Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light …show more content…
However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead. Descartes assumed first that it was God, who deceived us, but with the conclusion that God is all-good, he instead conclude that an evil demon exist. This evil demon possess the same power to deceive us, which God also would possess. God is perfect. Since humans have the ability to think of a being more perfect then themselves, then this being must have planted the idea in our mind. With the knowledge now that God is existing, perfect and is a non-deceiver – due to him being all-good –, Descartes can now move on to explain why material objects …show more content…
One goes by the name “Cartesian spiral”. This suggests that the distinct and clear perception that proves Gods existence is different from the other perceptions. The Cartesian spiral is based on a mathematical equation, as “2+2=4” is clear and distinct, but a judgement and that is open to error. While the clear and distinct perception of Gods existence is just an idea and with no judgement attached. We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In Meditation Five of Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes makes his argument for a supreme being, which he refers to as “God.” Descartes creates his argument based on the two premises that 1) if a supreme being exists, then it must hold all perfections, and that 2) existence is a perfection. These two premises lead to the conclusion that a supreme being does indeed exist, and in response to this argument, I will provide a counterexample, as well as the response that Descartes would likely provide to this objection. To begin his argument, Descartes first leads readers into his line of thinking in order that they might understand the possibility of the existence of a supreme being. Throughout his argument, Descartes relies on
However, Descartes is indeed certain of the fact that he is a thinking being, and that he exists. As a result of this argument, Descartes makes a conclusion that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly cannot be false, and are therefore true (Blanchette). This clear and distinct perception is an important component to the argument that Descartes makes in his fifth meditation for the existence of God. This paper explains Descartes ' proof of God 's existence from Descartes ' fifth meditation, Pierre Gassendi 's objection to this proof, and then offers the paper 's author 's opinion on both the proof and objection.
Anh Nguyen - PHIL 256 Final Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God and its fallacies Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian
Firstly, Lloyd illustrates how Descartes adapted reason into a methodical thought that he used to attempt to form a rational basis for the belief in God (Lloyd, 1993:39). Descartes mentions in the Meditations dedicatory letter that he believes that for theists it is their faith that holds the rational basis for belief in God, whereas atheists do not have this faith and so it lies in reason to prove that God exists in order to persuade them (Descartes, 1996:3). However, REFERENCE AGAINST THIS POINT Moreover, from Descartes thoughts on reasoning he stemmed his dualistic view of the body and mind being two separate entities, which Lloyd notes includes the distinction between the rational mind, which Descartes identifies with the soul, and the irrational body (Lloyd, 1993:45). As Descartes has established his dualistic view, he highlights the cogito in his third meditation,
In the first two of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes builds skepticism and then begins to dispel it. In the first, Descartes calls into mind three possibilities to prove our inability to trust our senses and what we fundamentally believe to be true. Descartes’ main refutation of this skepticism is known as the Cogito. The Cogito claims that since Descartes’ thinks, he must at a minimum exist as a thinking thing. In the remainder of Meditations, the Cogito serves as the fundamental premise for Descartes’ proofs for the existence of God and of body.
Consequently, when Descartes is wrong, it is not because of God, it is because he isn’t God and lacks perfection. Descartes says we are capable of mistakes because God didn’t make us perfect like himself and our ability to make mistakes might play a small role in the larger scheme of things. God could have made us perfect but he chose not to by giving us free will and letting us make wrong judgements that could lead us further from the truth. I may not believe his reasoning but he tries to be as thorough as possible but his point doesn’t make a lot sense because he thinks that God could have made him perfect and chose not
For how he can be certain that 2+2= 4 and not 5, how can he know for sure that he is not being deceived into believing the answer to be 5 due to a demon. But even if an evil demon did indeed exist, in order to be misled, Descartes himself must exist. As there must be an “I”, that can be deceived. Conclusively, upon Descartes’ interpretations we can come to decipher that in order for someone to exist they must indeed be able to think, to exist as a thinking thing.
5. Why can’t an evil deceiver deceive Descartes about his belief that he thinks? He sees that he can be certain that he exists and that he thinks because even if an evil genius is doing everything possible to deceive Descartes, it can 't deceive him into believing he doesn 't exist. In order for something to be deceived, it must at least exist. Then, Descartes comes up with a rule which allows him 6.
Descartes then attempts to define what he is. He previously believed that he had a spirit and body, by methods for which he was fed, moved, could sense, absorb space, had a distinct area and think. Each one of those methods are thrown into uncertainty except thinking. Since he can think, he should exist. He thinks about whether he no longer exists once his reasoning comes to a halt.
While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist.
The next step that Descartes uses in the second meditation is the existence of this Godly figure. He questions his own beliefs with that of the God, and argues that a mind should be capable of thinking for them to be of existence, “Is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, which puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?” He then puts forward that for one to be deceived by this “evil demon” as he describes it, they have to exist to be deceived.
In the sixth meditation, Descartes postulates that there exists a fundamental difference in the natures of both mind and body which necessitates that they be considered as separate and distinct entities, rather than one stemming from the other or vice versa. This essay will endeavour to provide a critical objection to Descartes’ conception of the nature of mind and body and will then further commit to elucidating a suitably Cartesian-esque response to the same objection. (Descartes,1641) In the sixth meditation Descartes approaches this point of dualism between mind and matter, which would become a famous axiom in his body of philosophical work, in numerous ways. To wit Descartes postulates that he has clear and distinct perceptions of both
Descartes started his argument by saying that the knowledge of God is again innate in us. Again we see ta major problem here in the statement of Descartes. Experience will teach us the moral principles and the background needed to understand and have the knowledge about God. How can Descartes explain that God can be innate in us if experience gained from the senses would be the basis for us to understand and have a notion about God. His contradictions can only lead to confusion and back tracking.
Descartes makes the Evil Demon argument to neither prove the existence of such a demon or construct a better understanding of this source of deceit. But rather to destroy the foundations in which he has built all his bias on and rebuild his knowledge from scratch. It works to make us speculate everything while doubting the beliefs and senses we hold so true. This never-ending doubt gives rise to a new question, how do I know that
Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other.