Rene Descartes Argument Analysis

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.

Argument Reconstruction Descartes realized there were many things he believed when he was young that were not true. This leads him to wonder how many of the beliefs he considers true, are false, which leads him to question everything. He cannot prove all his beliefs to be false because that would take a very long time, so he will focus on the root of them all. All the beliefs he has have been influenced by his senses, and he acknowledges that the senses can be deceiving. Because something or someone that has deceived you cannot be trusted, he cannot trust his senses.

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 is considering that all of his experiences could be false and that everything is just the invention of a powerful being. This resulted in this argument:

Clear your mind, if you will, of everything you have ever seen or known to be true. To begin understanding Rene Descartes’ method of doubt, you need to suspend all prejudice and prior judgments and start with a clean slate “for the purpose of discovering some ultimate truth on which to base all thought.” (Kolak, Pg.225). Discouraged with much skepticism from his own beliefs, Descartes was embarrassed of his own ignorance. He set out to try and accomplish the task of finding an absolute truth in which he would base his beliefs. Placing upon himself a task to find an axiom or absolute truth to base all thought, “he ventured as a youth in travel to collect a variety in experiences to derive some

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

First lets look at its strengths. In my opinion, the primary strength of Descartes argument lies in the fact that he claims the certainty of his own existence only. He utilizes a first person point of view throughout the meditations in order to exemplify the fact that he is not trying to prove the existence of others. This view of thinking is easily applicable to our own lives. This form of thought allowed Descartes to further his foundationalism whilst still maintaining his skepticism. Descartes acknowledged that this argument on its own proved very little and was open to questioning; yet it still provided a backdrop for the rest of his argument. Yet the Cogito is still not beyond all doubt. Just because Descartes has proven that thoughts exist does not necessarily mean that he exists. we could argue that merely thinking does not guarantee that ‘I’ exist, and therefore the cogito is not beyond all doubt. Descartes reject common definitions such as man, instead referring to simply “a thing.” Descartes concludes his

As the first “premise” of his proof Descartes makes a very important distinction between the various types of ideas. The first type of idea he discusses is ideas that are images of things. This type of idea, when thought of, is apprehended as an object of my thought, but there is something more embraced in the thought than merely the representation of the object. Now if these ideas are considered only in themselves, and are not referred to any object beyond them, they cannot, properly speaking, be false. This even applies to the will and affections, a second type of idea, for although I may desire objects that are wrong, it is still true that I desire them. The third type of idea is that of judgement. Descartes goal in this classification is to find in his mind which of the ideas are the proper bearers of truth and falsehood. Considered in themselves, ideas are not false nor are desires. The only place where mistakes can be made is in making judgements. As Descartes says, “And the chief and most common mistake which is to be found here consists in my judging that the ideas which are in me resemble, or conform to, things located outside me.” Descartes further classifies his ideas by their origin: those that appear

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).

Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge.  Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims.  For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.  Another issue with Descartes' philosophy

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

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.

one must have at least a general idea of his motives in undertaking the argument.

This argument means you can doubt your own existence. Descartes was a little uneasy about this, because he stated only he think he exist. His motto was “If I think I must exist”. He explained that you have to first know what certainty is, what your existence if any is, and what your thoughts are. Thinking leads to doubting and doubting leads to Radical freewill. The other part of the argument is the Modus Ponens, which mean “If p then q, therefore”. He is just messing with our logic, since he has already tried to trick us with the 2+2=4 logic already. For instance, if you have sensation Y, which can means that you are thinking, you have only formed a belief that you are thinking. Therefore you can know that you are thinking. He believed that logic causes the doubt that he is experiencing within

Firstly, Descartes deals with the issue of empiricism- the theory that our knowledge is derived from our sensory experiences. Since we know from everyday errors that our senses have the ability to deceive us fairly often so making our perceptions to be something that it is not. For example, there are lots of examples of optical illusions and the fact that the train tracks may appear to converge from a distance. Consequently, we ought to