Descartes Meditation 3 Summary
The main topic of the Meditation Three discusses the concept of God and the proof of His existence. Descartes begins with the assertion that he is a 'thinking thing' and therefore, he exists. Next, he further questions the source of his thoughts and certainty of anything else, because there are things that he previously admitted as certain and evident that later discovered to be doubtful (P.70). Therefore, Descartes concluded he has to find out whether there is God and that He is not a deceiver, to remove the basis for his doubts (P.71). The aim of this paper is to discuss and object Descartes' arguments given in Meditation Three for the proof of God. The existence of God is a debatable issue. And Descartes' cosmological concept of God as infinite
…show more content…
and perfect being is his personal interpretation and idea, that does not provide strong arguments to be accepted as a proof for God's existence. Descartes's proof of God is a four-step process. First, he conducts a complete inventory of everything in his mind, this is done in accordance with his four-rule method, he looks inside his thoughts to get a better understanding of himself and to confirm everything that he has established so far as certain, and checks for anything that might have been left uncertain or missing.
Next, he organizes his thoughts into classes of ideas, emotions, and judgments, and after questions whether they are true or false. Regarding the ideas - these are images or pictures of we see or imagine, such as a sky, chimera, God, or an angel. Then there are volitions or emotions - when we affirm, deny, or fear something, and finally other thoughts and judgments (71). Next, Descartes questioned which one of these could be false or true. The ideas are not wrong when; "they are considered alone and in their own right, without being referred to something else" (71). For example, when we imagine an angel or a unicorn, it is true that we do have the imagination of it. Subsequently, emotions or volitions are also true because, when we desire something it is true that we want it. And as for judgments, they may be wrong, and the common error is made when we judge that …show more content…
our ideas resemble external things.
In relation to this, Descartes provides an example of the sun - it appears to us small, but this perception is wrong because if we apply astronomical reasoning we will know that the sun, in fact, is larger than the earth (p.73). Further, he organizes his ideas into three categories as; innate, adventitious, and others invented. Innate ideas derived from our nature, a priori knowledge. As for adventitious ideas Descartes refers to them as accidental and independent of his will, he explains it as follows: "… say I am now hearing a noise, or looking at the sun, or feeling the fire; up until now I judged that these things proceeded from certain things outside of me, and finally sirens, hippogriffs, and the like are made by me" (72). Therefore, adventitious ideas that come from the external world are independent of our will, like the heat from the fire or the sun. The invented ideas are formed by our will, like a unicorn, for instance, consists of a horse and a horn, and when the two
combined together in our imagination - the unicorn is created. After identifying ideas Descartes questions their subjective and objective reality. All ideas as modes of thought have the same innate reality, but their representation and objective reality are different, Descartes writes "as one idea represent one thing and the other idea another thing, it is obvious that they differ widely from one another" (73), and the ideas that represent substances differ greatly from those ideas that represent modes (73). Following this process of organizing everything in his mind, Descartes discovers the he has an idea of God, and it contains more objective reality for him than any other idea, he describes God as a "supreme deity, eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and creator of all things other than himself" (p.73). Next he starts to question the origin of this idea and discusses causes-and-effects.
Cause-and-effect The second step in the process maintains that something does not come from nothing and consequently everything must have its cause. "There must be at least as much [reality] in the total cause as there is in the effect of that the same cause" and "that what is more perfect cannot come into being from what is less perfect" (73). The first argument indicates that the cause and its effect must have the equal amount of properties, for example, the book, one property - is the effect and the author (also one property) is the initial cause of the book. The book, compared to the author, has less reality, and if the book is the cause then impressions, and memories that the reader gets from reading the book are the causes that are less real in relation to the book. This chain of cause-and-effect may go on in numerous series until it reaches the original cause. As for the second argument, the perfect or infinite being cannot be produced by something that is finite or imperfect. Since humans are finite, then the creator must be perfect, and infinite. Therefore, what Descartes derived from the cause-and-effect premise is that what caused him must be infinite and perfect, and, in this case, he is not alone in the world because something else what caused this idea, also exists (74). The cause-and-effect is evident in relation to the objects, but for the ideas the causes are not so obvious, however, Descartes connects the cause of everything to the infinite, perfect being.
Clear and distinct ideas In this third step, Descartes states that whatever is perceived as clear and distinct must be true and contain more objective reality than any other idea. He maintains that his idea of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct (77). This argument of clear and distinct perception is questionable, Mersenne asked how we can vividly and clearly investigate what God is (31). Besides, Descartes' argument that we have the clear and distinct idea of God contradicts the idea that something infinite cannot be caused by something finite. Therefore, since human beings are finite then our idea of God cannot possibly be clear and distinct. Furthermore, Descartes writes that his "perception of infinite is somehow prior in me to the perception of the finite" (76). This argument is incorrect for a few reasons. First, how can he prove it? Next, before the discussion of God, Descartes started out in his Meditations by first questioning himself, his thoughts, ideas, and concluded that he is a 'thinking thing' - this approach contradicts the above-stated argument.
