rise to the more perfect.

In the 1600s, René Descartes, through his written meditations, sought out to find what we can be certain of as humans. His plan was to find any belief that could be doubted, and throw it away. He would do this by weeding out all the beliefs that he was uncertain about, leaving him with the beliefs that he was certain about. Then, he wished to use those beliefs he considered certain as his foundation for further knowledge. He went through multiple steps to come to his final conclusion. Finally, after every phase of his mediation, he created what is called the dream hypothesis, the evil demon hypothesis, and the Cogito argument.