In this paper, I present my own interpretation of how Descartes, in his Meditations (1), tries to answer the question whether it is possible to build firm foundations for indubitable knowledge. The kind of knowledge he seeks is one we can achieve without doubt. In Descartes’ epistemology, we can claim to know something certainly only if there is no possible doubt for our proposition. The proof of the existence of God as an ultimately perfect and benevolent being is central to achieving this certainty. I will first present his foundationalist view and his general methodology.
Existence is something that can be imagined and therefore is false and a fallacy. How does Descartes really know he exists maybe he is just imaging it all and that his premises behind the existence of God are fake as well. If someone exist then they must have been born which would mean that Descartes parents where the ones who brought him into existence, and their parents brought them in to existence and so on and so on. This would mean that God did not create Descartes existence but that someone way far down the chain of human existence started it
This was the starting point of defining the existence. In this work, he set four rules for attaining certainty in any area. As that four rules fulfilled, he reached at his conclusion, “I think, therefore I am”. Basically, Descartes doubt everything that he could be doubted and use anything that certain (principle of the axiom in mathematics). In addition, he also known as dualist, where he taught that the body physical was interacted to each other with the non-physical mind (interactionism) that mind could always influence the body.
Anselm’s argument is based on the assumption of the universal definition of God being the greatest being. Descartes’ argument is based on the assumption that all humans have an idea of infinite perfection. They both do not take into account the fact that some people may have differing thoughts. Another way they are alike is that they are both based on logical evidence instead of physical evidence. Anselm’s argument focuses on the definition and the logic behind it while Descartes’ argument focuses on self-reason for the cause of the idea of infinite perfection.
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. In his fifth meditation, Descartes begins his proof for the
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. Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being.
According to his text, God is simply an illusion that does not exist. It is a human desire to, when overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to worship something. “Science emancipates us from that desire”, Dawkins
Rene Descartes is quoted in Latin proposition denoted as “Cogito ergo sum,” which can be translated to mean I think, therefore I am. In the context, the speaker indicates that there is a need to attain a foundation of knowledge to understand the objects that exist in the world. Apparently, he states that his beliefs often deceive him and this creates a cloud of doubt. In fact, he states that he has been deceived before by his own certainty and he proposes that individuals should evaluate to their experiences about this issue. For instance, he states that he may be dreaming of an existing god yet this could be an illusion of a deceitful demon or he may be insane to have such a preposterous thinking (Descartes, Kennington and Frank, 14).
During the time period this was written, the idea of “faith” and trusting in something/someone you cannot see was something the Catholic Church held to the highest standard. However, Descartes suggests to doubt all types of knowledge unless it is self-verifying and unquestionable. . After speculating the things, he was confident he knew about himself and society, he concluded with, “I am, I exist”. After he recognized that he holds some sort of presence, he continues to argue, “But I do not yet understand sufficiently what I am”.