God's Trademark Finally, Descartes questions where the idea of God came from and by taking into the account the earlier mentioned description of God and connecting it with cause-and-effect, and clear and distinct perception, Descartes concludes that God exists. Since he is certain that attributes and idea of God did not come from his senses, because senses are deceptive, nor did it came upon him unexpectedly, and since he is a finite being, then he could not have created this idea, and so based on the given premises he concludes that God exists and the idea of God is innate. Hence, God has implanted this concept of the infinite, perfect being in his mind - placed a trademark stamp "like a craftsman impressed upon his work" (80). Gassendi objected the concept of God as "innate idea" and the "trademark stamp" argument, he wrote that Descartes could have "derived it from the senses and partly made it up". He also noted that we can obtain information about God from books, people, and thus, our idea of God is not innate but is built upon the obtained information (118). In his reply, Descartes argued, "if anything is added to or taken away from an idea then it automatically becomes the idea of something else but this doesn’t mean that we have added anything to the idea of God; we have simply made it more distinct and explicit" (119). Additionally, Gassendi questioned trademark argument: “What kind of stamping is this? What is ‘mark’ like? How do you recognize it?" (p.118). Descartes did not provide clear and reasonable explanation and perhaps it can be inferred that he just assumed this idea of a 'stamp' without supporting it with additional arguments. Furthermore, after Descartes proved the existence of God, he writes that he cannot fully understand God, "It is no objection that I do not comprehend the infinite or that there are countless other things in God that I can in no way either comprehend or perhaps even touch with my thoughts" (77). This implies that finite human beings do not have full capacity to comprehend divine nature, but we can think of such concepts as God, immortality, supernatural things, life and death, heaven and hell, nevertheless our thoughts of these concepts remain vague and unclear. In addition, our knowledge is finite, and it will never be infinite because it will never reach a point where there is no possibility for the greater increase (77). That is, we may acquire and build our knowledge more and more, but could never reach the end point where there is nothing more to know, there is always something more left unknown, undiscovered, and it is due to the limited nature of human mind that prevents us from grasping all the universal knowledge. No matter how intelligent and creative the person may be, there is always something beyond our mind to understand.
Moreover, if we combine together the earlier discussed arguments on a clear perception of God and Descartes' assertion that he cannot comprehend God, then it is evident that the first statement contradicts with the second and confirms with the earlier stated objection on limit of finite human beings to have the clear and distinct idea of God. To summarize, Descartes applied reason to prove God's existence, and he wanted to know that he is not alone in the world. Considering discussed arguments and objections, it is evident that Descartes' premises for God's existence are not sufficient enough to convince someone like an atheist to consider them as a proof for God's existence. Thus, Descartes was not successful in proving God's existence, but his arguments demonstrated his perception or ideas of divine being rather than proof. Everyone has their idea or image of God, even though this idea still remains vague and not as clear as Descartes argued, and therefore, no one can unquestionably prove His existence or non-existence and it remains as a widely debatable issue.
and perfect being is his personal interpretation and idea, that does not provide strong arguments to be accepted as a proof for God's existence. Descartes's proof of God is a four-step process. First, he conducts a complete inventory of everything in his mind, this is done in accordance with his four-rule method, he looks inside his thoughts to get a better understanding of himself and to confirm everything that he has established so far as certain, and checks for anything that might have been left uncertain or missing.
Next, he organizes his thoughts into classes of ideas, emotions, and judgments, and after questions whether they are true or false. Regarding the ideas - these are images or pictures of we see or imagine, such as a sky, chimera, God, or an angel. Then there are volitions or emotions - when we affirm, deny, or fear something, and finally other thoughts and judgments (71). Next, Descartes questioned which one of these could be false or true. The ideas are not wrong when; "they are considered alone and in their own right, without being referred to something else" (71). For example, when we imagine an angel or a unicorn, it is true that we do have the imagination of it. Subsequently, emotions or volitions are also true because, when we desire something it is true that we want it. And as for judgments, they may be wrong, and the common error is made when we judge that …show more content…
our ideas resemble external things.
In relation to this, Descartes provides an example of the sun - it appears to us small, but this perception is wrong because if we apply astronomical reasoning we will know that the sun, in fact, is larger than the earth (p.73). Further, he organizes his ideas into three categories as; innate, adventitious, and others invented. Innate ideas derived from our nature, a priori knowledge. As for adventitious ideas Descartes refers to them as accidental and independent of his will, he explains it as follows: "… say I am now hearing a noise, or looking at the sun, or feeling the fire; up until now I judged that these things proceeded from certain things outside of me, and finally sirens, hippogriffs, and the like are made by me" (72). Therefore, adventitious ideas that come from the external world are independent of our will, like the heat from the fire or the sun. The invented ideas are formed by our will, like a unicorn, for instance, consists of a horse and a horn, and when the two
combined together in our imagination - the unicorn is created. After identifying ideas Descartes questions their subjective and objective reality. All ideas as modes of thought have the same innate reality, but their representation and objective reality are different, Descartes writes "as one idea represent one thing and the other idea another thing, it is obvious that they differ widely from one another" (73), and the ideas that represent substances differ greatly from those ideas that represent modes (73). Following this process of organizing everything in his mind, Descartes discovers the he has an idea of God, and it contains more objective reality for him than any other idea, he describes God as a "supreme deity, eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and creator of all things other than himself" (p.73). Next he starts to question the origin of this idea and discusses causes-and-effects.
