Descarte Meditations

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

[b]There only remains, therefore, the idea of God, in which I must consider whether there is anything that cannot be supposed to originate with myself. By the name God, I understand a substance infinite, eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created. But these properties are so great and excellent, that the more attentively I consider them the less I feel persuaded that the idea I have of them owes its origin to myself alone. And thus it is absolutely necessary to conclude, from all that I have before said, that God exists.

  1. For though the idea of substance be in my mind owing to this, that I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, seeing I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.

  2. And I must not imagine that I do not apprehend the infinite by a true idea, but only by the negation of the finite, in the same way that I comprehend repose and darkness by the negation of motion and light: since, on the contrary, I clearly perceive that there is more reality in the infinite substance than in the finite, and therefore that in some way I possess the perception (notion) of the infinite before that of the finite, that is, the perception of God before that of myself, for how could I know that I doubt, desire, or that something is wanting to me, and that I am not wholly perfect, if I possessed no idea of a being more perfect than myself, by comparison of which I knew the deficiencies of my nature ?

  3. And it cannot be said that this idea of God is perhaps materially false, and consequently that it may have arisen from nothing in other words, that it may exist in me from my imperfections as I before said of the ideas of heat and cold, and the like: for, on the contrary, as this idea is very clear and distinct, and contains in itself more objective reality than any other, there can be no one of itself more true, or less open to the suspicion of falsity. The idea, I say, of a being supremely perfect, and infinite, is in the highest degree true; for although, perhaps, we may imagine that such a being does not exist, we cannot, nevertheless, suppose that his idea represents nothing real, as I have already said of the idea of cold. It is likewise clear and distinct in the highest degree, since whatever the mind clearly and distinctly conceives as real or true, and as implying any perfection, is contained entire in this idea. And this is true, nevertheless, although I do not comprehend the infinite, and although there may be in God an infinity of things that I cannot comprehend, nor perhaps even compass by thought in any way; for it is of the nature of the infinite that it should not be comprehended by the finite; and it is enough that I rightly understand this, and judge that all which I clearly perceive, and in which I know there is some perfection, and perhaps also an infinity of properties of which I am ignorant, are formally or eminently in God, in order that the idea I have of him may be come the most true, clear, and distinct of all the ideas in my mind.[/b]

I was reading these paragraphs and could not help but feels as though Descarte was corrupted by his faith. I had very few disputes with his reasonings untill he layed this out for me.

How does the idea of a god, being present in a mind, necessitate gods existnace? the opposition of truth and falsity, affirmation and denial, being(existance) and nothingness(absence of existance), acceptance and refusal, success and failure sets the foundation for the idea of a being which is omniescient , omnipowerful, omnipresent.

We know that we will die, so the opposite of a mortal or finite being is an infinate being. We know that we can be decieved, so the opposite of this is an all-knowing being. We know we have limitations(on our actions and consciousness), so the opposite of this is an all-powerfull being(one who has no limitations).

Just because I can conceive of a being which is perfect doesn’t necessitate its existance.

for the record i’m only 1/2 the way through, but i find his approach interesting. Kind of reminicient of Platos(Socrates) affirmation of his own ignorance

2

Descartes gets credit for being the father of modern philosophy. His real accomplishment was to legitimise theology as philosophy. For a while. He was driven by his faith. Whether or not that is a corruption is a matter of perspective, I think.

3

check out anslem’s proof…

utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Phi … nselm.html

and a few others that say the same thing

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol … arguments/

-Imp

4

And although I may, or rather, as I will shortly say, although I certainly do possess a body with which I am very closely conjoined; nevertheless, because, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that I, that is, my mind, by which I am what I am], is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it.

This is one more point Descarte makes that i am at odds with, How does my body being distinct from the capacities of my mind make it a possible for my mind to exist without a body? If my body is so “closely conjoined” with my mind, who is to say it(my mind) doesn’t cease to exist when the body ceases to exist.

How many minds have you come into contact with that we’re without a body? If i was to make an assumption based on my past experiance, which id be sorry to tell Descarte was comprised of almost equal shares of sensations and thoughts, I would be willing to assume that the mind is dependent on the body for its existance, interactions with its environment, and its immediate awareness.

With the body providing the means for the continued existance of itself through analysis of its environment(through the senses) and consumption of required substances(through other organs), I would say that the mind is an aid in the aquisition of essentials. The mind allows for memory of substances which are effective and not efffective in sustaining the body.

I would say that the mind and body are mutually dependent and yet are distinct in so far as they are the source of distinct capacities which are inherent in most humans.

One could go as far to say that the mind is a mere part of the body, mind you the most important part, being that it regulates bodily functions which we are unconscious of and in conjunction with the body provides us with the means to aquire knowledge and many material objects.

But, what part of the minds nature makes it evident that it is a self-sufficiant entity?

in other words, what is it about the mind that allows us to assume that it can exist independently of the body?

5

to sum up , after reading meditations on 1st philosophy i would say that the 2 minor disputes i raised in this post are the only apparent flaws i could find in the entire work.

the Immortality of the soul was dealt with in a very similar manner by Plato in one of his early works, advocating the distinct nature of the mind(soul) as grounds for belief that the soul(mind) is immortal and the body mortal, I think it was Phaedo.

6

Wow Fausty look at you - all ivy league intell ect ual and ting – have you a pipe – no
i mean one for tobacco of course!

Spinoza takes this resting everything on a perfect substance called God business to it’s ultimate conclusion.

I think the thing with both of them was not primarily (and surprisingly in some ways) to put God on a firm foundation **

BUT to “use” the idea of an “infinite” God to “ground” everything else: clear and distinct ideas, the “reasonableness” of the universe etc -
Its a need many of us have - but unfortunately not one the Universe(s) is/are going to satisfy for us I fear!!

