Introduction
Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy are dedicated to establishing absolute certainty and “anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last” (Meditations I.18). Descartes demolishes all his old beliefs and attempts rebuilds his foundations from the beginning. He employs a series of hyperbolic doubts and dismisses all his preconceived notions formerly taken for granted and works back to establish certainty in all his clear and distinct perceptions. Prima facie, Descartes’s philosophical arguments seem very logical and plausible. However, a closer look shows reveals Descartes seems to have committed the fallacy of epistemic circularity. The first such criticisms were raised by Arnauld in the Fourth Objections that Descartes “avoids reasoning in a circle when he says that it’s only because we know that God exists that we are sure that whatever we vividly and clearly perceive is true. But we can be sure that God exists only because we vividly and clearly perceive this” (CSM 2:150). Could Descartes have actually overlooked such an obvious circularity that could make all his ‘sciences’ fallible?
In my paper, I will introduce another interpretation of the Meditations to break free from the vicious nature of Descartes’s circle. I claim that the problem of circularity arises from an ambiguity in different ways of reaching the epistemic status of certainty. Rather than the his perceptions that serve as premises to the existence of a non-deceiving God being certain from the fact that they are absolutely free from doubt, these clear and distinct perceptions are certain through a different way, through what Descartes calls a “natural light.” While indubitability is a condition for certainty, proving...
... middle of paper ...
...Meditations with the indexing in Cottingham’s edition of the Meditations.]
The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Cottingham, John, and Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. (eds.) 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[All the quotations abbreviated with CSM, refers to this source]
Newman, Lex, “Descartes’ Epistemology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
Reed, Baron, “Certainty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Windter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Rickless, Samuel C., 2005. “The Cartesian Fallacy Fallacy,” Noûs, 39: 309–336.
Van Cleve, James, 1979. “Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles, and the Cartesian Circle,” Philosophical Review, 88 (January): 55–91.
In the field of philosophy there can be numerous answers to a general question, depending on a particular philosopher's views on the subject. Often times an answer is left undetermined. In the broad sense of the word and also stated in the dictionary philosophy can be described as the pursuit of human knowledge and human values. There are many different people with many different theories of knowledge. Two of these people, also philosophers, in which this paper will go into depth about are Descartes and Plato. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Plato's The Republic are the topics that are going to be discussed in this paper.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
Descartes, R., & Cottingham, J. (1986). Meditation on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moving up the tower of certainty, he focuses on those ideas that can be supported by his original foundation. In such a way, Descartes’s goal is to establish all human knowledge on firm foundations. Thus, Descartes gains this knowledge from the natural light by using it to reference his main claims, specifically the existence of God in Meditation III, and provide an explanation to his radical thoughts. In Meditation III “The existence of God,” Descartes builds his foundation of certainty in the natural light through the examination of God’s existence.
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
One of Rene Descartes’ major culminations in Meditations on First Philosophy is “I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes:17). This statement can be explicated by examining Descartes’ Cartesian method of doubt and his subsequent discovery of basic truths. Even though I do believe that Descartes concludes with a statement that is accurate: cogito ergo sum, there are areas of his proof that are susceptible to defamation. These objections discover serious error with Descartes’ method used in determining the aforementioned conclusion.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
While on his journey to reveal the absolute truths and debunk anything that could be considered doubtful, Descartes’ experiences using this form of skepticism has allowed him to
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by John Cottingham. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1996.
The purpose of my essay will be to examine Descartes' argument for the existence of God. First, I will discuss Descartes’ proof for the existence of God then I will critique the argument of his existence. Lastly, I will point to some complications and problems that exist within the proof. Descartes’ proof of the existence of God is presented in the Third Meditation. He shapes his argument on the proof in the Second Meditation that in order for Descartes to think he must exist. From this specific examination he realizes his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind because of the fact he had just discovered his own existence. He then creates a rule that whatever things he sees are clear and distinct, are all true. Descartes begins his proof by splitting his thoughts into four categories, which consist of ideas, judgments, volitions, and emotions. He then further analyzes these categories to decide which thoughts might consist of error.
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.