Cause-and-effect The second step in the process maintains that something does not come from nothing and consequently everything must have its cause. "There must be at least as much [reality] in the total cause as there is in the effect of that the same cause" and "that what is more perfect cannot come into being from what is less perfect" (73). The first argument indicates that the cause and its effect must have the equal amount of properties, for example, the book, one property - is the effect and the author (also one property) is the initial cause of the book. The book, compared to the author, has less reality, and if the book is the cause then impressions, and memories that the reader gets from reading the book are the causes that are less real in relation to the book. This chain of cause-and-effect may go on in numerous series until it reaches the original cause. As for the second argument, the perfect or infinite being cannot be produced by something that is finite or imperfect. Since humans are finite, then the creator must be perfect, and infinite. Therefore, what Descartes derived from the cause-and-effect premise is that what caused him must be infinite and perfect, and, in this case, he is not alone in the world because something else what caused this idea, also exists (74). The cause-and-effect is evident in relation to the objects, but for the ideas the causes are not so obvious, however, Descartes connects the cause of everything to the infinite, perfect being.
Clear and distinct ideas In this third step, Descartes states that whatever is perceived as clear and distinct must be true and contain more objective reality than any other idea. He maintains that his idea of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct (77). This argument of clear and distinct perception is questionable, Mersenne asked how we can vividly and clearly investigate what God is (31). Besides, Descartes' argument that we have the clear and distinct idea of God contradicts the idea that something infinite cannot be caused by something finite. Therefore, since human beings are finite then our idea of God cannot possibly be clear and distinct. Furthermore, Descartes writes that his "perception of infinite is somehow prior in me to the perception of the finite" (76). This argument is incorrect for a few reasons. First, how can he prove it? Next, before the discussion of God, Descartes started out in his Meditations by first questioning himself, his thoughts, ideas, and concluded that he is a 'thinking thing' - this approach contradicts the above-stated argument.
God's Trademark Finally, Descartes questions where the idea of God came from and by taking into the account the earlier mentioned description of God and connecting it with cause-and-effect, and clear and distinct perception, Descartes concludes that God exists. Since he is certain that attributes and idea of God did not come from his senses, because senses are deceptive, nor did it came upon him unexpectedly, and since he is a finite being, then he could not have created this idea, and so based on the given premises he concludes that God exists and the idea of God is innate. Hence, God has implanted this concept of the infinite, perfect being in his mind - placed a trademark stamp "like a craftsman impressed upon his work" (80). Gassendi objected the concept of God as "innate idea" and the "trademark stamp" argument, he wrote that Descartes could have "derived it from the senses and partly made it up". He also noted that we can obtain information about God from books, people, and thus, our idea of God is not innate but is built upon the obtained information (118). In his reply, Descartes argued, "if anything is added to or taken away from an idea then it automatically becomes the idea of something else but this doesn’t mean that we have added anything to the idea of God; we have simply made it more distinct and explicit" (119). Additionally, Gassendi questioned trademark argument: “What kind of stamping is this? What is ‘mark’ like? How do you recognize it?" (p.118). Descartes did not provide clear and reasonable explanation and perhaps it can be inferred that he just assumed this idea of a 'stamp' without supporting it with additional arguments. Furthermore, after Descartes proved the existence of God, he writes that he cannot fully understand God, "It is no objection that I do not comprehend the infinite or that there are countless other things in God that I can in no way either comprehend or perhaps even touch with my thoughts" (77). This implies that finite human beings do not have full capacity to comprehend divine nature, but we can think of such concepts as God, immortality, supernatural things, life and death, heaven and hell, nevertheless our thoughts of these concepts remain vague and unclear. In addition, our knowledge is finite, and it will never be infinite because it will never reach a point where there is no possibility for the greater increase (77). That is, we may acquire and build our knowledge more and more, but could never reach the end point where there is nothing more to know, there is always something more left unknown, undiscovered, and it is due to the limited nature of human mind that prevents us from grasping all the universal knowledge. No matter how intelligent and creative the person may be, there is always something beyond our mind to understand.
Moreover, if we combine together the earlier discussed arguments on a clear perception of God and Descartes' assertion that he cannot comprehend God, then it is evident that the first statement contradicts with the second and confirms with the earlier stated objection on limit of finite human beings to have the clear and distinct idea of God. To summarize, Descartes applied reason to prove God's existence, and he wanted to know that he is not alone in the world. Considering discussed arguments and objections, it is evident that Descartes' premises for God's existence are not sufficient enough to convince someone like an atheist to consider them as a proof for God's existence. Thus, Descartes was not successful in proving God's existence, but his arguments demonstrated his perception or ideas of divine being rather than proof. Everyone has their idea or image of God, even though this idea still remains vague and not as clear as Descartes argued, and therefore, no one can unquestionably prove His existence or non-existence and it remains as a widely debatable issue.