The Effect Of Descartes On Finite Substance

Moreover, Descartes relies on having a thorough knowledge of mind and body. We may conclude with Descartes that thought is necessary to having a mind, and materiality is necessary to having a body, it does not inevitably follow that there is an entity whose sole nature is to think. Descartes is limited by his subjective viewpoint that it could not be the case that extension could be another property of mind. He needs to prove the stronger argument that it is not possible for the mind to have extension as one of it’s properties. Descartes tries to make this proof in his Divisibility Argument:

Descartes argues that some ideas are more real than others. These ideas are those that represent substances and contain more objective reality. These ideas are first modes or accidents, finite substance, and infinite substance. Descartes

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:

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

     The second argument that Descartes defends is another question posed towards the senses. How can we take anything as real if our dreams cannot be

The next concept that must be explained is in fact the very first premise for Descartes' Third Meditation Proof for the Existence of God, that of the Causal Adequacy Principle. Descartes reasons that "as the idea contains one particular subjective reality rather than another, it must get this reality from a cause having at least as much formal reality as the idea has subjective reality" (p 58). In this, Descartes attempts to tie together the concepts on kinds of reality and degrees of reality. Returning to the example using the ceiling, Descartes would argue that the thing causing or bringing into existence the idea of the ceiling (a mind dependent entity) could only be another finite substance (i.e. the actual ceiling) or an infinite substance (i.e. God), either of which would be of formal (mind independent) reality. In saying this I eliminate the notion that the idea of the ceiling could be sustained by the holes and markings (accidents and modifications) because according to Descartes they are of a lower degree of reality,

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

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.

To further validate his proof, he attempts to show God’s existence as an a posteriori claim. Descartes states that as humans we have the idea of God in our minds. We conceive God as a perfect being, that of perfect existence. As shown in the quote from page 37, this idea of God is beyond our reasoning to create, and must have come from God itself. Our idea of God certifies his existence. Descartes deviates from the method again, and his reasoning fails to provide an absolute proof.

Descartes utilizes another rule in his thought process which states that objective reality cannot exist without formal reality. By this he means that we cannot form an idea without a cause. Assuming that God does exist would be an example of a Formal reality. Whereas the idea of God, is considered objective reality because it represents an infinite substance. Ideas themselves automatically have objective reality because the idea itself represents some reality. Also, the more perfect ideas cannot come from the less perfect; this is called The Causal

Descartes attacks the possibility of certainty with regards to the existence of small and universal elements with the possibility of our thoughts being altered by an omnipotent deceiver. In paragraph nine, he states, “How do I know that he did not bring it about that there be no Earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no figure, no size, no place, and yet all these things should seem to me to exist precisely as they appear to do now.” His point is that this omnipotent evil deceiver could create in our minds an understanding of mathematics and logic that is at odds with reality, causing us to construe everything wrongly. Thus Descartes ends this final and devastating doubt with the preliminary conclusion that everything he perceives can be called into doubt.

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

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

The final cause is what the aim or purpose of the mug is, a successful receptacle to contain liquid. Finally, the formal cause, which intends to distinguish what makes the mug a mug, the features of this mug is its impermeable container, moulded cylindrically and its handle. Together these make the total cause, but all of them in different ways contain reality despite their different states. Descartes also discusses the apparent impossibility of an effect (in any form) not owing its reality to anything. Nothing cannot be the cause of something; for reality of any degree owes its reality to that which is it’s cause; and that cause contains or possesses the degree of reality (or more) that it produces. This is also how ideas work, according to Descartes. Ideas have been placed by that which produces those things and that which can conceive reality of. Just because an idea doesn’t contain physical, formal, or actual reality, its not any less real; it is simply a transferral of the reality. Before presenting Descartes given example, it is important to discuss the technical imagery he projects using terms like formal or objective reality. Reality is not a black and white subject; it can be broken down into degrees or types where some things appear to be more real, or contain more reality, than other. Formal reality is virtuous of what it is whether that is finite or infinite substances or modes, all varying in degree. It