Cartesian Dualism Flaws
Flaws in Cartesian Dualism
In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes concludes that we are distinct from our body, and can exist without it. Seen from a modern materialist’s perspective, Descartes’ view is quite obviously wrong. However, assuming no knowledge of modern science, we should still be able to disprove his conclusion by looking for flaws in his reasoning in the text. In this essay, I will examine three relevant arguments Descartes presents in his sixth meditation and point out their flaws respectively.
To begin with, Descartes asserts that because (P1) “I know that everything which I clearly and distinctly understand is capable of being created by God so as to correspond exactly with my understanding of it” (p. 16), and …show more content…
Descartes thinks that since we all have an innate idea of a perfect being, then that perfect being, which he calls God, has to exist, or else it would not be perfect anymore. There are two problems with this line of thought. First, do we really have an innate idea of a perfect being? Wouldn’t we need to acquire the concept of “perfect” and “being” first? It is true that we could not have directly seen or experienced a perfect being in real life, but that does not mean the idea of a perfect being has to be innate. Rather, we can form this idea merely by experiencing non-perfect beings and imagining the opposite, just like how we develop the idea of immaterial things after we have seen or experienced material things. Therefore, the idea of a perfect being is not innate, and in fact, it is possible for us never to have that idea at all. On the other hand, why must a perfect being exist? Why should existence be better, “more perfect,” than non-existence? Descartes does not give us enough evidence of the “perfectness” of existence, and thus existence cannot be guaranteed as an essential part of the perfect being’s property. Now I have shown that Descartes’ main argument for God’s existence is flawed, although I still do not rule out the possibility of God’s
In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes concludes that we are distinct from our body, and can exist without it. Seen from a modern materialist’s perspective, Descartes’ view is quite obviously wrong. However, assuming no knowledge of modern science, we should still be able to disprove his conclusion by looking for flaws in his reasoning in the text. In this essay, I will examine three relevant arguments Descartes presents in his sixth meditation and point out their flaws respectively.
To begin with, Descartes asserts that because (P1) “I know that everything which I clearly and distinctly understand is capable of being created by God so as to correspond exactly with my understanding of it” (p. 16), and …show more content…
Descartes thinks that since we all have an innate idea of a perfect being, then that perfect being, which he calls God, has to exist, or else it would not be perfect anymore. There are two problems with this line of thought. First, do we really have an innate idea of a perfect being? Wouldn’t we need to acquire the concept of “perfect” and “being” first? It is true that we could not have directly seen or experienced a perfect being in real life, but that does not mean the idea of a perfect being has to be innate. Rather, we can form this idea merely by experiencing non-perfect beings and imagining the opposite, just like how we develop the idea of immaterial things after we have seen or experienced material things. Therefore, the idea of a perfect being is not innate, and in fact, it is possible for us never to have that idea at all. On the other hand, why must a perfect being exist? Why should existence be better, “more perfect,” than non-existence? Descartes does not give us enough evidence of the “perfectness” of existence, and thus existence cannot be guaranteed as an essential part of the perfect being’s property. Now I have shown that Descartes’ main argument for God’s existence is flawed, although I still do not rule out the possibility of God’s