Will Gietema
September 12, 2012
Descartes’ Doubt
In class we discussed Descartes’
first meditation, in which he introduces his goal to withhold and stop any
belief that has any doubt. Descartes goal is ultimately through three
meditations to find truth. First, Descartes introduces the notion that nothing
can be true if it can be doubted. This brings him to first exclude his senses
and other people has deceived him and created doubt because they will prevent
him from finding truth. Descartes gives the example that a stick that has been
placed in water looks bent when in reality it is the water and the refractory
properties or light traveling from air to water that are deceiving his eyes. In
his second meditation Descartes states that the only thing he was contact with
directly in the world are his ideas and because ideas are created without
external senses, ideas are separate from external things. Although these ideas
are separate from things, Descartes writes that they can still be doubted. This
brings up the problem that if all ideas and all things perceived by senses can
be doubted, then nothing can be true. Descartes solves this problem with his
famous and perpetually misquoted line, “I am, I exist” showing that because he
can think at least these is one truth.
After discovering one truth through
his methods of meditation, Descartes begins his third meditation concerning the
existence of God. Now up to this point I think that Descartes’ method of
concluding that he exists it sounds and without injection of his own personal
beliefs. Once he turns his attention to God and the nature of God’s existence
however, I believe that Descartes strays from the foundations of his previous
two meditations. Descartes starts
out by stating that no idea can come from nothing and that because he believes
in an infinite God, there must be a God. This is because only an infinite
perfect being could formulate concept of infinity. The only problem is that
unless Descartes had a spiritual encounter with God, the likely place he was
told or became aware of God was in church or through reading the Bible. Thus
his belief of an infinite God must be doubted because he heard or read about
God, which is as he previously stated deceiving. The second point that I doubt
about what Descartes writes is the truths he comes to about the nature of God
being good and benevolent. Descartes makes a large and unsubstantiated
connection between God being perfect and perfection being truly good and
benevolent. I think that despite his greatest efforts Descartes could not
repress his internal beliefs that had been influenced by his external senses
that projected a positive view of God. I think that the only truth that cannot
be doubted is that doubt will always exist.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Though, I think you need to address the innate-knowledge argument for the existence of a God. In the third meditation Descartes believes: of all his ideas “some seem born to me” (LaFleur 36). I believe you may have glanced this over in saying, “unless Descartes had a spiritual encounter with God, the likely place he was told or became aware of God was in church or through reading the Bible.”
The problem is neither we nor Descartes have determined whether or not the idea of God indeed innate for everyone. At the most Descartes could only prove God existed to himself. The basic principle of your argument very much stands. Descartes argument falls apart and then relies on unsubstantiated claims to fill the void in his philosophy. I initially was pretty pumped at the idea of bringing a scientific method to philosophy. But I feel when Descartes realized it couldn’t be done properly; he ditched most if not all of his methods outlined in the first two meditations. He almost switches philosophical gears and reverted to preaching to us.
Can anybody prove whether or not the idea of God is innate for everyone?
Descartes, René, and Laurence Julien Lafleur. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Print.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI also believe Descartes abandons his methods from the first two meditations when he writes about God. Though I did not believe the first two meditations were extremely profound or groundbreaking philosophically, I did like his careful, measured approach to his reasoning. However, upon reaching the third meditation, he starts by saying that no idea can come from nothing. I believe this to be true. However, Descartes says that since we have an idea with infinite objective reality, there must exist a being with infinite formal reality who caused the idea. This reasoning comes from the principle of cause and effect. I disagree with Descartes' here because I do not think it is possible for us to have an idea with infinite objective reality. I'm sure people say they do and truly believe it, but I know for a fact that I cannot. We say our idea of God is perfect, but I do not think we know what perfect is. Some might just say that it is God, but that's just not good enough for me.