In the beginning of Descartes fourth meditation he focused on the three main ideas. He believed that God exists, God is not a deceiver, and that he is one of Gods creations and that God is responsible for everything. Descartes believed that the God existed and that he was not a deceiver but he began to have doubt and started to explore the problems that he felt were associated with the things God created, “if everything that is in me comes from God, and he did not endow me with a faculty for making mistakes, it appears that I can never go wrong”. This issue, is the “Problem of Error”. If you agree that the faculty of judgment comes from God, and that God is a non-deceiver then you would also believe that the end would be impossible for the faculty of judgment to to be wrong. Is it even possible for anything from God not be the truth or …show more content…
He also stated that “For since I know that my own nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite, I also know without more ado that he is capable of countless things whose causes are beyond my knowledge”. Descartes believed that it is his mind that prevents him from understanding why God gave him the chance to create human error.
The model of descartes human error problem does not succeed because nothing can be seen or perceived without the mind, and the mind is everything for us at the moment. Altough the physical body and the mind are different both are controlled by the mind. This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error
In contrast, as our intellect is finite, our decisions and choices are affected due to not being able to clearly and distinctly understand things, resulting in choices that can be deemed as “Bad”. Concluding that God is not as fault for our defects as we are not clearly and distinctly perceiving things, Descartes illustrates how he can avoid error by suspending judgements when uncertain, or only passing judgment when certain of clear and distinct
Descartes talks about God as if God is infinite because he radiates out in every direction. Descartes imagines that he himself is perfect and has the perfect qualities of God. This leads him to the discussion of disobeying God and turning into what one wants rather than what God wants. By doing what oneself wills, not what God wills, one is basically implying the he or she sees him or herself as God-like. Descartes believes he is partially God because he is on his way to infinite knowledge, but since he is gaining little by little, he is in a state of potentiality.
When addressing what Descartes believes to be the fundamental source of human error it is first important to clarify what Descartes insists is not the source of human error. Right at the start of his fourth meditation Descartes specifies that God cannot be the source of error since that would require deception. Since deception is a form of imperfection God cannot deceive us for he is perfect (AT 53). Since God is not the source of error, and all of our abilities are given to us by God who cannot deceive us then our ability to make judgement also cannot be the source of error when used properly (AT 54). This means that since it cannot be God or the faculties given to us by God as the source of error, then it must be something within us, something related to our finite nature, distinct
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
I will argue that Descartes ' proof of God in theory sounds valid, until one realizes they 're being led in a circle. Descartes has an idea of an infinite, perfect (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) being or God. He believes the fact he, a finite being, can imagine such a perfect being, must mean this being instilled the idea in his mind. He claims that this idea is clear and distinct, or in other words, cannot be denied. Therefore God exists, and because God exists, he would not deceive Descartes by allowing him to have clear and distinct ideas that are false (SparkNotes Editors).
Why can’t Descartes be certain about mathematical beliefs like the belief that 2+2=4? The truth that 2 + 2 = 4 does not rely on any sensible experience but is grasped entirely in our minds regardless of whether we are dreaming or awake.
This essay will now begin the task of laying out the objection to Descartes’
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.
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.
Descartes also formulates another argument of doubt but uses God as his object of deception instead of dreaming. He first states that we believe that there is an all-powerful God who has created us, redundant. Descartes goes on to say, that God has it in His power to make us be deceived even about matters of mathematical knowledge which we seem to understand clearly. Descartes does acknowledge his argument is controversial and brings up objections to support his argument. Some might believe God wouldn’t deceive us.
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.
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.
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.
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Does the evil genius exist? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions.
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.