Descartes 2 proofs of God and the extra one or two offered by Spinoza seem fairly miserable these days though to be honest. But they were honest intellectuals facing fearsome odds.

My personal line (qua a card carrying atheist) is that “belief” exists in so far as there is no proof - ie to “logically” prove or “disprove” God is a waste of time. My “faith” is that I hate “the idea” of an all powerful God and if it happens to be a reality - I’ll take the mother on!!

Krossie

** (though Descartes does mention this probably to impress the “learned” (and feck they were - in fairness) - clergy he presented to)

7

plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s4.html

Given that Descartes was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, he HAD to have understood the implications and cost of proposing the premises of God and the immortality of the soul as the basis of all philosophy.

He must have well understood that in so doing he placed philosophy in the service of religion, denying philosophy its role as the independent arbiter of reason. Thus, he sold out philosophy to please his local bishop.

8

As a card carrying lefty anti theist obviously I find this view attractive and even “convenient” but…

I actually think Soinoza and Descartes had a real need to put things on a basis of certainty for themselves. (as I noted many/most of us do at times) as opposed to just pleasing the powers that be.

In the event Descarte’s meditations got him on to trouble with religious heads all over the place and Spinoza’s pantheism got him excommunicated and into massive hot water.

So i don’t know if it’s that simple

Certainly Descarte’s fawning intro


it is for you, in your singular wisdom, to judge of the importance of the establishment of such beliefs, [who are cognisant of the disorders which doubt of these truths produces].* But it would not here become me to commend at greater length the cause of God and of religion to you, who have always proved the strongest support of the Catholic Church.

reads kinda cringy and pathetic these days - of the two I think he was more eager to please. then again - it was that bit further back in history and Spinoza was opperating a bit later in “tolerant” Amsterdam –

9

Spinoza was greatly conflicted between his philosophy and his religion. In the end he could not reconcile his limited concept of the finite universe as “all there is” with a transcendental infinite God who created and transcends all that is finite.

He was faced with three choices: God is greater than, equal to, or less than the universe. His philosophy, starting with a finite universe, could only conclude that God is not greater than nor less than the universe. For giving credence to this view, he was justly excommunicated.

Descartes introduced analytic methods into mathematics on a grand basis. He pointed out the uniquely synthetic nature of Euclidean geometry, and introduced analytic geometry, based on arithmetic and algebra. So he was quite clear about the importance of analytic philosophy as well.

I am not objecting to his having faith. But I blame him for reducing philosophy to a tool in the hands of the Church. The Church was/is essentially faith based. In its traditional (and ill advised) war with reason and empiricism it needed weapons to slow down the influence of philosophy and science on the masses. Descartes offered such a weapon, one that still often fools even the faithless.

10

actually I agree with everything above - to be honest

good post

11

Descartes used his ‘clear and distinct’ ideas to prove God’s existence. But of course, he needed to assume God existed before he could have such ideas, hence the viscious circularity.

12

I agree with Trevor. Descartes was a great man and the founder of modern philosophy, but the ontological argument is a poor one that is motivated more by the social constraints of Descartes’ times than by the honest, humble search for truth that characterized the rest of the Meditations. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever met a christian who legitimately tried to use an ontological argument alone to prove God’s existence…

13

“to sum up , after reading meditations on 1st philosophy i would say that the 2 minor disputes i raised in this post are the only apparent flaws i could find in the entire work.”

Wow. I cannot conceive how one could only appreciate two, minor flaws in the flim-flam that is presented by Descartes in the ‘Meditations on First Baloney’.

“Descartes used his ‘clear and distinct’ ideas to prove God’s existence. But of course, he needed to assume God existed before he could have such ideas, hence the viscious circularity.”

Amen, brother. This circularity damns the Meditations. On Descartes’ own terms he has proved nothing. His attempts to escape circularity with the memory defence succeed in only digging a bigger hole with his suggestion that proof of ‘God’ is a simple act of mental intuition, which need not utilise memory of premises. If that is the case, then his attempt at ARGUMENT is absurd. Any premise of the argument could be a false memory courtesy of the evil demon.

If we look solelyat the trademark argument for example, every premise is highly questionable.

i) We cannot question we have an idea of God.

Response: Obviously we can. One can question the coherence of the concept and indeed prove the logical impossibility of the idea.

ii) We have degrees of reality.

Um. No we don’t. Something’s either real, or it isn’t. I’ll join Hobbes on that one.

ii) Causal adequacy: There must be as much reality in the effect as there is in the cause.

Response: Everything need not have a cause. Take a page from Hume’s book.

Now, even if each of these premises is true, they must, on Descartes’ terms be self-evident and that itself is false. Furthermore their truth would only serve to prove that the trademark argument is an argument and therefore vulnerable to demonic deception.

“Descartes gets credit for being the father of modern philosophy”

Sigh. Yes that is true, he does get that credit, and it is indeed unfortunate. In a sense, it is correct that Descartes is the founder of the ‘modern period’ in Philosophy. But that is no accomplishment. It is also commonly said ‘Frege is the founder of modern analytic philosophy’ or ‘Nietzche is the founder of continental philosophy’ or ‘Bacon is the founder of philosophy of Science’. Who gives a fig? The labels tell us nothing. The statement ‘Descartes’ is the founder of modern philosophy’, is meaningless drivel unless someone can also demonstrate why that is significant.

Me? Descartes deserves credit as a most august mathematician and scientist. His philosophy is utterly shambolic. It will not do to use the ‘victim of circumstance’ argument in defence of him. All the major objections to his project where proposed and published in his own lifetime. It is indeed his responses that drove him down the deepest chasm.