Rene Descartes Discourse On The Method

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

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.

Descartes philosophical meditations offer a window into his beliefs on God and his perceptions. He begins his first meditation by describing his Madness and Dream arguments, which outline his doubts in his own perceptions. He wants to be acutely aware of deception as he moves forward because he has no way of determining when his perceptions are true and when his perceptions are false. Moving through his other meditations, he discusses the idea of truth, goodness, and the existence of God, ending his sixth meditation with the acknowledgement that God would not deceive him, so he must not worry about his perceptions being true anymore. From there, Descartes is not deeply concerned about the truth of his perception of the world. However, upon

As a thinking entity, Descartes is a consciousness mind aware of the potential to engage in various modes of existence. To the numerous operations of “thought” he includes doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagining, and sensing. As varied and manifold as these operations appear, they are but expressions of two principal types of conscious activity, to which Descartes eventually traces the nature of error. Thinking and reasoning, together with all belief in general, depend upon the operation of the twin faculties “knowing” and “choosing,” or the free will. Garrett Thompson writes:

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

Something very essential to know about Descartes is his idea of Cogito Ergo Sum; I think, therefore I am. He believes that he exists because he is thinking, making him a thinking thing. Descartes first premise states, "I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing" (Descartes, 54). The first thing that we need to understand from this premise is what Descartes means by extended; to occupy space. So, since he believes that he is not an extended thing, it follows that he does not take up space. Given this, he looked inside himself and saw no parts within his mind, no space or boundaries that his mind contains. In addition, the mind provides a place for free will and faith, which are not parts but different ways of thinking. He rationalizes this by making the mind of a qualitative substance. By saying that only things that can be measured must be of a material substance and those things that cannot be measured are of a thought like substance. The relation between body and mind now seem to be more divided since he believes that his mind is not extended. In short, this premise states that the mind has no parts, making it indivisible.

This then leads him to question the existence of God, and then whether he himself truly exists as well. Descartes concludes his claim in stating, “So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind,” (25). Therefore, in spite of everything he is skeptical of, Descartes manages to believe that his true existence is not something worthy of doubt.

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

Through questioning the knowledge he had always believed to be true, Descartes comes to realize that many of his basic beliefs were founded on sensual knowledge. This leads him to question his very existence, and eventually to search for unconditional proof of his existence

Descartes defines senses as a part of the process of thinking. He also explains that we can use our senses to help us understand the true nature of things. Descartes struggled with doubt and his senses when he used his ontological proof that God existed. For example, he explains that he is aware that he is not perfect and he makes mistakes. He understands that he must know what perfect is in order to give someone the title. He knew that something perfect lead him to have these ideas and that it must exist. His definition of perfect is unique without the knowledge of anyone else and he defined it as God. For example, Descartes believes that God is perfect and deception is a sign of imperfection. Therefore, Descartes came to the conclusion that God cannot deceive. This example shows that Descartes did struggle to accept his own belief without doubting himself. His ontological argument proved, to Descartes, that through God everything

Rene Descartes, a rationalist, said that each person contains the criteria for truth and knowledge in them. Finding truth and knowledge comes from the individual themselves, not necessarily from God. Descartes also believed that reason is the same for every single person. Descartes believed that nothing could be true unless we as humans could perceive it. He also believed that you could break down things into smaller simpler parts. Descartes also believed that there was a relationship between the mind and body. He also believed that the idea of being perfect originated from God since God himself was perfect. He also integrates his mathematical concepts into his methodology. Descartes also applied doubt to his ideas before he

He finds it plausible that we are all living in a dream and we have never experienced reality. He can no longer give any credence to his senses and finds himself in a place of complete uncertainty. Descartes comes to the conclusion that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than his own mind. He has discovered that even bodies are not accurately perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagination, and are only accurately being perceived by the intellect. He also realizes that they are not distinguished through being touched, smelled, or tasted, but by being understood alone. (An apple is an apple because our mind tells us that it is an apple.) It is the faculty of reason that gives the knowledge and lets the mind know the truths and essences of objects. Descartes assumes that all of us can be decided by our senses, someone can see something far away, and then discover that is not what we thought it was. Or even a oar when is immerse half in water attempt to be bent, but instead is straight. Descartes think that we cannot always be sure of what we sense, and gives the example of himself seated by the fire.

The mythical phoenix is born in the ashes of its mother once she has been consumed in flame, becoming stronger than she ever was. In Discourse on Method, Descartes hopes to destroy the conventional understanding of philosophy that has been followed throughout the ages, and in doing so establish his own philosophy as the new convention in the ashes of the old philosophy. In this paper, I will present Descartes’ findings of instability in philosophy and distaste for the way people learn as his motivation for undertaking this reconstruction of his thoughts, finding a firm and lasting basis for the sciences as his end goal for the reconstruction, and his rules for conducting thought and code of doubt as the way by which he hopes to achieve

He reasons that, through these principals, his idea of God cannot have come from himself, as he is an imperfect being. He does not have the capability of thinking of an infinite substance or a perfect substance, such as God, because he has lesser reality than these ideas and cannot be the cause of them. The only way these ideas could exist is if they were created by something of equal (greater being impossible, as infinite perfection cannot have a superior) reality. Because God is the only infinite Descartes can recognize at this state, it must be God that planted the idea in his mind.

Descartes declares that he will only accept ideas that he can absolutely affirm, but accepts the existence of God without adequately proving it. This inadequacy undermines his declared project of defining the world in terms of established ideas. He does not sufficiently prove the idea of God, yet bases so much on it. When he later discusses physical bodies, intellect, and mathematical concepts, the reader cannot forget that everything he writes is based on the shaky foundation of the Christian God, and finds his