descartes Essay

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:

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

In Descartes’ Dream Argument, he doubts his own senses by comparing real life to a vivid dream. Sometimes a dream may be so vivid that it feels like it is real life. So then, it is entirely possible that what one is experiencing in “real life” may actually be a dream or a figment of one’s imagination. Therefore, it must

Descartes’ argument in my opinion was more of a concept of God’s existence more than the actual existence of God. Although I think Anselm made the better argument, his argument does have some flaws. Anselm argues

To deduce whether Descartes’ argument is successful in proving the existence of God, we must first consider what Descartes meant by the phrase “more reality”. Descartes states: “Now, it is evident by the natural light of reason that there must be as much reality in an efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For I ask: where

Descartes believed that God created our mind and situated us in this world, with this being said, God should have given you a mind that reaches true conclusions about the world on each and every occasion. Your mind isn’t incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. Basically, Descartes is trying to prove that God wouldn’t have given you a mind that would leave you to false beliefs about the world for the simple fact that that would make God a deceiver. Therefore, Descartes thinks that God created us with minds that have the capacity to attain true beliefs about the world. “We are neither infallible nor hopelessly trapped by falsehood. Rather, we are somewhere in between: We can reach true beliefs if we are careful about how we use the minds that God bestowed upon us.” He shows that the

After, doubting his senses, he decides to examine the action of dreaming because he remembers that sometimes when he dreams, he’ll falsely wakes up but in reality, he’s still very much sleeping. Therefore, he draws the conclusion that everything we know and do can be all just a dream. Moreover, Descartes doubts all of his beliefs about the physical world, that suppose everything he sees doesn't exist, that he has no senses and no body and that the only thing he can be certain of, is that there is no

Because our existence is dependant on our thoughts, and not physical things, Descartes regards the reality of existence of the physical world as less certain the the reality of existence of souls and God. He claims this is because we can be deceived by our sense and imaginations which is similar to argument of solipsism, the idea that everything perfectly clear and distinct exists only within our minds.. Descartes says, “The sense of sight assures us no less of the truth of its objects than do the senses of smell or hearing, whereas neither our imagination nor our sense could ever assure us of anything if our understanding did not intervene” (Reality, 65). Descartes is questioning the reliability of our sense and how accurately they relay messages to our minds. For example, when a straight stick is placed in water, it looks bent.

Descartes was a famous French philosopher in the mid 1500’s. He had a very particular argument that still confuses and or makes sense to many people today. His argument is basically in regards to the existence of God. The way he describes this argument is by breaking it down by two principles. Those two principles are the “Principle of Sufficient Reason” and the “Principle of Adequate Reality.”

The distinction between formal and objective reality should be laid out from the beginning in order to grasp Descartes’ argument. When talking about the forms of reality, Descartes is differentiating between two ways of existing; mostly being independent or dependent to exist. Formal reality reflects the degree of independence in something’s existence. In other words, the more formal reality something has, the fewer things it needs to exist. Formal reality can be applied to everything, in different degrees, however. As for objective reality, it can only be applied to ideas as it basically is a representation of something; an object of thought. With this being said, an objective reality of an idea is equal to the formal reality of the thing that the idea is about.

But we would not just call everything around it false, we would find it’s simplest form and prove it to be either true or false. We get most of ideas from our senses but sometimes our senses can deceive us. This is evident when we look at the sun. We can see the sun, but the size at which we see the sun is nowhere near its actual size. Sometimes we dream very vivid dreams where we cannot separate ourselves from perception and reality. How do we know that we are not currently sleeping and our actions are just a part of a dream sequence? He adds that there are no signs that differ our state of reality from our dreaming state. At this state there is one thing that we know to be true, that math is the universal truth. Descartes introduces the idea that if there were a “deceiver” God then they would be a trickster and basically trick us about our basic mathematical conceptions. This is the worst-case scenario because he believes in a “good” God; there would be no chance of tricking humanity into not believing the basic principles of

Descartes concludes that the attribute of thinking is the only quality that he can justifiably claim at this point. But he is quick to point out that thinking is the only attribute about which he is sure; not that thinking is the only attribute that he has. Nevertheless, this is the starting point of a radical ontological distinction that carries Descartes through his Meditations. That distinction is between a "thinking thing" and a corporeal body. The two are mutually exclusive. A "thinking thing" is nonphysical or spiritual in nature, whereas a corporeal body is physical, but not capable of consciousness or thought. For Descartes, a "thinking thing" is consciously aware of what is around it and doubts, understands some, is ignorant of most, imagines, and feels.

Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) contains six Meditations. In the first two of these Descartes addresses doubt and certainty. By the end of the second Meditation Descartes establishes the possibility of certainty by concluding that he is a “thinking thing” and that this is beyond doubt. Having established the possibility of certainty, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument he presents in the Third Meditation for the existence of God has been nicknamed the ‘Trademark’ argument. This argument deals with types of ideas, of which there are three, a principle called the Causal Adequacy principle, and a sliding scale of reality. The argument concludes that the idea of a God that is a perfect being is an innate idea that is real and was caused by God and therefore God is real. This argument will be explained with the greater detail in the next paragraph. In the Fifth Meditation Descartes again addresses the existence of God with an argument for His existence. This argument is a variation of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. This argument is also framed around his theory of ideas, as well as his principle of ‘clear and distinct perception’ and is explained and discussed in paragraph three. The paragraphs following these will discuss how convincing these two arguments from Descartes are and will deal with various objections. Many of these objections are strong enough that it will be clear why Descartes’ case has failed to convince everyone.

Descartes first submits that it is not necessary to show all beliefs are false to satisfy the knowledge condition. He adds that if in each belief there is doubt that we can conclude that all things that we believe can be considered false knowledge. He seeks to prove this by setting a precondition that we cannot critique all beliefs, just the ones that govern our life or that serve as a broad component of belief. Descartes then provides context to where beliefs come from and states that beliefs are created from senses or through senses. He then states that senses are false because they are deceptive and shouldn’t be trusted which is the first cause of being able to doubt a belief. This idea in my opinion is the argument of Reality vs. Virtually, which is what we encounter through our experiences vs. what we dream about. The question posed is that we doubt our beliefs because we do not know if what we perceive from our senses is true. The example provided in the Meditations text dealt with imagination and the Dream world concept. If I perceive something in the