preview

The Logical Fallacies of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy

Better Essays

The Logical Fallacies of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy includes a proof for the existence of material objects, such as trees. Descartes accomplishes this by first doubting all things, from which he learns that he can be certain of nothing but his own existence as a thinking thing. From this established certainty, Descartes is able to provide proof for the existence of God, and, finally proof of the existence of material objects. Descartes’ proof of God, however, from which the proof of material things is made possible, is suspect: the proof relies on knowledge of clear and distinct ideas but knowledge of clear and distinct ideas relies on the existence of God. Furthermore, …show more content…

Yet, all of this is false, Descartes argues. His senses deceive him. He is not reading a book; neither is he feeling its pages with his hands; nor is he experiencing the warmth of a fire. "When I think very carefully about this", Descartes tells us, "I see so plainly that there are no reliable signs by which I can distinguish sleeping from waking that I am stupefied—and my stupor itself suggests that I am asleep!" (Biffle, 22). How than, Descartes ponders, can one be certain that one does in fact have hands, or that one does in fact feel heat from fire? How, Descartes poses, can one know if one is awake or asleep, and, consequently, how can we be certain of anything?

Fortunately, however, Descartes succeeds in determining one thing of which he can be certain. No matter how much he doubts, he can be certain of the fact that he is thinking, for the doubting is itself an affirmation of his thought. So he can be certain that he is at least a thing that thinks. Hence, the concept, "I think, therefore I am" is established in these ruminations.

The first point of contention is found at this point of Descartes’ exposition. How does Descartes know he is a thinking thing? There are three ways to analyze this question; let us first examine Descartes’ method. Descartes defines a thinking thing as a "thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, wills, refrains from willing,

Get Access